06-12-00 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000
• RICHFIELD CITY HALL
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Call to Order
Roll Call
1. 6:00-6:30 p.m. Presentation of 1999 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Staff Report No. 11
II. 6:30-6:35 p.m. Update and timeline for potential cable television franchises
in Richfield
Staff Report No. 12
• Ill. 6:35-6:55 p.m. Annual meeting with Human Rights Commission
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes of (1) Regular City Council Meeting of May 22, 2000 and (2) Special
City Council Meeting of May 30, 2000
0 PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of certificates of appreciation to Miss Richfield Ambassadors
Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and
address on the Speaker's Register for the record.
• 2. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda
3. Council approval of agenda
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the
City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the
individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further
Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an
item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda
for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are.
recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing reduction in performance bond
required of Time Warner for system upgrade of cable television system in Richfield
S.R. No. 139
B. Consideration of approval of official publication of notice of intent to franchise cable
is television system S.R. No. 140
C. Consideration of approval of two resolutions establishing just compensation and
authorizing purchase of 1700 East 66th Street and 1708 East 66th Street for 66th
Street/TH 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 141
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of agreements entitled
Traffic Study Reimbursement Agreement and Golden Triangle Reimbursement
Agreement, both by and between City of Eden Prairie and 1-494 Corridor
Commission S.R. No. 142
E. Consideration of approval of resolution adding City of Minneapolis to membership of
Southwest Fire League Mutual Aid Association S.R. No. 143
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance adopting 1-494/Penn Official Map as
official map indicating road design accuracy and additional right of way identified for
future reconstruction of 1-494
•
Staff Report No. 144
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
• 6. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment rezoning 1100 East 66th Street
from general commercial to medium density multi-family residential
Staff Report No. 145
Notes:
7. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment in Section 1200.03 increasing
number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses available in City of Richfield from seven
to twelve
Staff Report No. 146
Notes:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
• 8. Consideration of petition requesting City Council reconsider its previous position of
building 20-foot high wall on west side of 1-35W from 73rd Street to 68th Street
Staff Report No. 147
Notes:
9. Consideration of acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for City for
year ended December 31, 1999
Staff Report No. 148
Notes:
10. Construction update on 66th Street entrance ramp to southbound Highway 77
0 Notes:
11. Summary report on 2000 Legislative Initiatives and Policies
• Staff Report No. 149
Notes:
AIRPORT BUSINESS
12. Airport status report
Notes:
CORRESPONDENCE
COUNCIL CHOICE
13. Council discussion items
14. Claims and payrolls
• 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.
0
Admin. Reports &
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT4 149
=099A STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: F1
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
l
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Summary report on 2000 legislative actions.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: No action required, report for information only.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2000, the City Council adopted the City's 2000 Legislative Initiatives
and Polices, outlining the City's legislative agenda for the first legislative session of
the millennium.
The City's position on several key issues mirrored the positions and efforts of the
League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and
focused on such issues as affordable housing initiatives, transit and transportation
issues as well as government finance and tax issues.
The purpose of a set of initiatives and policies was to focus the City's resources and
. attention on those issues that would most benefit cities in general and Richfield in
particular.
2000 LEGISLATIVE ACTION SUMMARY
Perhaps the most important legislative initiative was the airport mitigation legislation
that was introduced in the House by Representative Dan Larson and in the Senate
by Senator Dave Johnson and supported by Senator Jane Ranum and
Representative Mark Gleason. The legislation followed the recommendations of the
Governor's Task Force that advocated for the use of dedicated sales tax revenue
from a 1996 airport sales tax revenue base. The legislation also incorporated the
Governor's Task Force recommendation for possible use of special Tax Increment
Financing Districts, exempt from fiscal disparities and blight requirements, for all
airport-impacted cities.
Unfortunately, Richfield's bill did not become law. But, the City was provided with a
$5 million grant from the State's General Fund to be used exclusively for housing
unit acquisition and site preparation for redevelopment. While the Legislature
narrowly defined a two-block area - only two blocks in from TH 77 from Crosstown
to 77th Street - the funds represent the beginning of a long-awaited effort to mitigate
for the impacts of the new North-South Runway.
One of the critical issues that will need to be addressed by the Council is the
specific area to be mitigated first with the $5 million grant. Staff is currently
preparing data and recommendations for Council consideration at the June 26
meeting.
Many of the initiatives and polices contained within the City's program received no
action this year, primarily because this legislative session was not an appropriation
• year.
In an attempt to be concise, staff has prepared a summary of only the legislative
initiatives and policies that received action this session. The summary of actions is
attached.
III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Do not discuss the legislative summary at this time.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of 2000 Legislative Initiatives and Policies.
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
2000 LEGISLATIVE ACTION
• ON
CITY OF RICHFIELD'S LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES AND POLICIES
1.A. - LEVY LIMITS
Levy limits were not re-enacted. For budget year 2001, the City will not be under levy
limits, the first time in 5 years.
11. - HACA AND LGA
Inflationary adjustment was preserved, adding $14,000,000 for the 2001 LGA
distribution. The increase for Richfield will be $80,000.
2A. - RESOURCES FOR AIRPORT MITIGATION.
TIF provisions and all other allocations of funds, consistent with Governor's Task Force
Recommendations were not passed. Instead, a grant of $5 million was authorized from
the General Fund to be used only for acquisition of housing units and site preparation
for development. City's Plan for Redevelopment to be submitted to the Tax Chairs of
both Legislative Houses no later than December 15, 2000. Money to be used only in
the first two blocks west of Cedar Avenue from Crosstown to 77th Street. In areas
where there are structures on the east side of Cedar, the two-block area will encompass
only Cedar and both sides of 18th Avenue. In areas where there is no development
east of Cedar Avenue, the two-block area will cover both sides of 18th and 17th
Avenues.
2.N. - JOB AND WAGE GOALS - ADMINISTRATOR OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY,
Business Subsidy Law was clarified and modified as follows:
Creates new exemptions for-
- Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less (effective May 16, 2000
and retroactive to January 1, 2000); and
- Federal loan funds provided through the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economic Development Administration.
• Clarifies that increasing the tax base is a legitimate public purpose.
• Substitutes the word "specific" for the word "imminent" with regard to job loss.
• Specifies that criteria may not be adopted on a case-by-base basis, must set specific
minimum requirements that recipients must meet in order to be eligible to receive
business subsidies, and must include a specific wage floor in the form of a dollar
amount or a formula that will generate a dollar amount. Any local agency that has
criteria in place by May 1, 2000 will have until May 1, 2003 to update their criteria.
Grantors may deviate from their criteria by documenting the reasons in writing and
attaching the document to the next annual DTED report.
• Provides that goals for the subsidy included in grantor and recipient subsidy
agreements must be "measurable, specific, and tangible.
• Modifies the required five-year commitment to continue operations from "at the site"
to "in the jurisdiction" where the subsidy is used, and provides that recipients may be
authorized to move from the jurisdictions within the five-year period if a recipient's
request to move is approved by the grantor after a public hearing.
• Clarifies that business subsidy grants must be structured as forgivable loans.
• Clarifies that wage and job goals may be set at zero if it is determined after a public
hearing that the creation or retention of jobs is not a goal.
• Clarifies that a copy of the terms of the subsidy, rather than the subsidy agreement
itself, will be available to the public.
• Provides that a single public hearing may be held if more than one non-state grantor
provides a subsidy to the same recipient.
• Clarifies that reports by grantors must include a list of recipients that did not report
and a list of recipients that have not met their wage and job goals within two years,
and the steps taken to bring them into compliance.
2.P. - REDEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT
The Legislature provided $6 million to this account which is administered by DTED. The
Legislature did not modify the requirements as the City had promoted.
3.A - MHFA RENTAL LOAN PROGRAMS
$30 million provided for Affordable Rental Investment Fund over the next two years,
beginning July 1, 2000. Requires state agencies to establish cooperative relationships
with local service agencies and other service and governmental entities. MHFA is
required to develop strategies to move people into homeownership or non-subsidized
housing. They must report to the Legislature no later than January 15, 2003.
4.A. - HOUSING
$20 million provided to Habitat for Humanity for revolving loan program. Also, Bruce
Vento 2000 Affordable Housing Program created and a transfer of $50 million in TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds made for affordable housing
programs - up to $15 million may be made available before July 1, 2000.
2
$3 million in additional funds have been appropriated for housing initiatives over the
next two years.
MHFA will develop process for funding cycle and application requirements.
4D. - BLIGHTED PROPERTIES PROGRAM.
MHFA was authorized to make loans or grants to for-profit organizations.
6.G. - MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES
Chapter 490 includes the Governor's recommended reductions in automobile license
tab fees. Maximum registration tax on passenger automobiles is reduced to $189 in the
2nd year after the initial registration and down to $99 in the 3rd-10th years.
To offset revenue reduction in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, the bill
appropriates $149.8M in FY 2001 and $161.7M in FY2002 from the State's General
Fund. In the third year, the bill statutorily dedicates 32% of revenue from motor vehicle
sales tax to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund.
6.1. - TRANSPORTATION FUNDING.
Chapter 479, the Omnibus Transportation Finance Bill, appropriates more than $495M
from the State's General Fund and the Trunk Highway Fund for transportation and
transit purposes and appropriates $100M from the bond proceeds account in the Trunk
Highway Fund for additional capital projects. $405M has been made available in one-
time funding from the State's budget surplus to jump-start several languishing MnDOT
projects including $177M to eliminate bottlenecks on Twin Cities area freeways.
Chapter 479 also establishes the Major Projects Commission to identify and make
recommendations for future projects that have a total cost of more than $5M and which
meet certain other criteria. The commission will be comprised of the Governor, four
citizen members, seven senators and seven representatives.
The Governor's request for an additional $44M for mass transit was included in the
Omnibus Bonding Bill. The $44M will go to the Met Council for the construction of an
exclusive bus transitway. This money cannot be used for light rail transit. (This
appropriation was part of the Governor's $175M portion of the budget surplus).
9.D. - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Chapter 461, Article 5 of the omnibus pension legislation, establishes a task force to
study post-retirement and active public employees' health care. The task force will
identify strategies for providing post-retirement and active employee health care
Is coverage for public employees and make recommendations regarding the most
appropriate and efficient manner for providing coverage. The LMC will appoint one
member to the task force.
9.K. - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
A bill that would have modified the regulation of telecommunications and cable service
providers in Minnesota was did not become law.
9.L. - BLEACHER SAFETY LEGISLATION
Chapter 417 exempts bleachers 55 inches or less and exempts retractable bleachers
with open spaces 9 inches or less from the bleacher safety standards passed by the
1999 Legislature. However, the retractable bleachers that have been exempted must
have a safety management plan in place and adopt an amortization schedule for those
bleachers to plan for their future replacement. Bleacher guardrails must comply with the
standards for all parts of the guardrail 30 inches above grade or the floor. The filing
date for the certificate of compliance extended to January 1, 2002.
A bill creating a bleacher safety sales tax exemption for bleacher safety-related
purchases was unsuccessful.
11.A. - WINE SALES
• Under Chapter 440, liquor stores are permitted to offer wine-tasting events under
certain time frame restrictions and within other parameters.
TIF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
GENERAL
Economic development district duration modification (repeals 11-year from TIF plan
approval duration and provides for an eight-year from receipt of first increment
duration, clarifies that waiver of increments does not affect duration limits, and
allows a three-year payback time period for violations occurring before June 1,
2000).
• Elimination of the adjustment to original net tax capacity for economic development
districts provision, which was originally intended to prevent the capturing of
inflationary-type growth.
• Authorization for taxpayers to bring private lawsuits for damages for TIF violations
involving the collection of increment (clarifies a previous cross-referencing mistake
and applies prospectively).
• Elimination of ability to approve TIF plans without but-for findings by failure to act for
60 days after the TIF authority submitted the plan.
4
• Notification, including the TIF plan (rather than economic and fiscal impacts
information), will be required to be sent to the county auditor and school district clerk
(rather than directly to the boards).
• County waiver of the 30-day period may be made only by the boards submitting
written comments, rather than by the staff, and is also authorized for individual
country commissioners with respect to housing and redevelopment districts.
• Extension of the time period, from 30 to 45 days, for counties to submit proposed
road improvements for inclusion in TIF plans and clarification that if road
improvements are not scheduled for construction within five years under the county
capital improvements plan or any other formally adopted county plan, the county
may require the TIF authority to pay for the costs of those improvements.
• Administrative expenses definition clarification, which provides that amounts spent
on principal payments on bonds, physical development, and relocation benefits paid
for location outside the district but within the project area do not qualify as
administrative expenses. Effective retroactively for all districts.
• Expansion of the redevelopment district definition to include properties containing
unused or underused tank facilities.
• Authorization for districts subject to the post-1990 pooling limitations to use an
additional 10 percent for low-income rental housing (generally, for families with
incomes below 60 percent of the area median income) outside of the district.
Effective for increments spent after July 1, 2000.
• Expansion of qualified housing district definition to include single-family home
ownership projects in which at least 95 percent of the home buyers have income at
or below 70 percent of the area median gross income or the statewide median gross
income, whichever is greater.
TIF -HOUSING
• Housing district definition clarification, which defines "housing project" to clarify and
specify which developments must meet the requirements for spending housing
increments on low- and moderate-income housing. Effective retroactively to the
original effective date of the requirements.
• Housing district income limitation violations will be subject to the law governing all
other TIF provisions and enforcement responsibility will be transferred from the
Department of Revenue to the state auditor. Effective for violations occurring after
July 1, 2000.
0
• Extension of the sunset of the authority to establish housing improvement districts
without special legislation from June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2005 and extension of the
authority to operate housing improvement areas to housing and redevelopment
authorities and economic development authorities.
ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT LEGISLATION,
DATA PRACTICES
The 2000 Omnibus Data Practices Bill (Chapter 468) contained three notable provisions
affecting municipalities. First, a discretionary civil penalty of $300 may now be imposed
against a governmental entity found to be in violation of the act. In addition, the State
Department of Administration now has the authority to receive and resolve complaints
against governmental units for alleged data practices violations. Finally, unless
specifically authorized, cities may not require persons seeking public data to identify
themselves or inquire as to the reason for seeking such information.
is
0
6
Admin. Reports &
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 148
STAFF REPORT
=09do CITY COUNCIL MEETING
nomamm JUNE 12, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
r
REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
2?
C ? \
NAME, TiTL
\ Sic UI?E
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1999.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the
City for the year ended December 31, 1999.
II. BACKGROUND
The City's auditing firm of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd completed the audit of the
City's fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 in April 2000. The CAFR will be
submitted to the State of Minnesota as required and to the Government Finance
Officers Association for compliance review.
•
The action to be taken at the June 12, 2000 City Council meeting is the official
receipt of the CAFR by the City Council. The City's auditor's HLB Tautges Redpath,
Ltd have made an in-depth presentation of the 1999 financial information at the City
Council Study Session preceding this meeting.
0612CAFR
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
0 ? A. POLICY
• The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial
records for the year ended December 31, 1999 and prepared reports
to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal controls.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Action on this item is requested at the June 12, 2000 City Council
meeting. The CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota,
pursuant to State law.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanations of their
findings.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Rob Tautges and Tom Hodnefield of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd.
0
JUNE 12, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
Nanmi, T/7L
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Nana, TITTL
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: E ,'' i? rt y
Slc?ATU7/
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Petition requesting that the City Council reconsider its previous position of building a 20-foot
high wall on the west side of 1-35W from 73rd Street to 68th Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the petition requesting the Council direct the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to leave the
proposed noise wall at the 17-foot height as shown in current MnDOT
construction plans.
II. BACKGROUND
A petition was received from twenty-eight residents living on Lakeshore Drive, Humboldt
Avenue and Irving Avenue asking that the Council reconsider its position requiring MnDOT
to build a 20-foot high noise wall on the west side of 1-35W between 73rd Street and 68th
Street. The petition was prepared in response to the attached May 23, 2000 letter sent by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation to residents affected by the new noise wall
being constructed along the west side of 1-35W. The letter explained that MnDOT made a
• mistake in the height of the noise walls. On October 27, 1997 the City Council had
directed MnDOT to install a 20-foot high wall but the current plans show wall heights
ranging from 15.5 feet to 19.5 feet. Three letters in support of the petition are attached.
0612-35Wnoisewall
Other residents who wanted the 20-foot high wall have also contacted City and MnDOT
staff insisting that MnDOT correct its mistake.
• MnDOT staff has explained that to leave the walls at the reduced height requires a
resolution from the City Council. The Commissioners of MnDOT and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency would also have to concur in leaving the noise wall at a reduced
height.
MnDOT staff estimated a delay of two to three months to order new posts and additional
wood panels to build the higher wall. The existing posts can be used on another MnDOT
project but that project will be bid soon. MnDOT would like to know by Tuesday, June 13 if
the City Council wants to reconsider its original decision.
If Council chooses not to reconsider this issue, MnDOT staff also indicated that one minor
modification could be made to shift a 3-foot step in the wall further to the south. This could
be done in consultation with four or five residents who live in the 7100 block of Lake Shore
Drive.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Council, in October 1997, determined that the noise wall on the
west side of 1-35W should be 20-feet high to meet Federal noise
• standards. Residents at that time were presented several options for
the height of the noise wall ranging from no noise wall to a wall 20-feet
high.
• The Commissioners of both the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the Minnesota Pollution Control also must agree to
the reduced height of the noise wall, if Council chooses to request a
reduced height for the noise wall.
• Restoring the wall to its 20-foot height will take two to three months as
new posts are manufactured and additional wood panels are ordered.
Also, noise modeling performed by MnDOT showed that noise levels
dropped only 1-2 decibels for homes located within 100 to 200 feet of
the proposed noise wall when the noise wall height was raised from
15 feet to 20 feet. A change in noise levels of less than 3 decibels
generally is not perceptible to the human ear.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The issue is the balance of aesthetics; i.e., the size of the noise wall
versus the noise reduction produced by the height of a noise wall.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no financial impact on the City of Richfield for a decision on
the noise wall. There is a cost of $110,000 to $130,000 to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation to purchase taller posts and
additional wood panels; however, the shorter posts can be reused
elsewhere.
• D. LEGAL
• The City attorney will be present at the Council meeting and will be
available for counsel.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could choose not to act on the petition. This will have the effect of
directing MnDOT to correct its error and order posts of sufficient height to
produce a noise wall of 20 feet high.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Petition on 1-35W Noise Wall
• May 23, 2000 letter sent by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
residents affected by the new noise wall being constructed along the west
side of 1-35W
• Three letters from residents on 1-35W noise wall
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Residents from the west side of 1-35W in the area of 68th Street to 73rd
Street.
•
0
•
June 5, 2000
Mr. Tom Foley
Transportation Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield; MIST 55423
Re: I-35W West Side Noise Wall 68`h to 73rd Construction
Dear Mr. Foley,
Fax (612) 861-9796
Find enclosed several signatures from members of the community that are directly
effected by the May 23, 2000 letter from Len Sandstrom. I found it very interesting thi .t
of the 20+ houses that this letter was presented to, only three would not sign!!!! This
type of response should require our local government to continue with the current
construction as requested in the enclosed June 1, 2000 letter, or at a minimum research
the opportunity to SAVE TAX PAYERS from unnecessary additional spending.
As a member of this community, I strongly encourage the City of Richfield and MN D :)T
to do their part in this request.
I can be reached today- at (507) 333-5200 ext 716.
Sincerely,
Gregg Goeedde
cc: Len Sandstrom MNDOT
9
June 1, 2000
Mr. Tom Foley
Transportation Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
cc: Len Sandstrom MNDOT
Re: I-35W West Side Noise Wall 68ei to 73r8 Construction
Dear Mr. Foley
Fax(612)861-9796
In response to the May 23, 2000 letter from MNDOT regarding the noise wall, we
request that the City of Richfield NOT change the current construction project. We are in
favor of the current construction closer to 17 feet rather than the 20 foot change. We f xl
this would provide a solution that our community could live with, while:
1) Saving taxpayers from unnecessary additional spending.
2) Still providing satisfactory noise reduction.
3) Not being as intrusive to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Since timing is critical, please obtain a favorable response to continue with the current
wall construction closer to 17 feet, or notify each of us, in writing by Tuesday, June 6,
2000 regarding what needs to occur to obtain a favorable response.
Sincerely,
mature
Address
) ?dlQ ? 3
) 7 0?0 ? r s
Lfc l a2c DJL s
2v ?? -
Additional signature page attached
9
r
•
3une 1, 2000
Re: I-35W West Side Noise Wall 68`h to
73?d Construction (cont)
' rA .. , 6,Q 17-- 4ww?.b " 1 ?4 Pv! fs
Lr,. ?O BOO IIUH,6 CLO r go.
ji
,
v
U
'7
1 70 s.-
J
•
e
June 1, 2000
Mr. Tom Foley
Transportation Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
cc: Len Sandstrom MNDOT
Re: I-35W West Side Noise Wall 68th to 73rd Construction
Dear Mr. Foley
Fax (612) 861-9796
In response to the May 23, 2000 letter from MNDOT regarding the noise wall, we
request that the City of Richfield NOT change the current construction project. We are in
favor of the current construction closer to 17 feet rather than the 20 foot change. We f ;el
this would provide a solution that our community could live with, while:
1) Saving taxpayers from unnecessary additional spending.
2) Still providing satisfactory noise reduction.
3) Not being as intrusive to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
0
Since timing is critical, please obtain a favorable response to continue with the curren,
wall construction closer to 17 feet, or notify each of us, in writing by Tuesday, Tune 6,
2000 regarding what needs to occur to obtain a favorable response.
Sincerely,
Signature
Address
?-IAVNS AJAE? - -
r
D 1
Additional signature page attached
1044
-7 03-4 4a?
n? 'J
la L.kLS&-VZr-
0
• June 1, 2000
Re: I-35W West Side Noise Wall 68"'to 73' Construction (cont)
7,0 zu LA
d
704 Lme:?har-
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
1 ? -
0
•
Minnesota Department of Transportation
4 Metropolitan Division
"" Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
May 23, 2000
Re: I-35W West Side Noise Wall 68 h to 73'a Construction
Dear Richfield Resident:
Telephone Number (651) 634-2087
Fax Number (651) 634-2085
F.,
It has been discovered that the noise wall currently being constructed along the west side of I-35W between 68"'
and 73`d Streets is shorter than it was suppose to be. Several residents pointed out this error. This letter is to let
you know that work on the noise wall has stopped and corrective actions are being taken to address this
problem.
During the planning process for the reconstruction of I-35W in 1997 the topic of noise walls being constructed
along I-35W in the Wood Lake area was addressed. This topic was a very emotional and tense issue for those
involved in the discussion and the City requested Mn/DOT to construct a noise wall on both sides of I-35W in
this area and Mn/DOT agreed to this. The wall along the west side of I-35W along Humboldt and Lake Shore
Drive was to be 20 feet high.
0
The average height of the noise wall currently being constructed is closer to 17 feet. I am not sure how this
error occurred but it is an error and Mn/DOT has agreed to correct it. Construction of the noise wall has
stopped. Longer concrete posts are being ordered and the wall will be built with an average height of 20 feet.
The reordering of materials will delay the completion of the noise wall. I do no know at this point how long a
period that will be.
The "height" of a noise wall is measured from the elevation of 35W and not the ground line at the base of the
wall. With this measuring system the height of the wall near the 73'a Street pedestrian bridge is about 19 feet
high. The top elevation of the wall near the pedestrian bridge will continue north to about the mid point of the
seventy one hundred block of Lake Shore Boulevard. In this area the wall will reach a height of about 22.5 feet.
At this point the wall will step down about 3 feet to a height of 19.5 feet. This top elevation of the wall will be
held for the rest of the new walls construction which ends at the existing wall near 73`d Street.
Some of the residents that called the City were concerned that the "stepped down wall concept" was being
constructed. This is not the case. The "stepped down wall concept" that was discussed in 1997, envisioned 20
feet walls on the north and south ends that would be stepped down to a 10 foot height in the middle portion. This
alternative was considered, but ultimately rejected, to reduce the amount of view that was being blocked of
Wood Lake from some of the homes along Lake Shore Drive.
I apologize for this unfortunate error and the delay that correcting the error will cause in completing the noise
wall. If you have any questions concerning this issue I can be reached at (651) 634-2087.
•
Sincerely,
Aem,- 4 cc: Tom Foley -City of Richfield'
Len Sandstrom, P.E.
I-35W Corrid r Man er
An equal opportgnity employer
0 May 30,2000
Mr. Tom Foley, Engineer
City of Richfield
Dear Mr. Foley:
We are writing this letter to document the concerns we have regarding the Noise
Wall in front of our home on Lake Shore Drive. We live at 7120 Lake Shore Drive.
The letter from Mr. Sandstrom last week has been very disturbing. It states that
there have been objections to the height of the wall as it was begun on the West
Side north of 72nd Street recently. We cannot believe that any resident who will be
overlooking the wall would object to the height as begun - the several residents
referred to probably are the same ones two and three blocks away who originally
pressured the Council to build a high wall. There are only three blocks of us with
Lake Shore Dr. address directly facing the freeway with no trees or bushes by the
fence. We have rejecred the wait twice ibetcare, but at that time only the affected
residents were polled by written vote versus last year's acre-sx?eett??g uakce uate.
nc1,.14. ng res.izients two and three blocks away even, across the freaway.
We believe there should be a barrier for safety purposes and at the last meeting
indicated that a 12ft wall would be acceptable which was one of the options
presented to us. The letter from Mr. Sandstrom states that the wall will be 22-1/2 ft
directly in front of the homes who objected the most vs a lower level at either end.
Homes on the 68th block and 72nd block already have barriers of bushes and trees so
that a higher fence would not be a problem to them. I don't understand the
paragraph in Sandstrom's letter speaking to the stepped down'wall concept which
would have allowed 10 ft height in the middle area where we are and then he says it
was rejected "to reduce the amount of view that was being blocked of Wood Lake
from some of the homes along Lake Shore Drive." What does this mean as I would
he lPvg .lf WgUkU ZEW Jto XUlr gie.w. WF -are rnrrsP( WV ahke rr see Came SV the
landscape over the wall on the Wood Lake side. You may think we are nuts, but the
gorse does not dislturb us - the ,- rs no accsle.ration or braking along here. Our
guests have ahsays commented on the minimal worse &-vei ra our home - must be
Mr. Sandstrom told me by phone that MnDot couldn't make any changes in the height
of the fence until Richfield dictates a change. The cost of work stoppage and
reordering must be immense. Please consider our plea. We have enjoyed living
here for 30 years and for 11 years on Colfax Ave. In this age of affluence we would
believe that the younger families would be moving to bigger homes in the suburbs as
their income rises.
We like the diversity and conveniences that Richfield provides.
Thank you for your attention and any positive response.
Sincerely, J? -
Arnold and Dorothy Peterson L ZL
7120 Lake Shore Dr. S.?
Richfield, Mn. 55423 `f-
:.V,2,
May 26, 2000
Mr. Len Sandstrom, P.E.
I-35W Corridor
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Dear Mr. Sandstrom,
This is in regards to your letter, concerning the sound barrier will being constructed along
the west side of 35W south of the 66t°St. exit-
I live on Lake Shore Dc. S. on the 7000 block. It might be fair to say that my house (and mt±y
immediate neighbors) is the people most dramatically impacted by the new sound barrier.
We will certainly receive the greatest benefit as it relates to sound reduction, but are also the
people most impacted by the walls sheer presence in terms of aesthetics and view.
As this topic was discussed and debated over the years, one of the points I tried to promote
was, that if a sound will must be built, lets receive an effective barrier.
One that provides sound reduction in line with Federal Standards, but also, one that is not
so over intrusive and overbearing in its sheer size to the point of being oppressive.
The decision to construct a 20T barrier was, in my opinion, made with a complete disregard
for facts, as they relate to the size needed for an effective barrier. The data presented on
sound reduction points out that no discernabte difference occurs between a wall of
appro,amately 12' and one built to 20' for anvone past the first row of homes.
Once a barrier is built to 29 and the residents living on streets west of our home, begin to
say "We can still hear the Freeway", it will be difficult not to reply that the greatest volume
reduction occurs for the first row of homes. Weren't you paying attention at those meetings?
The sad part being we get to view a huge wall knowing that an effective barrier could have
been built that was much less intrusive.
As I watched the east wall being constructed last year, and the beginning of the west wall this
year, it appeared that MNDOT took a more enlightened approach and attempted to build an
effective barrier that would provide adequate sound reduction and maintain some
aesthetics in the process. It's a shame that anyone can halt a project and have it incur
dramatic cost increases based on the erroneous belief that they will not receive more sound
reduction if a 20' uarricr is not maintained. Some of the most vocal proponents of a 20'
barrier have already moved and left the neighborhood, leaving their indelible stamp forever.
to
This newly concerned neighbor fighting for an ineffective solution could very possibly
leave our neighborhood when a 20' barrier still does not provide silence and now are able to
hear the jets from the airport because the freeway noise has been reduced.
If it is at all possible, PLEASE continue with the project as it was being built. It provided a
solution that all could live with, maintaining effective sound mitigation together with
balance for the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Please do not incur the additional expense
correcting something that really ryes not need fixing.
Mark Fiedler
7034 Lake Shore Dr. $.
Richfield, MN 55423
612866.3070
•
•
4? June 2, 2000
Mr. Mayor,
In regards to the construction snafu along Lake Shore Dr. S., by Interstate 1-35W, I am
becoming directly involved in Richfield's course of action in the following ways:
I am asking City of Richfield notify the MNDOT Project Manager, for the sound wall
project with the request to irnmPda rely proceed with the prr ject, as it has currently be=
designed and purchased.
After conversations with City of Richfield employees and the MNDOT, I believe that a
direct request from our City to resume the project is the most expedient method for this
project to get back on track.
I heard some talk about this topic coming up at an upcoming Council meeting. I would
• hope that a sensible decision to exercise reason would prevent this issue from having to go
that far. To help ensure that, I plan to vigorously pursue all the legal recourse allowed by
Minnesota Rule 7030.0080 Variance. In paraphrase it states:
If, upon written application of the responsible person, the agency finds that
by reason of exceptional circumstance strict conformity with any
provisions of any noise rule would cause undue hardship, would be
unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances, the
agency may permit a variance upon the conditions and within the time
limitations as it may prescribe for the prevention, control, or abatement of
noise pollution in harmony with the intent of the state and any applicable,
federal laws.
This course of action, however successful, will provide access to several aspects of decision
process used by our City.
I will ensure the City of Richfield will explain in detail it's reasons to have the
NINDOT build a sound abatement wall to a height of 20', contrary to the wishes of
homeowners most immediately impacted by its prescnce. Additionally, the City will provide
detailed reasons for that excessive height regardless of data that clearly demonstrates no
additional sound abatement occurs.
After this presentation, I would expect reuse of those same guidelines and criteria for
decision as basis and reason to substantiate the Cities current efforts halting progress for this
ongoing project Given the weight those arguments will contain, they must also provide
strong evidence not only to their original credibility, but the City will also provide reasons
why this project merits the major cost overrun estimated in the IWs of Thousands of
Dollars,. Be prepared with most convincing evidence, I as a taxpayer, come up short with
viable reasons.
Be assured I will take a crash course in Civil Law and elevate this topic to a level of
awareness not yet seen. I believe strongly that legal precedence will be wholly in favor of
these efforts, brought by a fast growing number of concerned neighbors and citizens of our
community, evidenced by their willingness to sign a petition encouraging the City to move
on.
T would U-c it"use &um your officc by end of day,,june 5, 2000 informing me if the
City can request that this project be resumed immediately.
Mark Fiedler
7034 Lake Shore Dr. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
612.866.3070
is' •
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Prop. Ordinance
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT4 146
=09M
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
NAME, 1TEE
a
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 1200 that would increase the number of
on-sale, intoxicating liquor licenses within the City of Richfield from seven to twelve.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance change in Section
1200.03 that would increase the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses available in the City of Richfield from seven to twelve, and
schedule a public hearing and second reading for July 10, 2000.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield currently issues licenses for the following categories of alcohol:
• Intoxicating Liquor
• Wine
• On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor
• Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor
BETSY CHRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, T17LE
DAN/CO ,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
0508Liqu
Intoxicatinq Liquor
. City ordinance currently states that there can be a total of seven intoxicating liquor
licenses issued to establishments. Five of the seven intoxicating liquor licenses are
spoken for. There are also two club licenses for the VFW and the American Legion
but because those establishments are not open to the general public, they are not
considered to be on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. They may sell on-sale
intoxicating liquor but do so under a "club" license. State statute allows for a city of
Richfield's class to issue up to 18 on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
Wine
City ordinance states that there can be a total of seven wine licenses issued to
establishments. Currently, five of the seven wine licenses are spoken for. State
Statute does not address the number of wine licenses a community may have.
On-Sale/Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor
City ordinance states that there can be a total of 15 on-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses
issued to establishments. Currently, 12 of the 15 on-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses
are spoken for. State Statute does not address the number of on-sale 3.2 malt
liquor licenses a community may have.
Off-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses are not restricted by number. Currently, there are a
total of 11 establishments that sell off-sale 3.2 malt liquor.
Public Safety staff has had several discussions with staff in the Community
Development Department regarding future redevelopment projects in the City and
how those projects will impact alcohol licensing needs in the future. Community
Development staff has identified three major projects that in the very near future will
support a total of six establishments that most likely will be requesting alcohol
licenses. In most cases, it appears their requests will be for a full on-sale
intoxicating liquor license; however, wine may also be requested. The development
projects will involve two sites at Urban Village, two or three at Interchange West
and one at the Candlewood site.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
At a June 7, 1999, City Council Study Session, it was the consensus of the
City Council that staff would be asked to provide further information
regarding zoning, density, and location regulations related to liquor licenses
and options regarding future availability of the number of liquor licenses in
the City. The City's Planning Commission was forwarded the matter for their
review.
In a September 17, 1999, memorandum to the City Council, a summary of
the Planning Commission's review of the issues was presented. The
Planning Commission reviewed the issues at two study sessions and offered
the following feedback:
•
The Zoning ordinance considers restaurants serving alcohol as
conditional uses and limits their location to collector and arterial
streets. Restaurants serving alcohol cannot be located in the C-1
(neighborhood commercial) district.
• The existing licensing requirements provide many regulations to
monitor and control the service of alcoholic beverages.
• Some other cities have additional location requirements for
restaurants that serve alcohol; e.g., they need to be located a certain
distance from residential, schools and churches. The Planning
Commission believes that there is no clear evidence that these
distance requirements are necessary or would alleviate any alcohol-
related problems in Richfield.
• The Planning Commission considered some additional restrictions but
decided that rather than to try to develop generic regulations to fit
every situation, it is better to review each case individually and apply
appropriate conditions to each situation when warranted.
• It would be appropriate to increase the number of liquor licenses to
accommodate the potential demand for licenses in redeveloped areas.
Not having liquor licenses available could negatively impact the
success of redevelopment projects.
Based on its review, the Planning Commission does not recommend any
changes to the existing ordinance relating to restaurants that serve alcohol.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Increasing the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses from
seven to twelve would result in licenses being available prior to the
completion of development projects which would mean that potential
tenants would know licenses are available to apply for at the
beginning of their negotiations with developers.
• Increasing the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses would
also mean that staff would not have to return to Council several times
to make a request for an increase in licenses and would seem to be a
more efficient and proactive way of meeting future development needs
and issues.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
N/A
•
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to do nothing at this time which would mean that
requests for on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses would be reviewed as they
occur on a case by case basis. It would also mean that the total number of
on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses might need to be increased several times
based on the number of requests made for a license.
• The Council could decide not to increase the total number of on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses beyond the current number. This would mean
that new development projects in the City would not be able to obtain on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses for their establishments.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City ordinance code 1200.03.
• Study Session minutes from June 7, 1999.
• Council Memorandum dated September 17, 1999.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None expected.
•
0
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION XII OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD BY AMENDING SECTION 1200 ENTITLED INTOXICATING LIQUOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XII of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Intoxicating
Liquor" is hereby amended:
1200.03. License: general rule. No person, except wholesalers or
manufacturers authorized under state license, may directly or indirectly deal
in, sell, or keep for sale any intoxicating liquor for sale without first having
received a license to do so as provided in this subsection. Licenses shall be
issued only to hotels and restaurants. No more than 6eV8R twelve licenses
may be issued.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 2000.
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
Study Session Minutes -6-
June 7, 1999
• We recommend the HRA consider recording land inventories at the lower of cost or
market within the appropriate HRA funds.
• We recommend the City adopt a written policy on liquor inventory matters.
• We recommend the City account for grants consistently, in accordance with GAAP.
• Interfund loans are now recorded in the financial statements.
• We recommend that the City continue to address Y2K issues.
• We recommend the City consider general recommendations regarding fraud
prevention and strategic pricing.
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, questioned the TIF bond amortization
schedule on pages 127-128 of the Comprehensive Annual Report, the "unaudited" label on
the schedule of personnel expenditures on pages 131-132, and the costs of sub-contractor
firms.
Mr. Tautges stated that he would have to refer to the TIF plan to answer the
amortization question.
Acting City Manager Devich stated staff would prepare a response.
•
•
Mr. Tautges stated the pages are labeled "unaudited" because it is supplemental
statistical data and outside the scope of the audit.
Item # IV
City Attorney Thomson discussed and answered questions about state law
requirements regarding the attorney-client privilege, Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the
"Gift Law", and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
After Council discussion it was the consensus of the City Council that a written
protocol explaining statutory requirements, procedures, ground rules, and expectations be
provided by staff to the Council prior to the conduct of a Closed Executive Session dealing
with the attorney client privilege or not public data.
Item #V
Health Administrator Christensen reviewed Study Session Letter No. 19 regarding
discussion about increasing the total number of alcohol licenses available in the City of
Richfield.
Study Session Minutes -7-
June 7, 1999
Discussion followed regarding the impact of different options in how many licenses
are available. State Statute allows for a City the size of Richfield to issue up to 18
intoxicating liquor licenses. City ordinance currently allows for seven intoxicating liquor
licenses. The Community Development Department staff has identified three major
projects in the City that in the near future will support a total of six establishments that
most likely will be requesting alcohol licenses.
It was the consensus of the City Council that staff provide further information
regarding zoning, density, and location regulations related to liquor licenses and options
regarding future availability of the number of liquor licenses in the City.
Item #VI
Acting City Manager Devich reviewed Study Session No. 20 regarding the status of
the following airport issues:
Airport Legislative Initiatives
• State Legislature created an Airport Impact Zone and will receive $30 million of
general obligation bonds from the MAC to spend on land use conversion within the
zone pending FAA approval.
• The State Legislature also created a Governor's airport community stabilization
funding task force to which the City must appoint a representative.
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC)
• The expert panel is working on the draft plan and the next meeting will be held on
June 23 at 3 p.m. at the main terminal.
MASAC
• The last meeting was May 25 and focused on corridor use.
CARE Team
• The status of the CARE Team and its relationship with the City will be decided at
the June 10 CARE Team meeting.
Item #Vll
Acting City Manager Devich reviewed Study Session Letter No. 21 regarding the
new pension law which provides for the merger of consolidated police and fire account into
PERA and makes the City eligible to receive its residual fund assets. He stated that he
would notify PERA that the City has no objection to merging its local consolidated relief
accounts with the PERA Police and Fire Fund.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
September 17, 1999
Council Memorandum No. 128
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Review of Liquor License Issues by Planning Commission
Council Members:
In June, the City Council considered the question of whether or not to amend the City
Code and increase the number of liquor licenses to the maximum number allowed by State
Statute. The Council asked the Planning Commission to review the land use and zoning
issues relating to facilities that serve alcohol and provide information back to the Council.
The Planning Commission reviewed the issues at two study sessions and offers the
following feedback:
• The Zoning Ordinance considers restaurants serving alcohol as conditional uses and
limits their location to collector and arterial streets. Restaurants serving alcohol cannot
be located in the C-1 (neighborhood commercial) district.
• The existing licensing requirements provide many regulations to monitor and control
the service of alcoholic beverages.
• Some other cities have additional locational requirements for restaurants that serve
alcohol (e.g. they need to be located a certain distance from residential, schools and
churches). The Commission believed that there is no clear evidence that these
distance requirements are necessary or would alleviate any alcohol-related problems in
Richfield.
• The Commission considered some additional restrictions but decided that, rather than
try and develop generic regulations to fit every situation, it is better to review each case
individually and apply appropriate conditions to each situation when warranted.
• It would be appropriate to increase the number of liquor licenses to accommodate the
potential demand for licenses in redeveloped areas. Not having liquor licenses
available could negatively impact the success of redevelopment projects.
Based on its review, the Planning Commission does not recommend any changes to the
existing ordinance relating to restaurants that serve alcohol.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
Copy: Planning Commission
AGENDA SECTION: Prop. Ordinance
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT# 145
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAA41?, P11,
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAMIi, T1Y1,1,
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
SII (;NA7'UIUi
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property at 1100 East 66th Street from C-2
(general commercial) to MR-2 (medium density multi-family residential).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct first reading of an ordinance amendment
rezoning 1100 East 66th Street from C-2 (general commercial) to MR-2
(medium density multi-family residential).
•
II. BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's
zoning classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that
one category of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these
properties was rezoned by the City Council in December, 1999. A second group
was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2000 and by the City
Council on April 10, 2000. The City Council referred two properties from the second
group, 6612 15th Avenue and 1100 East 66th Street, back to the Planning
Commission for review. On May 30, 2000 the Planning Commission held separate
0612rezoning
public hearings on the rezoning of both properties. The rezoning of 6612 15th
Avenue is scheduled for City Council consideration on June 26, 2000.
• These two properties are the last Comprehensive Plan-related rezonings to be
considered at this time.
The City Council requested additional information from Planning Commission and
City Council records regarding 1100 East 66th Street. Minutes and staff reports
from 1998, when the property was developed as a day care facility, are included as
attachments.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The property at 1100 East 66th Street is zoned C-2 (general
commercial). It is currently used as a day care facility. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as single family
residential, either low or high density. The proposed zoning is MR-2
(medium density residential).
• The Planning Commission reviewed the Zoning Ordinance two years
ago after the day care facility was approved and developed an
ordinance amendment that would treat day cares, schools and
churches similarly in all residential districts. The amendment was
• approved by the City Council in 1998. A licensed day care facility is a
conditional use in the MR-2 and the C-2 zoning districts.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The day care facility is consistent with the residential classification in
the Comprehensive Plan; however, the commercial zoning could allow
a future commercial use that would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• A discrepancy in the Planning Commission minutes from March 24,
1998 was raised at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff has
reviewed the record and believes there was a clerical error. The
Planning Commission will review staffs assessment at their June
meeting. Their determination will be available for a second reading.
• Testimony regarding traffic caused by the day care was raised two
years ago and again at the Planning Commission hearing. The
Planning Commission did not find traffic to be relevant to the rezoning
issue. A report on traffic before and after construction of the day care
facility will, however, be available for second reading.
C. FINANCIAL
• The property owner has constructed a commercial-quality building and
believes the change in zoning classification would have a negative
impact on the future reuse of the property. The current use is a
conditional use in the C-2 district and would be a conditional use in the
MR-2 district, so the current use would continue to be a legally
conforming use.
D. LEGAL
• The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning of this property
again on May 30, 2000. The Commission voted 6-1 in favor of
rezoning the property to MR-2.
• A City Council public hearing would be scheduled on Monday, July 10,
2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Decide not to rezone the property at first reading.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
• Attachment A: Map of land uses around the property
• Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
• Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the
property
• Attachment D: Minutes from Planning Commission hearing, 3/24/98
• Attachment E: City Council Minutes, 4/13/00
• Attachment F: Planning Commission staff report, 3/24/98
• Attachment G: City Council staff report, 4/13/98
• Attachment H: Zoning Ordinance, Section 521.65 (MR-2 provisions relating
to licensed day care facilities)
• Attachment I: Zoning Ordinance, Section 526.27 (C-2 provisions relating to
licensed day care facilities)
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
is
BILL NO.
i AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield
Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended:
A. Section 3, Paragraph (46) is amended to read as follows:
(46) M-3 That area between the west pine of 1 ith venue a line distant
160 feet easterly from the west line of 11 th Avenue and parallel thereto and the
center line of 13th Avenue, and between the center line of 66th Street and a line
distant 250 feet northerly thereof and parallel thereto; except Lot 17 Eliason Second
Addition.
B. Section 12, Paragraph (39) is added to read as follows:
(39) M-3 Lot 9. Block 2. Eliaison Fourth Addition.
0 C. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 1100 East 66th Street from C-
2 to MR-2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
Q
0
O
a-
Land Uses Near 1100 E 66th Street Attachment A
d
L
63rd St.
66th St.
E 800 0 800 1600 Feet
carcmwrtr oG,empmenc s ?. -_? _.
i:lgixkommunM1y development'usCa(t4rvdAjWiG4GZaning landuse
Q
V
N
U
Commercial
Apartment
Duplex
Residential
Quasi-Public
School
Church
Vacant
Park
May 2, 2000
Zoning Classifications Near 1100 E 66th Street Attachment B
Ul
>
Q >
-- ?lTrl? [L?LT1
/ Veterans Memorial Park i-? - - -
Q
v
U
IIU1100 E 66th Street /
--
mi"al WA
66th St.
I Industrial
,AC-2 General Commercial
x---? R Single Family Residential
MR-1 Two Family Residential
wEF ; MR-2 Multi Res - Med. Density
s 800 0 800 1600 Feet PC-2 Planned Gen. Comm'l.
+91- nay ae?ioP m?mm renniweo-e:?,m9:oB "- ------ May 3, 2000
Comp Plan Classifications Near 1100 E 66th Street
Q
>
a -- ?L L11 l 11
-? - - -- - t 4-'`::t
Q
„
v
U
63rd St.
_ L
- _ -- t/
1100 E 66th St. -- F
- r ,g
_vvD
=V- -- -- -- - - -- __ - -ij ?_'
-- j C_
E
900 0
Community De p-
1'\gislcomrtunhy tlevelopmenY.stafifrefiAjWieYezoning mrtp plan - - - -- -
900 1800 Feet
Attachment C
66th St.
Community Comm'L.
Neigh. comm'I.
Reg'I. Comm'IJOffice
Com. Comm'I./Office
Office
Single Family Res.
S. F. Res.-High Dens.
Multi Res.-High Dens.
Public
Park
Church
School
Quasi Pub. - Utility
May 3, 2000
ATTACHMENT D
March 24, 1998
Page 4
. Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved the purchase of a portion of the Soo Line
property located to the east of 300 West 78th Street in December, 1997. He further stated that
staff and the HRA propose to combine and re-split the two parcels to develop a 134-unit hotel on
the southern half and a restaurant on the northern half. Mr. Melin added that the proposed uses
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Melin stated that the railroad
would be left with 50' of right of way (25' off of center) and that the proposal is for the purchase
of a strip of land 66' wide.
M/Bjorklund, S/Meter to adont the resolution findinLy that the nronosed acauisition and
disposition of the Soo Line property is in conformance with the Comnrehensive Plan.
Motion carried: 8-0
98-CUP-3, 1100 East 66th Street
ITEM #4 Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori School
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care
facility for up to 90 children
• Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a day care for up to 90
children. He noted that this was the continuation of a public hearing that had begun during the
regular Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1998. He added that the applicants had
searched for alternative sites without finding a suitable location. Mr. Melin then reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the property and the possible conflict between
the two. Confirming that the City's legal counsel had been contacted, Mr. Melin stated that
counsel reviewed the situation and determined that the most defensible position was that the
development was not compatible with the site due to the Comprehensive Plan designation. He
continued by stating that the applicants worked with the architect to redesign the building and
hired a transportation engineer to conduct a study of the site. The engineer determined that the
intersection would not be overburdened by the increased traffic. Mr. Melin further stated that
the County denied any request for a curb cut onto 66th Street. In addition, he stated that the
applicants met with four neighbors (three households) for mediation, and that all parties came to
mutually agreeable conclusions regarding the issues at hand. Continuing, Mr. Melin reviewed
the landscape plan, fencing, buffering, pedestrian crosswalks, and the possible rezoning of the
property.
Responding to questions from Commissioners Gepner and Kilian, Mr. Melin stated that
the applicants paid for all additional costs for traffic studies and architectural costs that were
requested by the Commission from the regular meeting one month prior. He further stated that if
the day care were to locate there and subsequently close, the site could become any retail
business that is permitted in a C-2 district.
March 24, 1998
Page 5
• Commissioner Gepner stated that the decision that was now handed forth by the City
attorney's office regarding the incompatibility of the development with the Comprehensive Plan
designation was much more definitive that the response that had been given during the study
session earlier in the month. Mr. Melin replied, stating that the City had requested that the
attorneys give a more definitive answer. Responding to a request from Chairperson Linnihan to
better explain the decision, Corrine Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, stated that the City requested
that the attorneys give an opinion of the most defensible position. She stated that legally, the
most defensible position is to find that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion ensued during which the attorney's position was clarified for the Commission.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Mr. Melin stated that before the
Comprehensive Plan's most recent revision, the property was designated for mixed-use,
including commercial, residential, and office.
Following a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, the Commission discussed the
possibility that a moratorium be placed upon all properties located within the City in which the
zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation is in conflict. Ms. Thomson stated that a
decision had to be made on the issue at hand before any action on a moratorium was made due to
a law which requires the City to make a decision on conditional use permits within 60 days. Ms.
Thomson further responded to a question from Commissioner Meter, stating that the
development could be approved based solely upon the zoning. She added that the attorney's are
not attempting to dictate to the Commission which way to decide the issue. Ms. Thomson
reiterated the fact that counsel found only that the most defensible position, legally, is to find
that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Melin responded to questions from Chairperson Linnihan and Commissioner Meter,
stating that a daycare that is operated from a house is an accessory use, not the primary use. The
proposed daycare is a primary use for the property and therefore, a conditional use permit would
need to be obtained. He further stated that rezoning the property to MR-2 would remove the
possibility that a billiard hall could be opened on the property.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that he and his wife had operated their business in Richfield
for ten years, but that the church where their business is currently located would like the
Montessori School to vacate by the end of summer. He further stated that he had gone through
mediation which had been requested by the Commission. He added that the landscape, traffic,
and building design issues had been resolved with the neighbors who attended mediation.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that a search
for alternative sites had been conducted, including several middle schools located in Richfield.
Dawn Knutson, attorney for the applicants, stated that she had reviewed the issue
concerning the apparent inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code.
She stated that in her opinion, Montessori Schools and day cares are permitted uses in the C-2
district. She further stated that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Knutson reviewed several of those goals,
policies, and objectives, stating that the proposed development met each of them. She further
stated that the primary desire for the location is to be a transition area between commercial and
residential and added that the daycare would be both commercial and residential, providing a
March 24, 1998
Page 6
• home for children during the daytime hours. Ms. Knutson continued by stating that the RSFH
designation that is listed on a map in the Comprehensive Plan is not defined anywhere in the
Comprehensive Plan, and it therefore cannot be determined that the proposal does not meet the
Comprehensive Plan based solely on that criteria. She closed by stating that the opinion that the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is defensible.
Ms. Thomson responded to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, stating that the public
hearing did not need to be reopened since a public hearing had already been conducted.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the
business would not be able to be operated efficiently with only 60 children. Mrs.
Mallawaaratchy continued by stating that she was licensed with the State to operate a daycare
from kindergarten through elementary-aged children. She added that 10 to 15 percent of the
children in her care are siblings, pointing out that the traffic would be somewhat decreased due
to that fact.
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, stating that the
assumptions in the BRW traffic study commissioned by Mr. and Mrs. Mallawaaratchy may need
to be adjusted to reflect fewer siblings than anticipated.
Chairperson Linnihan asked where the four neighbors who attended mediation lived, and
whether or not they were in close proximity to the proposed daycare. Jan Owen, 6535 11th
Avenue, stated that she and her husband had both attended mediation and were directly to the
is north of the property in question. She further stated that she was pleased with both the redesign
of the building and the traffic signals that had been proposed around the neighborhood.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Dmytrenko, Ms. Owen stated that she felt that the
bus stops along 11th Avenue would be safer with the proposed stop signs and pedestrian
crossings.
Three pages of signatures requesting that the Commission deny the recommendation for
a conditional use permit were given to Chairperson Linnihan. The three pages were then passed
to each Commissioner.
Chairperson Linnihan re-opened the public hearing. He stated that topics would be
limited strictly to those issues that had been raised since the previous Planning Commission
meeting.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11 th Avenue, stated that she feels that cars will make U-turns in the
driveways of the neighbors rather than driving through the neighborhoods. She further stated
that she thinks that Mr. and Mrs. Owens and have achieved success through mediation with the
Mallawaaratchys only because there are issues between them and the current owners.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that she has three children that
attend Bernie's Montessori School. She added that parents come at all different times of the day
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and that there is never any problem with traffic at the current
location.
March 24, 1998
Page 7
• Jody Johnson, 73rd Street and Pillsbury Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori is both
economical and well-run. She added that she is disappointed that the neighborhood opposes this
use when there are so many other negative uses that could be put on the property.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori offers children
an education as well as daycare. She further stated that she feels that her children are better
prepared for school because of their experiences at Bernie's Montessori. She added that when
she picks up and drops off her children, she sees only two or three other parents at the same time.
Anne Carl, 70th Street and Columbus Avenue, stated that one daughter had attended
Bernie's Montessori and that one son is current attending the school. She stated that she only
sees two or three other parents in the morning and only one in the evening.
Randy Curtis, 6821 Humboldt Avenue, stated that his two children attended the school
and that there are no alternatives in Richfield.
Carol Newby, 6400 11th Avenue, stated that she moved into the neighborhood because it
was stable. She added that she is not questioning the quality of Bernie's Montessori, rather she
is questioning whether or not this is an acceptable location for the daycare.
Greg Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue, requested that a stop sign be located at the intersection of
65th Street and 12th Avenue.
• Terry Stadther, 6404 11 th Avenue, stated that he is still concerned with traffic. He added
that the intersection of 11th Avenue and 64th Street will become a major intersection and that
without traffic control, children living in the area will be endangered. He further stated that he
would not have purchased his house if the daycare had already been located there.
Carol Rinder, 6420 11 th Avenue, stated that the deer, raccoon, fox, and other animals
that inhabit Veteran's Memorial Park will be endangered if the daycare is allowed to open. She
further stated that parents who are dropping off and picking up their children will leave their
engines running. She added that the house has historical significance, MAC has already spent
thousands of dollars renovating the property, pedestrians will be endangered by the increased
traffic, other options for daycare exist in Richfield, and that the money spent on architectural
costs hasn't been wasted because the architectural plans can be used for another site.
Ms. Sikes, 6604 5th Avenue, stated that she is the parent of a graduate of Bernie's
Montessori. She stated that she supports the excellent work at Bernie's Montessori School.
Barbara Donaghy, 7229 Oak Grove Boulevard, stated that other daycare centers in
Richfield are at capacity and that the only other options to Bernie's Montessori are located in
Edina and Bloomington.
Betty Peltola, 6421 11th Avenue, stated that the lot is not large enough to place
daycare. She further stated that the City should underwrite all of the applicant's expenses.
0
March 24, 1998
Page 8
• Karen Mullvain, 6409 11 th Avenue, stated that a Montessori is not a residence, adding
that the Commission should not approve the daycare out of guilt.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the house will not be demolished, adding that he has
spoken to two contractors who are both interested in moving the structure to another site.
M/Hadley, S/Bjorklund to close the nublic hearing.
Motion carried: 8-0
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Hadley, stating that in case a 4-4
vote were to occur, the item would move forward to City Council with no recommendation.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Ms. Thomson stated that if the
Commission found that this use was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the
Commission would be required to find that any other proposals in which the same set of
circumstances were found was also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Kilian stated that this is not an issue related to daycare, rather it is an issue
of the zoning ordinance versus the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that he ran a traffic
simulation and determined that the parking lot would not be sufficient enough to handle the
traffic.
• Commissioner Bjorklund stated that many other uses could be located on the property
and that commercial uses line 66th Street. She also added that traffic is a major issue with this
proposal.
Commissioner Meter stated that there could be possibilities for traffic control other than
stop signs. He further stated that he felt that the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Hadley stated that changing the residence to a commercial property would
be changing the character of the neighborhood. He felt that that is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Gepner stated that he was disappointed with staff's recommendation to
deny the request. He further stated that he sees the Comprehensive Plan as visionary instead of
as a rock solid document. He added that the BRW traffic study allayed his fears regarding traffic
and that he would like to see the study open to the general public.
Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan should be
kept intact and that ambiguities should be addressed. She added that the daycare is preferable to
other uses and that she felt that it meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Further discussion involved clarification of the conflict between the zoning ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
March 24, 1998
Page 9
M/Meter, S/Gepner to find that the Pronosed Montessori School and davcare center are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. and to recommend annroval of the conditional use
nermtt at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stinulations:
1. That a tree protection nlan for those trees remaining be submitted to and annroved
by the Community Development Director.
2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to and annroved by the Public Works
Director.
3. That a sediment and erosion control nlan be submitted to and annroved by the
Public Works Director.
4. That the business maintain the annronriate state. countv and citv licenses.
5. That a resolution approving the conditional use Permit be recorded with the County.
pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36. subdivision 1.
6. That the Pronertv be rezoned to MR-2.
Motion carried: 6-2 (Hadlev and Kilian ormosed)NEW BUSINESS
• PC Letter #13
ITEM #5 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow institutional uses in multiple family zoning districts
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that
properties zoned MR-2 did not allow religious institutions as either permitted or conditional
uses. He further stated that the City Council determined that an oversight may have occurred
when the zoning ordinance was drafted. The Council requested that the Planning Commission
review the issue and consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to recommend that the Citv Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow religious institutions. schools. and davcare centers as conditional uses in the MR-1. MR-2.
and MR-3 zoning districts with the condition that such uses be located on a collector or arterial
street or with an access placement such that the annlicant can demonstrate that significant traffic
will not be generated on local residential streets.
Motion carried: 8-0
PC Letter #14
ITEM #6 Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to stormwater management policies
ATTACHMENT E
•
Council Meeting Minute!
Item #12
-8-
April 13, 1998
City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 84 regarding the request from
Bernie's Montessori School for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 4,160
square foot building at 1100 East 66th Street for a Montessori school and day care facility
for 90 children. He summarized and discussed the following issues:
• Access
• Traffic
• Neighborhood impact
• Trees and landscaping
• Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
• Recommendation for approval and basis of recommendation
0 Montessori School and day care for 90 children. She stated the hours of operation would
Bernadette Mallawaarately, 13751 Shannon Parkway, Rosemount, the applicant,
stated that she had operated the Montessori School at St. Peter's for the last ten years.
She proposed construction of a 4,160 square foot building at 1100 East 66th Street for the
be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. She reviewed the need for the school and day
care services. She requested the City Council to grant the conditional use permit.
Council Member Stokes asked about kitchen facilities and trash removal.
Ms. Mallawaartely stated there is no kitchen and that the children bring their
lunches.
Jeff McElmory, P.O. Box 26396, Minneapolis, architect for the project, indicated
there would be limited trash since there is no food preparation. He reviewed the inside
disposal of diapers. He indicated trash would be picked up like any other site.
Dawn Knutson, Hessian & McKasy, PA, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the
process used with the neighbors who participated in mediation. She noted that a learning
institution did not require a conditional use permit (CUP) but that the daycare did require a
CUP. She read the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that the
Planning Commission found the proposal to be consistent with according to their
interpretation. She discussed the following issues regarding the proposal:
• Responsive to identified needs of clients
• Children's quality of life
• Building design to look like a residence
• Current C-2 zoning would allow retail and other similar uses without a CUP or
further approval from the City
• The proposed use would have less impact than other potential uses
Council Meeting Minute
-9- April 13, 1998
• Community support
• Montessori square footage standards
Dennis W. Manson, 6901 Park Avenue, inquired about traffic and parking at the
site.
Jeff McElmory, architect for the project, stated there would be 20 parking stalls on
the site. He indicated 9-10 stalls would be used by school staff. He described how
parents drive in, park, bring the children into the building, and then leave the site at
intervals.
Bob Fritzke, 6529 11th Ave, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic, storage of trash containing diapers, and that the site is not
appropriate for day care.
Sandra Mueller, 6521 Fifth Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about reserving the single family house on the site, the availability of other day
care facilities in the area, the undesirability of Montessori programs, and not wanting her
neighborhood park overrun by children.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP
citing the positive impact of the programs at Bernie's and the importance of keeping this
educational opportunity in Richfield.
Linda Robinson, 500 East 73rd Street #3, stated that the issue in question is not
the Montessori program but the site.
Judy Johnson, 7339 Pillsbury Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing
the quality of the school and the fact that children are the lifeblood of the community.
Kevin Scott, 5030 35th Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing the
quality of the education and the negative impact that other commercial uses would have
on the neighborhood.
Tony Heppelmann, BRW, Inc., traffic consultant for the applicant, presented and
summarized the traffic study (agenda pages 12-10 through 12-14) conducted regarding
the proposed Montessori and day care facility at 1100 East 66th Street. He reviewed trip
generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, capacity analysis, other traffic
considerations, and conclusions related to the location of the facility at this site.
Bob Fritzke, 6529 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic and a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jack Swan, 6409 2nd Avenue, inquired about trash removal from the site.
Tissa Senanayake, 1812 Turquoise Trail, Eagan, stated that the trash is put in
plastic garbage bags and put in a trash container outside.
Council Meeting Minute -10- April 13, 1998
Council Member Sandahl asked if the school would be willing to build an enclosure
for the trash recepticle.
Mr. Senanayake answered affirmatively.
Sid Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about the use not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, devaluation of
his property, the goal of the City to support replacement housing, the traffic statistics
presented by Planning Commissioner Bill Kilian, and traffic.
Carole Rinder, 6420 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns regarding the size of the parking lot, traffic, safety of children, opposition of
neighborhood, inappropriateness of the site, Bill Kilian's traffic analysis, property values,
historical significance of the house, the availability of other day care in the area, and
preservation of the residential area. She stated that she had talked to her lawyer about
obtaining a restraining order and injunction to stop the project and asked those interested
in participating to contact her.
Mary Starleaf, 6505 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
the size of the site, traffic, and Bill Kilian's traffic analysis. She suggested King Oscar's as
an alternative site.
Wyatt Lewis, 1100 East 66th Street, stated that his parcel is larger than King
Oscar's. He indicated he felt there was reasonable access getting onto 66th Street. He
stated he bought the property five years ago because it was zoned C-2 and it had been on
the market for a year. He indicated they had planned to establish their business at this
location. He stated that subsequently they opened their business in Eagan instead. He
stated that because the house is located on 66th Street there has been little interest in it
as a residential property. He indicated he had been approached by several who were
interested in developing the parcel for commercial use. He stated that he felt Bernie's
would be the better use for the community and minimize the impact on the neighborhood,
especially since it would not be open nights or weekends. In response to a question from
the Mayor, Mr. Lewis stated that if this proposal is not approved, he would sell the
property to one of the commercial interests who have approached him.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concern about the size of the site and traffic on 11 th Avenue. She suggested the City buy
the site for multi-family residential development.
Karin Giesie, 2239 East Old Shakopee Road, spoke in support of granting the CUP
stating that the site would not be appropriate for residential development.
Janet Holman, 6524 12th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concern about traffic.
00 Tashika Sykes, 6604 Fifth Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing her
observations that traffic does not cut through her neighborhood and the need for a school
like Bernie's in Richfield.
Council Meeting Minute -11- April 13, 1998
Frank Sable, 6521 11th Avenue, asked if the property could be rezoned to
residential.
City Attorney Thomson reviewed the methods by which a property may be rezoned.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that traffic is an issue with
any development and discussed the Comprehensive Plan. Dawn Knutson, attorney for
the applicant, stated that the property is zoned for commercial, a traffic study was done,
and that the home will be moved and not demolished.
Shelly Rhymers, 6401 11 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic and safety.
M/Sandahl, S/Susag to close the public hearinq.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Member Rosenberg reviewed her experiences with the Richfield Fun Club
which had about 90 children indicating that the parking was not a problem there and didn't
believe it would be a problem at this site. She stated support for the Montessori program.
She stated she was glad that day care children used the park.
M/Rosenberg, S/Susag that the proposed resolution entitled "Resolution for
Approvinq a Conditional Use Permit" be adopted.
Council Member Sandahl suggested the following two additional stipulations to the
conditional use permit:
That the owner must install a trash enclosure on the property at a location to be
specified by the Public Safety Director, within 30 days after the Public Safety
Director notifies the owner that a trash enclosure is warranted.
That the entrance drive must be angled so as to direct exiting traffic to
southbound 11 th Avenue.
City Attorney Thomson suggested that the Council also adopt the "Basis of
Recommendation" as set forth in Council Letter No. 84 as its findings of fact.
Council Members Rosenberg and Stokes agreed to amend the motion to accept the
addition of the two suggested stipulations and findings of fact to the resolution.
Council Member Stokes stated that she previously ran a similar operation at 81 st
Street and Nicollet Avenue. She stated she had served on the Planning Commission and
Comprehensive Plan Committee. She read a section of the Comprehensive Plan which
called for the consolidation of East 66th Street commercial uses at the 13th Avenue
10 intersection. She felt the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was not for
scattered commercial use and therefore she would not support approval of the CUP.
Council Meeting Minute.
-12-
April 13, 1998
Council Member Sandahl stated he would support approval of the CUP. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and a vision, however, changes will occur. He stated
that the alternative commercial uses which would be allowed at this site would have
significant impact on the neighborhood. He stated that there probably will be some traffic
that would use 11 th Avenue. He stated it was his experience in using a 90 student day
care facility that he rarely saw other parents arriving or departing at the same time. He
stated that it was the Council's job to sort out for the community whether the impact
overshadows the benefit to the community.
Council Member Susag indicated the order of priority for the right of land use is: 1)
current use; 2) zoning; and 3) Comprehensive Plan. He stated the City has adopted the
Comprehensive Plan as their vision. He indicated the City should move toward changing
zoning to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Kirsch indicated that Bernie's had looked at this property prior to the new
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the property owner has the right to sell to other
commercial uses that would have a large impact on the neighborhood. He stated he
would support approval of the CUP.
The motion restated with inclusion of the accepted amendments to the resolution:
is
M/Rosenberg, S/Susag that the followinq resolution be adopted with the addition of
the followinq two stipulations:
• That the owner must install a trash enclosure on the property at a location to be
specified by the Public Safety Director, within 30 days after the Public Safety
Director notifies the owner that a trash enclosure is warranted,
• That the entrance drive must be angled so as to direct exiting traffic to
southbound 11 th Avenue;
and, that the Council adopt the Basis of Recommendation as set forth in Council
Letter No. 84 as its findinqs of fact; and, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it
be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 8569
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1100 EAST 66TH STREET
•
Motion carried 4-1. (Stokes opposed) This resolution appears as Resolution No.
8569 in Resolution Book No. 68.
Item #13
I
ATTACHMENT F
Planning Commission Letter
® March 24, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item 4
Case 98-CUP-3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Continuation of discussion of conditional use permit to allow
construction of a day care facility
Applicant/Owner: Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, owner of Bernie's Montessori School,
Inc.
Location: 1100 East 66th Street
Zoning: C-2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Single family residential
Proposed Land Use: Commercial
is Comp. Plan: High Density, Attached, Single Family Residential
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 526.27; Section 546.05
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's continued consideration was
mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the
subject property. In addition, notices were sent to owners and
occupants in the 6400 blocks of 11th and 12th Avenues.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of April 13, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a
day care for 90 children. The applicant will be applying for a state license to
serve 60 children. The building will, however, be built to accommodate future
growth of up to 90 children. The applicant currently operates a montessori
school for children ages 4 to 6 at St. Peter's Church. The proposed day care
40 would also provides services to infants and toddlers.
Y
/
Issues: 1. neral commercial)
,sive Plan: The property is zoned C-2
Compre
and day care facilities are conditional uses in the C-2 district. The zoning
ordinance states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit
• unless it finds that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the area for high density, attached, single family housing
(RSFH), so the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Building Design: The proposed building has been redesigned to give it
more of a residential appearance.
3. Access: Access to the parking lot is from 11th Avenue. Hennepin County
will not grant a permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty-sixth Street is
a minor arterial, and the County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials
from individual properties for safety reasons.
4. Parking: Twenty parking spaces will be provided on the site. City parking
standards require one space for every five children, for a minimum
requirement of 18 spaces. The City's parking standards for day care
facilities is similar to that of other cities (see attachment).
5. Traffic: Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with BRW, Inc.,
prepared a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The
analysis is attached.
6. Neighborhood Impact: The applicant attended mediation with four
neighborhood residents. According to the mediators, the neighbors were
okay with the changes made to the building's appearance. They preferred
an access onto 66th Street, but if the entrance were to be on I Ith Avenue,
they asked that a "no right turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit.
• The neighbors also asked that stop signs be installed at 64th Street and the
entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the entrance to the
park. The latter requests will be forwarded to the City's traffic committee.
7. Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately twenty trees on the
property and two boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to
accommodate the proposed construction. Additional trees would be
planted as part of the proposed development. Note: This is private
property, and the City does not have the authority to prohibit people from
cutting down trees located on private property.
8. Buffering: The play activity area is located to the west of the building, 20
feet from the north property line. The fencing on the north side of the play
area would be a solid fence, the remainder would be chain link. Evergreen
trees would be planted on the north side of the area to provide a buffer
from the adjacent residential uses. There are also three evergreens located
along the north property line that currently provide a buffer.
9. Rezoning: At the previous hearing, a question was raised about the process
for rezoning property. A rezoning can be initiated in the following three
ways: the City Council can initiate it; the Planning Commission can initiate
it; the owner of the property and 50 percent of the property owners within
300 feet of the property to be rezoned can petition for a rezoning.
0
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional
• use permit at 1100 East 66th Street with a finding of fact that the
proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Recommend that the City Council rezone the property at 1100 East
66th Street from C-2 (general commercial) to R (single family
residential).
3. Recommend that the City Council authorize the Planning
Commission to conduct a study of all properties in the City with
zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
consider rezonings of these properties.
Basis: 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as High
Density, Single Family Residential (RSFH). The proposed use is
inconsistent with this designation.
2. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a
conditional use permit, the City must find that the proposed use is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation.
3. Although the property is zoned C-2 (general commercial), state
statute states that in cases of conflict between a City's
Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the zoning ordinance shall be
brought into conformance with the Plan.
4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed application, the City
zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined
that there is not a sufficient legal basis to approve the application
because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05,
Subdivision 6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance has not been met.
0
i
Alternative A. I\ )mmend that the City Council approve request for a
Recommendations: conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with
90 children with the following stipulations:
1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be
submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Director.
2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to the Community
Development Director.
3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and
approved by the Public Works Director.
5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and
approved by the Public Works Director.
6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and
city licenses.
7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be
recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes
section 462.36, subdivision 1.
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a
conditional use permit for a day care for 60 children.
C. Recommend that the City Council pass a 6-month moratorium on
development of all parcels with a land use that is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan but has zoning that is inconsistent, and
authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of the
parcels.
0
r
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
0 SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-
2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 25. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid
interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates
visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and
c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
SECTION 546 -ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any
use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the
City pursuant to this subsection.
• ...
Subd. 4. Plannin¢ Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be
set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer
whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application.
Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it
finds that all of the following conditions will be met:
a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban
design guidelines;
c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified
in Section 541 of this code;
d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements;
e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare;
and
f) there is a pr. , need for such use at the proposed locatio. ?d
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the
granting of such conditional use permit.
•
0
ATTACHMENT G
"ITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
Agenda April 13, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a
Montessori school and day care facility for 90 children at 1100 East 66th Street.
Background:
The applicant, Bernie's Montessori School, is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot
building to house a day care for 90 children. The applicant currently operates a Montessori
school for children ages four to six at St. Peter's Church. She wants to relocate in the area
and expand the school to add day care for infants and toddlers.
The building would be located on the north side of the property with the play activity area
located to the west of the building, 20 feet from the north property line. The play area
would be fenced, and the applicant proposes to plant evergreen trees and preserve three of
the existing evergreen trees on the north side of the property to provide a buffer from the
adjacent residential uses. The fencing on the north side of the play area would be a solid
fence, the remainder would be vinyl-coated chain link.
Twenty parking spaces would be provided on the site. City parking standards require one
space for every five children, for a minimum requirement of 18 spaces. There is no specific
area designated for dropping off and picking up children; the parking stalls would be used
for this activity.
A significant amount of grading is needed to create a relatively flat area for construction.
Retaining walls will be constructed on the north, east and south sides of the building and
parking lot.
Access: Access to the parking lot is from 11th Avenue. Hennepin County will not grant a
permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty-Sixth Street is a minor arterial, and the
County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials from individual properties for safety
reasons.
Traffic: In response to neighborhood concerns about potential traffic generated on 11 th
Avenue by the day care, the applicant hired Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with
BRW, Inc., to prepare a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The analysis
indicates that approximately five vehicles would use 11 th Avenue to and from the north
during the peak hours (see attached analysis). Traffic is a main concern of area residents.
The analysis also indicates that both the parking lot and the intersection will function
adequately.
Neighborhood Impact- The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant go
through mediation with the neighbors to try and resolve some of the differences raised at
the first Planning Commission hearing. An invitation was sent to the neighbors on the
• notification list to participate in mediation. Four neighborhood residents participated in
mediation with the applicant. According to the mediators, the neighbors were satisfied with
changes the applicant has made to the building's appearance. They preferred an access
onto 66th Street, but if trentrance were to be on 11th Avenues, they asked that a "no right
turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit. The neighbors also asked that stop signs be
installed at 64th Street and the entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the
entrance to the park. The latter requests have been forwarded to the City's Traffic
Committee for review.
Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately 20 trees on the property and two
boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed
construction. At a minimum, three large evergreens on the north side of the property are
preserved as part of the proposed landscape plan. Additional trees would be planted as
part of the proposed development.
Comprehensive Plan: The property is zoned C-2 (general commercial); however, the
Guide Plan of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area for high density, attached,
single family housing (RSFH), more commonly called townhomes. The Zoning Ordinance
states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the
proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The issue of the Comprehensive Plan consistency was explored by staff when the
application was first submitted. At that time, staff determined that the underlying zoning
should take precedent over the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney later determined
that it is the City's zoning ordinance that requires consistency with the Plan for conditional
uses; therefore, the City cannot approve the proposed day care without finding it to be
• consistent with the Plan. A majority of the Planning Commissioners found that although the
proposed day care does not exactly match the guide plan designation of townhomes, it is
consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. Two Commissioners
found that the day care was not consistent with the guide plan designation and therefore
voted against approval of the conditional use permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care for 90 children at
1100 East 66th Street with the following stipulations:
That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved by
the Community Development Director.
2. That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development Director and
a landscape escrow be submitted.
3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
• Works Director.
6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses.
7. That a resolution app.,jving the conditional use permit be r"orded with the County,
pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On March 24, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 6-2 to recommend approval of
the conditional use permit.
2. According to the Planning Commission's interpretation, the proposed day care is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan goals and objectives indicating consistency are as follows:
IMPLEMENTATION: The primary intent and purpose of the 1997-2007 Plan
update is to adopt a plan that can and will be a useful tool in future zoning and
redevelopment decisions. For this reason, the Plan is focused on concepts that
are described as goals and objectives. The Subarea Plans are looked upon as
examples of how those areas of the City might be redeveloped by applying these
goals and objectives, rather than the more typical view of the Plan as a
"blueprint" for development. (FOUR-2)
• OBJECTIVE: Encourage and support a diversity of compatible non-residential
land uses that are accessible and responsive to the needs of Richfield and
adjacent communities. (ONE-7)
• OBJECTIVE: Encourage the development of viable and responsive
neighborhood commercial services. (ONE-7)
• GOAL: Achieve a standard of land use that is reflective of the "home town"
character of Richfield. (ONE-8)
• PLAN PROPOSAL: Reinforce existing and create new well-defined boundaries
for all commercial developments and provide transitional use areas that protect
and improve adjacent residential areas. (ONE-10)
3. The property is zoned C-2 (general commercial) which allows for commercial uses to
be developed on the property. The proposed day care is a conditional use in the C-2
district.
4. The proposal meets the required zoning standards for new construction in the C-2
district, including setback, lot coverage and performance standards.
5. The proposed parking meets the City's parking standards.
6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners
and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 1100
. East 66th Street with the following findings of fact:
• The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a conditional use permit,
the City must find that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the L,,,mprehensive Plan. The Comprehei,.ive Guide Plan designation
for 1100 East 66th Street is RSFH (high density, single family attached housing).
The corrollary zoning districts for this designation would be the R and MR-1 zoning
districts. These districts do not allow a day care of this size.
• The City Council has reviewed the proposed application, the City Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined that it cannot approve the
application because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05, Subdivision 6(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance has not been met.
• The traffic from the proposed day care would have an adverse impact on the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Planning Commission first heard this request on February 24 but continued action until
March 24 to allow staff and the applicant to address several issues, including the
Comprehensive Plan consistency question.
Staff had originally recommended approval of the application given that the zoning is C-2
and the Comprehensive Plan states that the Guide Plan is intended to be a guide, not a
blueprint for development. Legal counsel reviewed the issue and decided that denying the
application was most defensible; however, they instructed the Planning Commission that it
is still the Commissions' role to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. A majority of the
Commissioners concluded that, in interpreting the Plan, they must consider not only the
. Subarea Plan graphics but the stated goals and policies and therefore recommended
approval.
The Commission suggested that the day care property be rezoned to MR-2 (medium
density multiple residence) to prevent the possible future reuse of the building by a non-
compatible commercial business. They plan to review all instances in the City where the
zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommend rezonings where
appropriate. The Commission will also compare the differences in regulations for day care
facilities and schools. Public and private elementary and high schools, and other similar
learning institutions are permitted uses in the C-2 district, requiring only City Council
approval of an off-street parking permit. Staff might have considered Bernie's Montessori
School a school, permitted in the C-2 district. Only the day care portion of the operation
would have required a conditional use permit.
A public hearing on the conditional use permit application is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on
Monday, April 13, 1998. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield
City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1100 EAST 66TH STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of a conditional use permit for a day care for 90 children on land
generally located at 1100 East 66th Street, legally described as:
Lot 9, Block 2, Eliason Fourth Addition
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the
conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A conditional use permit is issued for a day care for 90 children, as described
in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described
above.
2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions
before an occupancy permit can be issued:
• That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director.
• That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development
Director and a landscape escrow be submitted.
• That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Director.
• That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved
by the Public Works Director.
• That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the
Public Works Director.
• That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city
licenses.
• That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota
statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if
normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as
required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
April, 1998.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0
Attachment H
521.65. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the
MR-2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of
this code.
Subd. 9. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that significant
traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) designated pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site; and
c) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which abuts a
residential parcel. (Added, Bill No. 1998-10)
521.72. Minimum lot size. setback and height requirements for non-residential uses. Subdivision
1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to non-residential uses in the MR-2
District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum lot coverage (nrincioal structure): 30 percent.
Subd. 6. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet.
b) Side:
(i) interior: 20 feet
(ii) streetside: 30 feet
c) Rear: 25 feet.
(Added, Bill No. 1998-10)
0
ATTACHMENTI
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the
C-2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this
code.
Subd. 26. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid
interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and
c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
i
526.29. Lot area. width. deuth. and coverage. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this
section apply in the C-2 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area: 9,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width:
a) Interior lot: 75 feet.
b) Corner lot: 90 feet.
Subd. 4. Minimum lot death: 100 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 85 percent.
526.31. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards
set out in this section apply in the C-2 District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
SIDE SIDE- MAXIMUM
BUILDING FRONT REAR INTERIOR STREETSIDE HEIGHT
PRINCIPAL 35 Ft. 20 Ft. 20 Ft. 25 Ft. 40 Ft.
ACCESSORY 35 Ft. 8 Ft. 20 Ft. 25 Ft. 15 Ft.
0
i
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
AGENDA ITEM # 5
REPORT # 144
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
s
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TALE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: E --
'IGNATUlt ;
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading regarding an ordinance adopting an 1-494 Official Map from
1-35W to Penn Avenue.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve
second reading of an ordinance adopting the 1-494/Penn Official Map
as an official map indicating that the road design is accurate and
additional right of way is identified for the future reconstruction of 1-
494.
II. BACKGROUND
The Met Council's Right of Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) makes zero-interest loans
available to assist in the purchase of land that is needed for roadway projects, such as the
widening of 1-494. The loan program is administered by the Metropolitan Council and is
designed to reserve right of way in areas where the cost of land is escalating. To qualify for
a loan the City must adopt an Official Map for 1-494 showing the additional right of way
needed for expanding 1-494.
06120fficial I-494ROWMap
According to state law the Planning Commission must adopt and the City Council must
approve the 1-494 Official Map in the area between 1-35W and Penn Avenue because the
• map is considered a special land use control. Building permits are subject to the conditions
of the Official Map as outlined below in the Policy section. The Official Map protects the
City from escalating costs associated with the purchase of property at a later date when the
road improvement is made. A copy of the letter sent to affected property owners is
attached.
The City of Richfield is seeking several funding sources to expedite the construction of the
Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. Adoption of an official map enables the City to obtain a
RALF loan from the Metropolitan Council to purchase land needed for the future
reconstruction of 1-494.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Official Map must be certified by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation that the road design is accurate and requires additional right
of way identified in the Official Map.
• The Richfield Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 1-494 Official
Map and took action at the April 25, 2000 meeting to find the Map in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend adoption of the
Official Map.
• Notice of a Public Hearing and Second Reading was published in the
Richfield Sun-Current on May 31, 2000. Owners of property affected by the
. Official Map, as identified on the attached map, were mailed notice of the
Public Hearing.
• The Official Map will have an effect on the issuance of building permits.
Building permits are the control mechanism for carrying out the objectives of
the Official Map. There are two aspects of this control.
o If following the adoption and filing of the Official Map, a landowner,
without a building permit, or in violation of the provisions of a building
permit, places a building or structure within the limits of the proposed
street, then when the City acquires the land for street purposes, it will
not have to pay damages for the loss of that portion of the building or
structure lying within the proposed street area.
o Although the statute is not entirely clear on the question of issuing
building permits for construction within the proposed street area, the
City Attorney believes the following procedure is contemplated:
¦ If a building permit application discloses that construction is
planned within the proposed street area, the building official
should deny the permit.
¦ Upon denial, the applicant can appeal the denial to the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals. The Board can grant the permit if
it makes certain findings
• That the entire property, including the part affected by
the Official Map, cannot yield a reasonable return to
the owner unless the permit is granted, and
• That on balance, the grant of the permit is required "in
the interests of justice and equity".
If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals authorizes the issuance of the
permit, then the building official must issue the permit unless within
•
the six-month period beginning with the date that the authority is
given, the City institutes proceedings to acquire the land.
Consequently, once land has been placed within a proposed street in
the Official Map, the opportunity of the landowner to build in that area
is made more difficult.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
To carry out the policies of the major thoroughfare plan of the City for the
reconstruction of 1-494, there is need for an Official Map for 1-494 showing
the additional right of way needed for expanding 1-494.
An official map limits new development within the area identified on the
Official Map so that the land is reserved for future roadway construction.
C. FINANCIAL
• Adoption of an official map will qualify the City of Richfield to obtain a zero
interest loan from the Metropolitan Council that can be used to purchase the
land needed for the reconstruction of 1-494 and, in particular, the Penn
Avenue Bridge.
D. LEGAL
The City attorney will be present at the Council meeting and will be available
for counsel.
•
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could recommend against or not take action on the adoption of the official
map; however, monies may not be available later and construction of the Penn
Avenue Bridge could be delayed.
• Council could continue the public hearing and second reading.
• Council could accept comments, close the public hearing and delay action related to
the adoption of the proposed ordinance.
• Council could recommend against or not take action on the adoption of the official
map and await the completion of an official map for the entire 1-494 corridor from
34th Avenue to Trunk Highway 169. The Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) will complete this work by March 2001. Again, this will delay construction
of the Penn Avenue Bridge.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Ordinance
• 1-494 Official Map, 1-35W to Penn Avenue
• 1-494 Layout
• Sketch showing properties affected by 1-494 Official Map, 1-35W to Penn Avenue
• Letter sent to affected property owners
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
40
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning
Code" is hereby amended:
The City Code is amended by adding a new section 551 to read:
SECTION 551 - ZONING: OFFICIAL MAP
550.01. Official Map -1-494.
Subd. 1 Adoption. For the purpose of carrying out the policies of
the policies of the major thoroughfare plan and the community
facilities plan of the City, the official map of the 1-494 expansion is
hereby adopted.
Subd. 2 On File. A copy of the official map, or sections thereof with
a copy of the adopting ordinance attached shall be filed with the
County Recorder and be on file in the Community Development
Department of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 20 .
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Jr' ?
r
fr 1
PENN AVE S
......... .
?
? i t l 1; i ! s i I
f
i
'V i ? 1 ? _ V 11
I
I _-
c?
! ?
I
!
! ?
1 Ei
I (?
N ? O O 0 J° ill ? 4 N? •? ,?
0
n m f ` i f f fF F F x L .
"s
3 '
° -
??
T T
T
T
T
T
T o T
c o o `? i f!
O
°
°
°
?
° ?
°
o a o m o a o 0 o a a m
I 1 1 1 1 I I ! 1 I I I r
N V N N N N N N N N N N 4
;,
-P
r,.-'-?
Y f? 4 4 V 4? ? ? H
?
Y _` ,
1
1
1
!.
= H
v 3 m Y u N? u ? O1 u 3 l--a
i i l
? !
S ??g?6g? g
? g?i
E?l
T
TT
5 I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - &
U
'
N
J
t
j 4 m V y°l y O? y
? N q L
y
J s N O O O O ?
N
yT
----- OLIVER AVE S.
;
? l
i
i,
I
(
r
;y .
, 1 43 'r------ ,
1 1 l J?'? ------------
AMR Lo?
y \ I , g
!
?' ---- IN_OOISWE 50300 PENN AVE S. S
l,.22&52 NW-20'48'E ]d
i
ii'
30 30
Cu n , 1t .T
-- ---- - . - i s NEWTON AVE S. s
ca rn
li C1[';. •Rb\? mn 'i IJO
I I ? PAN.j6 ? J i1: 4 ? 1 ? ' I
? NUN\ I
E s I / s =-- - g- g --- MORGANI AVE S.
30
E Le /I
It .0 -J
of i ? \? ??\\\ ? ''
Ji
1; 4
178.70
i HIA
J J ,1 u ,
Vj
u ? (J ti / /,
N
Ail q , BPS.
t, 71
ter? ' \\
\` Y \t 1
INTERSTATE HWY NO. 35W
30
LOGAN AVE S.
- s1
1
i
I._I
i
1
i
8
S
° HOxrx
•
1
. ....... ..
3 _.
t
i
r
0 0 0
Properties Affected by I-494/Penn Official Map
i I
a
i
i
Walser
PREPARED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
ENGINEERING DIVISION 5/512000
1-494
AFFECTED
D PROPERTIES
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
E
RICHFIELD Public Works Department
May 31, 2000
Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Adopting an Official Map for 1-494
from 35W to Penn Avenue
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH
Dear Property Owner:
CrrY COUNCIL The City Council will conduct a public -hearing at its regular Council meeting on June
SUSAN ROSENBERG
2000 at 7:00 p.m. at the Richfield City Hall - Council Chambers, 6700 Portland
12
SUZANNE M. SANDA SANDAHL
KRISTAL STOKES ,
Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. The hearing will be held to-consider an
RUSS SUSAG ordinance adopting an official map for 1-494 from 1-35W.to Penn Avenue. The official
map for 1-494 is for the purpose of carrying out the policies of a major thoroughfare
CITY MANAGER plan of the City; i.e., the reconstruction of 1-494. Properties affected by the 1-494
SAMANTHA ORDUNO expansion noted in the official map include, but are not limited to:
1700 78th Street West
1900 78th Street West
1920 78th Street West
• 2000 78th Street West
• 2016 78th Street West
• 2020 78th Street West
• 2022 78th Street West
• 2026 78th Street West
• 2100 78th Street West
• 7701 Penn Avenue South
7745 Penn Avenue South
• 7744 Penn Avenue South
According to state law the City Council must approve the official map because it is
considered a special land use control. Once an official map has been adopted, the
issuance of building permits shall be subject to the conditions of the official map. If a
building permit application discloses that construction is planned within the proposed
area of the official map, the building official should deny the permit. Upon denial, the
applicant can appeal the denial to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The Board can
grant the permit if it makes certain findings:
• That the entire property, including the part affected by the Official Map, cannot
yield a reasonable return to the owner unless the permit is granted, and
• That on balance, the grant of the permit is required "in the interests of justice and
equity"
•
The Urban Hometown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749
www.G.richfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
i
• May 31, 2000
Page 2
If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals authorizes the issuance of the permit, then
the building official must issue the permit unless within the six-month period
beginning with the date that the authority is given, the City institutes proceedings to
acquire the land.
Consequently, once land has been placed within a proposed street in the Official
Map, the opportunity of the landowner-to build in that area is made more difficult.
The city is not obligated to pay for any buildings erected in such areas without
obtaining a building permit. In effect,it-protects the city from escalating costs
associated with the purchase of property when the road improvement is made.
Adoption of the official map for 1-494 from 35W to Penn Avenue will advance the
reconstruction of 1-494 and in particular the Penn Avenue Bridge.
If you want to comment on the proposed official map, please attend the hearing and
you will be heard, or submit written comments prior to the June 12, 2000 City Council
meeting.
If you have questions about the proposed official map, please call me at 612-861-
9791.
Sincerely,
Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
Public Works Department
TFF:ttf
Enclosure
•
Properties Affected by I-494/Penn Official Map
r
-' ' L-----L. ---
N
E
S
PREPARED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
ENGINEERING DIVISION 5!212000
-'"-" AFFECTED
- . __..__ PROPERTIES
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4E
REPORT # 143
J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
0
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
STEVEN SUTTER, ASST. FIRE CHIEF
STEVEN S UTTER, ASST. FIRE CHIEF
NAME, TITL
SIGNATURE`
u
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution to amend membership listing of the Southwest Fire League Mutual
Aid Association of which the Richfield Fire Division is a member.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: approve the resolution to add the City of Minneapolis to
the membership of the Southwest Fire League Mutual Aid
Association.
111. BACKGROUND
Richfield is a member of the Southwest Fire League Mutual Aid Association. It is a
group of 14 agencies who have agreed to help one another in the event of a major fire,
natural or technological disaster.
The City of Minneapolis Fire Department has petitioned to join the association.
•
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY I
• Richfield relies on this association for extraordinary fire protection.
• This membership change has minimal operational impact.
SWFLResMpls
• The mutual aid agreement between the southwest suburban governmental
agencies assures that cooperative use of fire personnel and equipment will be
. provided by membership agencies in time of emergencies.
• This is a housekeeping issue as the membership is beyond the control of any
one agency.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In the event of extraordinary fire/emergency circumstances, the suburbs and
the City of Minneapolis will be mutually dependent on one another to provide
public safety.
C. FINANCIAL
• The mutual aid agreement means there are no financial charges when
departments help one another.
D. LEGAL I
• The existing mutual aid agreement is in place.
• Council adopted the resolution of a Fire Mutual Aid Agreement with the
Southwest Fire Mutual Aid Association in 1995.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Do not approve the resolution; however, this agreement assures the assistance of a
close bordering community.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing the amendment of the membership listing of the Southwest
Fire League Mutual Aid Association.
• Exhibit A, Southwest Mutual Aid Association list of member fire departments.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP LISTING OF THE
SOUTHWEST FIRE LEAGUE MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has previously approved and participated in a mutual
aid agreement between the southwest suburban governmental agencies to provide
cooperative use of fire personnel and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the agencies participating in this agreement have been designated the
Southwest Mutual Aid Association; and
WHEREAS, the existing agreement requires the parties of the agreement to approve by
resolution a new Exhibit A to add a new member to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis would like to join the Association and would add to
the overall effectiveness.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
The revised Exhibit A, dated April 11, 2000, which includes the City of Minneapolis,
is hereby approved as the new official list of parties to the agreement establishing the
Southwest Mutual Aid Association.
is The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the secretary of
the Southwest Mutual Aid Association.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of June,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
40
C-x 17V J` / T /Y
southvvc:st Mutual Aid Association
Member Fire Departments
President: * Eden Prairie Fire Dept. Minneapolis Fire Dept.
Steve Sutter, elected 1999 Spencer Conrad, Chief Rocco Forte„ Chief
Richfield Fire Dept. 7801 Mitchell Rd. 300 S 5th St - Room 230
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Minneapolis, MN 55415
Vice President. (952) 949-8335 (612) 673-2536
Luke Stemmer, elected 1999 Pager: (612) 231-6527 Fax: (612) 673-2828
St. Louis Park Fire Dept. Fax: (952) 937-6953 rocco.forte@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
(952) 924-2596 CONSJB@aol.com
Pager: (612) 650-2002 Minnetonka. Minnetonka
Istemmer@stiouispark.org Edina Fire Dent. Fire Dept.
Marty Scheerer, Chief Joe Wallin, Chief
Treasurer/Secretary: 6250 Tracy Ave. 14550 Minnetonka Blvd.
George Magdal, elected 2000 Edina, MN 55436 Minnetonka, MN 55345
Hopkins Fire Dept. (952) 826-0332 (952) 939-8598
(952) 939-1321 Pager: (612) 394-0156 Pager:(612) 202-5676
PagerNoice Mail: (612) 759-0672 Fax: (952) 926-2132 Fax: (952) 939-8336
hopfire@mtn.org mscheerer@ci.edina.mn.us, jwallin@ci.minnetonka.mn.us
Fire Safetv House: * Excelsior Fire Dent. * Plvmouth Fire Dent
Cary Smith
Gary Ringate, Chief .
Rick Kline, Chief
St. Louis Park Fire Dept. 339 3rd Street 3400 Plymouth Blvd.
(952) 924-2169, Excelsior, MN 55331 Plymouth, MN 55447
or Shirley at (952) 924-2595 (952) 474-5364 (763) 509-5121
Pager: (612) 609-5004 Pager: (952) 530-3438 Pager: (612) 609-0075
csmith@ci. saint-louis-park. mn. us Fax: (952) 474-5364 Fax: (763) 509-5167
efdringate@worldnet.com rkline@ci.plymouth.mn.us
* Golden Vallev Fire Dent.. Richfield Fire Dept.
M.A.C. Fire Dent. Mark Kuhnly, Chief Steve Sutter, Asst. Chief
Dave Burke, Chief 7800 Golden Valley Rd. 6700 Portland Ave.
6307 34th Ave. S. Golden Valley, MN 55427 Richfield, MN 55423
Minneapolis, MN 55450 (763) 593-8080 (612) 861-9855
(612) 726-5353 Pager: (612) 640-5101 Pager: (612) 526-2895
Pager: (612) 648-0954 Fax: (763) 593-8098 Fax: (612) 866-0297
Emergency: (612) 726-5577 Cel: (612) 860-4954 ssutter@ci.richfield.mn.us
Fax: (612) 726-5605 mkuhniy@ci.golden-valley.mn.us
dburke@mspmac.org * St
Louis Park Fire Dept
* Hopkins Fire Dept. .
.
Bob Gill, Chief
* Bloominaton Fire Dept. Don Beckering, Chief 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Ulysses Seal, Chief 1010 1st St. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55416
10 West 95th St. Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 924-2594
Bloomington, MN 55420 Direct: (952) 939-1431 Pager: (612) 650-2001
Direct: (952) 881-4062 Pager/Voice Mail: (612) 622-0868 Fax: (612) 924-2175
(612) 948-8700 Fax: (952) 939-1429 rgill@stiouispark.org
Fax: (952) 884-7678 don.beckering@so.mnscu.edu
ulysses.seal@ci.minneapolis.mn.us * Wavzata Fire Dept
* MaDle Grove Fire Dept. .
Paul Klapprich, Chief
k Chanhassen Fire Dept. Scott Anderson, Chief 600 Rice St.
John Wolff, Chief 9101 Fembrook Lane Wayzata, MN 55391
7610 Laredo Dr., Box 97 Maple Grove, MN 55311 (952) 404-5337
Chanhassen, MN 55317 (763) 494-6081 Pager: (612) 650-4312
(952) 934-9191 Fax: (763) 494-6421 Fax: (952) 404-5336
Pager: (612) 650-8294 Pager. city@wayzata.org
Fax: (952) 934-2524 saanders@ci.maple-grove.mn.us
chfirem@ci.chanhassen.mn.us * Members of MSFDA
4-11-2000
,,
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 41)
REPORT # 142
•
J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
•
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution supporting expenditure in excess of $5,000 by the 1-494 Corridor
Commission for purposes of improved traffic in the area of Crosstown 62 and Highway 212, an
area known as the "golden triangle."
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of agreements
entitled Traffic Study Reimbursement Agreement and Golden Triangle
Reimbursement Agreement, both by and between the City of Eden
Prairie and the 1-494 Corridor Commission.
II. BACKGROUND
The 1-494 Corridor Commission is a Joint Powers Organization (JPO) representing the
transportation system concerns of the seven cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina,
Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. The mission of the 1-494 Corridor
Commission is to promote the improvement of 1-494 infrastructure from the Minnesota
River to 1-94 in order to increase its people-moving capacity and to improve mobility for
businesses and residents throughout the region.
The 1-494 Corridor Commission has been working with the Metropolitan Council and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) on a Travel Demand Management
(TDM) Demonstration project. Travel Demand Management seeks to reduce the
number of vehicles used during peak hours on congested roadways. It tries to
0612GoldenTriangle
encourage carpooling, transit, flexible work hours and other ways to reduce vehicular
traffic. The City of Eden Prairie has expended funds for TDM in the area known as the
"Golden Triangle" which is located between Crosstown 62 and 1-494, and approximately
between Highway 169 and Highway 212 (See attached map).
The 1-494 Corridor Commission approved the "pass through" of funds at its May 3
meeting. The pass through of funding from the 1-494 Corridor Commission to the City
of Eden Prairie is to reimburse the City for funds expended for the Golden Triangle
Transportation Management Association (TMA) Director and to conduct a traffic study
in the Golden Triangle area.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
I A. POLICY
Article 6, Paragraph 6.12 of the Joint Powers Agreement for the 1-494
Corridor Commission authorizes the 1-494 Corridor Commission to enter
into contracts deemed necessary by the Commission to carry out its
powers and duties, except that all contracts for an amount exceeding
$5,000 shall be approved by at least five Parties.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• If the members cities of the 1-494 Corridor Commission do not take action
authorizing execution of the agreements and expenditure of an amount in
excess of $5,000, the City of Eden Prairie will not be reimbursed for its
costs related to TDM in the "Golden Triangle".
• The proposed Travel Demand Management study will test strategies
needed to limit the growth of traffic along 1-494
C. FINANCIAL
• The City of Richfield pays ten cents per capita annually to the 1-494
Corridor Commission and the Commission receives federal funding to
provide technical assistance to cities and businesses on Travel Demand
Management (TDM) and to promote improvements to 1-494.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Do not confirm the Agreements. However, because the Commission has
approved the Agreements, the lack of confirmation from member cities could
pose a problem for the Commission and the City of Eden Prairie in their ability to
implement the proposed Travel Demand Management study.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
• Map of Golden Triangle area of Eden Prairie
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
0 None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS ENTITLED
TRAFFIC STUDY REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GOLDEN TRIANGLE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, BOTH BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE 1-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is a party to that certain Joint and Cooperative
Agreement establishing the 1-494 Corridor Commission; and
WHEREAS, Article 6, Paragraph 6.12 authorizes the 1-494 Corridor Commission
to enter into contracts deemed necessary by the Commission to carry out its powers
and duties, except that all contracts for an amount exceeding $5,000 shall be approved
by at least five Parties; and
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission desires to enter into a Traffic Study
Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie pertaining to a traffic study for
the. Eden Prairie Golden Triangle Area, and a Golden Triangle Reimbursement
Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie whereby the City would hire on behalf of the
Commission an Executive Director for the Golden Triangle Transportation Management
Association; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that both Agreements will exceed $5,000 in cost.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield hereby
authorizes the 1-494 Corridor Commission to enter into those certain agreements
entitled Traffic Study Reimbursement Agreement and Golden Triangle Reimbursement
Agreement both by and between the City of Eden Prairie and the 1-494 Corridor
Commission.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
June, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
v
Zltrati6 e "AYea (GT.,)
Project
GTA Map
D4INNE'TONKA
..? P"" nov itle lomme•
MW VAW&ftnW%p"
Aw
?? i?r.414rav?ti, . ? .-
® V. %.W.
0
• Tw'd jama.?a) tome
• OweroaNw down
. ttssep " 4MOAMr
on m.aa
wr
. t.r tat e.Onvtna¦.t
ueuerrl 35 so"
oft* 1 we
Geti?uroa - u ?sw
' at
,
T RAEMAR
t9[
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4C
REPORT # 141
STAFF REPORT
wMam CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REPORT PREPARED BY: 'REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of two resolutions establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase
of two single family homes located at 1700 East 66th Street and 1708 East 66th Street for the
66thStreet / TH 77 Interchange Project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve two resolutions establishing just compensation
and authorizing the purchase of 1700 East 66th Street and 1708 East
66th Street for the 66thStreet /TH 77 Interchange Project.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2000, the City Council approved a Right of Way Agreement with
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (the "MAC") which provides for the acquisition
of properties impacted by the expansion of 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 (the
"Project"). Two single family homes located at 1700 East 66th Street and 1708 East
66th Street are necessary acquisitions for the Project.
•
Appraisal reports were prepared for the real estate and reviewed by the City's
review appraiser. MAC has provided the final review for the real estate and has
recommended just compensation in the following amounts:
0612justcomp
Property Address
1700 East 66th Street
1708 East 66th Street
Fair Market Value
$128,000
$124,000
In addition to the above, the property owners may also be eligible for relocation
benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately once an offer is made
to the property owner in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act.
Attached are the resolutions for review.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
I A. POLICY
• The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project.
• The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (the WNDOT"), and MAC outlines the
responsibilities for each participating agency.
• The Agreement between the City and MAC further outlines the
responsibilities of each agency as to property acquisition and
construction.
• Right of Way acquisition procedures set forth by MNDOT are being
followed.
•
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• An offer will be made to the homeowners upon Council's approval of
just compensation.
• One of the homeowner's is already within a contingency period under
a replacement home's purchase agreement.
I C. FINANCIAL
MAC is obligated to fund this transaction.
D. LEGAL I
• There are no pending issues at this time on this matter.
E. TIMING I
• If the offer, which is based on just compensation, is accepted, the
City could potentially have title to the subject property in 30 days.
• Based on other right of way acquisition projects, it is standard
operating procedure to allow homeowners to remain in the property
to coordinate moving activities.
• The City may need to charge rent to homeowners if they choose not
to deliver possession to the City on the date of closing.
• I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• Delay approval of the just compensation.
• Do not approve just compensation and property acquisition.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of
• 1700 East 66th Street.
• Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of
1708 East 66th Street.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• None.
0
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION
AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1700 EAST 66TH STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real
property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project
(Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being
described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 4, Iverson's 3rd Addition, 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 has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real 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
WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as being
in conformity with appraisal standards; and
WHEREAS, MAC has reviewed the appraisal report and review appraisal report
prepared for the subject property and has recommended that the just compensation for
the real estate be determined by the City Council to be $128,000; and
WHEREAS, MAC has also recommended that the City proceed to make an offer
to the owner of the subject property in the above stated just compensation amounts;
and
WHEREAS, the above stated just compensation amounts are consistent with
said appraisal reports and review appraisal reports.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
•
1. That the total just compensation for the above described real estate is determined to
be $128,000.
2. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is authorized and directed to submit to the
property owner the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interest
in the subject property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said
property.
3. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the
owners of the subject property that the City intends to acquire this property and
establish eligibility for relocation benefits.
4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in
a form acceptable to them and take all other actions necessary to complete the
purchase of the property for the amount of just compensation set forth in this
resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of June,
2000
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
40
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION
AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1708 EAST 66TH STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real
property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project
(Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being
described as follows:
Lot 3, Block 4, Iverson's 3rd Addition, 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 has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real 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
WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as being
in conformity with appraisal standards; and
WHEREAS, MAC has reviewed the appraisal report and review appraisal report
prepared for the subject property and has recommended that the just compensation for
the real estate be determined by the City Council to be $124,000; and
WHEREAS, MAC has also recommended that the City proceed to make an offer
to the owner of the subject property in the above stated just compensation amounts;
and
WHEREAS, the above stated just compensation amounts are consistent with
said appraisal reports and review appraisal reports.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
•
1. That the total just compensation for the above described real estate is determined to
be $124,000.
2. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is authorized and directed to submit to the
property owner the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interest
in the subject property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said
property.
3. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the
owners of the subject property that the City intends to acquire this property and
establish eligibility for relocation benefits.
4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in
a form acceptable to them and take all other actions necessary to complete the
purchase of the property for the amount of just compensation set forth in this
resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of June,
2000
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4$
REPORT # 140
JUNE 12, 2000
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
STEVEN L. DEVICH,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
STEVEN L. DEVICH,
MINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
voo?
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of publishing a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable Communication System
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the official publication of a Notice of Intent to
Franchise a Cable Communications System.
•
II. BACKGROUND
The City has received a written request from WideOpenWest ("WOW') and Everest
Communications ("Everest") for a franchise to construct, operate and maintain a
cable communications system in the City. Pursuant to both requests, Brian Grogan,
Attorney for the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC), has prepared
the attached documentation to process the City's consideration of the grant of
additional cable television franchises:
1. Timeline for Processing Request for a Cable Television Franchise;
2. Notice of Intent to Franchise, required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section
238.081, subd. 2;
3. A Request for Proposals, required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 238.081,
subd. 4; and
4. Notice of Public Hearing.
0612000able
These documents have been prepared to comply with the franchising procedure
• required under state law and have been carefully reviewed by the Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission ("Commission"). The Commission has approved and
endorsed the documents at its full commission meeting on May 24, 2000.
These documents have also been reviewed by City staff and found to be
acceptable. Staff recommends that the City Council review the documents and, if
found acceptable, authorize the official publication of the Notice of Intent to initiate
the statutory process for consideration of implementation of a franchising process.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The SWSCC approved the process and documents used to respond
to this franchising process.
Each of the five member Cities of the SWSCC must act on this
process.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Interested parties may obtain copies of the Request for Proposals and
related franchise documentation as described in the Notice. The City
• should thereafter follow the procedure outlined in the Notice of Intent
which is derived from state law.
• It is important to emphasize that the City is only considering the
implementation of the state statutory franchising process at this time.
There will be a public hearing before the City Council on this matter
later this summer and no entity will be permitted in the City's right-of-
way until the City Council considers award of a cable television
franchise in the Fall of 2000.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of the franchise application process will be funded equally by the
applicants.
• More franchises in the City may provide the City with greater revenues as
well as more public/government access services and features.
D. LEGAL
• The attorney for the SWSCC has carefully drafted the franchising
documents that are derived substantially from the procedure outlined
in state statutes.
• If applications are submitted by entities which possess the requisite
legal, technical and financial qualifications, the City will likely be
required to grant one or more additional franchises. Federal and state
• law prohibit a municipality from preventing otherwise qualified entities
from providing cable television and/or telecommunications services
unless they lack the requisite qualifications or otherwise fail to comply
with the franchising procedures.
• I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• SWSCC Prepared documents
1. Timeline
2. Notice of Intent to Franchise
3. Request for Proposals
4. Public Hearing Notice
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
0
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Timeline for Processing Request for a Cable Television Franchise
--subject to change in City's sole discretion--
Date Procedural Tasks To Be Completed
May 24, 2000 Meeting of Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and any other interested
parties to review process, law, concerns
June 12, 2000 City considers publication of Notice of Intent to Franchise
June - August Commission begins negotiations regarding franchise terms with prospective
applicants.
June 21 and 28, 2000 City publishes Notice of Intent to Franchise once each week for two (2) successive
weeks in local newspaper (Notice also mailed directly to Time Warner, WOW,
Everest, Seren and other applicants)
July 14, 2000
July 14 - August 2, 2000
July 24, 2000
August 2, 2000
August 2, 2000
August 9, 2000
August 28, 2000
Late September - Early
October
October-November
0
Closing date for submission of Applications (must be at least 20 days from date of
first publication)
Consideration of Franchise Application
City meets to call Public Hearing
City publishes Notice of Public Hearing - 10 to 14 days before conduct of hearing
Preparation of report by Moss & Bamett regarding qualifications of Applicants
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission meets to consider Applicant's
qualifications and Moss & Barnett report - issue recommendation to Member
Cities
City conducts Public Hearing regarding Franchise Applications - considers
resolution regarding qualifications.
City Council considers award of Franchise to successful applicant(s) - must be at
least 7 days after Public Hearing - no time limit on when action must be taken.
Successful applicants accept franchise document and submit required closing
documentation - typically within 30 days of grant of franchise
334146/1
0 NOTICE BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
OF ITS INTENT TO FRANCHISE A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
Notice is hereby given that it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, to consider the grant of an additional franchise(s) for the purpose of constructing a
cable communications system to serve the City of Richfield, Minnesota. This notice is given in
accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081.
Applications shall be submitted in response to this Notice and to a Request for Proposals
and Proposed Franchise Documents available on request in the office of the Assistant City
Manager, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, phone: 612-861-9702.
A. The deadline for submitting applications is July 14, 2000.
B. Applications shall be in writing, notarized, in a format consistent with the Request
for Proposals, and sealed with ten (10) copies enclosed. Two (2) additional
copies of the application must be sent to the attention of Mr. Brian T. Grogan at
Moss & Barnett, 4800 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis,
MN 55402, who will be providing assistance to the City on this matter. Each
application shall include a nonrefundable application fee of Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($7,500) in the form of a certified check made payable to the
City of Richfield, Minnesota. The applications shall be delivered to the attention
of the Assistant City Manager, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,
Minnesota 55423, phone: 612-861-9702. Applicants are hereby on notice that
any and all costs incurred by the City and the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission, of which the City is a member, with respect to the franchise
procedure and franchise award which are not covered by the $7,500 application
fee shall be recovered from applicant.
C. Applicants are requested to be present at a public hearing before the City Council,
that is presently scheduled to be held at City Hall, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on
August 28, 2000. Each applicant will be given time to summarize its application.
The City Council may then continue the public hearing to permit further review of
the application before a final decision is made to select qualified applicants.
D. The Request for Proposals and Proposed Franchise Documents set forth in detail
the expectations of the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the requirements of the
content of the franchise proposal and are made in conformance to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, subd. 4.
E. The desired system design and services to be offered are identified in the
Proposed Franchise Documents attached to the Request for Proposals and include
a system serving the entire City of Richfield, Minnesota with a reasonable line
extension policy; flexibility to increase channel capacity; public, educational and
governmental access channels supported by the operator; reasonable rates; a mix,
level and quality of programs and services comparable to other systems and
customer services and maintenance plans to ensure the highest degree of service
334188/1
to the subscriber. The Request for Proposals and Proposed Franchise Documents
provide further details of the desired system design and services to be offered.
F. The criteria for evaluating the applications and priorities for selection are as
follows:
1. The completeness of applications, conformance to Request for Proposal,
and Proposed Franchise Documents;
2. The system design;
3. The programs and services offered initially and criteria for adding
programs and services;
4. The initial service area and the line extension policy;
5. The time for construction;
6. Customer service policies and system testing;
7. The legal, technical, and financial qualifications of the applicant; and
8. The proposal for community services, including public, educational, and
governmental access.
H. Applications which meet the above criteria in the opinion of the City Council
shall be considered for a franchise.
1. The applicant(s) selected by the City Council will be required to accept the
Franchise Documents granted within thirty (30) days after adoption and will also
be required to reimburse the City of Richfield for any and all expenses not
covered by the application fee, as provided for by Minnesota Statutes Section
238.081, subd. 8.
I Applicants are advised that the City of Richfield is member of a joint powers
entity, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("Commission") which will
provide input and recommendations to the City regarding this process. The
Commission consists of the following cities: Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka, and Richfield each of which has previously granted identical
franchises to KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Time Warner.
K. All questions concerning this request should be directed to Mr. Steve Devich,
Assistant City Manager, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota
55423, phone: 612-861-9702 or Mr. Brian T. Grogan, Moss & Barnett, P.A.,
4800 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-
4129, phone (612) 347-0340, the Commission's legal advisor regarding this
process.
•
334188/1 2
0 Date: , 2000
City Clerk
Publish in:
on , 2000 and 2000. Affidavit of
Publication required for each publication.
•
0
334188/1
EXHIBIT A
0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OFFICIAL APPLICATION FORM
0
•
334188/1 A-1
. EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED FRANCHISE DOCUMENTS
•
334188/1 B-1
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OFFICIAL APPLICATION FORM
JUNE .2000
Applicants interested in submitting a proposal for a cable communications franchise shall
submit the following information as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081(subd. 4) to the
City of Richfield, Minnesota on or before July 14, 2000.
A. Plans for channel capacity, including both the total number of channels capable of
being energized in the system and the number of channels to be energized
immediately.
B. A statement of the television and radio broadcast signals for which permission to
carry will be requested from the Federal Communications Commission.
C. A description of the proposed system design and planned operation, including at
least the following items:
1. The general area for location of antenna and headend, if known;
2. The schedule for activating and two-way capacity;
3. The type of automated services to be provided;
4. The number of channels and services to be made available for access cable
broadcasting; and
5. The schedule of charges for facilities and staff assistance for access cable
broadcasting.
D. Terms and conditions under which particular service is to be provided to
governmental and educational entities.
E. A schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided and a
proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of services.
F. A time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time sequence for
wiring various portions of the City of Richfield, Minnesota.
G. A statement indicating the applicant's qualifications and experience in the cable
communications field, if any.
H. An identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or operates
a cable communications system, directly or indirectly, or has outstanding franchises
for which no system has been built.
1. Plans for financing the proposed system, which must indicate every significant
anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or conditions with respect to
the availability of the indicated sources of capital. This information shall include the
following:
334195/1
1. List and describe all financial resources (committed or otherwise) which
the applicant proposes to use in constructing and operating the system.
Committed financial resources may include, but are not limited to: bank
financing; existing capital reserves; capital calls (or equivalent rights)
under definitive governance documents of the applicant; operating surplus
to be generated from operating activities; or resources generated through
the issuance of debt or equity securities.
2. With respect to each of the sources described in 1 above, provide
supporting documentation (such as a commitment letter from a financial
institution; copies of definitive governance documents; terms sheet for
debt or equity securities... ) establishing the total resources available and
the amount of resources appropriated for the cable franchise operations, if
different from total funds available.
3. To the extent any of the financing sources described in 1 above have
limitations or conditions imposed by such financing source on availability,
use or other restrictions which could reasonably be expected to adversely
affect the availability of such financial resources for use by the applicant,
describe in detail: (a) each such limitation or condition; (b) the means the
applicant intends to employ in order to satisfy each such limitation or
condition; (c) a projection as to when such conditions or limitations will
be satisfied (to the extent practical); (d) any contingent sources of capital
or financial resources which may be sought in the event such conditions or
• limitations are not met; and (e) the reasonably foreseeable effect of the
loss of each such source of financing on the applicant's ability to meet its
obligations to the City.
4. Provide a detailed budget or other financial forecast which identifies the
total capital resources which the applicant projects will be required to
construct and operate the cable franchise system in the City for the lesser
of five (5) years or until the applicant otherwise projects that the cash
deficit from operations will be reduced to zero, including a summary of
the material assumptions employed in such forecast or budget.
5. Provide financial statements (balance sheet, statement of operations and
statement of cash flow) for each of the two immediately preceding fiscal
years, together with the most current set of financial statements for the
current fiscal year, all prepared in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles (except as noted).
I A statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the applicant, if
any, including the names and addresses of officers and directors and the number of
shares held by each officer or director, and intercompany relationship, including the
parent, subsidiary or affiliated company.
K. A notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to the
requirements of the proposal.
334195/1 2
L. Plans for construction and use of right-of-way, as follows:
1. Describe the level of interference landowners will experience with the
installation of equipment by the applicant.
2. Describe what steps the applicant is planning to take to mitigate how long
the installation of the equipment will take.
3. Describe what steps the applicant is planning to take to inform residents of
the equipment installation and any safety concerns or safety measures related
thereto.
4. What percent of equipment does the applicant anticipate will be installed
above-ground and what percent underground?
5. To what extent does the applicant anticipate the need to detour traffic or
close certain roads, sidewalks, or other rights-of-way to accommodate
construction or installation of equipment.
6. What steps is the applicant planning to take to minimize destruction of
public and/or private property during construction and installation?
7. Will the applicant agree to pay for any and all costs to repair public and/or
private property to as good a condition as its was prior to construction and
installation?
8. Where does the applicant intend to store its equipment during construction,
• and what measures will it be taking to keep conditions safe from children,
traffic or any other persons who may go near it.
9. What will the applicant do with the equipment during the winter months
when construction may be delayed or temporarily discontinued?
10. Does the applicant believe it will be able to collocate its equipment with that
of existing cable companies, and what steps has and will the applicant take to
determine the feasibility of collocation?
11. Is the applicant committed to collocate its equipment if technically feasible?
12. What steps does the applicant take to secure cable and equipment so there is
minimal aesthetic interference?
Substantive amendments may not be made to a proposal after a proposal has been submitted
to the City of Richfield, Minnesota and before the award of a franchise. All proposals must be
notarized and must include detailed responses to the above information requests, as well as the
information requested in the Notice by the City of Its Intent to Franchise a Cable Communications
System, attached hereto as Attachment A
The City of Richfield, Minnesota reserves its rights to request additional information of
applicant at any time during this process.
•
334195/1 3
Applicants are advised that KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Time Warner
Cable, currently provides cable television service throughout the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 1996-27 which became effective on or about January 1, 1997, and which
will expire on or about January 1, 2012. Applicant's proposal should identify changes in Ordinance
No. 1996-27 which applicant requests be adopted and the substantive basis for applicant's request.
Applicants are advised that Ordinance No. 1996-27 will serve as the basis on which a franchise may
granted to any qualified applicant.
Any questions regarding this Request for Proposals or the exhibits attached hereto may be
directed to Mr. Steve Devich, Assistant City Manager, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,
Minnesota 55423 or Mr. Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett, 4800 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402..
•
•
334195/1 4
ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF ITS INTENT TO FRANCHISE
A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
0
•
334195/1 A-1
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Richfield, Minnesota will hold a hearing
on August 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the
applications received for a cable franchise. The public hearing will be held at the Richfield City
Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. All interested parties are invited to
attend and voice their opinions. Written statements may be submitted at or before the public
hearing.
ie City Clerk
[DATE]
•
334946/1
A
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT# 139
JUNE 12, 2000
•
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES IRECTOR
NAME, TITL
SIGNATURE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
Consideration of resolution authorizing reduction in Time Warner System Performance Bond
for system upgrade
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing a reduction in the
performance bond required of Time Warner for the system upgrade of
the cable television system in Richfield.
IL BACKGROUND
The Cable TV Franchise Ordinance drafted by the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission (SWSCC) for the five participating cities included a provision that Time
Warner upgrade the system to 750 MHz cable system by December 31, 1999. In
the SWSCC Cable Franchise Agreement, Section 10.3 required Time Warner to
maintain a $300,000 bond with each City through the completion of the upgrade.
Upon the completion of the system upgrade, each City has the sole discretion to
reduce the bond to the sum of $100,000.
Time Warner has come to the SWSCC and each member City, including Richfield,
to request that the bond be reduced to $100,000 since the system upgrade has
been completed. The SWSCC believes that the requirement to maintain the
CableBond
$300,000 bond is no longer needed and each City should act to consider reducing
the bond to $100,000.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The bond requirement was inserted in to the Franchise Agreement to
provide a further incentive for Time Warner to complete the upgrade in
a timely manner.
• The SWSCC believes that the system upgrade is now complete and
customers, such as Richfield residents, now have the opportunity to
purchase services through the upgraded system.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The system in Richfield is now complete according to Time Warner
and as such, it would be appropriate to consider reducing the bond at
this time.
C. FINANCIAL
There is no financial impact to the City in reducing the bond once the
system upgrade has been completed.
D. LEGAL
• Representations have been made to the SWSCC and the City of
Richfield by Time Warner officials that the upgrade for our community
is complete. Even with the reduced bond amount, if those
representations are found to be inaccurate, the City would have other
legal recourse.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Do not give authorization to reduce the bond at this time.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Memo from Brian Grogan, SWSCC Attorney
• Letter from Arlen Mattern, Time Warner
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION IN TIME WARNER SYSTEM UPGRADE
PERFORMANCE BOND FROM $300,000 TO $100,000
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is a member of the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission (SWSCC); and
WHEREAS, the SWSCC cable franchise ordinance approved by all member cities
including Richfield includes a requirement that Time Warner provide a $300,000
performance bond through the completion of the system upgrade; and
WHEREAS, each member City has the sole discretion and authority to reduce the
performance bond amount to $100,000 upon the completion of the system upgrade; and
WHEREAS, Time Warner has informed the SWSCC that the system upgrade has
been completed; and
WHEREAS, the SWSCC believes the upgrade is complete based upon
representations made by Time Warner and has asked each member City to review this
matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield hereby authorizes the reduction of the Time Warner system upgrade
performance bond from $300,000 to $100,000.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
June, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
May-30-00 DtXpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4000 T-559 FAUU3 r-50
MOSS & BARNETT
A Professional Association
•
MFMORANPUM
TO: City Representatives and Staff
FROM: Brian Gfggan, Moss & Barnett
DATE. May 30, 2000
RED Cable Franchise Ordinance r Bond Requirement
Per the attached letter dated May 11, 2000, Time Warner Cable has requested that the
$300,000 bond required under Section 10.2 of each city's Franchise Agreement Ordinance
C'Franchise") be reduced to $1-0G,000-as contemplated in the franchise.
The above-referenced matter was discussed at the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
C'Commission"} meeting field-an May 24, 2000 The provisions in the Franchise require that when
system construction is complete the bond will be reduced back down.to a lower level. Each City
could hire an engineer to verify, that -the construction is complete or each City could simply accept
Time Warner's stipulation that they have completed construction as evidenced by the fact that
they areproviding:.the advanced services promised
Based on Time Warner's representation that the construction ha been completed, the
Commission voted to recommend reducing. the bond from $300,000 to 100,000 as contemplated
by the franchise documents. We. recommend tftat-each.City place TY4,item on its agenda to
reduce the bond from $300,000 to $100,000.
Enclosure
338441/1
0
May-30-00 .92:48pm from-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-858 P-03/03 F-821
r, 4r 1 2D0Q
s
CABLE
May 11, 2000
Mr. Brian Grogan
SWSCC Administra V14oss & Barnett, P_A.
4800 Norwest Center
9 South Seventh Street
iiineapolis, MN 55402-4129
Dear Brian:
As you know, Tirrte Warner Cable gompleted the upgrade in the Southwest Suburbs to a 750
MH2 cable system by December 3-1,.1999 as was required by the cable franchise ordinance.
The Southwest Cable. Franchise Agreement,. Section. 103, under the General Financial and
Insurance Provisions, required Time Warner Calikto=aintain with cub city a bond in the sum
of $300,000 through the -completion of the upgrade work in the Southwest Suburbs. Upon
completion of the system.upgrade= each city at its-soic diseretion.miLy: a the bond to the sum
of $100;000.
We believe we have reached the point-where-the. requirement to maintain the $300,000 bond is no
longer needed. We would.like tbe-Southwest Suburban cities to consider our proposal to lower
the-bond to the sum of $100,000 as the franchise ordinance would allow.
I hope to bear from-you,° soorr regarding this proposal. If you have any further questions or
concerns, please contact me at (612) 287-3659.
If you have any questions-or_concerns, -please call us at (612) 287-3659.
Sincerely,
Arlen Matters
Public Affairs Administrator
Cc: Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie
Gordon Hughes, City of Edina
Jim Genrllie, City of Hopkins
David Childs, City of Minnetonka
Steve Devrch, City of Richfield
0 ?&