The URL can be used to link to this page

082316Complete AgendaSPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM AUGUST 23, 2016 6:00 PM Call to order Discussion regarding 6605 -1st Avenue (Council Memo No. 56) Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager August 18, 2016 Council Memorandum No. 56 Planning Commission Memorandum No.3 Members of the Planning Commission The Honorable Mayor City of Richfield and Members of the City Council Subject: 6605 1 st Avenue (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members and Commissioners: The former Southview Baptist Church property at 6605 1st Avenue is in the process of being sold to PLH & Associates (PLH). PLH's principal representative, Paul Lynch, Jr., has met with City staff to discuss his proposal for this site. Given that the development he is contemplating would require both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning, staff advised Mr. Lynch to submit a preliminary proposal for informal consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6 pm. Since this site was last used as a church (approximately three years ago), there have been two proposals submitted. The first was for the construction of a new religious institution. That proposal received Planning Commission approval in late 2014, but the applicant withdrew prior to consideration by the City Council. The second proposal was for a retail strip -mall with drive-through on one end. That proposal was presented to a joint Worksession of the City Council and Planning Commission on June 15, 2015. Based on negative feedback (that the design was unimaginative and that its drive- through would be too detrimental to surrounding properties), that proposal was also withdrawn. The current proposal from PLH includes approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of main floor retail with one level of apartments above. The number of apartment units is dependent on the size and bedroom counts that would ultimately be constructed, but would likely be no more than ten. Mr. Lynch will be in attendance at the meeting to present his proposal. pct Ily submitted, �n L D Manager SLD:jcs Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM AUGUST 23, 2016 6:30 PM Call to order Discussion regarding the 70th Street Bicycle Route (Council Memo No. 58) Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager August 18, 2016 Council Memorandum No. 58 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: 70th Street Bicycle Route (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: At the August 23 Worksession, Public Works staff will discuss the 70th Street Bicycle Route. • The Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) received federal funding from the Federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) in 2014 to add over 2 miles of planned bicycle route on 70th Street between Lyndale and Cedar Avenues. • The project was discussed at the June 14 Council Worksession. • A project Open House was held on July 19 (Attached Open House Meeting Summary). • Transportation Commission recommended the project to Council during the August 3, 2016 Transportation Commission meeting. • The project, which will provide dedicated on -street "buffered" bicycle lanes, will require "No Parking" restrictions along some areas of the route (Attached Project Fact Sheet). This item will be on the September 13 Council agenda for your consideration. Please contact Kristin Asher, Director of Public Works, at 612-861-9795 for further discussion. 5*Reul submitted, City Manager SLD:jb Attachment Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors ThreeRivers `` RICHFIELD STRREEEETS��.``RRG'' Meeting Summary Public Open House 7/19/2016 Richfield Community Center 70th Street Bicycle Route Improvement Project Meeting Purpose The goal of the meeting was to let the public know about the upcoming project and project's features: • Bicycle Route Pavement Markings and Signs New Street Name Signs with Bicycle Route designation No Parking Restrictions on the north side of 70th from approximately Nicollet Ave to 18th Avenue Meeting Notice • Approximately 800 invitations were mailed to the property owners in the Richfield area near 70th Street • Posted on the City's website calendar • Posted on the Three Rivers Park District website • Sweet Streets Website updated with project information • Open House "Facebook events" were created on the Sweet Streets Page Public Response Approximately 40 residents attended and 15 comment cards were filled out and one email received. Written comment summary: 8 comments were supportive of the proposed design along with related notes as follows: o 1 comment requested buffered bicycle lanes 0 1 comment questioned the timing of the project and the 66th St construction 0 1 comment requested repainting 76th bicycle lanes and additional signage • 5 comments were not supportive of the project with the following concerns: 0 3 comments expressed safety concerns about adding bicycle traffic to 70th Street 0 2 comments expressed concerns about the loss of on -street parking • 3 comments were received that did not directly comment on the proposed project. o 1 comment requested more street sweeping on 76th Street bicycle lanes. 0 1 comment requested an educational program for bicycle education. 0 1 comment expressed a concern about the City's share of the construction costs �h' himoal'.e. ' 70TH STREET BICYCLE ROUTE ThreeRivers M IEMtti STREETURG LYNDALE AVENUE TO CEDAR AVENUE PARK r)is,rt 1CT PROJECT BACKGROUND The City's Complete Streets Policy, Bicycle Master Plan, and Guiding Principles have established goals for multimodal transportation options for Richfield residents. This project is intended to add over 2 miles of planned bicycle routes on 70th Street, (Lyndale Avenue to Cedar Avenue). This project would provide safer bicycle connections to: • Richfield Senior High School • Augsburg Park • Augsburg Library • Richfield Community Center • Richfield Dual Language School • Richfield STEM School • Christian Park The 70th Street Bicycle Route will provide connections to the City's existing bicycle facilities on Nicollet Avenue (bikeable shoulder), Portland Avenue (off-street trail and on -street bicycle lanes), Bloomington Avenue (on -street bicycle lanes) and the new off-street Nokomis -Minnesota River Regional Trail along Cedar Avenue. This route also connects to Metro Transit Bus Routes on Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland, and Bloomington Avenues. PROJECT MAP � 5tth wrolshoP" M1dcm�l 11uh t,r Y � ■ ■ N v WYrfd.F ■ ■ Flinn w44lh � ��'r��lirr sr geld C4t51F1 SE CbVlll S,Y n■ ■ ■ 1 6W, St . g a !�� a p y 3 9 9 $■ 1 "l JHLA Ywdelrry of I/oly Ynpek¢ r 3 k, ■ u '� � u M � �+ � ■ ■ � e, W 610 51 "6?,h 5, as > w ■ N c�. ■ N � s' ■ � � � w �F4B1n51 61m s. 61 6.68MSt ■ "I F441I�161 2■ pi,1681h 151 —4 'nJ ■ F 4a1h 71. W(AM 51 C y & a '� f� ■ f6%h 91 ('M1r.�liYI1:M1 ■ fb71h 7t ■ ■ 9P ■ Wutl(Id.YYe� lynaelb Trc41 3 ■ N ■ Proposed "NuParking" on north side of 70fh St ■ �■ 70`h 5t�� ■ ■ 70 Si ■ ■■■■■■■,iFt■Ir■u■■■■■�■1,r1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r■rr,l■■■■■■■■[■n■�■■■■ ■rel ■ � AL 5 a � $ ■ a' z ,A1q�hn.nyl w tl � 4 `--' 9 = ■ � � u H u � srtm,�a o�.1 s � 3 a■■ : .r, u.s^1 vT PYr� N ■ uRi a s`haob. N h �i �Plddkld4lYph. shoal ■ ,� fTtu 41 ■ ad wraYasl W 721 ■ennasl ■ � ■n:Yds+ Q■ e ■ � ■ ■ ■ Q a �■ MCI ar■ Qe W"0 10 W ■ -� w731d51 [rlyd 51 N g�g 3E ?.I'd N1 AN C ■ 6 OSt C .. U V '■ 2■ L :■ d■ 9 0■ O■ V fl— 5 41 m■ y xxkv■FT4W js 61 ■F 1Ahi 91 A N 3 - ■ Ftaih:.I ' LEGEND: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTE ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECT ELEMENTS • Bicycle Route Pavement Markings and Signs New Street Name Signs with Bicycle Route designation No Parking Restrictions on the north side of 70th from approximately Nicollet Ave to 18th Avenue bdtek haaaV.d, 70TH STREET BICYCLE ROUTE RICHFIELD STREETURG LYNDALE AVENUE TO CEDAR AVENUE TIMELINE • Public Input and Preliminary Design- Summer 2016 • Final Design- Fall/Winter 2016 • Construction- Summer 2017 PROJECT FINANCING • Design - Three Rivers Park District • Construction Administration - Three Rivers Park District • Construction Funding - Federal and Municipal State Aid PUBLIC INPUT Please take a few minutes and let us know your thoughts — we welcome your comments and suggestions. reeffivers PARK DISTRICT Transportation Commission Meetings: June 1 and August 3, 2016 (7:00 pm at Richfield's Municipal Center) Public Open House- July 19, 2016 City Council- August 2016 XGA �11IF_TOi1z1Eel :7J�1_710RAz Jack Broz Richfield Public Works 1901 66th St East Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612.861.9792 Fax: 612.861.9796 J BrozAcityofri chfiel d.org REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 23, 2016 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Worksession of July 22, 2016; (2) Special City Council Meeting of July 26, 2016; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of July 26, 2016; and (4) Special City Council Meeting of August 12, 2016. PRESENTATIONS 1. Introduction of Brian Ryks, new Metropolitan Airports Commission Executive Director/CEO (Council Memo No. 57) 2. Presentation of the Richfield in Bloom Award COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Hats Off to Hometown Hits AGENDAAPPROVAL 4. Approval of the agenda. 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items 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 the approval of a resolution amending Appendix D of the Richfield City Code to provide for a license fee reduction for Residential Kennel licenses from $164 to $100 annually. Staff Report No. 117 B. Consideration of the approval of a work proposal from Bolton & Menk, Inc. for final design and coordination services of the 66th Street Streetscape project between Xerxes Avenue and 16th Avenue. Staff Report No. 118 C. Consideration of the approval of a resolution certifying deferral of special assessments for certain eligible homeowners. Staff Report No. 119 D. Consideration of the approval of a resolution appointing Devan Makadia to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board to complete a three-year term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor has been chosen, whichever is later. Staff Report No. 120 E. Consideration of the approval of a work proposal from Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for additional construction and design engineering services for Portland Avenue, between 67th and 78th Streets. Staff Report No. 121 F. Consideration of the approval of the reappointment of the firm of BerganKDV as the Citys auditor for the financial reporting fiscal years 2016-2018, and to authorize the City Manager and Mayor to execute an agreement for such services. Staff Report No. 122 G. Consideration of the approval of the second reading of an ordinance changing Sections 705.19, 715.15, 825.11, and 910.23 of the Richfield Citycode pertaining to the timing of the special assessment procedure. Staff Report No. 123 H. Consideration of the approval of the request for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post #435, located at 6501 Portland Avenue South, for a Flag Ceremony and BBQ event scheduled to take place on September 17, 2016. Staff Report No. 124 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Public hearing to consider a preliminary plat and amended development plans for the Cedar Point Commons area at 66th Street and Richfield Parkway. The proposal includes revisions to the vacant site to the west of Richfield Parkway and to the pad site on the far eastern edge of the development, along Highway 77. Staff Report No. 125 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 8. Consideration of an amendment to the Citys Zoning Ordinance and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordinance allows the Cityto "opt -out" of recently -adopted legislation related to temporary health care dwellings. Staff Report No. 126 9. Consideration of the ordinance amending the City's Zoning Ordinance and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordinance updates and clarifies the City's telecommunication regulations. Staff Report No. 127 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 10. City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 11. Claims and payrolls Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. 12. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession July 22, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 8:36 a.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry. Present: Council Member Pat Elliot Absent: Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Melissa Poehlman, Acting Community Development Director; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director; and Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager/Acting City Clerk. Item #1 DISCUSSION WITH U.S. 5T" CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE KEITH ELLISON Congressman Ellison shared the status of the Appropriations Bill but it is unlikely to pass the end of September. He strongly supports improving our infrastructure. Affordable housing is a top problem in our area/identified as a key issue. We need to increase available housing stock overall. Richfield needs help from the federal government to fund Section 8. We need more funding for senior dining and, ideally, transportation. A Bipartisan Policing Strategies Working Group has been established and will convene in September. Ellison wants on -the -ground ideas Congressman Ellison discussed the Degrees Not Debt Act, including federal matching dollars to public universities to lower tuition (help students be debt -free) reiterating everyone needs a base education. ADJOURNMENT The worksession was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:32 a.m. Date Approved: August 23, 2016 Debbie Goettel Mayor Pam Dmytrenko Steven L. Devich Acting City Clerk City Manager CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting July 26, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:20 p.m. in the Babcock Room. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott, Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS Further discussion/follow-up pertaining to the City Advisory Commission proves from July 16, 2016. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:36 p.m. Date Approved: August 23, 2016 Cheryl Krumholz Executive Coordinator Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting July 26, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; Tom Fitzhenry; Present: and Pat Elliott. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. OPEN FORUM Susan Rosenberg, 6633 Thomas Avenue, announced the July 30 Richfield Beautiful Garden Tour. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Garcia, S/Elliott 12. 2016: (2) Reaular Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 RECOGNITION OF STATE SENATOR LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 63 PATRICIA TORRES RAY AND STATE SENATOR LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 50 MELISSA WIKLUND Mayor Goettel publicly acknowledged the legislators for their support of city -friendly legislation to continue strengthening the partnership between state and local government officials in Minnesota. Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 26, 2016 Council Member Fitzhenry provided an airport update. Council Member Howard reported on the recent Middle School planning presentations. Council Member Garcia announced that VEAP is conducting a Back to School Drive. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Howard, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of the approval of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance allows the City to "opt -out" of recently -adopted legislation related to temporary health care dwellings. S.R. No. 112 B. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending Subsections 705.19, 715.15, 825.11, and 910.23 of the Richfield City code pertaining to the timing of the special assessment procedure. S.R. No. 113 C. Consideration of the approval of a first reading of the ordinance amending City telecommunication regulations. S.R. No. 114 M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS S.R. NO. 115 Council Member Howard presented Staff Report No. 115. ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH Name Term Expires Jennifer Anderson January 31, 2018 Taylor Croissant January 31, 2019 Marco Lanz January 31, 2019 ARTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires Council Meeting Minutes -3- Karin Wolverton January 31, 2018 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Name Term Expires Danielle Indovino Cawley January 31, 2017 Anne Basso January 31, 2018 Dan Smieja January 31, 2019 FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION Name Hadiya Bakar (youth) Term Expires August 31, 2017 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires Will Ruckel January 31, 2017 Carrie Chillman January 31, 2018 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Name Term Expires Jack Wold (youth) August 31, 2017 Motion carried 5-0. Item #7 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Devich provided an update on the following: 66th Street sanitary sewer project and home removal • Monroe Park project • 77th Street Underpass funding Cedar Liquor Store remodeling and parking lot expansion Item #8 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Garcia, S/Fitzhenry that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 07/26/16 A/P Checks: 251566-251931 731,180.65 Payroll: 120426-120801, 42457 704,620.77 TOTAL $ 1,435,801.42 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. July 26, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 26, 2016 Item #9 ADJOURNMENT The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:34 p.m. Date Approved: August 23, 2016 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting August 12, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Howard at 9:32 a.m. in the Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Howard, Mayor Pro Tempore; Pat Elliott, Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry. MEMBER ABSENT: Debbie Goettel. STAFF PRESENT.- Steven L. Devich, City Manager; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. Item #1 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE RESULTS OF THE CITY PRIMARY ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2016 S.R. NO. 116 Mayor Pro Tempore Howard presented Staff Report No. 116. M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 11224 RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2016 Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11224. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:33 a.m. Date Approved: August 23, 2016 Cheryl Krumholz Executive Coordinator Michael Howard Mayor Pro Tempore Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager August 18, 2016 Council Memorandum No. 57 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: MAC Executive Director, Brian Ryks (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) new Executive Director/CEO, Brian Ryks, will be attending the August 23rd City Council meeting, along with our MAC Commissioner, Lisa Peilen. Mr. Ryks replaced long-time Executive Director/CEO, Jeff Hamiel, back in May, after Hamiel's retirement. Mr. Ryks comes to the MAC from the Grand Rapids, Michigan airport, but is a native Minnesotan, who previously served as Executive Director of the St. Cloud and Duluth airports. Mr. Ryks started his career at the MAC in the noise department, so he is very well versed on the issues that affect our communities. The purpose of Mr. Ryks attendance at the August 23rd meeting is to introduce himself to the Richfield City Council and provide an opportunity to start his tenure by establishing a positive, ongoing dialogue with the City, and for the City to share its concerns with Mr. Ryks and Commissioner Peilen. Re pe 'submitted, r L. Devich City Manager SLD:pd Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 117 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director 8/17/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution amending Appendix D of the Richfield City Code to provide for a license fee reduction for Residential Kennel licenses from $164 to $100 annually. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2016, the City received a request by a resident to consider reducing the amount of a residential kennel license from $164 to something lower that the resident felt would be more affordable. Staff were directed to conduct a cost analysis of the license process for residential kennels and after reviewing it found that it could be reduced to an amount no lower than $100 and still cover staff's process. The $164 fee was directed by the City Council years ago at a time that there were several on-going problems with residential kennels relating to excessive barking, too many animals and residents not cleaning up feces. These problems added another layer to the process that often resulted in a hearing before the City Council or mediation with a neighbor thus resulting in the fee being higher in order to cover that additional layer within the process. It should be noted that there are currently ten licensed residential kennels in the City and none currently that are experiencing any of these same types of problems. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution amending Appendix D of the Richfield City Code to reduce the Residential kennel free from $164 to $100 annually. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT As noted earlier the fee was higher at a time when there were a series of on-going issues with a number of applicant's who had animals that presented problems with their neighbors as it relates to excessive number of animals, barking or failure to pick up after their pets. These problems seem to have greatly diminished so staff is comfortable in decreasing it from $164 to $100. Staff would recommend, however, that they conduct another assessment of the residential kennel license every two years so that it can be adjusted should problems begin to reoccur. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch A resolution amending Appendix D to reduce the amount of a Residential Kennel free from $164 to $100 annually is attached. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: None D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This fee is intended to cover the City's administrative costs. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney's office supports its approval. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI The City Council could decide not to approve the reduction of a $164 Residential Kennel license fee to $100 annually. This would mean that individuals applying for that license category would continue to pay $164 annually. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Appendix D - Residential Kennel License Fee Reduction Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO DECREASE THE RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE FEE IN THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: WHEREAS, Richfield has a residential kennel ordinance/license for residents having more than two dogs OR two cats; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance requires that anyone wishing to have more than two dogs or two cats apply with the City for a residential kennel license and pay a fee; and WHEREAS, the license fee is intended to cover only the City's administrative costs related to processing and administering the residential kennel process, and; WHEREAS, staff is proposing that the fee be reduced from $164 to $100 annually with staff also conducting a cost analysis every two years to determine if it should be changed or adjusted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that Appendix D to the Richfield City Code is hereby amended as follows to provide for a change in the residential kennel fee: Type of Permit or License Section Requiring Description Fee (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) with 1 Year option to purchase a multi —year license $15.00 (b) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) 1 Year $25.00 (c) Duplicate Animal License $7.00 (d) Late Penalty $10.00 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel 1 Year $217.00 (f) Residential Kennel 1 Year $100.00 (g) Veterinary $217.00 905.37-905.39 h Pigeons 1 Year $43.00 905.41 (i) Non-domestic Animals (Temporary Permit) $30.00 905.01-905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1s' Time $64.00 2 "d Time $127.00 3" Time (each impound after) $191.00 (k) Dangerous dog registration fee State Statue 347.51 $500.00 906.13 (1) Beekeeping Registration fee $30.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.13. STAFF REPORT NO. 118 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jack Broz, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 8/15/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a work proposal from Bolton & Menk, Inc. for final design and coordination services of the 66th Street Streetscape project between Xerxes Avenue and 16th Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City will lead the design and construction of the 66th Street Streetscape project to complete the corridor's landscaping, street furnishings, and the potential inclusion of public art. The City lead the public input process to establish the Visual Quality Guidelines, which were developed to aid in the design of the streetscape and be reflective of the community's values and needs. The streetscape design is expected to take place in 2016-17 with construction of streetscape elements starting in 2018, following the road reconstruction phasing. The Bolton & Menk, Inc. proposal is consistent with staff estimates for the project design. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the hiring of Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide final design services for the 66th Street Streetscape project at a cost not to exceed $239,725.00. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • In 2012, the County was awarded a federal grant for the reconstruction of CSAH 53 (66th Street). • Hennepin County staff designed the road project with City consultants providing the utility design. • The City's role on the 66th Street project included leading the public input process. • Approved Guiding Principles were developed to reflect the community's needs and values through a process with representatives from all of the City's commissions in 2012. • Approved Visual Quality Guidelines were developed with a public process for the 66th Street corridor in 2014 to aid in the design of future streetscape and landscape projects. • Bolton & Menk, Inc. is in the City's Engineering Consultant Pool and is an experienced engineering firm.City Staff negotiated the tasks and the amount of time needed for the tasks. The total contract amount cannot be exceeded without further Council authorization. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • The reconstruction of County roads is identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Transportation). • The 66th Street Streetscape Project will be consistent with the following documents: • Complete Streets Policy • Guiding Principles for Road Reconstruction Projects. • Visual Quality Guidelines • Council approval is required for expenditures over $100,000. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • To be completed in conjuction with the street reconstruction project, design for the streetscape needs to begin by the Fall of 2016. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The total estimated cost for the 66th Street Streetscape design proposed work is $239,725.00 to be funded using budgeted project revenues. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • The Council may choose not to approve the work proposal at this time and direct staff on how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None anticipated ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Bolton & Menk, Inc. proposal Backup Material 40 BaLTCXN MSN I<, Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 41 12224 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890-0509 • Fax (952) 890-8065 www.bolton-menk.com August 10, 2016 City of Richfield Attn: Jack Broz, P.E. Transportation Engineer Richfield Public Works Department 1901 East 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota S5423 RE: Proposal for 66th Streetscaping Dear Jack, I til C:41 We understand the City of Richfield is interested in making additional improvements to 66th Street following reconstruction of CSAH S3 I Hennepin County Project 1011. Bolton & Menk is excited for the opportunity to complete the design of the 66th Streetscaping Project with you, and help complete your vision of a safer, more livable and welcoming corridor. We are prepared to meet and exceed the City's expectations by offering you the following services through a collaborative process that supports Richfield's Guiding Principles: Meeting(s) to discover and identify project needs a. Will provide direction as to City/Community expectations Help establish a project framework including requirements, timeline and budget • Development of a Streetscape Vision and Conceptual Design a. Will provide direction for selecting trees and plants, selecting artists and artwork, potentially adding bus shelters, enhancing gateways, integrating park wayfinding signage and information kiosks and restoring the architectural accent lighting of the 1-35W highway bridge over 66th Street. Development of Framework Plans a. For unbudgeted streetscape elements, including Artist & Artwork Selection, Bus Shelter Repurposing, Gateway, Wayfinding Signage & Information Kiosks b. Help gauge the level of investments needed and assist with marketing and fundraising • Development of Final Design, Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate a. Will provide a project manual, schedule and construction documents to implement Richfield's vision b. Will work with the budgets established by the City of Richfield DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Monk is an equal opportunity employes 0Mr. Jack Broz, PE August 10, 2016 Page 2 The Bolton & Menk team has experience with public engagement, visioning, and designing comprehensive streetscape plans, and has a solid understanding of the project area and its background. We are proposing the following key team members for this project: James Harbaugh, PLA, ASLA - Project Manager Joel Odens, PLA, ASLA - Lead Landscape Architect Gary M Mueller, PLA, ASLA - Lead Landscape Architect Tim Lamkin, P.E. - Lead Civil Design Engineer Craig Churchward, PLA, FASLA — Michael Baker International (Sub -consultant) Why Bolton & Menk? 1. Our Project Team has a strong history developing comprehensive streetscape plans 2. Understanding of Richfield's Complete Streets and Guiding Principles documents 3. Experience in Landscape Architecture, urban design, visioning, and street improvements 4. Sensitivity to Richfield's desire for custom-tailored design solutions 5. History with successful main street renovations, such as the Hopkins Artery and Mainstreet Projects 6. Desire to assist the City of Richfield on a unique, challenging and rewarding project 7. Best value in Professional Services (no hidden costs) Landscape Architectural Design Services Fee: $ 239,725.00 We believe Bolton & Menk is uniquely qualified to serve the City of Richfield because of our knowledge of the project site, team history and experience with similar projects, as well as our practical, innovative approach to solutions. We look forward to answering any questions you may have upon review of our proposal. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC �I James Harbaugh, PLA, ASLA Landscape Architecture Group Manager N:\Proposa1s\Richfie1d\66th Streetscape 071516\Richfield - 66th Street Proposal_08102016.docx DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk i5 an equal opportunity employes Page 1 SECTION I - INTRODUCTION PROJECT LOCATION This project will provide professional engineering and landscape architectural design services for Streetscaping the 66th Street Corridor within the following limits of the City of Richfield: ■ W. 66th Street from Xerxes Avenue S. to 1-3SW ■ E. 66th Street from 1-3SW to 16th Avenue S. ■ Street intersections and roundabouts associated with the 66th Street corridor ■ Residential property demolition sites between Oliver Avenue S. and Girard Avenue S. PROJECT MEETINGS This activity provides communication, project coordination and contract administration services throughout the duration of the project, including: Task 1.1 Project Initiation and Management Task 1.2 Public Engagement and Stakeholder Input Task 1.3 Client Council Meetings DESIGN PROCESS In order to facilitate a collaborative process that supports Richfield's Guiding Principles, we propose working in the following phases: A. SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PHASE This phase will be used to discover and develop project needs. We will create schematic drawings, reports and other documents to shape the overall direction of the project. Task 2.1 Document Review Task 2.2 (A -K) Streetscape Vision Task 2.3 Short Reports B. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE This phase will be used to add details to the overall direction of the project. We'll take the feedback received from the Schematic Phase and come back with revised, more detailed drawings, reports and presentation materials that we'll review together. Task 3.1 Planting Design Task 3.2 Irrigation System Design Page 2 Task 3.3 Screen Fencing Design Task 3.4 Sidewalk Accent Design Task 3.5 Artist & Artwork Framework Plan Task 3.6 Bus Shelter Repurposing Plan Task 3.7 Gateway Master Plan Task 3.8 Park Wayfinding Signage and Information Kiosks Master Plan Task 3.9 Design Summary Report Task 3.10 Cost Estimate C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE In this phase, we'll use the information and cost estimates gathered in previous phases to create a final design and construction documents that work with the budgets established by the City of Richfield. Task 4.1 (A-E, H) Final Design, Plans and Specifications Task 4.1 (F -G) Construction Staging & Traffic Control and SWPPP Task 4.2 Municipal State -Aid Requirements Review D. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Our proposal includes additional design and construction administration services in the event that these are requested. Page 3 SECTION II - TASK SUMMARIES The following tasks summarize the work associated with the project development sequence described in the preceding section: PROJECT MEETINGS Task 1.1 Project Initiation and Management This task provides communication, project coordination and contract administration services throughout the duration of the project, including: ■ Up to 15 meetings with City of Richfield representatives to coordinate design activities, review draft copies of design reports, and discuss construction documents review comments at the 50%, 75% and 95% complete stages. ■ Up to 3 meetings with Hennepin County representatives to coordinate design activities related to the CSAH 53 / Hennepin County Project 1011. ■ Up to 2 meetings with Metropolitan Council/ Metro Transit to coordinate bus shelter repurposing concept(s). Task 1.2 Public Engagement and Stakeholder Input This task provides comprehensive public engagement and information services to facilitate project communication throughout the duration of the project, including: ■ Up to 2 input sessions with business and property owners ■ Up to 3 input sessions with the Richfield Arts Commission ■ Up to 2 public meetings with users and neighbors of the Corridor Task 1.3 Client Council Meetings This task provides meeting services with the Client Council, including: ■ Up to 2 workshops ■ Up to 2 formal presentations SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PHASE Task 2.1 Document Review This task provides review of pertinent documents related to the project and technical reporting services, including: ■ Complete Streets Policy by City of Richfield ■ Guiding Principles by City of Richfield Page 4 ■ Visual Quality Guidelines (66th Street & Portland Ave) by Avenue Design Partners ■ Landscape Architecture Conceptual Plan for CSAH 53 by Hennepin County ■ Construction Documents for CSAH 53 / Hennepin County Project 1011 ■ Lakes at Lyndale District Wayfinding Sign System by Signia Design Task 2.2 Streetscape Vision This task provides a conditions assessment and situational analysis of the existing and new roadway environment to be completed under CSAH 53 / Hennepin County Project 1011 using CAD design files of this work, and preparation of up to three design concepts showing options, prototypical layouts and alternative aesthetic treatments, and process development options for: ■ Landscaping ■ Irrigation System ■ Screening Fences ■ Public Art (Artist/ Artwork Coordination) ■ Bus Shelters ■ Gateway Monuments ■ Park Wayfinding Signage ■ Information Kiosks ■ Sidewalk Accent Panels ■ Bridge No. 27V11 /JRE BRT Orange Line Station Gateway ■ Architectural Accent Lighting of Bridge No. 27V11 Restoration Task 2.3 Short Reports We will prepare a concept evaluation matrix, short reports (1-2 pages) and preliminary cost estimates for the alternative conceptual details, prototypical layouts and alternative aesthetic treatments associated with the Streetscape Vision components to gauge the level of investments and to be used for comparison purposes. The short reports will provide summary information on the progress and choices developed under this task for the unbudgeted visioning components. They will be packaged with the matrix, cost estimates and design details, layouts and treatments described above, and presented to the City to identify whether any modifications are needed in the scope of the Design Development Phase. Although implementation of the planning and final design associated with public art, bus shelters, gateway development, and the park wayfinding signage system is not planned for inclusion in the Streetscape Project, it could be incorporated into the Construction Documents Phase and the 66th Streetscape Project. We will research the status of the architectural accent lighting system constructed with the 1-35W highway bridge over 66th Street (Bridge 27V11) and recommend a solution to restore its functionality to a condition equal to or better than the original installation. We will develop a scope of work for the design of a refurbished and/or new architectural accent lighting system and develop a design plan for implementation at the direction of the City. Although not planned at this time for inclusion in the Page S Streetscape Project, this plan could be incorporated into the Construction Documents Phase and the 66th Streetscape Project. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE Task 3.1 Landscape Design This task provides more detailed drawings, reports and/or presentation materials that build on the deliverables of the Schematic Design Phase for the landscape planting to be provided in the street boulevards, roadway medians, roundabouts and property demolition sites. It will include layouts, species selection, sizes and root condition details. Task 3.2 Landscape Irrigation System Design This task provides more detailed drawings, reports and/or presentation materials that build on the deliverables of the Schematic Design Phase for the landscape irrigation system to be provided in the street roundabouts and property demolition sites. It will include details for the water meters, controllers, cabinets, valves, and sprinkler types. Task 3.3 Screen Fence Design This task provides more detailed drawings, reports and/or presentation materials that build on the deliverables of the Schematic Design Phase for the screen fences to be provided in the property demolition sites. It will include layouts, sizing and material details. Task 3.4 Sidewalk Accent Design This task provides more detailed drawings, reports and/or presentation materials that build on the deliverables of the Schematic Design Phase for the concrete sidewalk accent images. It will include design concepts, pattern arrangements and treatment details, but exclude text message, unless provided by the City. Task 3.5 Artist & Artwork Framework Plan This task concludes the planning and development of a process for selecting artists and their artwork in collaboration with the Richfield Arts Commission, and includes ideas for implementation. Task 3.6 Bus Shelter Repurposing Plan This task concludes the planning associated with relocating and repurposing bus shelters and includes ideas for implementation. Task 3.7 Gateway Master Plan This task concludes the planning for the gateways associated with the 66th Street corridor, including the I-3SW Gateway (Bridge No. 27V11 / JRE BRT Orange Line Station) Page 6 and monument or marker structures, and includes ideas for implementation. Task 3.8 Park Wayfinding Signage and Information Kiosks Master Plan This task concludes the planning and development of a park wayfinding sign system & information kiosks, and includes ideas for implementation. Task 3.9 Design Summary Report Upon selection of preferred design concepts by City of Richfield representatives, this task will be used to conclude the Design Development Phase with preparation of a technical report that will include: 1. Project background 2. Existing conditions 3. Deficiencies and needs 4. Alternative design considerations for addressing deficiencies and needs 5. Description of recommended solutions 6. Plan, elevation and/or perspective views: ■ Trees and plantings - Recommended species and schematic plan view drawings of streetscape modules for each type of planting area throughout the corridor ■ Screen fencing solutions ■ Park wayfinding signs and information kiosks ■ Gateways 7. Sidewalk accent treatment 8. Process for selecting public art (artists/ artwork) and bus shelters repurposing 9. Itemized cost estimate 10. Proposed implementation schedule 11. Funding strategies for unbudgeted streetscape elements 12. Recommendations We will meet with City of Richfield representatives to review a draft copy of the Draft Design Summary Report and make changes based on the review comments received. Upon completion, an electronic copy (PDF) and 5 printed copies of the final draft of the report will be submitted to the City. Task 3.10 Cost Estimate This task provides a detailed cost estimate of the streetscape elements to ensure that proposed solutions will work with the budgets established by the City of Richfield. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE Task 4.1 Final Design, Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate This task includes preparation of a project manual, schedule, cost estimate and construction documents that will include: Page 7 1. General Plan - Title Sheet, General Layouts, Statement of Estimated Quantities, Miscellaneous Tabulations and Construction Details 2. Construction Staging & Traffic Control Plan 3. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 4. Landscape Plan and Details 5. Hardscape Plan and Details (Sidewalk Accents and Screen Fences) ■ Includes up to 66 graphic images consisting of up to 33 unique compositions with text supplied by the City of Richfield (Sidewalk Poetry) 6. Landscape Irrigation Plan and Details 7. Estimate of Probable Construction Cost 8. Project Manual The project manual will include: ■ General information for bidders ■ General Conditions and Supplementary Conditions ■ Information to be submitted with the bid ■ Agreement, Performance Bond, and Payment Bond forms ■ General Conditions ■ Technical Specifications ■ Reference Information Client review opportunities will be provided at the following completion stages: ■ Plans - 50%, 75% and 95% complete stages ■ Project Manual — 95% complete stage ■ Cost Estimate — 50% and 95% complete stages Task 4.2 Municipal State -Aid Requirements Review This task provides review of pertinent documents to ensure compatibility of the deliverables described in Task 4.1 with Municipal State -Aid requirements. Page 8 SECTION III - ADDITIONAL CONTRACTED SERVICES The following engineering and design services are available as additional work in the event that they are requested: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE Task 4.1 Private Utility Coordination Field data collection for public and private utility relocations not adequately documented in the Hennepin County CSAH 53 Reconstruction Project. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE In this phase, we'll be your contract manager, coordinating with contractors and subcontractors and keeping everything on track until the project is completed. From interpreting construction documents to recording closeout details, we'll ensure that your project stays on schedule, on budget and keeps up with your vision. Task 5.1 Construction Administration Task 5.2 Construction Observation Task 5.3 Construction Staking Task 5.4 Closeout and Record Drawings Task 5.1 Construction Administration A. We will develop a scope of work for construction materials testing and documentation for the project and solicit proposals from at least two qualified geotechnical firms for the materials testing services (if necessary) and assist the Client in the selection of geotechnical engineering company to complete the work. It is assumed that the client will contract with geotechnical engineering firm directly. B. We will prepare required contract documents, with the assistance of the Client's attorney and staff, after award of contract. C. We will convene and preside over the preconstruction conference to be attended by the Client, contractors and any affected utility companies. D. We will provide supervision and support to resident project representatives. E. We will convene and preside over weekly construction scheduling meetings and business owners meetings during the construction. F. We will prepare change orders and written directives. G. We will review, for conformance with design concept only, any shop drawings Page 9 required to be furnished by the Contractor. H. We will review any material lists, supplier's lists or other submittals required to be furnished by the Contractor. I. We will make visits to the site at intervals appropriate for the various stages of construction, observe the progress and quality of the executed work of the contractors, and determine, in general, if such work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents. J. We will meet with affected property owners and business owners as required to answer specific questions or to address construction or design related concerns. K. We will obtain additional information or clarifications from the CLIENT when required for the proper execution of the work. L. We and our representatives will not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by the contractor or the safety precautions or programs incident to the work of the contractor. M. We will review and make a recommendation on the Contractor's request for partial payments. Such review will be based upon our on-site observations and such written documentation as may be available to Bolton & Menk, Inc. at the time of review. For lump sum contract items, such review will not include verification of unit price contract quantities by physical measurement of individual work item. Task 5.2 Construction Observation We will provide one full-time on-site representative during the construction of the project. Services consist of the following: A. Attend preconstruction conference B. Attend weekly construction progress meetings and prepare minutes C. Schedule and coordinate construction staking D. Assist the project engineer with the preparation, review and approval of partial pay requests E. Meet with affected property owners, as required, to answer specific questions or to address construction or design related concerns. Resident project representative will be the primary contact person for property owners for addressing construction related concerns and issues. F. Serve as engineer's liaison with contractor, working principally through contractor's superintendent and assist in understanding the intent of the Contract Documents G. Assist project engineer in serving as CLIENT's liaison with contractor H. Assist in obtaining additional details or information from the CLIENT, when required for proper execution of the work I. Review of Work, Rejection of Defective Work, Inspections and Tests J. Report to project engineer when clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents are needed and transmit to contractor clarifications and interpretations Page 10 as issued by project engineer K. Modifications: Consider and evaluate contractor's suggestions for modifications in Drawings or Specifications and report with RPR's recommendations to project engineer. Transmit to contractor decisions as issued by project engineer. L. Maintain Construction Records, including construction correspondence; construction diary; record and documentation of quantities; record of measurements, ties, sketches or other documentation of buried construction items and underground utilities; photographic and video record during construction; materials testing reports and documentation M. Records library—the resident project representative will work with the project engineer to establish and maintain a library of the records N. On-site construction representative services do not constitute acceptance or approval of the Contractor's work nor do they relieve any part of the contractor's responsibility under the construction documents. Task 5.3 Construction Staking We will perform right-of-way staking for the project, furnish necessary equipment and supplies to establish grade and line as necessary for the Contractor's guidance in construction of the project and in accordance with the contract documents. Task 5.4 Closeout and Record Drawings A. The CONSULTANT will conduct an inspection of the project in the company of the CLIENT and the Contractor for conformance with contract documents. B. The CONSULTANT will develop an itemization (punch list) of construction issues to be corrected or resolved. C. The CONSULTANT will monitor the completion of the punch list items an itemization of construction issues to be corrected or resolved. D. The CONSULTANT will conduct a final inspection of the project in the company of the CLIENT and the Contractor to verify that punch list items have been addressed to the CLIENT's satisfaction. E. The CONSULTANT will prepare a final pay estimate and submit to the Contractor for review and approval. F. The CONSULTANT will secure all required documentation required from the Contractor for final payment. G. The CONSULTANT will prepare record drawings reflecting constructed conditions from information observed by the CONSULTANT or supplied by others and furnish one reproducible copy and one electronic copy of the plans to the CLIENT within 90 days of the end of the construction. DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Project: Hennepin County 66th Streetscape Improvements BOLTONClient: ED uc `w m _ _ ¢° u U Totals u 0 TASK _ NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION ¢ 2 1.0 1.1 Project Meetings Project Initiation and Management 8 16 10 32 66 * Meetings with Richfield City Staff (up to 15 meetings) 8 4 20 40 4 76 * Meetings with Hennepin County Staff (up to 3 meetings) 4 12 * Meetings with Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit (up to 2 meetings) 8 8 16 1.2 Public Engagement and Stakeholder Input * Meetings with business and property owners (up to 2 input sessions) 8 12 8 28 * Meetings with City of Richfield's Public Arts Commission (up to 3 input sessions) 18 16 34 * Meetings with users and neighbors of the Corridor (up to 2 public meetings) 8 12 8 28 1.3 Client Council Meetings * Council workshops (up to 2 meetings) 4 4 8 4 20 * Formal presentations (up to 2 meetings) 4 8 4 16 150 24 20 2.0 2.1 Schematic Design Document Review 2 8 16 4 30 * Complete Streets Policy by City of Richfied * Guiding Principles by City of Richfied * Visual quality Guidelines (66th Street & Portland Ave) by Avenue Design Partners * Landscape Architecture Conceptual Plan for CSAH 53 by Hennepin County * Construction Documents for CSAH 53/Hennepin County Project 1011 * Lakes at Lyndale District Wayfinding Sign System by Signia Design 2.2 Streetscape Vision * Landscaping 2 4 32 40 78 * Irrigation System 1 8 8 8 25 * Screening Fences 1 8 20 29 *Public Art(Artist/Artwork Coordination) 2 32 8 42 * Bus Shelters 1 2 24 24 51 * Gateway Monuments 1 2 24 16 43 * Park Wayfinding Signage 1 8 32 41 * Information Kiosks 1 8 24 33 * Sidewalk Accent Panels 1 12 32 45 * Bridge No. 27V11/JRF BRT Orange Line Station Gateway 1 4 8 24 37 * Architecture Accent Lighting of Bridge No. 27V11 Restoration 1 12 8 16 37 2.3 Short Reports 2 2 16 24 8 10 62 248 mmmi 3.0 3.1 Design Development Planting Design 2 8 24 34 3.2 Irrigation System Design 1 2 8 8 19 3.3 Screen Fence Design 4 12 16 3.4 Sidewalk Accent Design 1 12 8 21 3.5 Artist & Artwork Framework Plan 16 4 10 30 3.6 Bus Shelter Repurposing Plan 2 6 16 24 3.7 Gateway Master Plan 1 1 8 16 26 3.8 Park Wayfinding Signage and Information Kiosks Master Plan 1 2 16 24 43 3.9 Design Summary Report 2 1 2 12 6 8 31 3.10 Cost Estimate 1 4 9 12 26 13 99 130 18 4.0 Construction Documents 4.1 Final Design, Plans, Specifications & Estimate of Probable Cost * General Plan 1 8 8 32 49 * Construction Staging & Traffic Control Plan 2 20 20 42 * Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 32 12 44 * Landscape plan & details 1 32 224 2S7 * Hardscape plan & details (pavement -sidewalk accents & fencing) 1 16 48 164 229 * Irrigation plan & details 1 12 40 53 * Estimate of Probable Cost 1 2 2 12 24 41 * Specifications/Project Manual 2 4 20 40 24 90 4.2 Municipal State -Aid Requirements Review 1 4 16 16 37 168 540 0 Page 1 08-10-16.xlsx W H a W H (A O W J a W C 00 Ln O m -1 N O lD 0 N 0 O N I� M lfl � lD M Ol {/} iJ)- O Ln O^ M Ln N w O 00 00 0 11 N c -I -i Lf lzt rn Itt N N -1 Ln CP O N 00 CJl Ln -1 lD N 1-1 N r-1 lD NN M lD Ln r I c -I N 00 Ol 00 Itt Ql N -1 c -I LD lD -;t N I k.0 00 r-I c a a) � v c E aCCj C U p0 w O c w D Q ai C 0 4-1v u a-1 m =3 C a) N 0 to C v Q a Ln 0 U O O N CT Ln c -I CT co in - O n M M in O Ln M O -1 vi O co 00 Ln vi AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 119 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution certifying deferral of special assessments for certain eligible homeowners. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Under Minnesota law, cities are authorized to defer the payment of special assessments for any homestead property that meet certain requirements. The City Council most recently approved an updated policy for the deferment of special assessments at the June 28, 2016 city council meeting. One application for deferment of special assessments has been received. The property, 7600 Upton Avenue, meets the requirements as outlined in the City policy. The amount of the proposed deferred assessment is $3,405.98, which includes the first year of interest charges. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving eligible deferral of special assessments against an owner occupied homestead property. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT None. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy Resolution No. 11216, approved by the City Council on June 28, 2016, authorizes the City to approve requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons of permanent total disability, or for members of the Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves, for whom it would be a hardship to pay such special assessments. One application for deferral of payment of special assessments has been received. The request is for 2015 tree removal assessment, payable 2017, in the amount of $3,405.98, which includes the first year of interest. • Staff has determined that the applicant is eligible according to the provisions contained in Resolution No. 11216 dated June 28, 2016. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: N/A. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The amount of the special assessment, including the first year's interest, to be deferred is $3,405.98. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: N/A. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Do not approve the resolution deferring the special assessment. However, this may cause severe financial hardship for the applicant. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Deferred Assessment Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ELIGIBLE DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES IN HARDSHIP CASES FOR QUALIFYING OWNERS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11216 was passed by the City Council on June 28, 2016, establishing procedures for deferment of special assessments against owner occupied homestead properties of persons 65 years of age or older and persons permanently and totally disabled, and, owned by a person who is a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military service for whom it would be a hardship to make payments; WHEREAS, application for deferral of payment of special assessments have been made on forms prescribed by the county auditor and the homeowner has furnished the city the necessary information for determining eligibility in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the following owner -occupied property be approved for deferral of special assessments as listed below: PROPERTY ID ADDITION NO. AMOUNT 32-028-24-43-0004 45770 $3,405.98 Such deferral of payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouses is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor /_,111aIanI Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 120 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Steven L. Devich, City Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a resolution appointing Devan Makadia to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board to complete a three-year term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor has been chosen, whichever is later. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% taxon gross receipts of lodging from Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the appointment of directors was also a part of the resolution. Currently, there are five director positions on the RTPB. The term of each appointment is for three years. The current appointments to the RTPB and the ending dates of their terms are as follows: 1. Pat Brekken, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending on December 31, 2017 2. Vacant, General Manager of Candlewood Suites. 3. Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2018. 4. Adam Selby, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2018. 5. Vacant, General Manager of Motel 6. Devan Makadia, the new General Manager of the Candlewood Suites, attended Penn State University and graduated with a BS in Hotel, Restaurant & Institutional Management. Since graduation he has worked for a Hotel Management Company called Vista Host for 5 years in many positions. Mr. Makadia served as GM of the Fairfield Inn & Suites in Boca Raton, FL, the GM of the Hampton Inn & Suites in Dodge City, KS, the GM of the Hilton Garden Inn in Miramar, FL and the GM of the Hilton Garden Inn in Miami Beach, FL. He was recruited by IHG and moved to MN as the GM of the Candlewood Suites in Richfield. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the resolution appointing Devan Makadia to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. to complete a three-year term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor has been chosen, whichever is later. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • This information is contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions. ordinances. reaulations. statutes. etc): • The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB. • The RTPB has typically included a representative from each of the hotel properties and a member of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce. • Each of the current hotel representatives has indicated a desire to be appointed to the RTPB. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The Candlewood Suites position on the RTPB is now vacant so the appointment of the new General Manager should be made as soon as possible. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • There is no cost to the City. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The appointment conforms to City ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • The City Council could decide not to make this appointment to the RTPB. • The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center; and WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint five (5) directors to the Board representing the Richfield hotel -motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation, or removal; and WHEREAS, the terms of the following hotel representative position has been vacant and a new General Manager has indicated a desire to be appointed to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board: • Devan Makadia, General Manager of Candlewood Suites. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows: Appoint the following hotel representative to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board to complete a three-year term: • Devan Makadia, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending December 31, 2018. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 121 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Finnegan, Civil Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 8/17/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of a work proposal from Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for additional construction and design engineering services for Portland Avenue, between 67th and 78th Streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The construction schedule is expected to last longer then originally anticipated. Kimley-Horn's proposal for additional work includes: • Additional construction services required for the successful completion of the project. • Additional design and federal approval work to add 77th to 78th to the limits of the project. • Re -design of sanitary sewer mains to avoid conflicts with CenterPoinfs gas main to aid with safe construction practices. • Additional material testing services provided by Bruan Intertec: • Additional vibration monitoring at the request of area residents • Nuclear density testing • Proof roll testing • Aggregate gradation testing RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve hiring Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. to perform additional construction and design engineering services for the Portland Avenue Reconstruction project for a fee not to exceed $194,537. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • In 2012, the City was awarded a federal grant for the reconstruction of Portland Avenue. • The City Council approved the ordering of the project on January 8, 2013. • Plans and specifications were completed by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for the reconstruction of Portland Avenue. • The City Council approved hiring Kimley-Horn & Associates to perform the construction engineering services for the Portland Avenue project on June 9, 2015. • In April 2016, Hennepin County announced plans to mill and overlay Portland Avenue from 77th to 78th Street. As part of a mill and overlay, sidewalks and pedestrian ramps should be repaired to meet ADA requirements. In order to make 77th to 78th ADA compliant, a total reconstruct of all sidewalks, pedestrian ramps and driveway aprons is required. Kimley-Horn completed the design for this work as well as MnDOT submittals for the construction costs to be federal aid eligible. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy • Council approval is required for expenditures over $100,000. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Approval of the additional work proposal will allow for the project to keep progressing forward without delays to the required construction engineering services and complete the proper paperwork required for close-out of a federal project to MnDOT. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • Additional construction engineering services provided by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. is for a fee not to exceed $194,537. • Construction engineering services provided by Kimley Horn & Associates would total $702,857 ($508,320 approved 6/9/15 plus $194,537 for consideration). • Construction engineering services on a typical project are around 10%. With these additional services by Kimley Horn & Associates, construction engineering services remains under 10% of the project construction cost. • These additional services will be paid for using project funds. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Work OrderAmendment Backup Material Kimley»>Horn August 15, 2016 Mr. Jeff Pearson, P.E. City Engineer City of Richfield 1901 E 66' Street Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Supplemental Agreement #1 for Portland Avenue (CSAR 35) Improvements - 67" Street to 77' Street Construction Phase Services Dear Jeff, Our original contract assumed a 33 week construction schedule for the Portland Avenue project. It is now anticipated that the project will take up to 46 weeks to complete. The scope and fee for our additional services maintains the same assumptions from the original contract, but accounts for the extended length of schedule. Additional Construction Observation and Administration Services Kimley-Horn will provide additional construction phase services for the project as detailed below. For the purposes of this Supplemental Agreement, we have assumed the following construction schedule: Original Construction Completion Date June 30, 2016 Revised Construction Completion Date September 29, 2016 The change in schedule results in an additional 13 weeks of construction phase services. A. Construction Observation We will provide additional construction observation for the duration of the additional 13 weeks of construction schedule. We have assumed one (1) senior field observer at 50 hours/week for 13 weeks and 20 hours/week for 4 weeks for closing out a federally funded project. We also included one (1) support field observer for 50 hours/week for 6 weeks to observe the additional crews the contractor brought on site for utility work. The construction observation task will include services described in our original construction phase services proposal. B. Construction Administration We will provide construction administration services for the duration of the 13 weeks of additional construction schedule as described in our original ■ TEL 651 645 4197 Suite 238N 2550 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 Kimley>Morn Pat construction phase services proposal. C. Construction Staking No additional construction staking services are required to complete the project. D. Construction Materials Testing Additional construction materials testing services were required for the project. The services included additional vibration monitoring, nuclear density testing, proof roll testing, aggregate gradation testing, bituminous testing, and concrete testing. A detailed breakdown of the additional services is attached to this letter proposal. Estimated Costs KHA will provide the additional services identified above on an hourly labor fee plus expense basis. The following is a summary of our estimated fees and expenses for the additional services. Work Task Estimated Cost A. Construction Observation $ 124,250 B. Construction Administration $ 19,200 C. Construction Staking $ 0 D. Construction Materials Testing $ 42,087 Total Estimated Fees $ 185,537 Reimbursable Expenses $ 9,000 Total Estimated Fees and Expenses $ 194,537 A more detailed summary of our estimated hours and costs for the construction phase set -vices is provided on the attached spreadsheet. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. William C. Klingbeil, P.E. Jon B. Horn, P.E. Project Manager Senior Vice President Copy: Project File ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES ESTIMATED FEE SUMMARY Portland Avenue Reconstruction Richfield, MN PREPARED BY: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. August 15, 2016 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC. W W H Lu LL W w of W a U` z W W H Q Z (.7 � 9W K F— W F— z W W LL W m W w w oW o W 2 a a O w w w w O O TITLE a a o Co m LL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION Senior field observer (50 hours/week for 13 weeks, 20 hours/week for 4 weeks) 730 $91,250 730 Field observer (50 hours/week for 6 weeks) 300 $33,000 300 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 730 300 $124,250 1030 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Construction engineer 40 40 $11,300.00 80 Design team support during construction 20 40 $7,900.00 60 SUBTOTAL 1 601 01 801 01 D $19,200.001 140 PROJECT HOURS SUBTOTAL 1 601 01 801 7301 3001 1 1170 ESTIMATED FEE 1 $10,2001 $0 $9,0001 $91,2501 $33,0001 $143,450.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $9,000.00 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES/MATERIALS TESTING $42,087.00 TOTAL PROPOSED FEES AND EXPENSES $194,537.00 BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On. August 5, 2016 William C. Klingbeil, PE Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2550 University West, Suite 238N Saint Paul, MN 55114 Braun Intertec Corporation 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Project B1505747 Re: Cost Estimate Amendment for Portland Avenue Improvements Project Portland Avenue between 67th Street to 77th Street SP 027-635-031 Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mr. Klingbeil: Phone: 952.995.2000 Fax: 952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com We appreciate the opportunity to submit this amendment to our original cost estimate to provide construction materials testing services for the Portland Avenue Improvements Project for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the City of Richfield. As discussed previously, we anticipated that we would exceed our initial cost estimate budget of $62,873 for the Portland Avenue Improvements Project due to a number of factors. We have attached a table explaining our initial cost estimate and our actual cost charged through July 29, 2016. We have also attached our estimate to complete the testing on this project as another attachment. There are several reasons for the proposed amendment to our original cost estimate. These reasons are listed below: ■ Initially Braun Intertec was requested to provide two vibration monitors for two weeks during the initial removals for the project. After the initial two weeks, we were requested to provide vibration monitors for the duration of the project. Additionally, we were requested to have three monitors onsite thru the 2016 construction season. ■ The inspection team performed additional nuclear density tests on the more than three miles of utility trench to provide more testing data than required by the schedule of material control. ■ We were was asked to observe proof -roll observations for the roadway embankment; these services were not included in the original cost estimate. ■ We were required to take more aggregate base gradation samples, as the contractor chose to use different sources for this project. ■ We are anticipating the contractor will require additional concrete pours and days of bituminous paving than originally estimated. The project documents require we test per MnDOT's Schedule of Material Control. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project B1505747 August 5, 2016 Page 2 Our initial agreement under the terms of the Standard Master Agreement for Continuing Professional Services dated March 11, 2013 was for $62,873. As detailed in the revised cost estimate we are requesting an additional $42,086.89 for a total of $104,959.89 for the project. To discuss this cost estimate amendment further, please call Andrew Valerius at 952.995.2242 or Josh Van Abel at 952.995.2310. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Valerius, Andrew Aug 5 2016 3:58 PM Andrew M. Valerius Associate Principal - Senior Project Manager Joshua J. Van Abel, PE ie— Principal —Senior Engineer Attachments: Table 1. Estimated Costs Remaining Work Cost Estimate This amendment to the original proposed agreement is accepted, and you are authorized to proceed. Authorizer's Firm Authorizer's Signature Authorizer's Name (please print or type) Authorizer's Title Date BRAUN INTERTEC BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On. Client: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. William C. Klingbeil 2550 University Avenue West Suite 238N Saint Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197 Project Proposal QT B043428 CSAH 35 (Portland Ave) Impts. Remaining Work Estimate Work Site Address: Service Description: Portland Avenue Construction Materials Testing Richfield, MN uescription c4uantity units unit trice txtension Phase 1 MnDOT Testing Activity 1.1 Soil Testing $5,011.00 207 Compaction Testing - Nuclear 25.00 Hour 71.00 $1,775.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Utilities, Storm, Sanitary, Water Main 10.00 Trips 2.50 25.00 1308 Nuclear moisture -density meter charge, per hour 25.00 Each 18.00 $450.00 1861 CMT Trip Charge 18.00 Each 23.00 $414.00 217 Compaction Testing - Sandcone & DCP 6.00 Hour 71.00 $426.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Aggregate Base 2.00 Trips 3.00 6.00 1228 Topsoil testing, MN/DOT 3877B (with nutrients), per sample 1.00 Each 260.00 $260.00 1530 Asphalt Content (ASTM D 2172/6307), per sample 2.00 Each 130.00 $260.00 209 Sample pick-up 4.00 Hour 71.00 $284.00 Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension Sample Pick -Up 4.00 Trips 1.00 4.00 1318 Standard Proctor Test(ASTM D 698) 3.00 Each 155.00 $465.00 1162 Sieve analysis with 200 wash (ASTM C 136 and C 117), per sample 3.00 Each 111.00 $333.00 211 Proofroll Observations 4.00 Hour 86.00 $344.00 Activity 1.2 Concrete Testing $6,510.00 261 Concrete Testing Work Activity Detail Qty Unit Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk 20.00 Trip: 1861 CMT Trip Charge 1369 Compressive strength of 4 x 8" concrete cylinders (ASTM C 39), per unit 08/05/2016 08:41 AM Page 1 of 2 Work Activity Detail _ Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk 278 Concrete Cylinder Pick up Work Activity Detail Cylinder Pickup Activity 1.3 Pavement Testing 1530 Asphalt Content (ASTM D 2172/6307), per sample 1532 Extracted aggregate gradation (ASTM D 5444), per sample 221 Bituminous Coring Work Activity Detail Mark & Observe Contractor Coring & Testing 1542 Thickness and density of pavement core (ASTM D 2726) 222 Bituminous Verification Testing Work Activity Detail i .f + c.,r+ C-1- iAMI, r n+rte + r 08/05/2016 08:41 AM Page 1 of 2 BRAUN INTERTEC The Science You Build On. Project Proposal QT B043428 CSAH 35 (Portland Ave) Impts. Remaining Work Estimate 1861 CMT Trip Charge 14.00 Each 23.00 $322.00 2.00 Hour 155.00 $310.00 7.50 Hour 69.00 $517.50 1.00 Each 1528 Rice specific gravity (ASTM D 2041), per sample 7.00 Each 68.00 $476.00 3.00 Hour 1705 Fine Aggregate Angularity (ASTM C1252), per sample 7.00 Each 66.00 $462.00 2.00 Each 1568 Gyratory gravity (AASHTO T312), per sample 7.00 Each 155.00 $1,085.00 Phase 1 Total: 1688 Percent crushed (ASTM D5821), per sample 7.00 Each 68.00 $476.00 Activity 1.4 Project Management 226 Project Manager 1230 Final Report 228 Senior Project Manager 238 Project Assistant 1861 CMT Trip Charge Activity 1.5 Vibration Monitoring 191 Technician 1 1861 CMT Trip Charge 1571 Seismograph monitor, with modem, per week 196 Staff Engineer $3,605.50 13.00 Hour 135.0 $1,755.00 1.00 Each 1,000.00 $1,000.00 2.00 Hour 155.00 $310.00 7.50 Hour 69.00 $517.50 1.00 Each 23.00 $23.00 T- $1,326.00 3.00 Hour 71.00 $213.00 1.00 Each 23.00 $23.00 2.00 Each 415.00 $830.00 2.00 Hour 130.00 $260.00 Phase 1 Total: $25,808.00 Proposal Total: 1 $25,808.00 08/05/2016 08:41 AM Page 2 of 2 m eo N Ua aU @J aU @J @J @l @J 2J CJ 2J @J aU faJ aU iJ aU iJ aU @J aU @J aU @l @J @l @J 2J @J aU @J aU CaJ aU Ua aU @J aU @J Y y N o a b A n iJ @1 iJ @1 iJ @Jit @l @1 @l @1 @l iJ iJ iJ iJ iJ iJ @1 iJ @J it @J it @Jit Fm a AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 51. STAFF REPORT NO. 122 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the reappointment of the firm of BerganKDV as the City's auditor for the financial reporting fiscal years 2016-2018, and to authorize the City Manager and Mayor to execute an agreement for such services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: For the last three years the City of Richfield has used the auditing firm of Bergan KDV to perform the annual City and HRA audit. The engagement of that firm was the result of a selection process performed in the fall of 2013. BerganKDV is a leader in the metro area in auditing municipalities. Many of their clients consistently receive the Government Finance Officer Associations Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting. The City has received a proposal from BerganKDV for audit services for the fiscal years ending 2016-2018. They are proposing fees of $42,525 for 2016, $43,375 for 2017, and $44,250 for 2018. City staff has developed a solid working relationship with BerganKDV and consequently recommend their reappointment for the audit of fiscal years ending 2016-2018. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the reappointment of the firm BerganKDV as the City's auditor for the financial reporting fiscal years 2016-2018, and to authorize the City Manager and the Mayor to execute an agreement for such services. 1- _+[+Y67a:7xo%]iyiIiyi1=IkiIBYA9Is] Z A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT None. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • It is most important to note that the selection of an auditing firm is exclusively within the purview of the City Council. The function of any auditor is to audit work performed by staff and report directly to the City Council with the results. • The agreement with BerganKDV will be for a three year period, fiscal years ending 2016, 2017, & 2018. The agreement will be subject to the annual review and recommendation of the Finance Manager, satisfactory negotiation of terms and the concurrence of the City Council. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • It is critical to select an audit firm now as firms are in the process of setting their schedules for the upcoming audit period. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The fees submitted by BerganKDV for the fiscal years ending 2016-2018 are as follows: • Year Ending December 31, 2016 $42,525 • Year Ending December 31, 2017 $43,375 • Year Ending December 31, 2018 $44,250 • BerganKDV is a leader in auditing municipalities in the Twin Cities' area and audits numerous municipalities that consistently receive the GFOA Certificate of Achievement. • BerganKDV can also provide the City with considerable finance and accounting expertise in addition to their standard audit services. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: N/A. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • If the City Council does not wish to reappoint BerganKDV, staff could go and solicit bids from other firms; however, firms at this time are currently setting their audit schedules. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.G. STAFF REPORT NO. 123 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the second reading of an ordinance changing Sections 705.19, 715.15, 825.11, and 910.23 of the Richfield City code pertaining to the timing of the special assessment procedure. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • On July 26, 2016 the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Subsections 705.19, 715.15, 825.11, and 910.23. • Within these City Code sections there are date requirements relating to the special assessment process that require the City Clerk to list the total unpaid charges against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable. • These date requirements can have the effect to restrict the process of the special assessment procedure. With certain current service assessments, the properties and costs proposed to be assessed is sometimes not known until after the required date. In addition, State Statutes are silent as to the date by which a list of properties to be assessed is required. • By removing the date requirement, this will provide a certain level of flexibility within the special assessment process and bring these City Code sections in line with State Statutes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of an ordinance changing Sections 705.19, 715.15, 825.11, and 910.23 of the Richfield City Code relating to the timing of the special assessment procedure. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT None. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • Sections 705 and 715 of the City Code authorizes the City to assess the cost of unpaid utility bills against the involved property. • Section 825 of the City Code authorizes the City to certify unpaid charges for current services as a special assessment against the involved property. • Section 910 of the City Code authorizes the City to assess the cost of tree abatement against the involved property. • Minnesota State Statute Chapter 429 outlines the special assessment process to be followed. State Statute does not set a date by which a City must produce a list of properties to be assessed. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: None. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • There is no financial impact with the proposed ordinance change. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has drafted the proposed changes in the ordinance. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI None. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Special Assessment Amended Ordinance Ordinance BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 705.19, 715.15, 825.11 AND 910.23 OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 705.19 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 705.19. - Collections. Charges of sewer and water service are due on the quarterly due date specified by the City for the respective account and shall be delinquent 15 days thereafter. It is the duty of the City to endeavor to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in all cases where satisfactory arrangements for payment have not been made, all delinquent accounts shall be certified to the City Clerk who shall prepare an assessment of the delinquent amounts against the properties served. To each account there shall be added a certification charge (preparation for certification of taxes of delinquent accounts) in the amount provided for in appendix D. The assessment roll shall be delivered to the Council for adoption on or before Oeto .o,• 11" of each year. The action may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to collect delinquent accounts. The certification charge, when collected, shall be allocated equally between the City's water fund and its sewer fund. Section 2. Subsection 715.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 715.15. - Delinquent water accounts. Charges of water shall be due on the quarterly due date specified by the City for the respective account, and shall be delinquent 15 days thereafter. The City shall endeavor to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in all cases where satisfactory arrangements for payments have not then been made, instructions shall be given to discontinue service by shutting off the water at the stop box. All delinquent accounts shall be certified to the City Clerk who shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for assessment of the delinquent amounts against the respective properties served. This assessment roll shall be delivered to the Council for adoption en „r be fefe Oete e f ' of each year. Such action may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to collect delinquent accounts. Section 3. Subsection 825.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 825.11. Assessment of unpaid bills. Onof beforeSetembef I of e- Each year, the clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under this section. After notice and hearing as required by law,, the council may spread the charges against the properties beftefiteR receiving the services, as a special assessment for certification to the county auditor along with current taxes. The certification may provide for the payment of the special assessments the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. Section 4. Subsection 910.23 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 910.23. Recovery of cost of abatement; liability and assessment. Subdivision 1. The owner of premises on which a nuisance has been abated by the city shall be personally liable for the cost to the city of the abatement, including administrative costs. Subd. 2. After notice and hearing, as provided in Minn. Stat. § 429.061 (which may be amended from time to time), the city clerk shall, enof bef-efe Septembef I nexz following abatement of the nuisance, annually list the total unpaid charges against each separate lot or parcel to which the charges are attributable. The Council may then certify the charges against the property to the county auditor for collection along with current taxes the following year or in annual installments as the Council may determine in each case. Sec. 5. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted this of , 2016. Bv: ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Debbie Goettel, Mayor AGENDA SEC -10N: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 5.1-1. STAFF REPORT NO. 124 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director 8/10/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the request for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post #435, located at 6501 Portland Avenue South, for a Flag Ceremony and BBQ event scheduled to take place on September 17, 2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On August 08, 2016, the City received application materials for a Temporary On Sale Into)acating Liquor license for the Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post #435, located at 6501 Portland Avenue South. The American Legion plans to have a Flag Ceremony and BBQ event take place in their parking lot and serve alcohol and BBQ food from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on September 17, 2016. The applicant will serve alcohol in a roped off area in their parking lot and will have three security persons monitoring the area and checking ID's prior to allowing entrance into the area. The Director of Public Safety has reviewed and approved this license application and sees no reason they should be denied. All required information has been provided. All licensing fees have been received. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the issuance of a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post #435, located at 6501 Portland Avenue South, for a Flag Ceremony and BBQ scheduled to take place on September 17, 2016. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for the issuance of this license: • The required licensing fees have been paid. • Proof of liquor liability insurance has been submitted showing Integrity Mutual Insurance Company affording the coverage including the parking lot where the event is taking place. • Private security has been hired by the American Legion to patrol the area for this event. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch Richfield City Code Section 1202.05 requires all applicants to comply with all of the provisions of this code, as well as the provisions of Minnesota Statue Chapter 340A. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: There are no critical timing issues. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The required licensing fees have been received. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI The Council could decide to deny the requested license, which would mean the applicant would not be able to serve alcohol outside to the public for the event. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Jeff Husaby - Legion Manager AGENDA SEC -10N: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 7. STAFF REPORT NO. 125 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Karen Barton, Asst Community Development Director 8/17/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider a preliminary plat and amended development plans for the Cedar Point Commons area at 66th Street and Richfield Parkway. The proposal includes revisions to the vacant site to the west of Richfield Parkway and to the pad site on the far eastern edge of the development, along Highway 77. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Final development plans for Cedar Point Commons were approved by the City Council on June 27, 2006. The nearly 30 acre development included the existing Target, Home Depot, TCF Bank, and inline shops, as well as a future restaurant site at the southeast corner of the development and space for additional retail on the vacant lots across Richfield Parkway. For many years, market conditions were not strong enough to develop these additional sites. In December of 2015 Hempel Companies ("the Developer") purchased the vacant lots on either side of the development along with the e)asting inline retail buildings from Ryan Companies. On February 9, 2016 the Developer attended a joint Worksession of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Housing and Redevelopment Authority to provide a general update of the additions and improvements they were contemplating for the property. The current proposal includes additional retail and restaurant space along 66th Street and a preliminary layout for a day care on the northern half of the vacant lots west of Richfield Parkway. The Developer is asking for final approvals for the retail/restaurant buildings and preliminary approval of the day care facility. If approved by the Council, final approval of the day care building could be issued administratively through a minor amendment process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: 1. Approve an amended Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Final Development Plan for Cedar Point Commons at 66th Street and Richfield Parkway; and 2. Approve a preliminary plat for the properties west of Richfield Parkway. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • Initial plans approved in 2006 envisioned the eastern -most property as a location for a full-service restaurant. Almost immediately following approvals, this became an issue as full-service restaurant size needs changed and the quick -service restaurant market began to boom. • Four multi -tenant retail buildings were initially proposed for the property west of Richfield Parkway. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etcy There are a number of sets of review criteria that apply to this proposal. A full discussion of all requirements is included as an attachment to this report. Planned Unit Development - Proposed Amendments East - The proposed building includes two quick -service restaurants and a small center -tenant retail space. The building incorporates many of the architectural elements of the existing inline shops, but significantly improves the southern facade; adding windows, awnings, and an inviting pedestrian access point leading to either a pedestrian -focused central entrance (to the Five Guys restaurant) or the southeastern patio (Cafe Zupas). West - The Developer is proposing one multi -tenant retail/restaurant building at the corner of 66th Street and Richfield Parkway and a day care facility on the northern portion of the site. This multi -tenant building also includes two restaurants, one on either end of the building, and a central retail space. Again, the building mimics many of the architectural elements of the existing development, but improves the southern facade and focuses more on pedestrian access. Pedestrian and bicycle access being of particular importance for this site which is adjacent to both the Three Rivers Trail and a heavily -used transit stop. Functional doors will be provided along 66th Street and sidewalks will be adjusted from the attached plans in order to provide direct access to tenant doors. The day care facility at the north end of this western property will serve up to 180 children. Although this site was initially approved for retail uses, day care is a permitted use in the underlying General Business (C-2) District. Staff believes that the use provides both a nice transition from the residential area to the north and west, and a service to the immediate neighborhood (current and future). The architecture of the day care facility is currently being developed. The approved planning unit development states that the design of future buildings must be similar to Target and Home Depot. Staff supports the idea that the development should complement the existing development; however, staff does not believe the building should be required to "match" the existing buildings. Design that helps to provide a transition to the residential uses would be appropriate at this location. The following variations from standard requirements are requested: Building Orientation: Code requires that buildings be oriented such that at least one primary entrance faces the street. • East - The location of this building and its surroundings make it less likely that this building would be accessed on foot from 66th Street. Staff has discussed creating an inviting entry to the pedestrian space between the existing and new buildings through use of a trellis structure similar to what exists at the TCF Bank. A stipulation requiring continued exploration of this issue is included in the attached resolution. • West - Staff feels that this requirement is most important for the commercial building on the vacant lots adjacent to the roundabout. The Developer is proposing three functional doors along 66th Street and Richfield Parkway, but staff feels that additional architectural elements should be added to better highlight these access points and to provide activity along 66th Street. The attached resolution includes a stipulation requiring that the Developer continue to work with staff on these design elements and that going forward, a minimum of two tenants maintain functional customer entrances on this side of the building. • Day care - The security needs of a day care limit opportunities for a second primary entrance facing Richfield Parkway. Site design and outdoor play areas will help to activate that street frontage. Additional Comments: • Timing - In order to help facilitate construction yet this year, staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary day care site plan. All anticipated changes to the site plan fall within the parameters of a "minor amendment" and could be approved by staff. If changes requiring a reduction in setbacks to a point that minimum requirement are not met, or that other special exceptions are needed, the item would be brought back before the policy makers for approval. • The vacant lots west of Richfield Parkway must be replatted. Staff recommends approval of the attached preliminary plat. Final approval will require the Developer to submit additional documentation for the City Attorney's Office to review. No issues are anticipated. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: 60 -DAY RULE (PUD Amendment): The 60 -day clock 'started' when a complete application was received on July 11, 2016. A decision is required by September 9, 2016 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 25, 2016. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site. • No members of the public spoke before the Planning Commission. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request (5-0). ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI • Approve the amended Final Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and/or preliminary plat with additional and/or modified stipulations. • Deny the amended one or both applications with a finding that the proposal does not meet City requirements. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Ben Krsnak, Hempel Companies ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Resolution -APUD Resolution Letter ❑ Resolution - Preliminary Plat Resolution Letter ❑ Required Findings Exhibit ❑ Proposed Plans Exhibit ❑ Planning & Zoning Maps Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CEDAR POINT COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an amended final development plan and conditional use permit to allow construction of two commercial retail buildings and a day care facility to complete development of the planned unit development known at the Cedar Point Commons development and located at approximately 66th Street East and Richfield Parkway, property legally described as: LOTS 1,2,3,5 AND 7, BLOCK 1, CEDAR POINT COMMONS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA /_1017 LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 2, CEDAR POINT COMMONS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and recommended approval of the requested amendment to the final development plan and conditional use permit at its July 26, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property on June 14, 2016 and published in the Sun -Current on June 16, 2016 and; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment to the final development plan and conditional use permit meets those requirements necessary for approving a planned unit development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the request meets those requirements necessary for approving a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 6 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of an amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. An amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for two commercial retail buildings and a day care facility as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 3. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to the following conditions: • A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Additional architectural emphasis must be placed on tenant doors facing 66th Street (western commercial building). A minimum of two customer entrances must be maintained on the south side of this building. • Additional emphasis on pedestrian walkway between existing and approved commercial building (pad site) should be discussed with City staff. • Sidewalk from 66th Street must provide direct connection to tenant entrances (western commercial building). • City staff is authorized to make final approvals (through a minor amendment process) of the day care facility so long as said improvements meet all Code requirements. • A final landscape plan including parking lot screening that meets or attempts to meet Zoning Code requirements. Modifications may be made in order to accommodate the adjacent Three Rivers Park District Trail. • The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance and tending of all landscaping in accordance with approved plans. • Snow storage within the surface parking lot is prohibited. All parking spaces must remain available year round. • Odor control systems are required for restaurants in the western commercial building in accordance with Subsection 544.27 of the City Code. • Separate sign permits are required. • A final lighting plan complying with City requirements is required. • All new utility service must be underground. • All utilities must be screened from public view in accordance with Ordinance requirements. A screening plan is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • Properties west of Richfield Parkway must be replatted. Final plat approval is required within one year of this approval. • The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review Committee Report dated May 24, 2016 and compliance with all other City and State regulations. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the developer must submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet complete. Unless specifically modified by this resolution, all previous conditions of approval remain in place. 4. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit shall expire one year from issuance unless the use for which the permit was granted has commenced, substantial work has been completed or upon written request by the developer, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period of up to one year, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. 5. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 10. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDTION WHEREAS, Hempel Companies ("Applicant") has requested preliminary approval to resubdivide properties legally described as: LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 2, CEDAR POINT COMMONS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed preliminary plat of CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed preliminary plat of CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat of CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION is granted with the following conditions: a. The applicant must submit a current survey for all parcels to be included in the plat. b. Following review and preparation of a plat opinion letter by the City Attorney's office, the applicant must address to the City Attorney's satisfaction all items listed in the plat opinion letter. c. The applicant must address any/all comments by the City Engineering Department. d. The Applicant must apply for final approval once construction of improvements has been completed or construction of said improvements has been secured by contract and bond. e. The Applicant must submit a completed application for final plat within one year of preliminary play approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor /_laION9 Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Required Findings Part 1: The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application (542.09 Subd. 3): The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for regional commercial/office development. The proposed buildings and uses represent the final component of the larger Cedar Point Commons development that was begun in 2006. 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. This requirement is met. The proposed buildings are similar to the existing development and have been designed to function in a substantially similar manner as the originally approved plans. 3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are justified by the design of the development. The development is in substantial compliance with the intent of the guiding C-2 District. 4. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or area proposed to serve the development. The City's Public Works, Engineering and Recreation Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any issues. 5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. No undue adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interest. This requirement is met; appropriate stipulations have been incorporated into the final resolution. Part 2: All uses are conditional uses in the PC -2 District. The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. See above — Part 1, #1. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is consistent with the intent of the Planned General Business District and the underlying General Business District. The proposal provides attractive commercial development that is compatible with adjacent properties and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. The proposed uses are similar to the previously adopted Planned Unit Development for this area. Deviations related to architecture for a day care and changes to reduce retail space are justified and reasonable for this development. 4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed development is in substantial compliance with City performance standards. Deviation from Code requirements is requested as follows: Building Orientation — The applicant has proposed buildings two buildings that do not orient a primary entrance toward the public street. The location within the development and specific planned uses make this a reasonable variation. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer shall work to emphasize pedestrian entrances on the third building. 5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City's Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any adverse impacts. 6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. Adequate provisions have been made to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. See above — Part 1, #1. 8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met. 11— "" N1631JA1O11- A�,�, 111—INn 1.1 JNIOIIf181S3M NW 'O1313HORi INI1N3WdO13A34 IIVI3I 1 NVId 311S Si331IHOJV JF(l U -----—.—� __i - uadoaa_-�r1- I ill Ili � wdg5:b — 9LOZ `BO AInr 6,v�p';saM — Ny�d 3115 — 0'£O�s;aay5 uold�Oy� r ars ��,a�� - (AM)/d 0�3/H�/NJ Hll)OS ail b H1Ll H -0 -- ' 1Q�5,�nv < D _ y I _ I w r 0 Z p gnu a a Q LE -----—.—� __i - uadoaa_-�r1- I ill Ili � wdg5:b — 9LOZ `BO AInr 6,v�p';saM — Ny�d 3115 — 0'£O�s;aay5 uold�Oy� r ars ��,a�� - (AM)/d 0�3/H�/NJ Hll)OS ail b H1Ll H -0 -- ' 1Q�5,�nv I —lo IIIIIIUII�� I w r 0 O" S + ! II,L_I V I -----—.—� __i - uadoaa_-�r1- I ill Ili � wdg5:b — 9LOZ `BO AInr 6,v�p';saM — Ny�d 3115 — 0'£O�s;aay5 uold�Oy� eow NW 'a1313H�Ri N11 11 631 asom a �INIIII 1n1 SNIa-iins -LsV3 1N3Wd0-3A3a -lIV1321 r u H jukrA s19�1a,< NV�d 3LIS S13311HabV JF(l U NoilonNiSNoo god lora — NrNinN�] CoA aNnssi as o ❑ _ e: wU� 5, ? 000000 — 991— N .�y I --I I — rl-- I.I dqo9LOZ,� 'go 1 r 0 .emu NVId 3116 Awa, 0 ay.�\�6asaayc\Nw 'v1au4�la\ara\n3aTOM1\ ��I nNIon, NIA '0131zIHOIH INS NV1d 3dVOSONV1 1N3Wd013A3411VI3] 1 u. H jp' s,°�ia,< S13311HOJV JF(l ll�� NoilonNiSNoo god lora — MIIIAI�l CoA aiinssi -_ - - - - - opwyo: _ It s o - - N p N w p ZW WF 000a5 Z �a v�m�m arm an as van nay\ awr � a a v muo .,I u t+--- _ - W III L II --- t d I iI 7 __ r--�Iil �..� .��I h�d �C'.Y•_N 'II rr �s ® --- - � (,(MNd 073/�H011�) nOS 3i1b' H1L[ �� II �5 5A r Alllln 'II L______ ____J m o 1 s � I Ill I wdi5.ry — 9L3Z "90 AInA-P-NV�d 3dV=NV� — O3m—dM1\-N LU J W 2 U U) F - z Q a III IN -1 olI.N,1 n, �I J NV�d 3dVOSC1W NW '0131JHOIH * yQ' INS -111 I C1311V130 1N3Wd013A3411V1321 - U.i H jp� ll�� Wn� 8 S13311HOJV JF(l I N ZZ/ a J a NoilonNiSNoo god lora — MIIIAI�l CoA aiinssi LU J W 2 U U) F - z Q a mdgq:t o9l3Z��'90 APP 6.xp'NV�d 3dV3S3HV� 031 133— l'6�AS3aa45 uoldA3VC • �I J * yQ' LU Wn� 8 I N ZZ/ a J a LU Q U Q J LU II L LU mdgq:t o9l3Z��'90 APP 6.xp'NV�d 3dV3S3HV� 031 133— l'6�AS3aa45 uoldA3VC UjoH(qAalujiN o _ 0 - \�§� m»3n m:m> m:m<- MIIIAa m:mws . _ /± / ww w : \ \ G\ \ \\\\ G G \ � e_« a� m� wa'm+w� a a,qm,@„Ag g332mJV am 4 ; )e m»3n m:m> m:m<- MIIIAa m:mws . _ ( § \ § ° § § � _ \ $ a Of i 0» b ƒ / § \ § 0- U) / § % _ A 'I R',•� µ„,my{ 1 NOlI04V CIN033S NW 'Ol31dHORi 11 "`�� 63, uas a �,„s,oz� „, III SNOWWOO lNIOd 2JV43O 1N3Wd0-3A34 IIVI3I 1 1 1 dO IVld S1331IHOJV JF(l > I f � 1 � I NoilonNiSNoo god lora — MIIIAI�l CoA aNnssi Lo a I < a V`; - _ = w a w^ z w I _ A 'I R',•� µ„,my{ 1 �1✓” � I III 1 1 1 I f � 1 � I w,..o, ...... ...1— -.1. L ,. ,. ,.a.- I .o A 1a., P,,-1 �,-- ,..-Moos ] wdoo:e — 9Loz 'go Rhr e, p ivrdd — 0 c\ow 'vlau4�la\araAn3aTOMi\ � NVId �100-U v .. .... ...... NUILLJI ld-LSNUJ dU=l -LUN ��JNIVT CJ r Cl pl!ng jsE)M - poja2j plepoi�j a�s �FNo x3 LL 0l LU N r. LU 07 O U2—) <z CD O -LL, L'L, C/) CO LU F- LU LLI PR L I NVId �100-U .. .... ...... v CJNUILLJI ld-LSNUJ dU=l -LUN tVNIV41 r Cl uipl!ng IseEl - peja�j plepoi�j It'i TF� O Lu I Lu�� / ~ I of LL MYcl) Cf) <: D [If af 11 N 6 SF �xlsi anon ioN=.,i sitz cn of rl 2 2. 1 1 w 0 0 10, < rg 0, I.N. 2 'aw Hr E. ol I LLI —6— IMM LU SNOIIVA313 HOIU31X3 g6URNUIIJI r ci IdItSNUJ dU--J -LUN I_-izjd no Isom - j!ejEqj Plap5ji4 A H He 99 E. K M -o-.L 18 � -o SNOIIVA313 HOIU31X3 CN NUIIJI IdItSNUJ dU--J -LUN AeVNIVIJI lzidd g r ci uippq Ise3 - IPIE)y P19,10,54 -w �R qpp �q H mg W9 WA W8 09 c M^ u6lg juawnuaw Q �Nh`3b(11�311H�?JH � r CJ r Cl Z Z Z 2 z z M w w �a a� - �` U O I� k hr cu i L L i O U V) O s L 0 Z E 0 L LL ani n w —a-8 II(( jj ff FMO F n L" w r \IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII W ++too � O (6 N T L � Q% O U O � 1 W Lim - AIM F/- - A 99 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U V U Z� a toCLo op U LL U CL CL CL OLl AVAAHDIH HDIH Q N T E To SB NWY7 0 E U T E TO p D m r U Q U c d Q m m a d U a o w a m a o W m a a L N � U a U � O C O �l a N O CL in � N N AVAUi ]Vd G -O HHORi ... E U � N p C OH U U K U W m LU m _ _ = L W Of � O D w 0 K K K = m = CL ❑ ❑ ❑ = LL'J m d (9 cfl U E •O U U U E O gh wN3AV H191 AVMJi2iVd 0-31HHORi m v aL m m m m m = dd N a m� L Q LU ti a U LLJ W EE0 ' r m L w a a a ti ti ti EU> L CE _ a = = y •O o o a d o ETm. V gh wN3AV H191 �UU�J OU O �� a _ U U p LL �000�2d L U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U V U a x E LLtop N o Q CL CL O HDIH N SB NWY7 0 T E TO E 0 0 r U Q c 0 d U a m a U � U a � � U a U d ' a L O ❑ N N � � N p C d d N C m CL U U U N AVMJi2iVd 0-31HHORi c E N � O E O Q LU ti a U LLJ W n o L w a a a ti ti ti > L CE _ a = = y •O � E gh wN3AV H191 E v a _ Li E@L LL L m � acid= 0- o (D > o m m ¢ �a V N � M N � � LY AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 8. STAFF REPORT NO. 126 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Karen Barton, Asst Community Development Director 8/17/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordinance allows the City to "opt -out" of recently -adopted legislation related to temporary health care dwellings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Legislation allowing certain types of recreational vehicles to be used as "temporary family dwellings" was signed into law in May of this year. The stated purpose of the law is to provide transitional housing for seniors although the law does not limit the housing to seniors, but rather allows anyone in need of assistance with two or more "instrumental activities of daily life" to be housed in this manner. The law creates a new type of permit, a "temporary conditional use permit" that allows this type of housing for up to six months, with an option to extend the permit by an additional six months. The law gives cities only 15 days to make a decision on granting the permit, as opposed to the typical 60 days. The League of Minnesota Cities ("League") and City staff opposed this legislation for a number of reasons: • Cities should be allowed to make decisions related to density and accessory dwellings units/structures at a local level. • The varied characteristics of cities make it inappropriate to adopt one -size -fits -all land use regulations that will impact the character of neighborhoods. • The City of Richfield allows accessory dwelling units in a variety of forms. Individuals wishing to accommodate an aging senior have a legal, City -sanctioned way to do so. • Adopted legislation allows for only one occupant of the temporary health care dwelling unit. It seems unsafe and inconsistent with an urgent need for temporary housing to place a person with medical and/or physical impairments alone in a housing unit. Minnesota winter conditions could also pose a threat to impaired individuals living alone in a temporary structure. • The combination of an accessory dwelling unit plus a temporary family health care dwelling on Richfield lots would create overcrowding issues that could be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. • The adopted permit process puts city staff in the place of having to request medical and legal documents. The City of Richfield does not want to be in this position. • The adopted timeline is far too short. As a result of strong City and League opposition, the adopted bill does allow cities to "opt -out' of this legislation. Unless cities choose not to participate by passing an "opt -out" ordinance, the law requires cities to start issuing permits for temporary dwellings on September 1st. The League has drafted the attached model Ordinance to assist cities in this process. It is the opinion of City staff and legal counsel that the Council should adopt the attached Ordinance opting out of these requirements. Staff believes that adequate provisions to allow for both temporary and longer term assistance for family members with health issues already exist in our ordinances. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: 1. Approve the ordinance opting out of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593. 2. Approve the resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance amending Subsection 509.09 related to accessory buildings. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT See Executive Summary B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch See Executive Summary C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Cities must specifically opt -out of the law or begin issuing permits for qualified applicants on September 1, 2016. If approved, the ordinance will be effective September 1, 2016. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 25, 2016. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper in accordance with State and Local requirements. • One resident submitted written testimony in favor of the proposed action. • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Ordinance. • Afirst reading of this Ordinance was approved by the Council on July 26, 2016. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI • Do not adopt the Ordinance; allow the legislation to take effect on September 1, 2016. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Ordinance Ordinance ❑ Resolution Resolution Letter ❑ Amended MN Statutes, Section 144D.01, Subd. 4 Exhibit BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO OPT -OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 564.3593 WHEREAS, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which permit and regulate temporary family health care dwellings; WHEREAS, Subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to "opt out" of those regulations; THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 509.09 of the Richfield City Code relating to accessory buildings is amended to read as follows: Subsection 509.09. Accessory buildings. Subdivision 1. Construction of accessory buildings_ No accessory building shall be constructed prior to the time of construction of the principal building on any residential lot, including commercially zoned lots used for residential purposes. Subd. 2. Building separation. The required setback between an accessory building and any other building on the lot shall be determined by Section 400 of the city code. Subd. 3. Eave projection. The roof overhang (eave projection) for accessory buildings shall not be located closer than two (2) feet from any lot line. Subd. 4. Relationships to principal building. No accessory building on any lot, except through lots, shall be situated forward of the front building line of the principal building. In the case of a through lot, no accessory building shall be located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting either street unless otherwise noted. Subd. 5. Lot coverage and height. No accessory building shall be greater in lot coverage or floor area than the principal building, or greater in height than the principal building. Subd. 6. Opt -out of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593. Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of Richfield opts -out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Sec. 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE OPTING -OUT OF STATE REGULATIONS IN4WIN 94I>rIlea 94iyi1*61:7_1Xd:I=F_109:[97_1*811TA4441zIP6+ WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO OPT -OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 564.3593 This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance allows the City to opt -out of recently adopted State legislation related to Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. The City has regulations in place to allow a variety of types of accessory dwelling units and the accommodation of family members in need of assistance. These regulations have been adopted by the City Council and reflect community standards related to placement, design, and occupancy of dwelling units. State regulations related to Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings conflict and are not compatible with City standards. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk 7/19/2016 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 2016 Minnesota Session Laws Key: (1) language to be deleted (2) new language CHAPTER 111--S.F.No. 2555 An act relating to local government; regulating zoning of temporary family health care dwellings; establishing temporary dwelling permits; amending Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 144D. 01, subdivision 4; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 394; 462. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 144D.01, subdivision 4, is amended to read: Subd. 4. Housing with services establishment or establishment. (a) "Housing with services establishment" or "establishment" means: (1) an establishment providing sleeping accommodations to one or more adult residents, at least 80 percent of which are 55 years of age or older, and offering or providing, for a fee, one or more regularly scheduled health-related services or two or more regularly scheduled supportive services, whether offered or provided directly by the establishment or by another entity arranged for by the establishment; or (2) an establishment that registers under section 144D.025. (b) Housing with services establishment does not include: (1) a nursing home licensed under chapter 144A; (2) a hospital, certified boarding care home, or supervised living facility licensed under sections 144.50 to 144.56; (3) a board and lodging establishment licensed under chapter 157 and Minnesota Rules, parts 9520.0500 to 9520.0670, 9525.0215 to 9525.0355, 9525.0500 to 9525.0660, or 9530.4100 to 9530.4450, or under chapter 2451); (4) a board and lodging establishment which serves as a shelter for battered women or other similar purpose; (5) a family adult foster care home licensed by the Department of Human Services; (6) private homes in which the residents are related by kinship, law, or affinity with the providers of services; (7) residential settings for persons with developmental disabilities in which the services are licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9525.2100 to 9525.2140, or applicable successor rules or laws; (8) a home -sharing arrangement such as when an elderly or disabled person or single -parent family makes lodging in a private residence available to another person in exchange for services or rent, or both; (9) a duly organized condominium, cooperative, common interest community, or owners' association of the foregoing where at least 80 percent of the units that comprise the condominium, cooperative, or common interest community are occupied by individuals who are the owners, members, or shareholders of the units; of (10) services for persons with developmental disabilities that are provided under https://www.revi sor.m n.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&i d=111 1/6 7/19/2016 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws a license according to Minnesota Rules, parts 9525.2000 to 9525.2140 in effect until January 1, 1998, or under chapter 245D; or 01) a temporary family health care dwelling as defined in sections 394.307 and 462.3593. Sec. 2. [394.3071 TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning Oven in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1, paragraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providin)z an environment facilitatin4 a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must: 1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation: (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation; (4) be universally desi;zned and meet state -recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means, (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one -ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the county has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family health care dwelling is subiect to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care https://www.revi sor.m n.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&i d=111 2/6 7/19/2016 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that reizulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parkiniz or storau. (b) The caregiver or relative must aply for a temporary dwelling permit from the county. The permit application must be sWried by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or Physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitorin;? services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state, (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management, (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emeruencv vehicles can gain access to the temporary familv health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law and local ordinances. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The county may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as lona; as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The county may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The county may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the county revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise specified by an action of the county board, the county may https://www.revi sor.m n.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&i d=111 3/6 7/19/2016 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time - sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwellin4, the county does not have to hold a public hearin;4 on the application. (b) The procedures aovemina the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwellin4 permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The county has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the county board holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the county has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the county receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15 -day or 30 -day limit starts over only if the county sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The county cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt -out. A county may by resolution opt -out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 3. [462.35931 TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally, o�ysically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1,yaraizraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily liviniz as certified in writinz by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a careaiver's provision of care for a mentally or Physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwellin4 must: (1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation, (4) be universally desi;;ned and meet state -recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connectins; to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means, (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction, (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; https://www.revi sor.m n.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&i d=111 4/6 7/19/2016 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one -ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the municipality has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family health care dwelling is subiect to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. (b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the municipality. The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring Services, (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a nhvsician. a nhvsician assistant. or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to ractice in this state (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management; (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adiacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temoorary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law, local ordinances, and charter provisions. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for https://www.revi sor.m n.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&i d=11l 5/6 7/19/2016 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The municipality may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as lonz as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The municipality may inspect the temporary family health care dwellinfz at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The municipality may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the municipality revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwellinz. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, the municipality may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time - sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporarfly health care dwelliniz, the municipality does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures aovernina the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are Roverned by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The municipality has 15 days to issue a peimit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the statutory or home rule charter city holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the statutory or home rule charter city has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the municipality receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15 -day or 30 - day limit starts over only if the municipality sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The municipality cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt -out. A municipality may by ordinance opt -out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This act is effective September 1, 2016, and applies to temporary dwelling permit applications made under this act on or after that date. Presented to the governor May 12, 2016 Signed by the governor May 12, 2016, 1:27 p.m. Copyright CQ 2016 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All rights reserved. https://www.revi sor.m n.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&i d=111 6/6 AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 9. STAFF REPORT NO. 127 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/23/2016 REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Karen Barton, Acting Community Development Director 8/17/2016 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH 8/17/2016 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the ordinance amending the City's Zoning Ordinance and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordinance updates and clarifies the City's telecommunication regulations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 8, 2015 the City Council adopted a one-year moratorium on the consideration of wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas in City, County, and State right-of-ways throughout the City. This moratorium was in response to inquiries about new "small cell" technology. The City had been approached by a company named Mobilitie, who was looking to install six new utility poles for small cell packages within the City right-of-way. City staff believes that it is important to provide wireless communication access to the public. City staff also believes that it is possible to do so with fair and balanced regulations related to siting, screening, and operation of the wireless communication facilities. The proposed ordinance updates a number of definitions and the purpose and intent section. It also strikes language related to collocation in the public right-of-way. This language is proposed to be removed because the Zoning Ordinance is not intended to regulate the initial permitting and placement of structures within the public right-of-way. Section 802 of the City Code addresses right-of-way management and includes the City's policies related to permitting, placement, undergrounding, etc. In addition to providing time for staff to review existing ordinances, the moratorium period allowed time for the City Attorney and the Minnesota Department of Commerce to evaluate Mobilitie's claims that it was exempt from local government regulation. Both have found that this is not the case; that Mobilitie does not meet the definition of a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minn. Statutes Section 237.162, Subd. 4 and therefore does not have a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. Mobilitie is free to apply for right-of-way permits through the regular City process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: 1. Approve the ordinance amending Subsection 544.25 of the City Code related to telecommunication towers and antennas. 2. Approve the resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance amending Subsection 544.25 of the City Code related to telecommunication towers and antennas. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT See Executive Summary B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etch • Ongoing review and periodic updating of the Code is necessary to ensure that regulations are serving their intended purposes and that information is kept up-to-date. • Clear language is important to both staff and our customers. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The moratorium will expire August 23, 2016. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 25, 2016. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper in accordance with State and Local requirements. • No members of the public spoke or provided comments. • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. • Afirst reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 2016. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl: • Approve the ordinance with modifications. • Reject the proposed ordinance. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Mart Tietjen, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Description D Ordinance Type Ordinance D Resolution Resolution Letter BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE REGULATIONS RELATED TO TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 4 of the Richfield City Code defining "antenna" is amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. "Antenna." Any exterior apparatus designed fer telephonic radi�-aaio,-data, -Ittte'rRe' r other E;9 rk;a ieRsthrough the sending andler rei+e mymng of radio fre`vuongi signals including, but net limited to e equipment -a-ttaGhed te�nn�StrUGWr Io' light standard, building er other ctrl E;ti ire for the purpose of previdiRg nersenal wireless sepiices and its s attendant h�statien. Fer p irneses of this CeG ie��atenne � e net OnGli de "dish entenne.00Any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on a tower, monopole, building, or other structure and used in communications that radiate or capture electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio frequencies (excluding radar signals), wireless telecommunications signals, or other communications signals. "Antenna" does not include either a "dish antenna" or a lightning rod. Section 2 Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 99 of the Richfield City Code defining "public utility" is amended to read as follows: Subd. 99. "Public utility." Persons, corporations, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, or sewer -,-Gr telecemml inicatien service to the general public. PeY,--crav^rral ireless telecommunication service facilities shall not be considered as public utilities. Section 3 Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 96 of the Richfield City Code defining "personal wireless telecommunication service" is repealed. Subd 96 "Personal wiF ss t eemmi gni ties coniine " epsed ��-�vrrrn--vvrretG�.r�etGi�rrC-a crvrrvcrvrc��FCcrr..rccr commercial Wireless services incli imine velli alare m� ipercenal nemnicatien (P(�JPnBG•�2ed mobile radie (CHAP), en�TGerJ mebili2ed ra r�io 9MR) pagingand similar ceNies that ar marketed to the nonoral public Section 4 A new Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 130 of the Richfield City Code to read as follows is added, and by now renumbering all following subdivisions accordingly: Subd. 130. "Telecommunications Equipment." Antennas and accessory/associated equipment such as wires, cables, generators, air conditioning units, and other equipment or facilities that are used in coniunction with telecommunication facilities and telecommunication equipment. Section 5 A new Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 131 of the Richfield City Code to read as follows is added, and by now renumbering all following subdivisions accordingly: Subd. 131. "Telecommunications Facilities." Any facility or location maintained by a commercial enterprise where telecommunications eauipment or telecommunications tower is located. Section 6 A new Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 142 of the Richfield City Code to read as follows is added, and by now renumbering all following subdivisions accordingly: Subd. 142. "Wireless telecommunications." Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Communications Act of 1996, including FCC licensed commercial wireless Telecommunications services including, but not limited to, cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), global system of mobile communication (GSM), paging, and similar services that currently exist or may be developed. Section 7 Subsection 544.25 of the Richfield City Code related to telecommunication towers and antennas is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. [Purpose.l This section is intended to establish fair and balanced reaulations related to the sitina. screenina. and operation of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment',R order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community;. This section recognizes that wireless communication systems provide a valuable service to the public but that thev are not a Public utility. The following regulations the—GeuT^O' fonds that these regulatieRs are necessary in order to: a) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City; b) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; c) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements; and d) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2. Permits. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct in place, place or re -erect, replace, or repair any tower without first making application to the Department of Community Development and securing the required zoning and building permits. Subd. 3. Exemptions. Permits are not required for: (Amended, Bill No. 2011-13) i. Adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or antenna, provided that replacement does not reduce the safety factor. ii. Antennae and/or towers erected temporarily for test purposes, for emergency communication, or for broadcast remote pick-up operations. Temporary antennae shall be removed within 72 hours following installation. Subd. 4. Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall provide at the time of application sufficient information to indicate that construction, installation, and maintenance of the antenna and tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. In addition to the information required elsewhere in this Code, development applications for towers shall include the following supplemental information: (Added, Bill 2009-1) a) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which: i. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; ii. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co -located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; iii. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; iv. Documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety telecommunications; V. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number; and, vi. Includes other information necessary to evaluate the request. b) For all commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. c) Before the issuance of a building permit, the following supplemental information shall be submitted: i. Proof that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by Federal Aviation Administration; and, ii. A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards. d) All abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless the Director approves a time extension. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property. Subd. 5. Towers in Residential Zoning Districts. Towers shall be allowed only in the following residentially zoned areas: a) Towers supporting amateur radio antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the rear yard of residentially zoned parcels. b) Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the following residentially zoned locations: Church sites, when camouflaged as steeples or bell towers; Park sites, when compatible with the nature of the park; and, iii. Government, school, utility, and institutional sites, not including the public right-of-way. Subd. 6. Collocation Requirements. All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements: a) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one (1) mile search radius (one half ('/2) mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in height, one quarter (1/) mile search radius for towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed tower due to one (1) or more of the following reasons: i. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. ii. The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. iii. Existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. iv. Other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building. b) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least 2 additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least one (1) additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. Subd. 7. Tower Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers and attached antennas shall meet the following design requirements. a) Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment, except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration. b) Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative design would better blend into the surrounding environment. Subd. 8. Tower Setbacks. Towers shall conform to each of the following minimum setback requirements: a) Towers shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district with the exception of industrial zoning districts, where towers may encroach into the rear setback area, provided that the rear property line abuts another industrially zoned property and the tower does not encroach upon any easements. b) Towers shall maintain a minimum distance from the nearest residential structure equal to twice the height of the tower. c) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with the following exceptions: i. In industrial zoning districts, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting an internal industrial street. ii. On sites abutted by public streets on all sides, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting a local street. d) A tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light standard, power line support device, or similar structure. Subd. 9. Tower Height. The height of a telecommunication tower and antenna shall be measured as the distance from ground level to the highest point on the tower, including the antenna. a) In all residential property, the maximum height of any tower shall be 30 feet. b) In all residential zoning districts other than designated residential property, the maximum height of any tower shall not exceed one (1) foot for each four (4) feet the tower is setback from designated residential property up to a maximum height of 75 feet. c) In all nonresidential zoning districts, the maximum height of any tower shall not exceed one (1) foot for each two (2) feet the tower is setback from designated residential property up to a maximum height of 75 feet in nonindustrial zoning districts and 100 feet in industrial zoning districts. d) In accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's preemptive ruling PRB1, towers and antennas erected for the primary purpose of supporting amateur radio communications may exceed the height restrictions of (3), above, but shall not exceed 65 feet in height. e) In addition to the height limitations noted above, no tower shall be constructed or changed so as to project above any Airspace Surface as shown on MSP Zoning Map Airspace Zones of the MSP Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 10. Tower Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower. When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower. Subd. 11. Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. Subd. 12. Associated Equipment. Ground equipment associated with a tower or wireless telecommunications facility shall be screened by vegetative or other screening compatible with the surrounding environment if deemed necessary by the Director or designee. When associated ground equipment is housed in a building or structure, that building or structure shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. Ground equipment associated with a wireless telecommunications facility may be located on residentially used property only within a utility easement adjacent to the public right-of-way, except in the multifamily zoning districts where ground equipment associated with a wireless telecommunications facility may also be located within a code complying building or structure after receiving the approvals required by this Code. Subd. 13. Antennas Mounted on Roofs, Walls, and Existing Towers. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on roofs, walls, and existing towers may be approved by the Director, provided the antennas meet the requirements of this Code, after submittal of 1) a site and building plan and 2) a report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating the existing structure or tower's suitability to accept the antenna, and the proposed method of affixing the antenna to the structure. Complete details of all fixtures and couplings, and the precise point of attachment shall be indicated. Antennas shall be mounted on the facade of the building or penthouse structure unless the Director or designee determines that another antenna mounting location decreases the visual impact of the antennas. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view. Subd. 14. Antenna Design and Mounts. Applicants shall use antenna designs and mounts that minimize visual impact. Subd. 16. Maintenance and Inspections. Tower and antenna finish and paint shall be maintained in good condition, free from rust, graffiti, peeling paint, or other blemish. a) All towers may be inspected at least once each year by an official of the Building and Inspection Division to determine compliance with original construction standards. Deviation from original construction for which a permit is obtained constitutes a violation of this Section. b) Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and he will have 30 days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the Building and Inspection Division that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible thereafter, another inspection will be made and the owner notified of the results. Subd. 17. Variances. The following standards apply to variance requests for towers, antennas, or wireless telecommunication facilities. Section 8 a) The City Council shall consider the following issues in addition to the variance findings required in Section 547.11 of this Code. i. The viability of Code complying alternative locations for the proposed tower, antenna, or wireless telecommunication facility. ii. The impacts of the tower, antenna, or wireless telecommunication facility at the proposed site relative to the impacts of the tower, antenna, or wireless telecommunication facility at a Code complying alternative location. iii. The extent to which there is a significant gap in coverage surrounding the proposed tower, antenna, or wireless telecommunication facility or other evidence of inadequate service due to antenna location. iv. The extent to which the proposed tower, antenna, or wireless telecommunication facility is the least intrusive, lowest impact design available. V. The extent to which the height of the proposed tower, antenna, or wireless telecommunication facility could be reduced and still provides adequate coverage. vi. The extent to which the size of the proposed accessory equipment could be reduced. vii. The feasibility of placing the proposed accessory equipment underground. b) The applicant shall pay the reasonable cost of the City retaining a qualified, independent radio frequency engineer to provide a professional opinion to the City Council if the Director or designee determines that an independent radio frequency engineer is needed to assist in consideration of these regulations. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATED TO IN44Xf191iyiI►yiUJ►1[a]/_1I[a]►11111y_T9714101*1 WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE REGULATIONS RELATED TO TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance updates and/or adds definitions of an antenna, a public utility, personal wireless telecommunication service, telecommunications equipment and facilities, and wireless telecommunications. The purpose and intent sections of the ordinance have been updated to address current technologies and a reference to permitted facilities in the right-of-way has been struck, as this is primarily addressed by a separate section of the City Code. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of August, 2016. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk