The URL can be used to link to this page

05-09-2017 Complete AgendaS P E C IAL C IT Y C O U N C IL W O R K SESSIO N R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C EN TER, B AR T H O L O ME W R O O M MAY 9, 2017 6:15 P M C all to order 1.K ey F inancial S trategies A djournment 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 May 4, 2017 Council Memorandum No. 45 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Key Financial Strategies Council Members: City Council Members will find attached to this memo the 2017 Key Financial Strategies (KFS) forecast. As in prior years the KFS is comprised of two reports : the Financial Management Plan and the Capital Financing Plan. The Financial Management Plan presents a projection of the City’s General Fund and the overall tax levy that will help support General Fund operations and capital financing tax levies. The Capital Financing Plan reflects the existing debt service tax levy requirements and projected additional tax levy requirements based on current Capi tal Improvement Budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIB/CIP) forecasts. Staff will be making a short presentation of the KFS at the May 9, 2017 , City Council work session. Respectfully submitted, Steven L. Devich City Manager SLD:cr Email: Assistant City Manager Department Directors Attachments City of Richfield FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN Inflation Assumptions Revenue 0.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00% Expenditures 0.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00% GENERAL FUND 2015 2016 2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Actual Actual Adopted Revised REVENUE 1 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX 12,260,561 12,309,740 12,261,434 12,261,434 12,829,633 13,390,425 13,977,934 14,571,956 15,198,356 15,817,664 16,490,429 17,147,215 2 FISCAL DISPARITIES 3,025,246 2,671,343 3,604,596 3,604,596 3,640,642 3,677,048 3,713,819 3,750,957 3,788,467 3,826,351 3,864,615 3,903,261 3 LICENSES & PERMITS 985,367 1,124,025 917,600 917,600 945,128 973,482 1,002,686 1,032,767 1,063,750 1,095,662 1,128,532 1,162,388 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID 440,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 5 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,148,917 1,211,699 1,217,630 1,217,630 1,254,159 1,291,784 1,330,537 1,370,453 1,411,567 1,453,914 1,497,531 1,542,457 6 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,118,267 2,246,971 2,120,460 2,120,460 2,184,074 2,249,596 2,317,084 2,386,596 2,458,194 2,531,940 2,607,898 2,686,135 7 FINES & FORFEITS 377,694 269,749 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 380,000 380,000 390,000 8 MISC. REVENUE 98,632 106,731 75,960 75,960 100,000 103,000 105,732 108,904 112,171 115,536 119,002 122,572 9 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 274,470 1,037,710 1,616,190 1,616,190 1,537,000 1,552,370 1,567,894 1,583,573 1,599,408 1,615,402 1,631,556 1,647,872 10 TOTAL REVENUE 20,729,154 21,527,968 22,733,870 22,733,870 23,410,636 24,107,705 24,835,686 25,575,206 26,351,914 27,136,471 27,969,565 28,801,90111 12 EXPENDITURES 13 LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE 897,644 814,724 878,580 878,580 904,937 932,086 960,048 988,850 1,018,515 1,049,070 1,080,543 1,112,959 14 ADMINISTRATIVE 1,169,763 1,323,809 1,423,440 1,423,440 1,466,143 1,510,127 1,555,431 1,602,094 1,650,157 1,699,662 1,750,652 1,803,171 15 PUBLIC SAFETY 7,753,459 8,175,701 8,835,540 8,835,540 9,100,606 9,373,624 9,654,833 9,944,478 10,242,812 10,550,097 10,866,600 11,192,598 16 FIRE 3,845,082 4,056,978 4,150,030 4,150,030 4,274,531 4,402,767 4,534,850 4,670,895 4,811,022 4,955,353 5,104,013 5,257,134 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,337,103 1,330,766 1,411,290 1,411,290 1,453,629 1,497,238 1,542,155 1,588,419 1,636,072 1,685,154 1,735,709 1,787,780 18 PUBLIC WORKS 3,679,043 3,833,814 3,972,780 3,972,780 4,091,963 4,214,722 4,341,164 4,471,399 4,605,541 4,743,707 4,886,018 5,032,599 19 RECREATION SERVICES 1,757,765 1,827,779 1,887,210 1,887,210 1,943,826 2,002,141 2,062,205 2,124,071 2,187,794 2,253,427 2,321,030 2,390,661 20 TRANSFER OUT 100,000 150,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 185,000 185,000 200,000 200,000 225,000 225,000 21 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 20,539,859 21,513,571 22,733,870 22,733,870 23,410,636 24,107,705 24,835,686 25,575,207 26,351,913 27,136,471 27,969,565 28,801,902 22 23 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 189,295 14,397 --(0)0 (0)(0)0 0 (0)(0)24 25 GENERAL FUND OPERATING TAX LEVY(Net of Uncoll)15,211,690 15,866,030 15,866,030 16,470,275 17,067,474 17,691,753 18,322,913 18,986,823 19,644,016 20,355,044 21,050,476 26 Add Back Uncollectible 153,653 160,262 160,262 164,703 170,675 176,918 183,229 189,868 196,440 203,550 210,505 27 TOTAL OPERATING LEVY 15,365,343 16,026,292 16,026,292 16,634,978 17,238,148 17,868,670 18,506,142 19,176,691 19,840,456 20,558,594 21,260,981 28 29 DEBT/SPECIAL LEVY(From Capital Financing Plan)3,455,233 3,408,398 3,408,398 4,066,050 4,283,325 4,997,839 5,429,348 5,974,498 5,853,535 6,497,174 6,490,939 30 31 TOTAL CERTIFIED LEVY 18,820,576 19,434,690 19,434,690 20,701,028 21,521,474 22,866,509 23,935,491 25,151,190 25,693,991 27,055,768 27,751,920 32 % Increase 3.26%0.00%6.52%3.96%6.25%4.67%5.08%2.16%5.30%2.57% 33 34 TOTAL CERTIFIED LEVY 18,820,576 19,434,690 19,434,690 20,701,028 21,521,474 22,866,509 23,935,491 25,151,190 25,693,991 27,055,768 27,751,920 35 LESS FISCAL DISPARITIES (3,218,879)(3,604,596)(3,604,596)(3,640,642)(3,677,048)(3,713,819)(3,750,957)(3,788,467)(3,826,351)(3,864,615)(3,903,261) 36 NET LOCAL LEVY TO TAXPAYERS 15,601,697 15,830,094 15,830,094 17,060,386 17,844,425 19,152,690 20,184,534 21,362,723 21,867,640 23,191,153 23,848,659 37 38 EXISTING TAX CAPACITY 25,580,328 27,845,963 27,845,963 29,739,488 30,631,673 31,550,623 32,497,142 33,472,056 34,476,218 35,510,505 36,575,820 39 TOTAL TAX CAPACITY 25,580,328 27,845,963 27,845,963 29,739,488 30,631,673 31,550,623 32,497,142 33,472,056 34,476,218 35,510,505 36,575,820 40 41 TAX RATE ON TAX CAPACITY 60.991%56.849%56.849%57.366%58.255%60.705%62.112%63.823%63.428%65.308%65.203% 42 TAX RATE % CHANGE -6.79%0.00%0.91%1.55%4.21%2.32%2.75%-0.62%2.96%-0.16% 43 44 City Taxes 1,104 1,103 1,103 1,187 1,242 1,333 1,405 1,487 1,522 1,614 1,660 45 Percentage tax increase in average home -0.10%0.00%7.67%4.60%7.33%5.39%5.84%2.36%6.05%2.84% 46 47 Existing Tax Base Inflation Estimate 0.00%6.80%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00% 48 Total Net Tax Base % Increase(decrease)8.86%0.00%6.80%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00% 49 Estimated Average Home Market Value 181,000 194,000 194,000 207,000 213,210 219,606 226,194 232,980 239,970 247,169 254,584 5/3/2017 2:33 PM 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 City of Richfield Capital Financing Plan 1 Existing and Projected Tax Levy Requirements 2 Richfield Municipal Center 3 2008A Bonds 797,100 799,200 ------- 4 2009A Bonds 374,199 381,339 382,253 387,980 387,290 391,293 394,669 397,103 398,520 5 2010A Bonds - Alley Paving/Equipment 16,255 15,625 14,943 14,260 ----- 6 2012A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 76th St E 129,696 127,701 130,956 128,856 126,756 129,906 127,700 130,745 128,436 7 2013A G.O. Improvement Bonds - North Richfield Parkway 160,280 159,288 163,380 161,936 160,204 163,433 161,138 158,723 161,438 8 2015A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 69th St./Portland 283,861 280,501 276,301 282,600 282,496 282,233 280,868 284,570 279,451 9 2016B G.O. Refunding Bonds 518,009 524,024 521,452 518,564 520,612 522,186 523,289 523,919 518,827 10 2016C G.O. Refunding Bonds 721,324 720,379 724,474 728,254 731,719 736,969 736,444 11 2017A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 66th Street 622,650 620,550 623,595 620,681 622,650 624,067 621,810 624,488 12 Cedar Point Tax Abatement Levy 358,998 370,722 370,722 370,722 370,722 370,722 --- 13 Rolling Stock, Equipment, and IT Levy 770,000 785,000 800,000 825,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 14 66th Street Reconstruction ($4.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)281,444 281,444 281,444 281,444 281,444 281,444 281,444 15 66th Street Reconstruction ($2.2M over 20 years at 3.5%)154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794 16 65th Street Reconstruction ($6.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)422,166 422,166 422,166 422,166 422,166 17 Penn Avenue Reconstruction (5.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)351,805 351,805 351,805 351,805 18 70th Street Reconstruction ($2.5M over 20 years at 3.5%)175,903 175,903 175,903 175,903 19 76th Street West Reconstruction ($3.5M over 20 years at 3.5%)246,264 246,264 246,264 20 Humboldt/Lakeshore Drive Recon ($4M over 20 years at 3.5%)281,444 281,444 21 Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction ($5.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)351,805 351,805 22 Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction ($7.5M over 20 years at 3.5%)527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708 23 Total Debt/Special Levy 3,408,398 4,066,050 4,283,325 4,997,839 5,429,348 5,974,498 5,853,535 6,497,174 6,490,939 5/3/2017 2:33 PM R EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL ME E TIN G R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C EN TER, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S MAY 9, 2017 7:00 P M IN TR O D U C TO RY P R O C E E D IN G S C all to order Open forum (15 mi nutes maximum) E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who w ish to address the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting. P ledge of A llegiance A pproval of the mi nutes of the: (1) S pecial C ity C ouncil Work S ession of A pril 25, 2017; (2) S pecial C oncurrent C ity C ouncil and HRA Work S ession of A pril 25, 2017; (3) S pecial C ity C ouncil Work S essi on of A pril 25, 2017; (4) Regular C ity C ouncil Meeting of A pril 25, 2017; and (5) S pecial C ity C ouncil Work S ession of May 2, 2017. P R E S E N TATIO N S 1.S wearing-in of F irefighter K evin O’C onnell C O U N C IL D IS C U S S IO N 2.Hats Off to Hometown Hits AG E N D A AP P R O VAL 3.A pproval of the A genda 4.Consent C alendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City C ouncil in one motion. Once the C onsent 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 C ouncil discussion and action. All items listed on the C onsent C alendar are recommended for approval. A .C onsi deration of the approval of the fi rst reading of an ordinance rezoni ng properties currently addressed as: 6601 - 16th Ave, 6609 - 16th Ave, 6615 - 16th Ave, 6600 - 17th Ave, 6608 - 17th Ave, and 6614 - 17th Ave from General B usiness (C -2) to P lanned General B usiness (P C -2). S taff Report No. 71 B .C onsi deration of the approval of a resoluti on authorizing the C ity to affi rm the monetary limits on statutory municipali ty tort liability. S taff Report No. 72 5.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar P U B LIC H EAR IN G S 6.P ublic heari ng and consideration of the approval of an E nabling Resolution relating to the formation and administrati on of an E conomic D evelopment A uthority in, and for, the C ity of Ri chfi eld and approval of a resoluti on authorizing the E conomic D evelopment A uthority to levy taxes. S taff Report No. 73 R E S O L U T IO N S 7.C onsideration of the approval of a resolution granting a conditional use permi t and variances to allow a buffet restaurant to operate in the former Old C ountry B uffet space at 6601 Nicollet Avenue. S taff Report No. 74 C IT Y MAN AG E R ’S R E P O R T 8.C ity Manager's Report C L AIMS AN D PAYR O LL S 9.C laims and P ayrolls Open forum (15 mi nutes maximum) E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who w ish to address the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting. 10.A djournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. R equests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the C ity Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Work Session April 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 5:17 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; and Michael Present: Howard Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst Item #1 DISCUSSION OF THE PREFERRED COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City Manager/Executive Director Steve Devich introduced the topic of the composition of the proposed Economic Development Authority (EDA). He stated the two most likely options were the City Council or the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) as the EDA Board and asked for Council feedback. Council Members Regan Gonzalez and Howard discussed the work of the EDA would be similar to the HRA and thought that was the best fit. Council Member Garcia asked about the possibility of the City Council as the EDA Board for a few years and then transfer responsibility it to the HRA. City Manager/Executive Director Devich responded that was a possibility. Mayor Elliott asked about establishing the EDA with the HRA as the Board and having the City Council “co-sign” on projects. City Attorney Tietjen responded and believed there would be some discretion to do this in the enabling ordinance. City Manager/Executive Director Devich discussed the adoption of the EDA’s tax levy and its selection of projects, as it relates to the City Council “co- signing”. Council Members agreed the EDA should have the sole authority to establish the levy and wanted the joint decision-making on the use of the funds. Mayor Elliott asked about terms for the EDA Board. City Attorney Tietjen responded that the terms are covered in the Statute. Council Members discussed term limits and decided the leave it open to the City Council’s discretion, as they select the members of the Board. ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:29 p.m. Special Council Work Session Minutes -2- April 25, 2017 Date Approved: May 9, 2017 _____________________________ Pat Elliott Mayor _____________________________ ____________________________ Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Work Session April 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The concurrent work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 5:37 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; and Maria Regan Present: Gonzalez. HRA Members Mary Supple, Chair; Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; Doris Rubenstein; and Sue Present: Sandahl. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/Executive Director; and John Stark, Community Development Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst. Item #1 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING Mayor Elliott addressed the audience and introduced principals from Aeon to the audience. The members of the Aeon team introduced themselves. Eric Schnell, Chief Operating Officer for Aeon, spoke about the purchase of Seasons Park and the work they do to keep units affordable. Christine Hart, Community Developer at Community Action Partnership of Southern Hennepin (CAPSH), introduced herself and other presenters, Lisa Horn, CEO of VEAP, and Lael Robertson, Staff Attorney with the Housing Justice Center. Hart provided an overview of the upcoming discussion on the trends in affordable housing and talked about the consortium of 20 service providers in Hennepin County that came together a year and a half ago, known as the Suburban Hennepin Housing Coalition, which is looking at issues in suburban Hennepin and trying to find gaps in the services they provide. Horn discussed who VEAP serves as a basic need social service agency. VEAP is an active member of the Suburban Hennepin Housing Coalition and works closely with Hennepin County in providing integrated services. She discussed the issues VEAP are seeing with their clients; the work they do to help clients and working with an affordability and accessibility problem in housing; helping clients navigate with landlords; and keeping people within their communities. She also spoke about the need for a comprehensive approach to this issue. Hart noted an information guide that was handed out and discussed information on it, including that 73% of rental housing in Richfield was naturally occurring affordable housing. Robertson discussed the Housing Justice Center, a non-profit law firm, which has been working with cities and counties to keep and create safe, suitable, and dig nified affordable housing. Special Concurrent Work Session Minutes -2- April 25, 2017 She discussed the rental/housing market is a very tight currently in the Twin Cities area. She discussed options that Richfield could implement, including:  Identification of buildings and documenting the problem;  Advance notice period;  Help preservation to buy at risk buildings;  Right of first refusal;  Local programs offering rehab financing in return for affordability commitments;  4d property tax program;  Prohibition of Section 8 discrimination;  For cause eviction;  Incentives to address landlords concerns about renting to certain groups of tenants;  Inclusionary housing;  Increasing local government leverage through zoning; and  Rental assistance. Hart further discussed having strong and proactive language in the comprehensive plan about affordable housing. Robertson added that the comprehensive plan is a tool to layout Richfield’s values and what we want Richfield to look like in the future. Mayor Elliott invited Hennepin County Commissioner Debbie Goettel to speak from the County’s perspective. Commissioner Goettel spoke regarding the difficulty of instable housing, shared handouts of County programs available to residents, a new program called the Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Fund, and the need to identify at-risk buildings that provide affordable housing currently. Mayor Elliott commented he thought the County is a more viable partner and better resource in the current political climate. Council Member/Commissioner Howard thanked everyone for attending, stated we should continue the conversation, and suggested Richfield hold a forum on housing, similar to a forum Eden Prairie held in their community. Council Member Regan Gonzalez thanked everyone for attending and agreed with the forum on housing and asked the Council and staff to review the list of options available. Council Member Garcia thanked everyone for attending and agreed that everyone needs to be on the same page to form sound policy moving forward. Council Members and HRA Commissioners all thanked the presenters for the information and allowing them to look proactively at the issue and thanked those in attendance at the work session. ADJOURNMENT The concurrent work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:43 p.m. Date Approved: May 9, 2017 Pat Elliott Mayor Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Work Session April 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 6:45 p.m. in the Fred Babcock Room. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; and Michael Present: Howard Item #1 DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Council Members reviewed application materials and discussed appointment of one adult member to the Transportation Commission. ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:58 p.m. Date Approved: May 9, 2017 _____________________________ Pat Elliott Mayor _____________________________ ____________________________ Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; and Maria Regan Present: Gonzalez. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; John Stark, Community Development Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; and Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Elliott led the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #1 PRESENTATION BY THE RICHFIELD STEM/DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL COMBINED 5TH GRADE CHOIR The Richfield STEM/Dual Language Combined 5th Grade Choir sang three songs. OPEN FORUM Steve Unowsky, Richfield Public Schools Superintendent, 5018 Emerson, Minneapolis, spoke regarding schools and city partnership and support of residents of Richfield. Eric Schnell, Aeon, 901 N 3rd St, Suite 150, Minneapolis, spoke regarding Seasons Park apartments. Camillo DeSantis, 6501 Wood Lake Drive #901, spoke regarding affordable housing and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Sue Phillips, MICAH Executive Director, 463 Marie, St. Paul, spoke regarding affordable housing. Eric Hauge, Homeline, 3455 Bloomington Ave, Minneapolis, spoke regarding affordable housing and the Concierge’s Council Memo. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting April 25, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes -2- April 25, 2017 Esmeralda Ponce Gonzalez, 716 E 78th St #202, spoke regarding Homeline and their housing difficulties after a fire. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Garcia, S/Regan Gonzalez to approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 11, 2017. Motion carried 4-0. Item #2 PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING EARTH DAY/ARBOR MONTH/TREE CITY USA Mayor Elliott read the proclamation. Karen Shragg, Wood Lake Nature Center Manager, stated 82 people attended the event on Sunday, April 23. Item #3 PRESENTATION OF THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC. AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT FOR YEAR-END DECEMBER 31, 2015 AND DECEMBER 31, 2016. Lori Nelson, RTPB Executive Director presented the audit report to the City Council. She stated it was a clean audit from their auditor, La Fayette, Melssen & Plath, LTD., and stated they were presented best practices from their auditor for Board transparency. Item #4 COUNCIL DISCUSSION  Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Member Garcia discussed the study session held earlier in the evening and because of open meeting law requirements she suggested residents reach out to City staff with concerns or issues. Council Member Regan Gonzalez thanked those in attendance and discussed the sale of Seasons Park. Council Member Howard thanked those in attendance and discussed the sale of Seasons Park. Mayor Elliott invited everyone in attendance to the Veterans Park clean-up on Saturday, April 29. Item #5 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Council Member Howard requested to add an item. Council Meeting Minutes -3- April 25, 2017 M/Howard, S/Garcia to add an item to the agenda for the appointment of a member to the Transportation Commission. Motion carried 4-0. M/Howard, S/Regan Gonzalez to approve the amended agenda. Motion carried 4-0. Item #6 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Devich presented the Consent Calendar. A. Consideration of the approval of resolutions for reimbursement of certain expenditures from the proceeds of reconstruction bonds to be issued by the City for the 66th Street Reconstruction and 6-Year Mill and Overlay projects. (S.R. NO. 69) RESOLUTION NO. 11355 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 66TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11355. RESOLUTION NO. 11356 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 6-YEAR MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11356. M/Garcia, S/Regan Gonzalez to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING XCEL ENERGY TO UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD UTILITIES ALONG 66TH STREET BETWEEN XERXES AVENUE AND 16TH AVENUE AND SUPPORT THE RECOVERY OF $1,325,000 TO XCEL ENERGY THROUGH A SURCHARGE TO THE CITY’S RATEPAYERS. (S.R. NO. 70) Council Meeting Minutes -4- April 25, 2017 Mayor Elliott presented Staff Report No. 70. M/Elliott, S/Garcia to approve a resolution directing Xcel Energy to underground overhead utilities along 66th Street between Xerxes Avenue and 16th Avenue and support the recovery of $1,325,000 to Xcel Energy through a surcharge to the City’s ratepayers. RESOLUTION NO. 11357 RESOLUTION DIRECTING XCEL ENERGY TO UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD UTILITIES ALONG 66TH STREET BETWEEN XERXES AVENUE TO 16TH AVENUE Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11357. Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADULT MEMBER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION M/Howard, S/Elliott to appoint Wesley Dunser to fill a vacancy on the Transportation Commission with a term expiring January 31, 2018. Motion carried 4-0. Item #10 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT Public Works Director Asher discussed receiving the Environmental Stewardship Award for Urban Context Sensitive Solutions from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the Sweet Streets Portland Avenue Reconstruction project. Council Members commented on the Portland Avenue project and agreed they were proud of the results. Item #11 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Garcia, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 04/25/17 A/P Checks: 258309 - 258650 $ 1,241,713.32 Payroll: 127032 - 127343 677,961.89 TOTAL $ 1,919,675.21 Motion carried 4-0. OPEN FORUM Adam Burnside, 6314 12th Ave, spoke regarding the termination of police officer Nate Kinsey. Council Meeting Minutes -5- April 25, 2017 Arely Naranjo Zavala, 7720 4th Ave S, spoke regarding Homeline and Seasons Park apartments. Linda Soderstrom, 5277 W 82nd St #235, Bloomington, spoke regarding affordable housing and being a former tenant of Crossroads at Penn. Owen Duckworth, Coalition Organizer for Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, 2525 E Franklin Ave, Minneapolis, spoke regarding Seasons Park and affordable housing in Richfield. Cristal Vargas, 728 E 78th St #203, spoke regarding Seasons Park. Lisa Hendricks, Executive Director of Partnership Academy, 205 E 77th St, spoke regarding affordable housing in Richfield. Jonathan Ceballos Gonzalez, educator at Partnership Academy, 6431 Grand Ave S, spoke regarding Seasons Park. Kellen Roberts, teacher at Partnership Academy, 3124 Columbus Ave, Minneapolis, spoke regarding Seasons Park. Bernard Campbell, 800 W 65th St, spoke regarding being a former tenant of Crossroads at Penn and the problem of displacement when it became the Concierge apartments. Itzel Naranjo Zavala, 7720 4th Ave S, spoke regarding living in Seasons Park apartments. Item #12 ADJOURNMENT The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:39 p.m. Date Approved: May 9, 2017 Pat Elliott Mayor Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Work Session May 2, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 5:00 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; and Michael Present: Howard Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director/Police Chief; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director; Fire Chief; Mike Dobesh, Assistant Fire Chief; and, Chris Regis, Finance Manager. Item #1 2017 Council Goal Setting The City Council and City staff met to discuss annual goal setting and strategic planning. ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:52 p.m. Date Approved: May 9, 2017 _____________________________ Pat Elliott Mayor _____________________________ ____________________________ Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #4.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 71 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 5/9/2017 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, C ity P lanner D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ohn S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D i rector 5/2/2017 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 5/4/2017 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consideration of the approval of the first r eading of an ordinance rezoning pr operties currently addressed as: 6601 - 16th Ave, 6609 - 16th Ave, 6615 - 16th Ave, 6600 - 17th Ave, 6608 - 17th Ave, and 6614 - 17th Ave fr om General Business (C -2) to Planned G eneral Business (P C-2). E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The properties south of 66th Street between 16th and 17th Avenues have been zoned and guided for commercial use since 1968. At work sessions on February 9, 2016, April 12, 2016, and J anuary 24, 2017, I nterstate Development (the Developer) presented c oncept plans to the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment A uthority, and Planning Commission for a multi-tenant commerc ial building on these properties. Based on feedbac k received at these meetings, the Developer has submitted a plan that includes an attractive building with ac cess and interest along 66th Street, Richfield Parkway, and adjac ent to the Three Rivers Regional Trail. This first reading is an administrative requirement and approval does not obligate the Council to approve the ordinance upon sec ond reading; nor does it obligate the Council to approve the specific land use plans. The sec ond reading of this ordinanc e and final development plans are sc heduled for consideration by the Council on May 24. Although no tenants have been announced, the Developer has indicated that a coffee tenant would occupy the western-most space with the drive-thru and that negotiations are underway with a smaller restaurant chain that is not currently operating in or near Richfield for the eastern-most space with patio seating. T he proposed plans are consistent with all but two Zoning Code requirements: 1. Businesses with drive-thru servic e are conditionally permitted in this Distric t; however, the proposed drive-thru window is 3 feet closer to the adjac ent residential property line than permitted by Code (147 feet vs. 150 feet). 2. The proposed buffer between the parking lot and the adjac ent residential property line is 4.5 feet narrower than required (10.5 feet vs. 15 feet). These requirements are intended to protect adjac ent residential property owners from nuisances related to headlights and noise. Staff believes that the proposed c ombination of fencing and landsc aping adequately addresses these issues. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 20 to discuss the proposal. A number of area residents also spoke at the public hearing held before the Planning Commission on April 24. The primary c oncern mentioned was potential traffic increases on 16th Avenue. Noise and light pollution were also mentioned. C ommunity Development, Public W orks, and Fire Department staff are exploring options related to traffic on 16th Avenue and will have a rec ommendation by the May 24 meeting. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By Motion: Approve a first reading of an or dinance rezoning of Lots 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition from General Business (C -2) to Planned G ener al Business (P C-2). B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT The six properties south of 66th Street between 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue have been zoned for c ommercial development since 1968. The properties have been guided for c ommercial development in the C omprehensive Plan since 1982. The c onstruc tion of the roundabout at Ric hfield Parkway and 66th S treet resulted in the closing of the northern end of 17th Avenue. Redevelopment of this area would eliminate the need for much of this right-of-way and the Developer has requested its vacation. The P ublic W orks Department is supportive of this request. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): There are a number of sets of review c riteria that apply to this proposal. A full discussion of all requirements is included as an attac hment to this report. Generally, the c riteria require that the Council find that the proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the C omprehensive Plan and Zoning C ode without having undue adverse impac ts on public health, safety, and welfare. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: A complete application was received and the "60-day c lock" started on April 10, 2017. The Council must make a decision, or extend the deadline by an additional 60 day s, by J une 9, 2017. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: The required applic ation fees have been paid. The HRA is scheduled to c onsider the sale of 6608 - 17th Ave and the remnant parc els to the developer on May 15, 2017. Sale would be for the appraised market value of $450,000. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : The Planning Commission held a public hearing related to this item on April 27, 2017. Notic e of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and mailed to properties with 350 feet of the proposal. Draft P lanning C ommission minutes are attac hed. Other Ac tions: Tentative Schedule May 15, 2017 HRA: Public Hearing to c onsider sale of 6608 - 17th Avenue South and remnant parcels to I nterstate Development. May 24, 2017 Council: 2nd reading of rezoning and consideration of Final Development Plans. Council: 1st reading of ordinanc e to vacate adjacent right-of-way and utility easements. J une 13, 2017 Council: Public Hearing and 2nd reading of ordinance vacating adjacent right- of-way. Public Hearing to consider preliminary /final plat. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): Approve a first reading of the proposed ordinanc e amendment with modific ations. Deny a first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment with findings that detail how the proposal does not meet C ity requirements. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: Lonnie Provenc her, I nterstate Development AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Ordinance Ordinance Required F i ndings E xhibit P roposed P lans E xhibit P lanning & Zoning Maps E xhibit 04-24-17 D raft P C Minutes B ackup Materi al ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING LOTS 1-3 AND 14-16, BLOCK 1, CEDAR SUNRISE ADDITION AS PLANNED GENERAL BUSINESS (PC-2) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 3, Paragraph (75) of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to read as follows: (75) M-9 (15th to Cedar16th Avenue and East 66th Street). That area lying between the center lines of 15th and a line 33 feet east of the center line of Cedar Avenue16th Avenues, and between the center line of 66th Street and a line distant 250 feet southerly thereof and parallel thereto; except that area where zone PC-2 (5) overlaps with said zone in the block bounded by Cedar and 18th Avenues and by 66th and 67th Streets. Sec. 2. Section 3, of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new Paragraphs (93) and (94) as follows: (93) M-9 (17th Avenue/Richfield Parkway to 18th Avenue, South of 66th). Lots 1-3 and 14-16, Block 2, Wexlers Addn. (94) M-9 (18th Avenue to Cedar Avenue, South of 66th). That area lying between the center lines of 18th Avenue and a line 33 feet east of the center line of Cedar Avenue, and between the center line of 66 th Street and a line distant 250 feet southerly thereof and parallel thereto; except that area where zone PC-2 (5) overlaps with said zone. Sec. 3. Section 7, of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new Paragraph (13) as follows: (13) M-9 (16th to 17th Avenue, South of 66th). Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 66 in Richfield Addition. Sec. 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Required Findings Part 1: The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application (542.09 Subd. 3): 1. The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. The City’s Comprehensive Plan has designated these parcels as a spot for Community Commercial Business since 1982. In 2011, the City and Hennepin County developed a revitalization plan for the East 66 th Street Corridor (66 th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan). The Plan identified this southwest corner of the roundabout as a potential area of change, even leaving open the possibility for regional commercial development on a portion of this site. The plans are consistent with City plans that have been in place for many years. 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. Drive-thru traffic is limited, pedestrian connections to 66 th Street are strong, and bicycle parking is provided throughout the development. 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. Departures from requirements are minimal and the proposal meets the intent of requirements. 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. Undue adverse impacts are not anticipated. The site and the conditions of the resolution are designed to minimize any potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. Exiting the development through the neighborhood would be much slower than exiting via 66 th Street or Richfield Parkway; however, increased traffic by residents of the neighborhood to the south coming to or leaving from the development could increase traffic on 16 th Avenue. Options to limit left turns from the development onto 16 th Avenue include channelization and signage within the driveway apron or modifications to the right-of-way itself. City staff will discuss options with the neighborhood, as some options could limit desired movements by residents. 6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interest. The final development plan and conditional use permit resolution establish conditions sufficient to protect the public interest. 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 Districts. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines . See above – Part 1, #1 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: • Parking lot setback – The applicant has proposed a 10.5-ft. setback from the south property line; the Code requires a 15-ft. setback. The intent of this provision is to provide adequate area to attractively screen the parking lot. The proposed buffer provides 100% screening of the parking lot through a combination of fencing and landscaping. The buffer area is large enough to support the plants selected and will provide an attractive barrier between the development and the homes to the south. 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 from undue adverse impacts. 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. SCALE IN FEET 0 4020 Project Location Date Submittal / RevisionNo. Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issue: Client INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT 6390 CARLSON DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 PLAZA 66 RICHFIELD, MN SW of 66TH ST E AND 17TH AVE S EAV JMW MGB PRELIMINARY 03/20/2017 20706 03/20/17 City Submittal PREL I M I N A R Y 04/10/17 Revised City Submittal Apr 10, 2017 - 1:03pm - User:evogel L:\PROJECTS\20706\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\20706-C201-EXCND.dwg C2.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOUND MONUMENT SET MONUMENT MARKED LS 47481 ELECTRIC METER LIGHT SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FLARED END SECTION ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER AIR CONDITIONER GUY ANCHOR HANDICAP STALL UTILITY POLE POST SIGN TELEPHONE PEDESTAL GAS METER EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE RESTRICTED ACCESS BUILDING LINE BUILDING CANOPY CONCRETE CURB BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE LANDSCAPE SURFACE DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE OVERHEAD WIRE CHAIN LINK FENCE IRON FENCE WIRE FENCE WOOD FENCE LEGEND 1.Subject property's addresses and property identification numbers are shown on the survey. 2.The gross area of the subject property and area of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.417 Acres or 61,742 Square Feet. 3.dŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐǌŽŶĞĚʹϮ͕'ĞŶĞƌĂůŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů͕ƉĞƌŝƚǇŽĨZŝĐŚĨŝĞůĚǌŽŶŝŶŐŵĂƉĚĂƚĞĚ 04/2016. Lots 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota TOGETHER WITH That part of vacated 17th Avenue South described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 06 minutes 08 seconds East, along the west line of said vacated 17th Avenue South, a distance of 200.47 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 3 of said Block 1; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 16 seconds East, along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 3, a distance of 60.00 feet to the intersection of the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 3 with the east line of said vacated 17th Avenue South; thence North 00 degrees 06 minutes 08 seconds West, along said east line of vacated 17th Avenue South, a distance of 73.86 feet; thence North 25 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 140.17 feet to the point of beginning. 1.The bearing system for this survey is based on the north line of Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION having an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 55 minutes 57 seconds West. 2.A Gopher State One Call (GSOC) request was placed on 02/16/2017, under Ticket Number 170470481 for utility locates on this site. The underground utility locations, shown hereon, if any, are based upon locates from those utility providers that actually performed a locate as a result of this request. Utility suppliers often do not respond to these requests but may provide ambiguous maps, plans, and ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐŝŶůŝĞƵŽĨƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƐƵƌǀĞǇŽƌŵĂŬĞƐŶŽŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƵƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ shown comprise all such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned. Utility information shown hereon, if any, is a compilation of this map information and those visible utilities that were located during the survey field work. The surveyor further does not warrant that the underground utilities shown hereon, if any, are in the exact location as indicated, although he does certify that they are located as accurately as possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically located the underground utilities. Pursuant to MS 216.D contact Gopher State One Call at (651-454-0002) prior to any excavation. 3.Field work was completed on 02/23/2017. 4.The building(s) and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall. 1.The vertical datum is based on NAVD88. The originating bench marks are 2785 D and BR 7269 SE, both referenced from the MnDOT Geodetic Database. BENCHMARK #1 Sanitary sewer manhole rim elevation at northwest corner of property. Elev.=846.81 BENCHMARK #2 Sanitary sewer manhole rim elevation at northeast corner of property. Elev.=846.29 DESCRIPTION PROPERTY SUMMARY SURVEY NOTES BENCHMARKS SCALE IN FEET 0 4020 Project Location Date Submittal / RevisionNo. Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issue: Client INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT 6390 CARLSON DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 PLAZA 66 RICHFIELD, MN SW of 66TH ST E AND 17TH AVE S EAV JMW MGB PRELIMINARY 03/20/2017 20706 Registration No.Date: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state of Minnesota. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's, Minnetonka, MN office. 03/20/201750860 Michael G. Bultman 03/20/17 City Submittal PREL I M I N A R Y 04/10/17 Revised City Submittal Apr 10, 2017 - 1:03pm - User:evogel L:\PROJECTS\20706\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\20706-C301-SITE.dwg C3.01 SITE PLAN AREA EXISTING SITE AREA VACATED CITY ROW TOTAL SITE AREA SETBACKS FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD ZONING EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING BUILDING REQUIREMENTS ϵ͘ϬΖϵϬΣ^d>>^ ADA STALLS 1.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 2.ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3.KEdZdKZ^,>>Zs/tWsDEd'Z/EdEKE^dZhd͞'hddZKhd͟t,ZtdZ Z/E^tz&ZKDhZ͘>>Kd,ZZ^^,>>KE^dZhd^͞'hddZ/E͟hZ͘ COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR. 4.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 5.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 19' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 7.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL AND FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF LIGHT POLE. 8.REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS. 9.ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS ISLE SHALL BE 2.08% (1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT AND COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR. 10."NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ALL DRIVEWAYS AS REQUIRED BY CITY. LEGEND EASEMENT CURB & GUTTER BUILDING RETAINING WALL SAWCUT LINE NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS PER ROW SIGN PIPE BOLLARD STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTINGPROPOSED KEY NOTE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT NOTES KEY NOTES WETLAND LIMITS TREELINE A.BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) B.B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER C.B-618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER D.INTERIOR TRASH AREA (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) E.FLAT CURB SECTION F.COORDINATE SIGN RELOCATION WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY G.ACCESSIBLE RAMP (DESIGN PER CITY STANDARDS) H.TRANSFORMER PAD (FINAL LOCATION & SIZE TO BE DETERMINED) I.CURB TRANSITION J.ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE K.INTEGRAL CURB & SIDEWALK L.CONCRETE PATIO (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) M.PATIO FENCE (DESIGN BY OTHERS) N.LIGHT POLE (DESIGN BY OTHERS) O.(2) 6" RISERS W/ 12" TREAD (RAILING DESIGN BY OTHERS) P.MENU BOARD (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) 53,512 SF 1.23 AC 8,230 SF 0.19 AC 61,742 SF 1.42 AC PUD PUD PUD XXX PUD 69 STALLS 3 STALLS THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL XX. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. EXISTING BITUMINOUS TRAIL SCALE IN FEET 0 4020 LANDSCAPE LEGEND SOD - ALL SOD TO BE IRRIGATED RIVER ROCK BOULDERS 18"-36" (7) PLACED AROUND CURB RIVER ROCK BOULDERS 6"-12" (10) AT EACH CUB INLET AND PIPE OUTLET 1 2 3 STEEL EDGER4 1.5" RIVER ROCK PER CIVIL DETAIL5 LIST CODE HERE PLANT TYPE REQUIRED PROVIDED DEVELOPABLE AREA REQUIREMENT = 24 INTERIOR PLANTING ISLAND = 4 PERIMETER PLANTINGS = 8 TOTAL PLANTINGS 36 OVER STORY TREES 16 EVERGREEN TREES 10 ORNAMENTAL TREES 0 26 CITY LANDSCAPE CODE Project Location Date Submittal / RevisionNo. Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issue: Client INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT 6390 CARLSON DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 PLAZA 66 RICHFIELD, MN SW of 66TH ST E AND 17TH AVE S EAV JMW MGB PRELIMINARY 03/20/2017 20706 03/20/17 City Submittal PREL I M I N A R Y 04/10/17 Revised City Submittal Apr 10, 2017 - 1:04pm - User:evogel L:\PROJECTS\20706\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\20706-L101-LAND.dwg L1.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN Registration No.Date: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of Minnesota. This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this survey which is available upon request at Sambatek, Minnetonka, MN office. 03/20/201740252 William L. Delaney TREES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT CAL QTY Quercus bicolor / Swamp White Oak B & B 2.5"Cal 7 Tilia americana `Boulevard` / Boulevard Linden B & B 2.5"Cal 5 Ulmus americana `Princeton` / American Elm B & B 2.5"Cal 4 ORN. TREES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT CAL QTY Amelanchier canadensis `Autumn Brilliance` / Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry B & B 2"Cal 9 Syringa reticulata / Japanese Tree Lilac B & B 2"Cal 1 SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT QTY Aronia melanocarpa `Autumn Magic` / Autumn Magic Black Chokeberry 5 gal 36 Cornus sericea `Alleman`s Compact` / Dwarf Red Twig Dogwood 5 gal 10 Diervilla lonicera / Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 5 gal 36 Hydrangea paniculata `Jane` / Little Lime Hydrangea 5 gal 21 Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low` / Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac 5 gal 25 Spiraea betulifolia `Tor` / Birchleaf Spirea 5 gal 6 Syringa x `Bloomerang` / Lilac 5 gal 20 PERENNIALS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT QTY Hemerocallis x `Baja` / Baja Daylily 1 gal 37 PLANT SCHEDULE Tree Tag List Tree Number Size Tree Name 2182 37 Maple - Silver (acer saccharinum) 2183 13 Maple - Sugar (Acer saccharum) 2184 30 Maple - Silver (acer saccharinum) 2185 32 Maple - Silver (acer saccharinum) 2186 25 Maple - Silver (acer saccharinum) 2187 6 Ash - Green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 2188 5 Ash - Green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 2189 9 Box Elder (Acer negundo) 2190 7 Box Elder (Acer negundo) 2191 15 Crab Apple (Malus spp.) 2192 27 Ash - Green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 2193 34 Maple - Silver (acer saccharinum) 2194 9 Crab Apple (Malus spp.) 2195 19 Ash - Green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 2196 14 Birch - Paper (Betula papyrifera) 2197 13, 40'Fir - Balsam (Abies balsamea) 2198 13, 40'Fir - Balsam (Abies balsamea) 2199 29 Ash - Green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 2200 3 Oak - White (Quercus alba) 7783 26 Maple - Sugar (Acer saccharum) 7784 12 Oak - Red (Quercus rubra) 7785 12, 40'Fir - Balsam (Abies balsamea) 7786 22 Ash - Green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) TREE REMOVAL/PRESERVATION *REFER TO SHEET C2.01 (EXISTING CONDITIONS) FOR EXISTING TREE TAG LOCATIONS BIKE RACK (4) - DERO - BIKE BIKE RACK6 CEDAR FENCE 6' HEIGHT, OPAQUE7 ALL PLANTINGS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP SYSTEM PER SPECIFICATION 1 7 A C 17 2 ' - 0 " 6 2 ' - 0 " 2 3 4 5 33 ' - 4 " 33 ' - 4 " 25 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 33' - 4"6 2 ' - 5 " 1 2 ' - 1 1 " 4 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 4 " 5' - 9 1 / 2 " 5' - 1 1 / 2 " 6' - 0 " 5' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 2 1 / 2 " 16 ' - 3 " 8' - 2 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 4 " 8' - 0 " 27 ' - 4 " 8' - 0 " 16 ' - 8 " 8' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 32' - 0" 17 2 ' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 6' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 4 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 4 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 4 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 4 " 5' - 4 " 6' - 0 " 5' - 4 " 8' - 1 0 " 6' - 4 " 8' - 10"4' - 0"4' - 0"23' - 7"62' - 0"8' - 3"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"12' - 0"16' - 11" 4' - 4 " 4' - 4 " 4' - 4 " 4' - 8 " 4' - 4 " 3' - 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 1 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 8 " 4 ' - 8 " 4 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 8 " 4 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 0 " 8' - 2 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 1 1 " 8' - 2 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 4 " 8' - 0 " 29 ' - 4 " 8' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 4 " 8 ' - 0 " 2 2 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 0 " 4' - 9 " 3' - 1 0 " 4' - 9 " 4' - 8 " 4' - 8 " 5' - 4 " 4' - 8"4' - 8"4' - 0"4' - 0"23' - 7" 4' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 8 " 4' - 8 " 3' - 8 " 4' - 8 " 4' - 0 " B 3 4 ' - 0 " 2 8 ' - 0 " 1, 9 0 0 G R O S S S F 1 , 9 7 8 G R O S S S F 1 , 5 2 2 G R O S S S F 1 , 5 2 2 G R O S S S F 3 , 1 8 4 G R O S S S F ME C H 10 5 G S F TR A S H / R E C . 20 0 G S F OD O R C O N T R O L S Y S T E M PR O V I D E D W H E R E RE Q U I R E D , T Y P . A RCHITECTURE, I N C Copyright 2016 DJR Architecture, Inc. C B A D 4 3 2 1333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.PRINT NAME SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NUMBER DATE CLIENT Issue: Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTOR STRUCTURAL CIVIL PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A100FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 Richfield, MinnesotaApprover3-15-17 16-110 3-15-17 CW SN P L A Z A 6 6Designer 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " H1 FL O O R P L A N - L E V E L 1 N L1 FLOOR 100' - 0"ROOF 118' - 4"1 7 2 3 4 5 6 1 5 ' - 2 " 4 ' - 0 " 2 7 ' - 1 1 " L1 FLOOR 100' - 0"ROOF 118' - 4"A C B 5' - 10"4' - 0"15' - 2"L1 FLOOR 100' - 0"ROOF 118' - 4" 1 7 2 3 4 5 6 18' - 4"4' - 0"12' - 0"27' - 11"STONE VENEER PREFINISHED METAL EI F S SI G N A G E B Y T E N A N T PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L PA N E L CLEAR ANNODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT IN T E G R A L L Y C O L O R E D C O N C R E T E B L O C K & S I L L DE C O R A T I V E W A L L S C O N C E S , T Y P . A L L L1 F L O O R 10 0 ' - 0 " RO O F 11 8 ' - 4 " A C B A RCHITECTURE, I N C Copyright 2016 DJR Architecture, Inc. C B A D 4 3 2 1333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.PRINT NAME SIGNATURE REGISTRATION NUMBER DATE CLIENT Issue: Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTOR STRUCTURAL CIVIL PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A200EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Richfield, MinnesotaApprover3-15-17 16-110 3-15-17 CW SN P L A Z A 6 6Designer 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " B1 NO R T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A3 EA S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A1 SO U T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " B3 WE S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N A4 VI E W F R O M N E B4 VI E W F R O M N W C2 VI E W F R O M S W PL A Z A 6 6 Ri c h f i e l d , M i n n e s o t a Northeast Perspective 4 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 7 16-110 PL A Z A 6 6 Ri c h f i e l d , M i n n e s o t a Northwest Perspective 4 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 7 16-110 PL A Z A 6 6 Ri c h f i e l d , M i n n e s o t a Southeast Perspective 4 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 7 16-110 PL A Z A 6 6 Ri c h f i e l d , M i n n e s o t a Southwest Perspective 4 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 7 16-110 PAGE 1 OF 1 Drawn By: SANDY Date:4/10/2017 Scale: AS NOTED Revisions # Date Comments LI G H T N G C O D E S O R O R D I N A N C E S . GE N E R A L N O T E S : A. P U L S E P R O D U C T S D O E S N O T A S S U M E R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y FO R T H E I N T E R P R E T A T I O N O F T H I S C A L C U L A T I O N O R CO M P L A I N C E T O T H E L O C A L , S T A T E , O R F E D E R A L B. L I G H T I N G L A Y O U T I S N O T I N T E N D E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N DO C U M E N T S B U T O N L Y T O I L L U S T R A T E T H E P E R F O R M A N C E OF T H E P R O D U C T . C. A L L R E A D I N G S / C A L C U L A T I O N S S H O W N A R E S H O W N O N OB J E C T S / S U R F A C E S . PLAZA 66 RICHFIELD, MNChecked By: TRENT Lu m i n a i r e S c h e d u l e Sy m b o l Qt y La b e l Lu m i n a i r e L o c a t i o n S u m m a r y Lu m N o La b e l X Y Ar r a n g e m e n t LL F De s c r i p t i o n Ar r . W a t t s Lum. Lumens Z Ca l c u l a t i o n S u m m a r y Or i e n t Ti l t 28 AA 53 4 2 6 7 . 2 13 3 5 8 4 . 7 8 La b e l Ca l c T y p e Un i t s 27 0 0 Av g Ma x Mi n 29 Av g / M i n Ma x / M i n SI T E G R O U N D AA 53 4 3 2 6 . 4 13 3 5 8 5 . 4 8 27 0 0 30 AA 53 4 3 9 6 . 5 13 3 5 8 6 . 5 8 Il l u m i n a n c e 27 0 0 31 BB 53 4 1 6 3 . 7 13 3 6 0 0 . 7 24 0 0 Fc 1. 1 1 32 3. 8 0. 0 AA 53 4 2 2 5 . 4 N. A . N. A . 13 3 6 1 3 . 9 SO U T H P R O P E R T Y L I N E Il l u m i n a n c e Fc 8 18 0 0 0. 9 0 1. 0 0. 7 1. 2 9 1. 4 3 34 CC 53 4 3 2 1 . 5 13 3 5 1 7 . 1 24 PA R K I N G L O T Il l u m i n a n c e Fc 1. 9 3 -9 9 0 3. 8 0. 8 0 35 CC 53 4 1 9 5 . 4 13 3 5 1 6 . 9 24 90 0 36 CC 53 4 4 3 9 . 6 13 3 5 1 7 . 4 24 2. 4 1 4. 7 5 -9 9 0 4 AA SI N G L E 0. 9 0 0 WA C W S - 6 6 2 0 A 1 1 2 9 1 3 W A L L M O U N T A T 8 F T 23 . 4 1146 1 BB SI N G L E 0. 9 0 0 MC G R A W G L E O N - A F - 0 3 - L E D - E 1 - S L 4 - H S S M O U N T O N 2 2 F T P O L E W I T H 2 F T B A S E 16 6 14749 3 CC SI N G L E 0. 9 0 0 MC G R A W G L E O N - A F - 0 5 - L E D - E 1 - 5 W Q M O U N T O N 2 2 F T P O L E W I TH 2 F T B A S E 27 9 31336 0 Pl a n V i e w Sc a l e : 1 i n c h = 3 0 F t . BB AA AA AA AA CC CC CC 0. 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 2 0 . 2 0. 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0. 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0. 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 0. 5 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0. 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0. 7 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0. 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 9 1. 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0. 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 7 1 . 0 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 3 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1. 3 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 8 1 . 1 1 . 5 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 2 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 6 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 2 1. 5 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 1 2 . 2 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 8 1 . 5 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 1 2 . 2 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 9 1 . 2 1 . 7 2 . 2 2 . 6 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 5 2 . 2 1 . 7 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 4 1. 6 2 . 0 2 . 4 2 . 7 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 4 2 . 0 1 . 7 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 7 2 . 1 2 . 5 2 . 7 2 . 8 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 2 0 . 4 0 . 7 1 . 0 1 . 3 1 . 8 2 . 4 2 . 8 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 8 2 . 4 1 . 8 1 . 5 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1. 7 2 . 1 2 . 7 2 . 9 3 . 2 3 . 0 2 . 7 2 . 2 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 8 2 . 3 2 . 8 3 . 0 3 . 2 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 2 0 . 4 0 . 7 1 . 0 1 . 3 1 . 8 2 . 5 2 . 8 3 . 4 3 . 2 2 . 8 2 . 4 1 . 9 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 5 1. 7 2 . 2 2 . 8 3 . 0 3 . 5 3 . 0 2 . 8 2 . 3 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 8 2 . 4 2 . 8 3 . 1 3 . 5 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0. 2 0 . 4 0 . 7 0 . 9 1 . 3 1 . 7 2 . 3 2 . 8 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 8 2 . 4 1 . 9 1 . 5 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1. 6 2 . 1 2 . 6 2 . 9 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 6 2 . 1 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 8 2 . 2 2 . 7 2 . 9 3 . 0 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0. 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 9 1 . 2 1 . 7 2 . 2 2 . 6 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 6 2 . 2 1 . 8 1 . 5 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1. 5 1 . 9 2 . 2 2 . 5 2 . 7 2 . 5 2 . 3 2 . 0 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 7 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 5 2 . 6 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0. 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 8 1 . 1 1 . 7 2 . 3 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 5 2 . 3 2 . 1 1 . 8 1 . 4 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1. 4 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 5 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 5 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 9 1 . 9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0. 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 7 0 . 9 1 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 4 2 . 2 1 . 9 1 . 6 1 . 3 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 2 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0. 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 7 2 . 0 3 . 4 3 . 2 2 . 8 2 . 4 2 . 0 1 . 6 1 . 3 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0. 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 6 2 . 1 3 . 8 3 . 3 2 . 8 2 . 2 1 . 8 1 . 4 1 . 1 0 . 9 0 . 9 1 . 9 2 . 2 0. 9 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 2 . 0 1 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 9 1 . 7 1 . 7 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0. 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 2 . 0 3 . 3 3 . 2 2 . 6 2 . 0 1 . 5 1 . 2 2. 3 0 . 7 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 4 2 . 2 3 . 7 3 . 6 2 . 8 1 . 9 1 . 4 1 . 2 0. 6 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 1 0. 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 1 . 8 3 . 2 3 . 1 2 . 4 1 . 7 1 . 5 2 . 6 0. 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 1 . 5 3 . 1 2 . 7 2 . 1 1 . 6 1 . 4 2 . 4 0. 1 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 1 . 4 2 . 8 2 . 5 1 . 9 1 . 5 1 . 2 0 . 9 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 5 1 . 2 1 . 0 0 . 7 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 . 8 0 . 6 0 . 5 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 1 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0. 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 9 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 0 1. 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 7 1 f c 1 f c 1 f c 1 f c 1 fc 1 fc 1 f c 1 f c 1 f c 0. 5 f c 0. 5 f c 0. 5 f c 0.5 fc 0.5 fc 0. 5 f c 0. 5 f c 0. 5 f c 0. 2 5 f c 0. 2 5 f c 0. 2 5 f c 0.25 fc 0.25 fc 0.25 fc 0. 2 5 f c GL E O N S E R I E S VI E S E R I E S LOT 1 BLOCK 1 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Interstate Industrial, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner, of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: Lots 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION TOGETHER WITH That part of vacated 17th Avenue South described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 06 minutes 08 seconds East, along the west line of said vacated 17th Avenue South, a distance of 200.47 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 3 of said Block 1; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 16 seconds East, along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 3, a distance of 60.00 feet to the intersection of the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 3 with the east line of said vacated 17th Avenue South; thence North 00 degrees 06 minutes 08 seconds West, along said east line of vacated 17th Avenue South, a distance of 73.86 feet; thence North 25 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 140.17 feet to the point of beginning. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD, and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the drainage and utility easements as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said Interstate Industrial, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ____________________, 20___. SIGNED: Interstate Industrial, LLC By: , as STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, by , as of Interstate Industrial, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public, County, Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires I, Rick M. Blom, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Rick M. Blom, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 21729 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, by Rick M. Blom, a Licensed Land Surveyor. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA This plat of PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD was approved and accepted by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of ____________________, 20___. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30-day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, Richfield, Minnesota By: Mayor By: Manager RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By: , Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD was recorded in this office this _______ day of _________________, 20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By: , Deputy ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SAMBATEK, INC. PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 21729. DENOTES 1/2 INCH PINCHED TOP IRON MONUMENT FOUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DENOTES FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF NORTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST. 0 SCALE IN FEET 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 C.R. DOC. NO. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Erin Vrieze Daniels, Commissioners Sean Hayford Oleary, Gordon Vizecky, Susan Rosenberg, Dan Kitzberger, Bryan Pynn and Allysen Hoberg STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner Matt Brillhart, Associate Planner Jeff Pearson, City Engineer John Stark, Community Development Director OTHERS PRESENT: Lonnie Provencher, Interstate Development See Item #2 and attached sign-in sheet for additional speakers Chairperson Vrieze Daniels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Vizecky, S/Rosenberg to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2017 meeting. Motion carried: 7-0 OPEN FORUM No members of the public spoke. PUBLIC HEARING(S) ITEM #1 17-CUP-02, 17-VAR-01 – Consider a request for a conditional use permit and variances to allow a buffet restaurant to operate in the former Old Country Buffet space at 6601 Nicollet Avenue. Associate Planner Matt Brillhart presented the staff report and shared a letter from a nearby property owner. In response to a question from Commissioner Hayford Oleary regarding the odor control complaint process, Brillhart stated that the Zoning Code does not specify a set number of complaints. Staff and the City Attorney concurred that at a minimum, the City would require two unique complaints related to odors from verified addresses within 150 feet of the property before taking action to require installation of odor control equipment. Nikki Bodurtha (6633 1st Avenue) expressed concerns with the lack of a set process for addressing complaints related to odors. M/Vizecky, S/Rosenberg to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7-0 Commissioner Rosenberg stated concerns with granting a variance justified on the length of time the space had been vacant and stated that the one year rule should be upheld. April 24, 2017 2 M/Vizecky, S/Hayford Oleary to recommend approval of the CUP and variances. Motion carried: 6-1 (Rosenberg dissenting) ITEM #2 17-RZN-01, 17-CUP-01, 17-FDP-01, 17-PUD-01 – Consider approval of a multi-tenant commercial development at 66th Street East, between 16th and 17th Avenues. The proposal would replace four existing single-family homes and eliminate approximately 120 feet of 17th Avenue (in front of 6608 and 6614 - 17th Avenue). This area is currently zoned for commercial development. City Planner Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report. City Engineer Jeff Pearson gave an overview of potential traffic impacts and possible mitigation solutions. Community Development Director John Stark summarized the recent neighborhood meeting regarding the proposal and noted that the proposed 6 foot tall fence could be increased to 8 feet. In response to a question from Chairperson Vrieze Daniels, Pearson stated that completely eliminating the access onto 16th Avenue could put too much pressure on the entrance on Richfield Parkway. The effects would have to be studied further. In response to questions from Commissioner Hayford Oleary, Poehlman stated that lighting levels could not exceed 1 footcandle at the property line and the proposal meets this requirement. Poehlman stated that the proposal meets the City’s parking requirements. Ten speakers expressed concerns with the potential for the development to generate additional traffic on 16th Avenue and expressed concerns with the drive-thru related to noise and privacy. Several suggested closing off 16th Avenue south of the development. One speaker adjacent to the development expressed support for the project, conditioned on support for an 8-foot fence. One speaker expressed concern with the loss of residences. The following individuals spoke at the public hearing: Dan Hinrichs 6638 16th Ave Jane Peterson 6639 16th Ave Rissa Pahl 6645 16th Ave Rosie Hinrichs 6638 16th Ave Larry Nelson 6633 16th Ave Liz Berres 6732 17th Ave Bill Killian 6620 17th Ave Courtney Zellmer 6621 16th Ave Kim Houle 7001 15th Ave Tyler Hoyt 6621 16th Ave David Vrchota 6614 17th Ave Terry Straub 7430 Portland Ave Lonnie Provencher of Interstate Development presented a sketch of possible options for traffic control modifications on 16th Avenue. M/Vizecky, S/Rosenberg to close the public hearing. April 24, 2017 3 Motion carried: 7-0 In response to a question from Chair Vrieze Daniels, Engineer Pearson stated that the City was not prepared to take a position on the full closure of 16th Avenue at this time, as it would need to be reviewed by the Engineering, Maintenance, Public Safety, and Fire Departments. Chair Vrieze Daniels suggested tabling the item until the May Planning Commission meeting so those questions could be resolved. Commissioner Hoberg concurred. Commissioners Hayford Oleary and Vizecky countered that the development had been in the works for some time and had already made revisions to improve the project. Vizecky stated that the development itself was unlikely to change and that traffic flow and street closures were not the function of the Planning Commission. Poehlman stated that the resolution as written included a stipulation that the access on 16th be channelized in some way, and stated that revisions could be included when the item goes before the City Council for a second reading. M/Vizecky, S/Hayford Oleary to recommend approval of the land use applications. Commissioner Hayford Oleary inquired if tenants were required to use doors facing 66th Street. Poehlman responded in the affirmative and noted there might be one tenant in the middle of the building that does not have a door facing the street. Commissioner Hayford Oleary also noted the lack of a pedestrian connection from the 16th Avenue sidewalk. Motion carried: 6-1 (Hoberg dissenting) OTHER BUSINESS ITEM #3 PC LETTER #5 – Consider the attached resolution finding that the sale of 6608 17th Avenue and the adjacent remnant parcels by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for future redevelopment as a commercial property is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Poehlman presented the staff report. M/Vizecky, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the resolution. Motion carried: 7-0 LIAISON REPORTS Community Services Advisory Commission: Chairperson Vrieze Daniels – parks master plan City Council: Commissioner Rosenberg – No report HRA: Commissioner Hoberg – Seasons Park apartments sold to Aeon Richfield School Board: Commissioner Kitzberger – No report Transportation Commission: Commissioner Hayford Oleary – No report Chamber of Commerce: Commissioner Vizecky – Salute to Small Businesses event on 4/26 CITY PLANNER’S REPORT There is a survey/map online regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. ADJOURNMENT M/Vizecky, S/Rosenberg to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:34 p.m. April 24, 2017 4 _____________________ Gordon Vizecky Secretary AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #4.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 72 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 5/9/2017 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: J esse S wenson, A ssistant H R Manager D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 5/4/2017 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 5/4/2017 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consideration of the approval of a resolution authoriz ing the City to affir m the monetary limits on statutory municipality tort liability. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The City purc hases its liability insuranc e coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities I nsuranc e Trust (L MC I T). Eac h year, the C ity must decide to either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability by J uly 1. After reviewing c ost considerations measured against potential risk, the City has, historically, affirmed the liability limits which are $500,000 for an individual claimant and $1,500,000 per oc currence. Staff is rec ommending the same c ourse of action for the upc oming insuranc e renewal. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing the C ity Council to affirm the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota S tatutes 466.04. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT A requirement of insuranc e coverage through the L MC I T is an annual affirmation or waiver of statutory limits of liability. The c urrent statutory limits of liability for Minnesota c ities are $500,000 for an individual c laimant and $1,500,000 per oc currence. C ities can waive these limits to allow an individual claimant to rec over more than $500,000, up to the $1,500,000 per occ urrence limit, if exc ess liability insurance is purchased. However, the c ost of the excess liability insurance c ontinues to be very expensive. An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost the C ity approximately $65,000 annually. Slightly more than half of the cities in Minnesota do not waive its limits of liability. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The State Statute establishes liability limits for cities and the current level is $1,500,000, which appears to be a reasonable limit. Historic ally, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota do not waive the monetary limits on munic ipality tort liability as was established by Statutes 466.04. The C ounc il could waive its statutory limits in future years if a dec ision was made to do so. The C ounc il may also wish to consider purchasing excess liability in the future. I f this is the case it may be purchased at any point in the future. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: The C ity's insuranc e polic y with the League of Minnesota Cities I nsurance Trust will renew on J uly 1, 2017. This action must be c ompleted on, or before that time. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: The C ity has historic ally not purchased exc ess liability coverage bec ause of the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of c overage would be between $65,000 and $75,000 if the C ity decided to waive its liability limits. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have protec ted c ities, historic ally, and no Minnesota court has ever established a monetary award in excess of the statutory limits against a munic ipality. Eac h city must annually dec ide whether the c ity would voluntarily waive the statute for both the single c laims and each occ urrence limit. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): I f the C ounc il determines that any single claimant should receive more than the $500,000 limit, the Council c ould elect to waive the statutory monetary limits. I f the C ounc il determines that the $1,500,000 per oc currence limit is not adequate, the City could purchase exc ess liability coverage. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: None AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Resolution Resolution L etter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04 WHEREAS , Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for Minnesota cities; and WHEREAS , the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked that each city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive its limits; and WHEREAS , such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes 466.04. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of May, 2017. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #6. STAFF REPORT NO. 73 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 5/9/2017 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: J ohn S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D i rector D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ohn S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D i rector 5/3/2017 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 5/4/2017 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Public hearing and consideration of the appr oval of an Enabling Resolution relating to the formation and administr ation of an Economic Development Authority in, and for, the City of R ichfield and approval of a resolution authorizing the Economic Development Authority to levy taxes. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: At both the 2016 goal setting and budget presentations, C ity staff had recommended the c onsideration of the formation of an E conomic D evelopment Authority (E D A). Based on that recommendation, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) held joint work sessions on Marc h 20, 2017 and April 25, 2017 to discuss the topic . At eac h of those meetings, there was a general consensus that the c reation of an E D A would provide both the authority and a funding mec hanism (through an E D A levy ) to provide benefic ial economic development, business assistanc e, and housing assistance programing. I n partic ular, an E D A would provide a long-term funding solution to continuing the Kids@Home and Transformation Loan programs. Staff was direc ted to take the nec essary administrative steps in order to bring action steps to the City Council and/or HRA for formal consideration of the creation of an E D A. At the April 25 meeting, the City Counc il and HRA discussed the Memorandum (City C ounc il Memo No. 39 and HRA Memo No. 11) that provided the next steps for the c reation of an E D A, including the consideration of the attached resolutions. Staff was directed to bring those resolutions forward for formal c onsideration at this City Council meeting. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: 1. Approve an Enabling R esolution establishing the R ichfield Economic D evelopment Authority; and 2. Approve a r esolution approving a present intent to levy a tax for Economic Development purposes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.107. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT City staff and the City Council have disc ussed the c reation of an E conomic D evelopment Authority (E D A) on a number of oc casions, inc luding: The 2016 City Counc il Goal S etting Session on March 3, 2016; The presentations of the Proposed Budget to the City Council on August 31, 2016; A joint work session of the C ity Council and HRA on March 20, 2017; and A joint work session of the City C ounc il and HRA on April 25, 2017. At eac h of those meetings, there was a general c onsensus that the c reation of an E D A, and the programming that an E D A could administer, would be beneficial to the c ommunity. I n particular, an E D A would provide a long-term funding solution to c ontinuing the Kids@Home and Transformation Loan programs. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): An E D A is established by the City Council holding a public hearing and adopting an Enabling Resolution per State Statute 469.091 (2). The C ity may levy taxes up to .01813% of taxable market value per State Statute 469.107 C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: Staff has since leaned that, in order to impose an E D A levy in 2018, the C ity must form an E D A prior to J uly 1, 2017. The resolutions under consideration c onstitute the steps that are necessary for that ac tion. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Acc ording to an analysis conducted by Rebecc a Kurtz of Ehlers Associates, I nc. (the City/HRA financial consultant), the impact of the maximum E D A Levy on a Richfield homeowner with a home value of $175,000 - $200,000 would be 28 to 33 c ents per y ear. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : The attac hed resolutions were prepared by J ulie Eddington of Kennedy and Graven (legal counsel to both the City of Richfield and the Ric hfield HRA). Notic e of the public hearing was required to be published twice. I t was published in the Richfield Sun Current on April 13, 2017 and April 20, 2017. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): Deny the vote on the attached resolutions and defer consideration of this matter to 2018. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: Legal Counsel AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Resolution - E nabling Resolution Resolution L etter Resolution - Intent to L evy Resolution L etter C ity C ounci l Memo No. 39 B ackup Materi al 496910v3 JAE RC260-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _________ ENABLING RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RICHFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Background and Findings. 1.01. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1082, as amended (the “Act”), to establish an economic development authority for the City to coordinate and administer economic development and redevelopment plans and programs in the community. 1.02. It is found and determined by the City Council that the encouragement and financial support of economic development and redevelopment in the City is vital to the orderly development of the City and in the best interests of the health, safety, prosperity and general welfare of the citizens of the City. 1.03. It is further found and determined that the economic development and redevelopment of the City can best be accomplished by the establishment of an economic development authority as authorized by the Act. 1.04. The City Council, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, provided public notice and conducted a public hearing on May 9, 2017 concerning the establishing of an economic development authority at which hearing all persons desiring to express their views were heard. Section 2. Enabling Resolution. 2.01. The Richfield Economic Development Authority (“REDA”) is hereby established pursuant to this enabling resolution (the “Enabling Resolution”). REDA is a public body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. 2.02. REDA shall have all the powers under the Act, and the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and of a city under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.133, as such laws may be amended from time to time, except as limited by this Enabling Resolution. 2.03. REDA shall consist of a governing body of five commissioners. Two commissioners shall be members of the City Council and three commissioners shall be members at large. The terms of the commissioners who are also members of the City Council shall coincide with their terms of office as members of the City Council. The three at large commissioners shall be the three at large commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “HRA”). The terms of the commissioners at large shall be six years. At any time an at large commissioner of REDA is not also a commissioner of the HRA, such commissioner’s term on REDA shall terminate. 2 496910v3 JAE RC260-1 Section 3. Limits of Powers. 3.01. REDA shall be subject to the following limitations in the exercise of its authority: a. The sale of all bonds or other obligations issued by REDA must be approved by the City Council before issuance. b. REDA must follow the budget process for City departments in accordance with City policies, resolutions and ordinances. c. All actions of REDA must be consistent with the City comprehensive plan and official controls implementing the comprehensive plan. d. REDA must obtain approval of its proposed plans for development and redevelopment from the City Council. 3.02. This Enabling Resolution may be modified from time to time by the City Council in the manner prescribed by the Act. 3.03. As provided in the Act, it is the intention of the City Council that nothing in this Enabling Resolution nor any activities of REDA be construed to impair the obligations of the City under any of its contracts or to affect in any detrimental manner the rights and privileges of a holder of a bond or other obligation heretofore issued by the City. REDA shall not modify any covenant or obligation in effect at the time any bonds or obligations were issued or contracts executed to the detriment of the holder of the bonds or obligations or any contracting party. Section 4. Officers, Organization. 4.01. REDA may adopt bylaws and rules of procedure and shall adopt an official seal. 4.02. REDA shall elect a president, vice-president, treasurer, secretary, and assistant treasurer who shall have such duties and powers as prescribed by the Act. The president, treasurer, and secretary shall be elected annually. No commissioner shall serve as president and vice-president at the same time. The offices of secretary and assistant treasurer need not be held by a commissioner. 4.03. REDA shall appoint an executive director and secure the services of such other persons as it deems necessary or convenient to perform its functions. Initially, the executive director of REDA shall be the City Manager. Section 5. Audit. 5.01. The financial statements of REDA must be prepared, audited, filed, and published or posted in the manner required for the financial statements of the City. 5.02. The report must be filed with the state auditor by June 30 of each year. 3 496910v3 JAE RC260-1 Section 6. Bonds. 6.01. REDA may issue its general obligation bonds in the principal amounts authorized by two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. a. The bonds may be issued in anticipation of income from any source and used to secure funds needed to pay for acquired property or for other purposes authorized by the Act. b. The bonds must be in the amount and form and bear interest at the rate set by the City Council. c. The first installment shall be due in not more than 3 years and the last in not more than 30 years from the date of issuance. d. The bonds shall not impose any personal liability on a member of REDA. e. The bonds shall be secured by the full faith, credit and resources of the City only if the City Council specifically authorizes REDA to do so. 6.02. REDA may issue revenue bonds for such purposes and following such procedures as are specified in the Act. Section 7. Tax Levy. 7.01. The City may, at the request of REDA, levy a tax in any year for the benefit of REDA in an amount not more than 0.01813 percent of estimated market value of taxable property within the City or such other amount as allowed by the Act. The levy may be increased by resolution of the City Council following a public hearing and published notice in accordance with the Act. 7.02. REDA may not, when exercising its powers as a housing and redevelopment authority, levy a tax in accordance with Section 469.033 of the Act. Section 8. Implementation. 8.01. The City Council may from time to time adopt such ordinances and resolutions as may be necessary or convenient to give full effect to this Enabling Resolution. 8.02. The Mayor, City Manager and other City officials are authorized and directed to take such actions and execute and deliver such documents necessary or convenient to give full effect to this Enabling Resolution. 4 496910v3 JAE RC260-1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of May, 2017. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk 497371v2 JAE RC260-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. ___________ APPROVING A PRESENT INTENT TO LEVY A TAX FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PURPOSES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.107 BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1082, as amended (the “Act”), the City established the Richfield Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”). 2. Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act authorizes the City to levy and collect a tax of up to 0.01813% of the estimated market value of taxable property within the City, levied upon all taxable real property within the City, for economic development authority purposes. 3. The EDA intends to request that the City approve such a levy in the amount of 0.01813% of the estimated market value of taxable property within the City, and the City finds that such a levy is in the best interest of the City and EDA because it will facilitate economic development. 4. The City Council hereby approves the levy of a tax for economic development purposes pursuant to Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act in the amount equal to 0.01813% of the estimated market value of taxable property within the City (expected to be approximately $600,000) with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2018. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of May, 2017. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Office of City Manager April 20 2017 Council Memorandum No 39 HRA Memorandum No 11 Housing and Redevelopment The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners And City of Richfield Members of the City Council Subject Further Information on the Formation of an Economic Development Authority Council Members Based on prior discussions during the 2016 Goal Setting and budgeting processes City staff had recommended the consideration of the formation of an Economic Development Authority EDA Based on that recommendation the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority HRA held a joint Work Session on March 20 2017 to discuss the topic At that meeting there was general consensus that the formation of an EDA would provide both the authority and a funding mechanism through an EDA levy to provide beneficial economic development business assistance and housing assistance programming Staff was directed to take the necessary administrative steps in order to bring action steps to the City Council and or HRA for formal consideration of the creation of an EDA Staff has since leaned that in order to impose an EDA levy in 2018 the City must form an EDA prior to July 1 2017 The procedure for creation of an EDA calls for Holding a Public Hearing to adopt an enabling resolution for the creation of an EDA tentatively scheduled for May 9 An initial meeting of the EDA to create bylaws elect officers etc and to request the City impose an EDA levy not scheduled but should take place in late May early June and The City Council would approve the imposition of an EDA levy tentatively scheduled for June 13 One item that was not resolved at the March 20 Work Session was the preferred composition of an EDA The two choices that were discussed were either having the membership be coincidental to HRA membership or coincidental to the City Council In the legal notices that were required to be published for the May 9 Public Hearing staff wrote The Authority will be governed by a five member board of commissioners At least two commissioners shall be members of the City Council This would describe an EDA membership that reflected either the City Council or HRA A City Council Work Session has been scheduled for 5 15 p m on April 25 to discuss the preferred composition of the Board of Commissioners for the prospective EDA Respectfully submitted Steven L Devich City Manager SLD jcs Email Assistant City Manager Department Directors AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #7. STAFF REPORT NO. 74 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 5/9/2017 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B ri llhart, A ssociate P lanner D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ohn S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D i rector 5/2/2017 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 5/4/2017 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consideration of the approval of a resolution gr anting a conditional use permit and variances to allow a buffet restaur ant to operate in the former Old Country Buffet space at 6601 Nicollet Avenue. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: After operating a restaurant at 6601 Nicollet Avenue for several decades, Old C ountry Buffet closed for business in February 2016 and the space has remained vac ant since. Earlier this y ear a new buffet restaurant, Lakes Buffet, approached the City about occ upying this space. Because the space has been vacant for more than one year, all prior approvals for a restaurant have expired. Traditional or cafeteria-style restaurants are a conditional use in the C-2 General Business Zoning Distric t. I n order to operate a restaurant in this loc ation, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and a variance from the City's odor control regulations. The Zoning C ode establishes requirements for odor c ontrol equipment for commercial kitchens that abut residential property and differentiates between new and pre-existing restaurant sites. Bec ause this space has been vacant for more than one y ear, the Code views this as a “new” restaurant site rather than a “pre- existing” site. New restaurant sites must install odor c ontrol equipment, whereas pre-existing sites are instead required to provide plans for a professionally-designed odor c ontrol remedy. For pre-existing sites, c omplaints of odor impac ts may result in requiring that the planned odor control device be installed. The applic ant is requesting a variance to be considered a pre-existing site rather than a new restaurant site. By requiring professionally drawn and engineered plans now, both the C ity and the applicant are assured that the building could accommodate odor control equipment, should it be necessary in the future. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduc e the off-street parking requirement. Approximately 13 parking stalls will be lost due to construction of a roundabout at the corner of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue in 2018. This pending modification to the parking lot is a unique circ umstance not c reated by the applicant, and affects the property as a whole rather than this partic ular restaurant tenant. A preliminary plan to rec onfigure the parking lot is attached to this report. A revised site plan meeting all C ity requirements is required to be submitted for approval by City staff within one year, inc luding a pedestrian route to the public sidewalk and bicy cle parking for a minimum of 6 bikes. Finding that the proposal meets requirements, staff rec ommends approval of the conditional use permit and variances. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By motion: Approve a resolution granting a conditional use permit and variances to allow a buffet restaurant at 6601 N icollet Avenue. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT The property at 6601 Nicollet Avenue was originally constructed as a Red Owl supermarket in the 1950s and later subdivided into a multi-tenant c ommercial building that is currently home to Best Buy Mobile, Hot C omics and Collectibles, and an Army recruiting offic e. After operating a restaurant at this location for several dec ades, Old C ountry Buffet c losed for business in February 2016. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Traditional or cafeteria-style restaurants are a conditional use in the C-2 General Business Zoning D istrict. The applicant is requesting varianc es from Zoning Code Subsections 544.13 and 544.27, as described in the Executive S ummary. A full disc ussion of general C UP requirements, and additional information related to the requested varianc es and required findings c an be found as an attac hment to this report. W hile S ubsec tion 544.27 states that "subsequent c omplaints of odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor c ontrol device be installed," the Code does not specify a number, frequency or severity of complaints that would trigger this requirement. C ommunity Development staff and the City Attorney have discussed this matter, finding that two unique complaints from verified addresses within a 30-day period would be the minimum threshold necessary to effec tuate the requirement. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: The 60-day c lock 'started' when a complete application was received on A pril 10, 2017. A decision is required by J une 9, 2017 or the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional day s or 120 days total) for issuing a dec ision. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : A public hearing was held before the P lanning C ommission on April 24, 2017. Notic e of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current on April 13, 2017 and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site. S taff rec eived c orrespondenc e from one resident via email, expressing c oncerns about restaurant odors. One resident expressed similar conc erns at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the c onditional use permit and variances (6- 1). ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): Approve the proposal with modifications. Deny the conditional use permit and/or varianc es with a finding that requirements are not met. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: J in Chan, applicant AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Resolution Resolution L etter Requirements attachment B ackup Materi al S ite plans, zoni ng maps B ackup Materi al L etter from nearby property owner B ackup Materi al RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR A RESTAURANT AT 6601 NICOLLET AVENUE WHEREAS , an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a conditional use permit amendment and variances to allow a Class II (traditional/cafeteria) restaurant at property commonly known as 6601 Nicollet Avenue and legally described as follows: Lots 10, 11, and 12 except road, GOODSPEED’S FIRST PLAT, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit and variances at its April 24, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS , notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property on April 13, 2017; and WHEREAS, the requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Subsection 547.09 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No.____; and WHEREAS , the Zoning Code states that new restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to existing residential properties shall install professionally-designed odor control remedies, Subsection 544.27, Subd. 1; and WHEREAS , the Zoning Code states that off-street parking for shopping centers shall be provided at a ratio of 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and that restaurants in shopping centers shall be calculated separately, at a ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, Subsection 544.13, Subd. 6; and WHEREAS , Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their enforcement would cause “practical difficulty” to the owners of the property under consideration; and WHEREAS , based on the findings below, the Richfield City Council approves the requested variances from Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 544.27, Subd. 1; and 544.13, Subd. 6; and WHEREAS , the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council makes the following general findings: a. The Property is zoned General Business (C-2). b. The Zoning Code states that new restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to existing residential properties shall install professionally-designed odor control remedies. A variance from Subsection 544.27, Subd. 1 is necessary. c. The Zoning Code states that off-street parking for shopping centers shall be provided at a ratio of 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and that restaurants in shopping centers shall be calculated separately, at a ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. A variance from Subsection 544.13, Subd. 6 is necessary. 2. With respect to the application for variances from the above-listed requirements, the City Council makes the following findings: a. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 544.27, Subd. 1 would cause a practical difficulty by requiring costly odor control equipment at a site that has been a similar restaurant use for several decades and discontinued only recently. The Code establishes requirements for odor control equipment for commercial kitchens that abut residential property and differentiates between new and pre-existing restaurant sites. Because this space has been vacant for more than one year, all prior approvals for a restaurant have expired, and the Code views this as a “new” restaurant site rather than “pre-existing.” New restaurant sites must install odor control equipment, whereas pre-existing sites are required to provide plans for a professionally-designed odor control remedy. The applicant is requesting a variance to be considered a pre-existing site rather than a new restaurant site. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 544.13, Subd. 6 would cause a practical difficulty. The site as it exists today is in compliance with minimum parking requirements. However, in 2018 Hennepin County will construct a roundabout at the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue, requiring the acquisition of right-of-way from this property. This loss of property and subsequent reconfiguring of the parking lot will result in a loss of approximately 13 parking spaces. Depending on the final configuration of the parking lot, this will leave the property anywhere from one to six spaces short of the minimum number required. b. The intent of the odor control regulation is to protect neighbors from possible nuisance created by cooking odors. The restaurant use having been discontinued for more than one year is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant. Had this restaurant user come in three months sooner, they would have been considered a pre-existing site and odor control would not be required. The pending loss of parking spaces is a unique circumstance, not created by the applicant. c. Granting the requested variances will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The applicant will be required to comply with the odor control ordinance for pre- existing restaurant sites abutting residential property. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in requiring that the planned odor control device be installed. With regards to parking, adverse impacts are not anticipated. On-street parking is allowed on 1st Avenue, in the event there is a parking shortage. However, given the existing mix of tenants in the shopping center, staff does not anticipate that any shortages will occur. Furthermore, the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue has the highest level of public transit service available in the City, providing a viable alternative to driving alone. d. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties. e. The proposed variances do not conflict with the purpose or intent of the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. 3. Based on the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to regulate this use as a pre-existing restaurant site, as described in Subsection 544.27, Subivision 1, Part (c). The applicant shall provide plans for a professionally-designed odor control remedy and a statement by a structural engineer that the building design could accommodate the planned odor control and associated screening in the future. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be installed. 4. Based on the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the Subject Property to not less than 100 stalls. 5. A conditional use permit is issued to allow a Class II (traditional/cafeteria) restaurant, as described in City Council Letter No. _____, on the Subject Property legally described above. 6. This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 547.09 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance: • That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 547.09, Subd. 8. A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. • A revised, complete site plan meeting all City requirements is required to be submitted for approval by City staff within one year of this approval. The parking lot must be re-striped in accordance with said plan, including a pedestrian connection substantially in compliance with Subsection 544.15. Bicycle parking for a minimum of 6 bikes (3 hoops/posts) is required near the main entrance. • The existing dumpster enclosure for the restaurant must be repaired to comply with Subsection 544.05 and screening must be provided for the non- compliant dumpsters on the south side of the building. All rooftop or ground mechanical equipment must be screened, per Subsection 544.05. • Separate sign permits are required. • The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance with all requirements detailed in the City’s Administrative Review Committee Report dated April 3, 2017, and compliance with all other City and State regulations. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the applicant must submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements and/or requirements not yet complete. This surety shall be provided in the manner specified by the Zoning Code. 7. The conditional use permit and variances shall expire one year after issuance unless 1) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced; or 2) Building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or 3) Upon written request of the applicant, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Expiration is governed by the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subdivision 9. 8. This 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 City’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 10. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of May 2017. _______________________ Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Code Requirements / Required Findings Part 1 – Conditional Use Permit: The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use of the property is consistent with the guiding “Community Commercial / Office” designation. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of goals and policies related to economic development and support for business and employment growth. The proposal is consistent with these goals and policies. 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 purpose of the Zoning Code is to protect and promote the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. The purpose of the General Business (C-2) District is to allow a wide variety of commercial businesses that are attractive and compatible with nearby residential properties. The proposal is consistent with these purposes. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. There are no specific redevelopment plans that apply to the property. 4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed use will either maintain the status quo or improve compliance with performance standards requirements. The applicant must submit a complete site plan, showing the revised parking lot layout. The applicant is requesting variances from Subsections 544.13 and 544.27, described in Part 2. 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 issues. 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. Investment and improvement in vacant sites is necessary to maintain a thriving community. 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. Part 2 - Variances: The findings necessary to approve a variance are as follows (Subd. 547.11): 1. There are “practical difficulties” that prevent the property owner from using the property in a reasonable manner. 2. There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which were not created by the applicant and do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. 3. The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or the locality. 4. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. 5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commercial Kitchen Odor Control (544.27, Subd. 1) The Zoning Code establishes requirements for odor control equipment for commercial kitchens that abut residential property and differentiates between new and pre-existing restaurant sites. Because this space has been vacant for more than one year, all prior approvals for a restaurant have expired, and the Code views this as a “new” restaurant site rather than “pre-existing.” New restaurant sites must install odor control equipment, whereas pre-existing sites are required to provide plans for a professionally-designed odor control remedy. At pre-existing sites, subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be installed. The applicant is requesting a variance to be considered a pre-existing site rather than a new restaurant site. Criteria 1: Strict enforcement of this requirement would create a practical difficulty by requiring costly odor control equipment at a site that has been a similar restaurant use for several decades and discontinued only recently. Criteria 2: The intent of the odor control regulation is to protect neighbors from possible nuisance created by cooking odors. The restaurant use having been discontinued for more than one year is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant. Had this restaurant user come in three months sooner, they would have been considered a pre- existing site and odor control would not be required. Criteria 3: Granting the requested variances will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The applicant will be required to comply with the odor control ordinance for pre-existing restaurant sites abutting residential property. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in requiring that the planned odor control device be installed. Criteria 4: The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Criteria 5: The proposed variance does not conflict with the purpose or intent of the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Reduced Parking Requirement (Subsection 544.13, Subd. 6) The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 106 stalls to 100 stalls. Criteria 1: Strict enforcement of this requirement would cause a practical difficulty. The site as it exists today is in compliance with minimum parking requirements. However, in 2018 Hennepin County will construct a roundabout at the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue, requiring the acquisition of right-of-way from this property. This loss of property and subsequent reconfiguring of the parking lot will result in a loss of approximately 13 parking spaces. Depending on the final configuration of the parking lot, this will leave the property anywhere from one to six spaces short of the minimum number required (106 stalls). Staff recommends a reduction of the parking requirement to not less than 100 stalls, in order to provide some flexibility in redesigning the parking lot while still meeting all City requirements. Criteria 2: The pending loss of parking spaces is a unique circumstance, not created by the applicant. Criteria 3: With regards to parking, adverse impacts are not anticipated. On-street parking is allowed on 1st Avenue, in the event there is a parking shortage. However, given the existing mix of tenants in the shopping center, staff does not anticipate that any shortages will occur. Furthermore, the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue has the highest level of public transit service available in the City, providing a viable alternative to driving alone. Criteria 4: The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Criteria 5: The proposed variance does not conflict with the purpose or intent of the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Richfield Shoppes South 9 E. 66th St. & 6601 - 6609 Nicollet Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 Royal Buffet 9 E. 66th St. 8,330 SF Hot Comics & Collectibles 6609 Nicollet Ave. 3,723 SF Best Buy Mobile 6601 Nicollet Ave. 2,800 SF Army Career Center 6605 Nicollet Ave. 3,045 SF 01/06/17 This site plan is attached for informational purposes only and is not a warranty, representation or agreement that the Shopping Center or the parking areas, roadways, access points, sidewalks, buildings or other improvements will be as shown hereon, or that the occupants shown hereon will be in the Shopping Center. EXISTING WALK-IN COOLER EXISTING WALK-IN FREEZER EXISTING WALK-IN FREEZER EXISTING WALK-IN COOLER EXISTING SALAD BUFFET TABLE SERVER STATION EXISTING HOST STATION EXISTING ICE MACHINE OFFICEEXISTING STORAGE EMPLOYEE RESTROOM MEN'S RESTROOM EXISTING BUS CART EXISTING BUS CART SERVER STATION EXISTING QUEUE UP AREA EXISTING VESTIBULE WOMEN'S RESTROOM EXISTING STAIR TO BASEMENT SUSHI AREA 1 FLOOR PLAN 04 03 04 08 09 07 0909 01 DN 14 13 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 20 20 07 24 242323 25 27 25 27 25 27 25 27 24232423 2 4 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 4 2 3 26 27 26 27 2 8 2 9 2 2 282922 HALLWAY GREASE TRAP 2 0 2 0 2 0 EXISTING DINING AREA 1 EXISTING DINING AREA 2 HOT BUFFET TABLES COLD BUFFET TABLES 7 MEN'S RESTROOM ELEVATION "F"6 MEN'S RESTROOM ELEVATION "E" 2 WOMEN'S ROOM ELEVATION "A"3 WOMEN'S ROOM ELEVATION "B"4 WOMEN'S ROOM ELEVATION "C" 8 MEN'S RESTROOM ELEVATION "G" K2 FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVEATIONS CD REVISION HISTORY TEL: 952-992-0887 LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 CHAN'S CONSULTING LLC 17993 FULLERTON CT. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 POTENTIAL SIGN LOCATION 1 3 . 9 13 TOTAL SPACES LOST 8 NEW STANDARD SPACES 15 NEW 45° ONE-WAY PARKING SPACES 36 AFFECTED SPACES (ALL COMPACT) OPTION 1: CONFORMING DESIGN From: Richfield, MN [mailto:webmaster@cityofrichfield.org] Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 3:41 PM To: Melissa Poehlman Subject: 4/24/17 Planning Commission meeting Message submitted from the <City of Richfield, MN> website. Site Visitor Name: Rob & Lin Shurtleff Site Visitor Email: lins@ccbsi.com Ms. Poehlman, We won’t be able to make it to the 4/24/17 Planning Commission meeting where an item on the agenda is the buffet restaurant who is interested in the former OCB site. Would you please forward this email to the commissioners for their review? We live at 6627 1st Ave. Overall, we are happy that a business is wanting to move into that site, but we have concerns regarding the odor variance requested by the applicant. We understand that with the variance they would be subject to the same regulations that OCB had to follow and that the only reason they need a variance is because it’s been more than a year since OCB was in operation. In some aspects, it’s similar to the Fireside Foundry issue, but it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. With Fireside Foundry, their neighborhood was aware of the odors that existed before the remodel. Even though the site was remodeled, the same type of food & the same owner existed after the change. That is not the case in this instance. A different type of food, which will produce different types of odors, is being introduced to the neighborhood. Because of this, we feel the applicant should comply with new restaurant standards & not be granted a variance. We understand that if the odor variance is granted, the applicant is required to provide plans that the building is able to accommodate odor control equipment should odors prove to be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Should odors prove to be a problem, we are wondering at what point are they deemed a nuisance? Is it based on number of complaints from the neighborhood or is it based on something else? In the interest of full disclosure, we are listing our house in June, so whatever decision is made, it will not impact us. However, assuming the restaurant will not yet be in operation by then, the prospective buyer of our property will not have an opportunity to observe the odors prior to making their decision. Thank you. Rob & Lin Shurtleff