05-22-2018 Complete AgendaS P E C IAL C IT Y C O U N C IL W O R K S E S S IO N
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, FR E D B AB C O C K R O O M
MAY 22, 2018
6:15 P M
C all to order
1.D iscussion regarding appointment to the C ommunity S ervices C ommission
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 17, 2018
Council Memorandum No. 36
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Community Services Commission Appointment Discussion
Council Members:
Discussion of appointment to the Community Services Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, May 22, 2018, from 6:15-6:30 p.m. in the Fred Babcock Conference Room in
the Municipal Center. You will need your badge to have access to the room.
The following materials are included for your revie w:
Applicant list with preference(s) indicated
Commission applications
o NOTE: Only applicants not appointed on January 2 3, 2018, which
indicated a preference for the Community Services Commission, and
indicated their continued interest in serving, are included.
Consideration of the appointment is on the May 22, 2018, Council meeting agenda.
Contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
SLD:jjv
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
COMMISSION APPLICANTS WITH PREFERENCE(S) INDICATED
Applicant’s Name
(alpha order)
Advisory Board
of Health
Arts Civil
Service
Community
Services
Friendship
City
Human
Rights
Planning Transportation
# of Vacancies 1 Adult
Johnson, Kirsten 3 3 2 1 2
Macklem, Ronald 1 1 1 1
COMMISSION MEETING DAY/TIME
Advisory Board of Health - meets third Monday, January through June, September and October at 6 p.m.
Arts Commission – meets first Thursday of each month at 7 p.m.
Community Services Commission - meets third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m.
Friendship City Commission - meets third Thursday of each month at 7 p.m.
Human Rights Commission - meets first Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m.
Transportation Commission – meets first Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m.
S P E C IAL C IT Y C O U N C IL W O R K S E S S IO N
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, B AR TH O LO ME W R O O M
MAY 22, 2018
6:30 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 17, 2018
Council Memorandum No. 35
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 2018 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 22, 2018, City Council
work session.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
SLD:cr
Attachments
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
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
2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Actual Actual Adopted Revised
REVENUE
1 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX 12,309,740 12,816,485 12,533,005 12,533,005 13,177,132 13,705,327 14,310,709 15,183,089 15,873,343 16,572,018 17,299,678 18,036,901
2 FISCAL DISPARITIES 2,671,343 2,948,178 3,302,435 3,302,435 3,368,473 3,402,158 3,436,179 3,470,541 3,505,247 3,540,299 3,575,702 3,611,459
3 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,124,025 1,061,107 965,970 965,970 994,949 1,024,798 1,055,542 1,087,208 1,119,824 1,153,419 1,188,021 1,223,662
4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID 550,000 550,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 950,000 650,000 550,000 450,000 350,000 250,000
5 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,211,699 1,180,873 1,200,510 1,200,510 1,236,525 1,273,621 1,311,830 1,351,185 1,391,720 1,433,472 1,476,476 1,520,770
6 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,246,971 2,145,995 2,201,000 2,201,000 2,267,030 2,335,041 2,405,092 2,477,245 2,551,562 2,628,109 2,706,952 2,788,161
7 FINES & FORFEITS 269,749 312,041 360,000 360,000 360,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 380,000 380,000 390,000
8 MISC. REVENUE 106,731 113,491 95,550 95,550 105,000 108,150 111,037 114,368 117,799 121,333 124,973 128,722
9 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 1,037,710 756,580 1,541,540 1,541,540 1,550,550 1,566,056 1,581,716 1,597,533 1,613,509 1,629,644 1,645,940 1,662,399
10 TOTAL REVENUE 21,527,968 21,884,750 23,350,010 23,350,010 24,059,660 24,785,150 25,532,105 26,301,168 27,093,003 27,908,293 28,747,742 29,612,074 11
12 EXPENDITURES
13 LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE 814,724 866,235 902,290 902,290 929,359 957,239 985,957 1,015,535 1,046,001 1,077,381 1,109,703 1,142,994
14 ADMINISTRATIVE 1,323,809 1,274,142 1,466,170 1,466,170 1,510,155 1,555,460 1,602,124 1,650,187 1,699,693 1,750,684 1,803,204 1,857,300
15 PUBLIC SAFETY 8,175,701 8,214,212 9,067,810 9,067,810 9,339,844 9,620,040 9,908,641 10,205,900 10,512,077 10,827,439 11,152,263 11,486,830
16 FIRE 4,056,978 4,140,668 4,274,500 4,274,500 4,402,735 4,534,817 4,670,862 4,810,987 4,955,317 5,103,977 5,257,096 5,414,809
17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,330,766 1,349,571 1,426,480 1,426,480 1,469,274 1,513,353 1,558,753 1,605,516 1,653,681 1,703,292 1,754,390 1,807,022
18 PUBLIC WORKS 3,833,814 3,964,477 4,074,100 4,074,100 4,196,323 4,322,213 4,451,879 4,585,435 4,722,999 4,864,688 5,010,629 5,160,948
19 RECREATION SERVICES 1,827,779 1,847,722 1,943,660 1,943,660 2,001,970 2,062,029 2,123,890 2,187,606 2,253,235 2,320,832 2,390,457 2,462,170
20 TRANSFER OUT 150,000 175,000 195,000 195,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 240,000 250,000 260,000 270,000 280,000
21 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 21,513,571 21,832,027 23,350,010 23,350,010 24,059,660 24,785,150 25,532,105 26,301,168 27,093,003 27,908,293 28,747,742 29,612,074
22
23 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 14,397 52,723 - - (0) 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) (0) 0 24
25 GENERAL FUND OPERATING TAX LEVY(Net of Uncoll)15,866,030 15,835,440 15,835,440 16,545,605 17,107,485 17,746,889 18,653,630 19,378,589 20,112,317 20,875,379 21,648,360
26 Add Back Uncollectible 160,263 159,954 159,954 165,456 171,075 177,469 186,536 193,786 201,123 208,754 216,484
27 TOTAL OPERATING LEVY 16,026,293 15,995,394 15,995,394 16,711,062 17,278,560 17,924,358 18,840,166 19,572,375 20,313,440 21,084,133 21,864,843
28
29 DEBT/SPECIAL LEVY(From Capital Financing Plan) 3,408,397 4,626,517 4,626,517 4,935,835 5,570,167 6,286,452 6,338,211 6,220,238 6,252,252 7,250,834 7,272,144
30
31 TOTAL CERTIFIED LEVY 19,434,690 20,621,911 20,621,911 21,646,897 22,848,727 24,210,809 25,178,377 25,792,613 26,565,692 28,334,967 29,136,987
32 % Increase 6.11%0.00%4.97%5.55%5.96%4.00%2.44%3.00%6.66%2.83%
33
34 TOTAL CERTIFIED LEVY 19,434,690 20,621,911 20,621,911 21,646,897 22,848,727 24,210,809 25,178,377 25,792,613 26,565,692 28,334,967 29,136,987
35 LESS FISCAL DISPARITIES (3,604,596)(3,302,435)(3,302,435)(3,368,473)(3,402,158)(3,436,179)(3,470,541)(3,505,247)(3,540,299)(3,575,702)(3,611,459)
36 NET LOCAL LEVY TO TAXPAYERS 15,830,094 17,319,476 17,319,476 18,278,424 19,446,570 20,774,630 21,707,836 22,287,367 23,025,393 24,759,265 25,525,528
37
38 EXISTING NET TAX CAPACITY 27,845,963 30,001,418 30,001,418 34,528,869 35,564,735 36,631,677 37,730,627 38,862,546 40,028,423 41,229,275 42,466,154
39 TOTAL TAX CAPACITY 27,845,963 30,001,418 30,001,418 34,528,869 35,564,735 36,631,677 37,730,627 38,862,546 40,028,423 41,229,275 42,466,154
40
41 TAX RATE ON TAX CAPACITY 56.849%57.729%57.729%52.937%54.679%56.712%57.534%57.349%57.523%60.053%60.108%
42 TAX RATE % CHANGE 1.55%0.00%-8.30%3.29%3.72%1.45%-0.32%0.30%4.40%0.09%
43
44 City Taxes 1,103 1,195 1,195 1,212 1,290 1,378 1,440 1,478 1,527 1,642 1,693
45 Percentage tax increase in average home 8.35%0.00%1.44%6.39%6.83%4.49%2.67%3.31%7.53%3.09%
46
47 Existing Tax Base Inflation Estimate 0.00%10.60%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
48 Total Net Tax Base % Increase(decrease)7.74%0.00%15.09%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
49 Estimated Average Home Market Value 194,000 207,000 207,000 229,000 235,870 242,946 250,234 257,742 265,474 273,438 281,641
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
City of Richfield
Capital Financing Plan
1 Existing and Projected Tax Levy Requirements
2 Richfield Municipal Center
3 2008A Bonds 799,200 - - - - - - - -
4 2009A Bonds 381,339 - - - - - - - -
5 2010A Bonds - Alley Paving/Equipment 15,625 14,943 14,260 - - - - - -
6 2012A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 76th St E 127,701 130,955 128,855 126,755 129,905 127,700 130,745 128,435 128,436
7 2013A G.O. Improvement Bonds - North Richfield Parkway 159,288 163,380 161,936 160,204 163,432 161,138 158,723 161,438 161,438
8 2015A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 69th St./Portland 280,501 276,301 282,601 282,496 282,233 280,868 284,570 279,451 279,451
9 2016B G.O. Refunding Bonds 524,024 521,452 518,564 520,612 522,187 523,289 523,919 518,827 518,827
10 2016C G.O. Refunding Bonds - 721,324 720,379 724,474 728,254 731,719 736,969 736,443 736,444
11 2017A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 66th Street 622,650 620,550 623,595 620,681 622,650 624,067 621,810 624,488 624,488
12 2017B G.O. Refunding Bonds - 345,870 351,015 350,700 350,280 355,005 359,520 360,728 361,620
13 2018A G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds - 66th Street M&O - 375,563 288,645 283,763 284,130 284,340 284,392 284,288 284,025
14 Cedar Point Tax Abatement Levy 370,722 388,216 388,216 388,216 388,216 - - - -
15 Rolling Stock, Equipment, and IT Levy 785,000 800,000 815,000 830,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000
16 Economic Development Authority 560,467 577,281 594,599 612,437 630,811 649,735 669,227 689,304 709,983
17 66th Street Reconstruction ($2.2M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - 154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794 154,794
18 Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction ($7.5M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - 527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708 527,708
19 Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction ($2.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - - 140,722 140,722 140,722 140,722 140,722 140,722
20 65th Street Reconstruction ($8.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - - 562,889 562,889 562,889 562,889 562,889 562,889
21 76th Street West Reconstruction ($3.5M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - - - - 246,264 246,264 246,264 246,264
22 Humboldt/Lakeshore Drive Recon ($4M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - - - - - 281,444 281,444
23 Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction ($5.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - - - - - 351,805 351,805
24 Penn Avenue Reconstruction (5.0M over 20 years at 3.5%)- - - - - - - 351,805 351,805
25 Total Debt/Special Levy 4,626,517 4,935,835 5,570,167 6,286,452 6,338,211 6,220,238 6,252,252 7,250,834 7,272,144
R EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S
MAY 22, 2018
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 minutes 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 wish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
P ledge of A llegiance
A pproval of the minutes of the Regular C ity C ouncil meeting of May 8, 2018.
P R E S E N TATIO N S
1.Three Rivers P ark D istrict update by C hair and D istrict 4 Representative John Gunyou
2.P resentation of 2017 F ood S afety Awards
3.Receipt of the C ity of Richfield C omprehensive A nnual F inancial Report (C A F R) for the fiscal year ended
D ecember 31, 2017.
S taff Report No. 84
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
4.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
5.A pproval of the A genda
6.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one
motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended
actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any
Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the
regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A .C onsideration of the approval of an annual request for a Temporary On S ale Intoxicating L iquor license for
the A cademy of Holy A ngels, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue S outh, for their Holy A ngels Rock the L awn
event taking place F riday, June 22, 2018.
S taff Report No. 85
B .C onsideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing the C ity to affirm the monetary limits on statutory
municipality tort liability.
S taff Report No. 86
C .C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the C ity Manager to enter into agreements related
to the Minnesota D epartment of Transportation's L andscape P artnership P rogram
S taff Report No. 87
7.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
R E S O L U T IO N S
8.C onsideration of the approval of a resolution amending the C omprehensive P lan designation of a property on
66th S treet, between 1st and S tevens Avenues (101 66th S treet E ast).
S taff Report No. 88
P U B LIC H E AR IN G S
9.P ublic hearing and consideration of the approval of new On-S ale W ine and 3.2 P ercent Malt L iquor licenses for
L os S anchez Taqueria #2, L L C d/b/a L os S anchez Taqueria located at 2 West 66th S treet.
S taff Report No. 89
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
10.C onsideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending the tobacco ordinance to include
increasing the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products and tobacco related devices from eighteen (18)
to twenty-one (21) years of age and updating several sections to include new and updated definitions.
S taff Report No. 90
11.C onsideration of the approval of an ordinance amending sign regulations and a resolution authorizing summary
publication of said ordinance.
S taff Report No. 91
O T H E R B U S IN E S S
12.C onsideration of the appointment of an adult member to the C ommunity S ervices C ommission with a term
expiring J anuary 31, 2021.
S taff Report No. 92
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
13.S ummary review of the C ity Manager's annual performance evaluation for 2017, held on May 8, 2018, as required
by Minn. S tatutes 13D .05 S ubd. 3(a).
14.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
15.C laims and P ayrolls
Open forum (15 minutes 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 wish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
16.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.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Maria Regan Gonzalez;
Present: and Simon Trautmann.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Bob Vose, City Attorney; John Stark,
Community Development Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; and Jared
Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst.
OPEN FORUM
Nelson Ward, 7220 Elliot Ave S, representing the Optimist Club of Richfield, spoke regarding
the Optimist Club celebrating 60 years in Richfield, their work in the community, and invited anyone
interested to attend a meeting.
Erin Springer, 6813 Queen Ave S, representing Girls Scout Troop 11404 spoke regarding the
Optimist Club and their Avenues of Flags project. This program fundraises for the troop and allows
them to give back to their community.
David Kriesel-Koll, 6845 5th Ave S, representing the Optimist Club of Richfield, spoke
regarding their Avenues of Flags fundraising project and the programs it funds to support Richfield
youth. He invited residents of Richfield to support the Avenue of the Flags project.
Mayor Elliott thanked the Optimist Club of Richfield for their work in the city.
Council Member Garcia echoed the Mayor’s comments and thanked them for their work.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Elliott led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Elliott, S/Trautmann to approval of the minutes of the: 1) Special City Council work session
of April 24, 2018; (2) Special joint City Council and Transportation Commission work session of April
24, 2018; and (3) Regular City Council meeting of April 24, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
May 8, 2018
Council Meeting Minutes -2- May 8, 2018
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1
RICHFIELD STEM/DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL COMBINED 5TH GRADE
CHOIR
Councilmember Regan Gonzalez introduced and welcomed the Richfield STEM/Dual
Language School combined 5th Grade choir and members of the audience. The choir preformed
three songs for the City Council and audience.
Item #2
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Council Member Trautmann thanked everyone who attended the Friends of Wood Lake
(FOWL) dinner. He also reminded families of the parks and recreation activities during the summer
and of the passport program, which subsidizes the costs of recreational programs.
Council Member Garcia spoke regarding events on May 11 from 5-8 p.m. there will be a Latina
Women’s Fair at House of Prayer; on Saturday, May 12 the United States Post Office will be picking
up non-perishable food items for food shelves; on May 12 from 1-3 p.m. at the Wood Lake Nature
Center the Lyndale Gardens developer is hosting an open house for their proposed development; on
May 15 from 9:30-10:30 a.m. at Wood Lake Nature Center there will be spring story time for children
3-5 years old followed by an activity or hike; and lastly she discussed Donna Peterson’s work and
contribution to the city of Richfield and offered her condolences to her family.
Mayor Elliott spoke regarding the Memorial Day ceremony at the Honoring All Veterans
Memorial in Veterans Park on Monday May 28 at 2 p.m. Featured guest speakers: Dr. Michael Turner
and Judge Mitchell Turner, brothers of Naval Veteran Lt. Charles J. Turner, Richfield native and first
reported Minnesota casualty of the Gulf War.
Council Member Howard spoke regarding an upcoming joint work session of the City Council
and HRA being held on Monday, May 21 at 5:45 p.m. on the topic of naturally occurring affordable
housing; 66th Street reconstruction is continuing and he thanked staff and the contractors for their
work, and residents for their patience during the project.
Council Member Regan Gonzalez spoke regarding the city-wide garage sale from May 17-19;
farmers market season is every Saturday and Veterans Park from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m.; Public Works
Department is holding an open house on Saturday, May 19 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Public Works
Facility; on May 19 from 3 to 4:30 p.m. a compost critters activity is being held at Wood Lake Nature
Center to explore different types of bugs and bacteria, the cost is $3; and lastly Unity in the
Community is on Thursday, May 24 from 5 to 7:30 p.m. at Veterans Park.
Mayor Elliott invited Pastor Fred Owens and his family to speak. Pastor Owens thanked the
Richfield community, police officers, and firefighters for their support and assistance after the tragic
loss of their daughter in a car accident.
Item #3
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes -3- May 8, 2018
M/Elliott, S/Garcia to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #4
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Devich presented the consent calendar.
A. Consideration of the approval of a resolution appointing Information Technologies Manager
Jane Skov as an Alternate Director on the Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS)
Board of Directors. (S.R. No. 75)
RESOLUTION NO. 11494
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES MANAGER AS AN ALTERNATE
DIRECTOR ON THE LOGIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11494.
B. Consideration of the approval of a maintenance agreement with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District for the specified culvert within Taft Park. (S.R. No. 76)
C. Consideration of the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending sign regulations.
(S.R. No. 77)
D. Consideration of the approval of a resolution amending the Richfield Urban Village Planned
Unit Development to allow McDonald's to make minor site modifications and replace all m enu
board signs with dynamic display signs. (S.R. No. 78)
RESOLUTION NO. 11495
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RICHFIELD URBAN
VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11495.
E. Consideration of the approval of a resolution amending a conditional use permit and variance
to allow an expansion to increase capacity from 28 beds to 32 beds at Progress Valley, 308
78th Street East. (S.R. No. 79)
RESOLUTION NO. 11496
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 308 78TH STREET
EAST
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11496.
F. Consideration of the approval of a resolution for a site plan review and variances for a
restaurant at 6600 Penn Avenue. (S.R. No. 80)
RESOLUTION NO. 11497
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND
VARIANCES AT 6600 PENN AVENUE
Council Meeting Minutes -4- May 8, 2018
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11497.
M/Garcia, S/Elliott to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #6
CONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF "NORA
CORNER" THAT WILL COMBINE FOUR PARCELS (6529 AND 6545 PENN
AVENUE, AND 2208 AND 2210 66TH STREET WEST) INTO THREE PARCELS,
IN ORDER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
RESTAURANT (DUNKIN DONUTS). (S.R. NO. 81)
Councilmember Trautmann presented Staff Report No. 81 and opened the public hearing.
M/Howard, S/Elliott to close the public hearing.
M/Trautmann, S/Elliott to approve a resolution granting approval of final plat of "Nora Corner"
that will combine four parcels (6529 and 6545 Penn Avenue, and 2208 and 2210 66th Street West)
into three parcels, in order to allow construction of a previously approved restaurant (Dunkin Donuts).
Community Development Director Stark provided an update on the site. He stated demolish
would likely start in May and could be done by the end of the month. The site owners are contractually
obligated to deliver the site to Dunkin Donuts in early August, and Dunkin Donuts plan to open in
September. The Flowerama building property owners have applied for funds to improve the building
and they have at least one franchise sandwich place has signed a letter of intent.
RESOLUTION NO. 11498
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR
NORA CORNER
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11498.
Item #7
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE
SALE OF $9,975,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION
BONDS, SERIES 2018A. (S.R. NO. 82)
Councilmember Garcia presented Staff Report No. 82.
Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers & Associates, gave an overview of the bond sale. She stated the bonds
were rated prior to the sale and Standard & Poor (S&P) confirmed the AA+ rating for the City’s current
bond issue and the previous bond issues. She discussed highlights from the S&P Rating Report,
including: a strong economy, very strong management and very strong financial policies and
Council Meeting Minutes -5- May 8, 2018
practices, adequate budgetary performance, a very strong budgetary flexibility and available fund
balance in 2016 at 27% of operating expenditures, the City’s strong liquidity, adequate debt
contingent liability position, and the City’s rapid amortization. She stated seven bids were received,
with a low bid from FTN Financial Capital Markets for 3.069%. She stated they previously estimated
the issue size would be $9,975,000, but they were able to reduce it because they received a premium
bid and were able to reduce the bond size.
City Manager Devich asked about the premium price that was received and how much it
lowered bond size.
Ms. Kurtz stated the amount of the bond was reduced by $225,000 due to the premium and
lower discount and cost of issuances.
Mayor Elliott commented the interest savings and the importance of noting the savings for
taxpayers.
Councilmember Garcia encouraged residents read the entire staff report, available on the
City’s website, to get a better understanding of the entirety of the award.
M/Garcia, S/Elliott to approve a resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Street
Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2018A, in the original aggregate principal amount of $9,770,000; fixing
their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment.
RESOLUTION NO. 11499
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
STREET RECONSTRUCTION BONDS, SERIES 2018A, IN THE
ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $9,975,000; FIXING
THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11499.
Item #8
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Devich commented that the commission recognition event will be held on June
26 to recognize the volunteers of our commissions.
Item #9
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Garcia, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 05/08/18
A/P Checks: 267761 - 268016 $ 1,152,704.66
Payroll: 136115 - 136416 624,853.42
TOTAL $ 1,777,558.08
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Meeting Minutes -6- May 8, 2018
OPEN FORUM
None.
Item #10
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE BABCOCK
ROOM REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION. THE CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONVENED AS
PERMITTED TO EVALUATE AN EMPLOYEE’S PERFORMANCE PURSUANT
TO MINN. STAT. 13D.05, SUBD. 3(A).
The City Council closed to special executive session at 7:50 p.m. m/Elliott; s/Garcia 5-0
The City Council reconvened the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Item #11
SUMMARY REVIEW OF THE CITY MANAGER'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION FOR 2017 AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION
AMENDING EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
CITY MANAGER STEVEN L. DEVICH FOR 2018. (S.R. NO. 83)
Mayor Elliott provided a brief summary of the City Manager’s annual performance evaluation
for 2017. He stated he would provide another summary review of the performance evaluation at the
next City Council meeting, pursuant to State law.
Mayor Elliott presented Staff Report No. 83.
M/Elliott, S/Howard to adopt a resolution amending the employment agreement between the
City of Richfield and City Manager Steven L. Devich for 2018 for a 2.85% salary increase, effective
January 1, 2018.
RESOLUTION NO. 11500
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY
MANAGER
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11500.
Item #12
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:32 p.m.
Council Meeting Minutes -7- May 8, 2018
Date Approved: May 22, 2018
Pat Elliott
Mayor
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:PRESENTATIONS
AGENDA ITEM #3.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 84
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris Regis, F inance Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C AFR) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
As required by State law, all general purpose local governments must be audited in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants. In addition, State
law also requires that local governments publish within six months of the close of each fiscal year a
complete set of financial statements presented in conformance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting standards.
The City’s auditing firm, BerganK D V, Ltd. has completed the annual audit of the City’s financial records and
has issued an unqualified opinion on those records for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. T he
financial statements will be published locally and submitted to the State of Minnesota and the
Government Finance Officers Association. Staff presents to the City Council the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ended
December 31, 2017.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The City’s auditing firm, BerganK D V, Ltd. has completed the annual audit of the City’s financial
records for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
As part of the audit, BerganK D V, LTD. has issued an unqualified opinion on the City’s financial
statements for the year ending December 31, 2017.
A representative of BerganK D V, LTD. will be present at the tonight’s Council meeting to make a
brief presentation on the 2017 financial information and answer questions.
I n addition, the C A FR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota pursuant to State law and to the
Government Finance Officers Association for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting program.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Action to be taken at the May 22, 2018, City Council meeting is the official receipt of the
December 31, 2017, City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the City
Council.
The City’s auditor has performed an audit of the City’s financial records for the year ended
December 31, 2017, and prepared reports to the City Council concerning legal compliance and
internal controls.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Action on this item is requested at the May 22, 2018, City Council meeting as there is a J une 30,
2018, reporting deadline with the State of Minnesota.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C A F R will be submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law.
The C A F R will be published in the Sun Current the week of May 28, 2018.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanations of their findings at a future Study
Session.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Caroline Stutsman, C PA, BerganK D V
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 85
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
5/16/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/16/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of an annual request for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license
for the Academy of Holy Angels, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Holy Angels Rock the
Lawn event taking place Friday, June 22, 2018.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On April 13, 2018, the City received application materials for a Temporary On Sale I ntoxicating Liquor license
for the Academy of Holy Angels, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Holy Angels Rock the Lawn
event taking place Friday, J une 22, 2018. They will serve beer and wine from 5:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. No
other intoxicating liquor beverages will be permitted.
They will be having food trucks providing food for the event. The Academy of Holy Angels has contacted food
sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure proper food handling practices are followed.
The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis
for denial.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the issuance of a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Academy
of Holy Angels, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Holy Angels Rock the Lawn
event taking place Friday, June 22, 2018.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for the issuance of this license:
The required licensing fee has been paid.
Proof of liquor liability insurance has been provided showing NS I of W est Bend Mutual
affording the coverage.
Along with the application they included a diagram of where the alcohol will be served and
consumed as well as how I D's will be checked and how they will be monitoring sales and
consumption.
They have contracted with the City of Richfield Police to provide security for the event.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Section 1202.05 requires all applicants to comply with all of the provisions of
this code, as well as the provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 340A.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The required licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council could decide to deny the approval of the Temporary On Sale I ntoxicating Liquor license for
the Academy of Holy Angels. This would mean the applicant would not be able to serve wine or strong
beer; however, Public Safety has not found any basis for denial.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Academy of Holy Angels staff has been notified of the date of this meeting.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 86
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jesse S wenson, A ssistant HR Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing the City to affirm the monetary limits on
statutory municipality tort liability.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City purchases its liability insurance coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities I nsurance Trust
(L MC I T). Each year, the City must decide to either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability by J uly 1.
After reviewing cost 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 occurrence. Staff is
recommending the same course of action for the upcoming insurance renewal.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council to affirm the monetary limits on municipal
tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
A requirement of insurance coverage through the L MC I T is an annual affirmation or waiver of
statutory limits of liability.
The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $500,000 for an individual claimant
and $1,500,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive these limits to allow an individual claimant to
recover more than $500,000, up to the $1,500,000 per occurrence limit, if excess liability
insurance is purchased. However, the cost of the excess liability insurance continues to be very
expensive. An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost the City 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.
Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota do not waive the monetary limits on
municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes 466.04.
The Council could waive its statutory limits in future years if a decision was made to do so.
The Council 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 IS S U E S:
The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities I nsurance Trust will renew on
J uly 1, 2018. This action must be completed on, or before that time.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage because of the cost of such
coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of coverage would be between $65,000 and $75,000
if the City 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 historically protected cities and no
Minnesota court has ever established a monetary award in excess of the statutory limits against a
municipality.
Each city must annually decide whether the city would voluntarily waive the statute for both the
single claims and each occurrence limit.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
I f the Council determines that any single claimant should receive more than the $500,000 limit, the
Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits.
I f the Council determines that the $1,500,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate, the City could
purchase excess liability coverage.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription 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 22nd day of
May, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 87
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
5/10/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into agreements
related to the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Landscape Partnership Program
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n 2017, the City Council approved site plans for an expansion of Seven Hills Preparatory Academy's
facilities at 1401 76th Street West. The approved plans included plantings along 76th Street West, on right-of-
way owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnD OT).
MnD OT administers a Landscape Partnership Program, to assist with planning and design of landscaping
installations on MnD OT-owned right-of-way. Before Seven Hills can purchase and install plantings in this
area, the City must enter into a cooperative agreement with both MnD OT and Seven Hills. The City's role in
the agreement is strictly as a pass-through entity, as MnD OT does not enter into agreements with private
landowners. MnD OT will continue to own the right-of-way, while Seven Hills will be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of said plantings.
This resolution grants the City Manager the authority to enter into a cooperative agreement(s) with MnD OT
and Seven Hills. I f approved, MnD OT will draft the agreement(s), which will come before the City Council for
approval in J une.
Seven Hills plans to install the landscaping this summer, to coincide with the completion of their building
addition.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for funding and enter into cooperative agreements with MnD O T and Seven Hills
Preparatory Academy, related to MnD O T’s Landscape Partnership Program.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
None
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
None
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
This is the first of two approvals required for this item. I f this resolution is approved, MnD OT will
draft a full cooperative agreement that will come back before the City Council for final approval.
Seven Hills would like to begin installing landscape materials as soon as possible this planting
season.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
There is no financial impact because the City is acting as a pass-through entity between MnD OT
and Seven Hills Preparatory Academy. The City will not be responsible for the purchase or
maintenance of landscaping related to this agreement.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
L andscaping plan B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
AND PRIMARY CONTACT PERSONS
FOR MNDOT LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP APPLICATION
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the City Council approved site plans for Seven
Hills Preparatory Academy at 1401 76th Street West; and
WHEREAS, the approved plan includes plantings along 76th Street West, on
right-of-way owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); and
WHEREAS, MnDOT administers the Community Roadside Landscape
Partnership Program to plan, fund, and manage plantings on MnDOT right-of-way; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the City of Richfield will act as sponsoring unit for the project
adjacent to the property at 1401 76th Street West, to be conducted during the period of
January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Manager Steven L. Devich is hereby
authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding of this
project on behalf of the City of Richfield and Seven Hills Preparatory Academy.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
May, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
LOUCKS
W:\2017\17273\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\L1-1 Landscape PlanPlotted: 02 /27 / 2018 3:35 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SEVEN HILLS
PREPARATORY
ACADEMY
GYMNASIUM
ADDITION
1401 W 76TH STREET
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
WELSH COMPANIES
4350 BAKER ROAD SUITE 400
MINNETONKA, MN 55343
Preliminary City Submittal
City Comment Resubmittal
City Comments
Permit Issue
Revision #1
Revision #2
06/26/17
07/10/17
08/02/17
08/23/17
11/09/17
02/21/18
EXISTING CONDITIONSC1-1
DEMOLITION PLANC1-2
SWPPP PLANC3-2
SWPPP NOTESC3-3
UTILITY PLANC4-1
DETAILSC8-1
C8-2
LANDSCAPE PLANL1-1
SITE PLANC2-1
GRADING PLANC3-1
DETAILS
COVER SHEETC0-1
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L1-1
Gopher State One Call
SOD
SOD
SOD
NATIVE GRASS
SEED MIXTURE
SOD
PLAYGROUND
(BY OTHERS)
MATCH INTO
EXISTING
PLANTING BED
EXISTING TREES
EDGER
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License 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 Landscape Architect under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
Douglas D. Loken - LA
45591
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.17273
MJS
DDL
DDL
02/21/18
08/23/17
NATIVE GRASS
SEED MIXTURE
ROCK MULCH
OVER FABRIC
(MATCH EXISTING)
TURF SEED ALL DISTURBED
AREAS ADJACENT SIDEWALK
DUE TO CONSTRUCTION
SOD
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS - PRIOR
TO PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #8.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 88
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. D irector / Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
5/14/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/16/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan designation of a
property on 66th Street, between 1st and Stevens Avenues (101 66th Street East).
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Over the past 18 months, the City has been engaging the community to update the Comprehensive Plan. As
part of this update, a small area plan for the 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue area was prepared. Given its
proximity to the intersection and the fact that it had been vacant for many years, the property at 101 66th
Street East was included in the small area study. A market study identifying the types of uses that the area
could support was prepared as part of this work. That study indicated that larger format retail, prominent in the
HUB Shopping Center, was unlikely to regain prominence due to the migration of this type of retail to freeway
corridors. The study also confirmed the strength of the Richfield housing market; indicating that there was an
opportunity to build some additional higher income multi-family units in this area. A small amount of additional
office space was also indicated as a possibility for the area, specifically as a complement to the introduction
of new residential buildings in a mixed-use development pattern. A variety of options for the HUB area were
presented to the community. Based on the market study and the input of the community, the site has been
recommended for mixed use development in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Statutory review periods for the
Comprehensive Plan as a whole mean that the Update will not be adopted in final form for a number of
months.
P L H & Associates (the Applicant) purchased the property at 101 66th Street East in August 2016. The
property consists of the former Southview Baptist Church building and two single-family homes that were
owned by the church, all of which have been vacant since 2013. At work sessions on August 23, 2016,
and November 20, 2017, the applicant presented concept plans to the City Council and Planning
Commission for a mixed-use building on the property. Based on feedback received at these
meetings, the applicant has submitted a proposal for a 3-story mixed-use building including 31
residential units and approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial space. T he applicant
has applied for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would change the designation of the
property to Mixed Use. T his application for a change to a single parcel could be approved more
quickly by the Metropolitan Council than the entire Comprehensive Plan Update.
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan that support this amendment include the following:
Expand the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale (Lyndale & 66th) area to include the HUB and Nicollet
Shoppes.
Promote development that broadens the tax base.
Encourage and support the development of strong commercial districts that respect the values and
standards of the citizens of Richfield.
Encourage the development of viable and responsive neighborhood commercial services.
The proposal is also consistent with historical development patterns along 66th Street East. The attached map
depicts the non-single family residential properties along this main thoroughfare.
A public hearing for this application was held at the Planning Commission meeting on April 23. A
number of neighbors spoke against the proposed amendment and project. T he Planning
Commission opted to vote on the amendment and table further consideration of the specific
development. T he Commission voted (7-0) to recommend approval of the amending the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the property to Mixed Use.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a re solution amending the Comprehensiv e Plan de signation of 101 66th
Stree t East from Quasi-Public and Low Density Re sidential to Mixe d Use.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
As part of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) update process, the Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street
area was studied in further detail, including a market study and concept plans. The draft Plan
guides the area as Mixed Use, including this site. A map of the draft Plan for this area is attached.
The Comprehensive Plan update process began in late 2016, and has included numerous open
house events and other opportunities for public engagement. On May 8, 2018, the City Council
voted to send the draft Plan to surrounding jurisdictions for comment, as required by the
Metropolitan Council.
This site (formerly three separate parcels) have been vacant and for sale since 2013.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment does not obligate the City Council to
approve the applicant's development plans.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
A complete application was received and the "60-day clock" started on April 9, 2018. The Council
must make a decision, or extend the deadline by an additional 60 days, by J une 8, 2018.
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 Planning Commission on April 23, 2018.
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and mailed to
properties within 350 feet of the site.
The Planning Commission voted (7-0) to recommend approval of amending the Comprehensive
Plan designation to Mixed Use. The Planning Commission also voted (4-3) to continue
consideration of applications for rezoning the property and for a Planned Unit Development to its
May 29, 2018, meeting.
Schedule of future Planning Commission and City Council actions:
May 29 Planning Commission - consideration of Planned Unit Development & Final
Development Plans.
J une 12 City Council - 1st Reading of rezoning.
J une 26 City Council - 2nd Reading of rezoning and consideration of Planned Unit
Development & Final Development Plans.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Deny the requested amendment and direct staff to change the designation of this property in
the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Paul Lynch, P L H & Associates
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
66th S treet E ast - D evelopment P attern Map B ackup Material
66th S treet & Nicollet Ave Market S tudy B ackup Material
P roposed C omp P lan D esignation Map B ackup Material
C orrespondence E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 101 66TH STREET EAST
TO “MIXED USE”
WHEREAS, the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing
particular planning needs for specific segments of the City; and
WHEREAS, 101 66th Street East (“subject property”) comprises four previously
separate lots, formerly addressed as 6601 and 6605 1st Avenue (herein “west half”),
and 6600 and 6608 Stevens Avenue (herein “east half”); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates the west half of the subject
property as “Quasi-Public” and the east half as “Low Density Residential”; and
WHEREAS, the draft Comprehensive Plan update, Richfield 2040, designates
the subject property as “Mixed Use”; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classification and determined
that it would be appropriate to designate the subject property as “Mixed Use”; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
recommended approval of amending the Comprehensive Plan at its April 23, 2018
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan on May 22, 2018; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to
designate 101 66th Street East as “Mixed Use” contingent upon the following:
1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
May, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
66th Street East 66th Street East
Nicollet AvenuePortland AvenueRichfield Pkwy66th Street East Development Pattern
Landuse
Non-Single Family Residential Land Use
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 Miles
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\City Planner\Projects\Landuse\66th Street E developm ent pattern 051118.m xd
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com
Direct (612) 252-7127 Email britt@hkgi.com
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.MEMORANDUM
To: SRF Consulting Team
From: Britt Palmberg
Subject: Market Analysis – 66th and Nicollet area, Richfield
Date: 11 May 2017
This memo documents the findings of a market analysis focusing on determining the potential for
various land uses (including retail, office, and residential) for the 66th and Nicollet sub‐area in Richfield,
Minnesota. This study area includes the “Hub” shopping center at the northwest corner of 66th and
Nicollet, the Richfield Shops (to the north and south of 66th Street, and east of Nicollet), and nearby
parcels on the southwest corner of 66th and Nicollet, in front of Holy Angels.
The market analysis outlines some of the key demographic and market factors impacting the 66th and
Nicollet area, overall, and then concludes with some general land use recommendations for the study
area. The findings of this memo and subsequent conversations with stakeholders informs the creation
of two options for a land use plan for the 66th and Nicollet subarea, to be included in the update to the
Richfield Comprehensive Plan in 2017.
This market analysis draws from a review of demographic and market data compiled by ESRI and
CoStar. ESRI is a national database service that gathers demographic and economic data, primarily
from the U.S. Census, for any geographic area defined by the user. ESRI provides five year projections
for the growth of population, households, and a variety of other demographic and economic data
based upon an analysis of trends at the national and local levels. CoStar is a national research
database that gathers, more specifically, data concerning the performance of real estate in various
categories (including retail, office, and multi‐family), drawing from information provided by local and
regional brokerages and local CoStar staff that contact local property owners and representatives.
CoStar gathers a range of real estate information, including data concerning lease rates, vacancies,
inventory, and (where available) the names of tenants in various properties. While CoStar does not
provide data for every property in a given local market, information provided by CoStar helps in
outlining overall current real estate market conditions in a local area. The market analysis also draws
from a site visit to Richfield and the 66th and Nicollet area and phone discussions with local brokers
and representatives of property owners in the study area.
Demographic Background
The following provides an overview of demographic trends in and around the study area that affect
the viability of development or redevelopment in the 66th and Nicollet vicinity. Importantly, in
considering the potential market for various land uses, the analysis looks beyond the city limits of
Richfield. The markets for retail, office, and residential space will draw from an area, primarily
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 2
determined by drive times. As outlined in the map, the following tables summarize demographic
information and projections for the area located within a five minute drive time of 66th and Nicollet.
Source: ESRI
The five‐minute drive time includes most of the City of Richfield, with the exception of some
neighborhoods along the 494 corridor, and to the west of Interstate 35W. It also includes parts of
South Minneapolis on either side of Interstate 35W, as far north as the Diamond Lake Road corridor.
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 3
Source: ESRI
As outlined in the table, as the areas near 66th and Nicollet are built out, the population of the area
has increased slowly, by only a few hundred people, over the last six years. The construction of some
newer apartment complexes in the Richfield area and south Minneapolis appears to have resulted in
the small increase in population over the last six years. ESRI projects that the population of the area
within a five minute drive of 66th and Nicollet will increase by over 300 people over the next five years
as well, given a trend toward infill development in the local area. In line with local and regional trends,
the median age of the area will continue to increase over the next five years, reaching 38 years of age
by 2021.
Source: ESRI
Demographic Trends, 5 Minute Drive Time Radii
2010 2016
2021
(Projected)
Population 13,398 13,666 14,010
Households 5,784 5,843 5,973
Average Household Size 2.26 2.28 2.29
Median Age 36.4 37.8 38.0
Population by Age, 5 Minute Drive Time Radius
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
0 ‐ 4 1,107 8.3% 1,004 7.3% 1,010 7.2%
5 ‐ 9 815 6.1% 935 6.8% 887 6.3%
10 ‐ 14 653 4.9% 784 5.7% 856 6.1%
15 ‐ 19 619 4.6% 679 5.0% 699 5.0%
20 ‐ 24 637 4.8% 831 6.1% 872 6.2%
25 ‐ 34 2,563 19.1% 1,950 14.3% 2,080 14.8%
35 ‐ 44 2,089 15.6% 2,174 15.9% 2,038 14.5%
45 ‐ 54 1,890 14.1% 1,864 13.6% 1,800 12.8%
55 ‐ 64 1,467 10.9% 1,599 11.7% 1,645 11.7%
65 ‐ 74 646 4.8% 953 7.0% 1,159 8.3%
75 ‐ 84 516 3.9% 496 3.6% 575 4.1%
85 +396 3.0% 397 2.9% 389 2.8%
2010 2016 2021 (Projected)
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 4
The breakdown of ages within the five minute drive time indicates that adults in their prime earning
and child rearing years, between 25 and 54 years of age, represent the most dominant age segments
in the local population, as of 2016. The population segments most commonly associated with “Empty
Nester” households, between the ages of 55 and 74, exhibited increases in population over the 2010
to 2016 timeframe. The area includes a broad distribution of children and young adults under the age
of 19. In line with national trends, the proportion of the population age 55 or older is expected to
continue to increase through 2021.
Source: ESRI
The breakdown of household incomes in the area within five minutes of 66th and Nicollet reveals that
while there is a fairly broad representation of households with incomes between $35,000 and
$100,000, a significant proportion of the households in the area (over 35 percent) report household
incomes in excess of $100,000, as of 2016. While many of the neighborhoods in Richfield report more
modest household incomes, the broader area within five minutes of 66th and Nicollet has a greater
concentration of higher income households. Some of the neighborhoods in south Minneapolis, in
particular, report higher household incomes. While these individuals may not live in Richfield, their
spending power may affect the viability of real estate development options in the 66th and Nicollet
vicinity. Data from ESRI also projects that the number of households earning in excess of $100,000 will
continue to increase through 2021, and will represent an even larger proportion of the total number
of households in the immediate area by 2021.
Median Household Income, 5 Minute Drive Time
Households by Income
Number Percent Number Percent
Under $15,000 456 7.8% 469 7.9%
$15K ‐ $25K 356 6.1% 337 5.6%
$25K ‐ $35K 487 8.3% 440 7.4%
$35K ‐ $50K 680 11.6% 740 12.4%
$50K ‐ $75K 964 16.5% 661 11.1%
$75K ‐ $100K 801 13.7% 810 13.6%
$100K ‐ $150K 1,196 20.5% 1,414 23.7%
$150K ‐ $200K 507 8.7% 653 10.9%
Over $200,000 396 6.8% 449 7.5%
2016 2021
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 5
Overview of Local Real Estate Conditions
The following outlines local market conditions, including CoStar data and observations from site visits
and discussions with local brokers and real estate representatives.
Retail:
Data from CoStar indicate that the area within two miles of 66th and Nicollet (which includes
essentially all of Richfield, plus some portions of south Minneapolis) reports somewhat higher vacancy
rates than the overall Interstate 494 corridor (which includes areas from the International Airport
west to the Eden Prairie area). However, the vacancy rates reported in the local market are generally
favorable, given historic trends. Lease rates are generally in line with those of the broader 494
corridor.
Source: CoStar
According to CoStar, the local market, within two miles of 66th and Nicollet, has maintained around
the same levels of retail square footage (on net) over the last several years.
Data from ESRI indicate that the area within a five minute drive of 66th and Nicollet is “leaking” (or,
losing retail spending to outside areas) in the retail categories of Motor Vehicles and Parts Dealers;
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores; Health and Personal Care Stores; Clothing and Clothing
Retail Metrics
Total SF Vacancy Rate
Average Rent
/ SF Vacancy Rate
Average Rent
/ SF
2007 Q4 4,332,054 3.8% $19.95 2.1% $19.84
2008 Q4 4,442,818 4.1% $20.05 2.8% $18.49
2009 Q4 4,442,818 7.2% $19.15 3.6% $17.27
2010 Q4 4,387,669 6.0% $19.13 3.5% $16.98
2011 Q4 4,386,925 6.5% $13.12 3.4% $16.25
2012 Q4 4,291,928 3.6% $16.45 2.6% $16.89
2013 Q4 4,269,323 3.6% $14.75 2.0% $15.35
2014 Q4 4,285,112 3.1% $13.66 2.1% $15.19
2015 Q4 4,390,595 4.5% $15.01 2.3% $15.44
2016 Q4 4,288,335 3.0% $16.74 1.7% $17.01
494 Corridor Submarket2 Mile Radius Surrounding 66th & Nicollet
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 6
Accessories Stores; and Non‐Store Retailers. In general, the local area near 66th and Nicollet has a
surplus (or, draws retail spending from other areas in addition to absorbing the retail spending
generated from local residents) in terms of electronics goods, building materials, food and beverage
stores (including grocery stores, liquor stores, and other specialty food stores), sporting goods stores,
general merchandise stores, and eating and drinking places. The opening of the new Target and Home
Depot at 66th and Cedar, along with other in‐line retail spaces in the vicinity, coupled with the strength
of other shopping areas in the local area, has contributed to the excess capacity of several categories
of retail in the Richfield area. A portion of retail spending that had gone to the 66th and Nicollet area
has migrated to the newer shopping areas along Cedar Avenue, over time.
Source: ESRI
The subarea around 66th and Nicollet has witnessed some deterioration of local retail market
conditions in recent years. The Richfield Shops, on either side of 66th Street, has several vacancies for
in‐line spaces, as of April 2017, and a number of the tenants at the center cater to down‐market
segments (including check cashing, for example). The Hub development has two or three vacancies as
of April 2017, as well. The area around 66th and Nicollet now represents some of the very oldest retail
space in the Richfield and south Minneapolis area, dating to the late 1950s. Although renovations to
the two shopping centers have occurred over the years, both developments appear dated and may
face difficulties in leasing to tenants, as a result. Both shopping centers also lack the visibility to
regional freeways and expressways enjoyed by the Target and Home Depot projects at 66th and
Cedar, as well as various developments along the 494 corridor in Bloomington and Richfield. Spending
for groceries, for example, has migrated to some extent to the 66th and Cedar area, and spending for
some general goods has migrated from the area to the 494 corridor, including several larger box
stores on the Bloomington side of the 494 corridor. The changes in the local retail marketplace have
left the retailers at 66th and Nicollet catering primarily to local neighborhood residents in Richfield.
While south Minneapolis is only a few blocks away, the area lacks developments that would logically
attract business from outside the immediate area.
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 7
In general, the retail properties around 66th and Nicollet may move forward in one of two trajectories.
In one scenario, the area around 66th and Nicollet may simply be able to support a smaller footprint
(and square footage) of retail space than originally constructed, given the changes in the local market,
and the less favorable connectivity of the site to the broader region, compared to shopping areas
located along freeways in the Richfield vicinity. In another scenario, the area could redevelop into a
shopping area that features unique tenants or experiences that conceivably could draw people from
south Minneapolis, in addition to Richfield, as well as other residents from the general area. The areas
around Richfield are relatively affluent, and Richfield continues to attract migration from new
residents, seeking out the community for its prime location in the metro area and the relative
affordability of its housing stock. As Richfield continues to attract residents with higher incomes over
time, the area around 66th and Nicollet could reposition to serve a higher income demographic, with
appropriate tenants and concepts over time.
Office:
The areas within two miles of 66th and Nicollet include around three million square feet of office
space, including a number of larger office buildings along the 494 corridor in Richfield. The area
immediately around 66th and Nicollet, however, features relatively smaller offices and office buildings,
including a number of smaller and older buildings along 66th Street, between Nicollet and Cedar
Avenue, and some newer office space in the vicinity of 66th and Lyndale. The immediate area tends to
include the offices of local professional services (including dental, insurance, etc.) and other smaller
spaces, serving smaller companies and tenants. Given its orientation away from freeway corridors, the
heart of Richfield has never represented a key node of office development. Many of the offices in the
immediate area are older and tend to command lower lease rates compared to newer space in this
part of the metro area. In addition, a number of vacancies for office space exist along the 66th Street
corridor, to the east of the study area, between Nicollet and Cedar Avenue.
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 8
Source: CoStar
Outside of the immediate area, the City of Bloomington has plans for significant office development in
the South Loop area, defined as the area surrounding the Mall of America. Over the last few years, the
City has approved preliminary plans for Phase I and Phase II of the Mall of America’s (MOA)
expansion. The approval includes a total of 3 million square feet of additional retail construction,
546,000 square feet of office space and a total of 1,650 hotel rooms. The MOA’s office product is
geared to appeal to higher‐end office tenants and in particularly to the Millennial generation, which
desires work spaces that offer a range of amenities nearby. The MOA’s expansion is part of the overall
South Loop area plan for the eastern end of Bloomington, which calls for a variety of infill residential,
retail, and office development to the south and east of the existing Mall of America, toward the
Minnesota Valley riparian zone. Overall, as South Loop continues to build out over time, the area
could generate at least a few thousand additional jobs in the Bloomington community.
Overall Conclusions, Office:
The area around 66th and Nicollet is unlikely to develop as a major office or employment area, given
the lack of direct connectivity to surrounding freeways. The Interstate 494 corridor has traditionally
attracted larger office users, including a variety of corporate style campus buildings. Instead, the area
around 66th and Nicollet is more likely to remain a focal point for smaller scale or neighborhood‐
oriented office uses. The area could accommodate, over time, a relatively small quantity of smaller
office space, geared to professional offices (including medical office, professional services, etc.). This
office space could orient above retail spaces (in the case of mixed‐use development) or behind more
Office Metrics
Total SF Vacancy Rate
Average Rent
/ SF Vacancy Rate
Average Rent
/ SF
2007 Q4 3,047,653 3.9% $12.12 9.4% $14.40
2008 Q4 3,021,668 3.2% $14.38 8.8% $15.11
2009 Q4 3,021,668 4.6% $14.90 10.4% $15.02
2010 Q4 3,015,508 2.3% $12.74 9.6% $14.70
2011 Q4 3,015,508 2.2% $12.79 8.8% $14.02
2012 Q4 3,015,508 1.5% $12.63 8.8% $13.36
2013 Q4 3,009,806 3.9% $12.69 10.0% $13.79
2014 Q4 3,084,806 4.2% $13.03 10.7% $14.09
2015 Q4 3,084,806 2.9% $13.37 9.6% $13.94
2016 Q4 3,084,806 2.4% $13.06 9.1% $14.68
494 Corridor Submarket2 Mile Radius Surrounding 66th & Nicollet
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 9
active retail frontages in the 66th and Nicollet area. Office development in the study area is more likely
to include a collection of smaller offices (perhaps as small as a few thousand square feet per office), as
opposed to medium or larger scale footprints.
Multi‐Family and Residential:
The multi‐family market in the Twin Cities region has demonstrated considerable strength over the
last five years, with developers completing a variety of projects around the region. A significant
number of these projects have focused on the urban core areas in Minneapolis and St. Paul. However,
the multi‐family boom has expanded to suburban communities over the last few years, as the region
has continued to gain employment and population. The metro area added an impressive 28,000 jobs
from 2015 to 2016, and continues to benefit from the presence of sixteen Fortune 500 companies in
the region. The significant strength of the for‐sale residential market in the Twin Cities has led many
would‐be buyers to rent apartments, instead of purchasing homes. In addition, the tendency of the
Millennial generation to delay home purchases or to avoid home purchases altogether has
contributed to the multi‐family construction boom witnessed in metro areas around the country,
including the Twin Cities. Furthermore, homeownership rates for the Baby Boomer generation have
continued to decline, as more residents choose the maintenance‐free aspects of rental living. From
the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2016, the metro area added around 5,000 new
apartment units, and the region expects the delivery of another 4,000 units in 2017.1 Data from
Colliers indicate that the market for tenants among Class A apartment communities has become more
competitive, with operators offering concessions over the last few quarters. The rents for Class B and
Class C apartments, however, have increased more than those of Class A, as the overall multi‐family
market has tightened and rising rents across the metro have forced many people to consider Class B
and Class C apartment living options.
Data from CoStar indicate that the area within two miles of 66th and Nicollet has added a few hundred
additional multi‐family units over the last decade, in the form of infill construction. In line with
regional trends, average rents per square foot have continued to escalate over the last several years
of the economic recovery, as vacancy rates have continued to decline. The multi‐family market within
two miles of the Hub reported a vacancy rate of around three percent at the end of 2016, reflecting a
market that has very limited excess capacity and would likely absorb additional units of construction.
The areas near 66th and Nicollet have even lower vacancies that the overall vacancy reported in the
Interstate 494 submarket.
1 Minneapolis-St. Paul Research & Forecast Report, Fall 2016, Colliers International
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 10
Source: CoStar
The for‐sale residential market in the Twin Cities region has largely recovered to pre‐Recession levels
in terms of sales prices and activity, following four to five years of price appreciation and ongoing
increases in single family residential construction. As outlined in the tables that follow, the median
home prices in the overall region have increased significantly over the last year. The number of days
on market and the months supply of inventory have also improved significantly over the last year.
Overall, the housing market in the Twin Cities has remained very tight, in particular for homes in the
$200,000 to $300,000 price range, as builders continue to struggle to keep pace with demand.
Multi‐Family Metrics
Total Units Vacancy Rate
Average Rent
/ SF Vacancy Rate
Average Rent
/ SF
2007 Q4 5,668 6.4% $1.00 5.8% $1.03
2008 Q4 5,668 6.0% $1.01 5.6% $1.04
2009 Q4 5,782 6.8% $1.00 6.2% $1.01
2010 Q4 5,782 5.8% $1.01 5.2% $1.02
2011 Q4 5,782 5.4% $1.02 4.9% $1.04
2012 Q4 5,876 5.3% $1.06 4.7% $1.07
2013 Q4 5,876 4.5% $1.08 4.7% $1.12
2014 Q4 5,876 3.9% $1.09 4.8% $1.17
2015 Q4 5,876 3.2% $1.14 4.4% $1.23
2016 Q4 5,920 3.1% $1.21 5.5% $1.29
2 Mile Radius Surrounding 66th & Nicollet 494 Corridor Submarket
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 11
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
The graph below from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors reveals that the median home
sales price in the region has returned to the peaks last experienced in 2006, before the Great
Recession.
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
However, as incomes have increased over the last ten years across the region, the level of affordability
has remained above the levels experienced prior to the last recession, as outlined in the following
table.
Local Housing Market Data, March 2017
March '16
YTD
March '17
YTD % Change
Closed Sales 9,556 9,867 3.3%
Median Home Price $216,000 $230,000 6.5%
Price / Square Foot $126 $136 8.0%
Days on Market Until Sale 88 77 -12.5%
Months Supply of Inventory 2.6 2.0 -23.1%
Twin Cities Region
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 12
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
Housing affordability peaked during and following the Great Recession, as home values declined
across the Twin Cities (and across many parts of the nation). Affordability has decreased over the last
four years as home prices have continued to escalate. The increases in home sales prices have
impacted both single‐family detached and townhome / condo attached products, across the Twin
Cities region.
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
Like most areas around the country, the Twin Cities region experienced a significant decrease in
housing construction activity during and after the Great Recession. The total number of residential
building permits issued in the seven‐county region decreased from around 21,000 in 2003 and 2004
to around 4,400 in 2009, but returned to a range of 10,000 to 12,000 annual permits from 2012
through 2015. While the region continued to permit 4,000 to 5,000 single family detached residential
building permits on average, from 2012 through 2015, multi‐family construction has accounted for
over half of all residential construction during this period of economic recovery. Townhome permits,
which had accounted for over 20 percent of all permit activity prior to the housing crash (from 2003
through 2007), now represent from 4 to 7 percent of all residential permits, over the last four years.
The focus on multi‐family construction in the Twin Cities region mirrors similar trends in other larger
metro areas around the country. Developers in the local region have added a significant pool of multi‐
Twin Cities Metro Region Twin Cities Metro Region
Median Price % Increase Median Price % Increase
2012 $184,000 -2012 $125,000 -
2013 $211,000 14.7%2013 $147,000 17.6%
2014 $225,000 6.6%2014 $159,000 8.2%
2015 $238,000 5.8%2015 $165,000 3.8%
2016 $251,000 5.5%2016 $173,000 4.8%
Median Sales Price: Townhome or Condo
Attached Homes
Median Sales Price: Single Family
Detached Homes
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 13
family units to local inventories, particularly in the two major downtown areas and in other urban
neighborhoods that feature a variety of amenities and good access to the rest of the city. The supply
of single‐family detached homes has not caught up with demand over the last few years, contributing
to increases in the median home price in the Twin Cities region.
Source: Metropolitan Council
The Richfield area, and nearby areas of south Minneapolis, in particular have experienced a very
strong housing market over the last few years. The Richfield area benefits from its close‐in location to
the heart of Minneapolis, coupled with its access to the Mall of America, the airport, and the
employment centers along the 494 corridor. Local observers have called Richfield the “hottest”
housing market in the metro area in recent months. A significant number of younger buyers, including
families, have sought out Richfield as an option to live more affordably than in Minneapolis, while
enjoying the benefits of a single family home in a strategic location.
The following table outlines the changes in home prices for Richfield, Edina, Bloomington, the region
overall, and for the four neighborhoods in south Minneapolis that border onto Richfield (Armatage,
Diamond Lake, Kenny, and Windom). The median home price in Richfield increased 43 percent from
2012 to 2016, and prices in two south Minneapolis neighborhoods (Diamond Lake, and Windom)
increased by over 40 percent during this period, as well.
Twin Cities Region - Residential Building Permit History
Single
Family
Detached
Percentage
of Total Townhome
Percentage
of Total Duplex
Percentage
of Total Multi-Family
Percentage
of Total Total
2003 9,034 42.4% 4,619 21.7% 216 1.0% 7,414 34.8%21,283
2004 8,244 38.6% 5,126 24.0% 579 2.7% 7,401 34.7%21,350
2005 6,877 39.0% 3,795 21.5% 572 3.2% 6,375 36.2%17,619
2006 5,252 41.6% 2,961 23.4% 229 1.8% 4,185 33.1%12,627
2007 3,648 42.9% 1,851 21.7% 84 1.0% 2,929 34.4%8,512
2008 2,281 44.4% 957 18.6% 27 0.5% 1,867 36.4%5,132
2009 2,412 54.2% 597 13.4% 26 0.6% 1,412 31.8%4,447
2010 2,776 47.7% 589 10.1% 36 0.6% 2,420 41.6%5,821
2011 2,821 44.7% 526 8.3% 21 0.3% 2,938 46.6%6,306
2012 4,271 39.0% 621 5.7% 28 0.3% 6,032 55.1%10,952
2013 5,207 41.9% 678 5.5% 19 0.2% 6,520 52.5%12,424
2014 4,559 42.4% 684 6.4% 86 0.8% 5,414 50.4%10,743
2015 4,746 37.1% 554 4.3% 43 0.3% 7,437 58.2%12,780
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 14
Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
Increasingly, buyers are migrating from south Minneapolis and other areas around the city to
Richfield, in order to take advantage of the lower overall sales price in the community. While Richfield
has experienced significant growth in home prices, as of 2016 its median home price remains lower
than those of neighboring communities.
The Richfield area, and surrounding communities to the south of the City of Minneapolis, should
remain highly attractive for both multi‐family and for‐sale residential products for the foreseeable
future, given its orientation in the metro area. While the area may experience a softening in the
market with the next downturn, the geographic advantages of Richfield relative to the rest of the
metro area and its relative affordability should continue to drive the viability of residential projects in
the Richfield vicinity.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS / DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 66TH AND NICOLLET:
While this market analysis does not provide detailed forecasts or absorption estimates for different
types of development components, for the 66th and Nicollet area, the following summarizes the
takeaways from the analysis, as it relates to potential redevelopment in the study area.
The area around 66th and Nicollet will likely remain as a neighborhood oriented retail area in
the future. Due to the arrival of additional retail space at 66th and Cedar and other retail
Changes in Median Home Prices, 2012 ‐ 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Change
from
2015
Change
from
2012 ‐
2016
Minneapolis
Armatage Neighborhood $218,000 $250,000 $265,000 $286,600 $277,500 4.5% 39.4%
Diamond Lake $210,000 $245,000 $257,000 $272,000 $300,000 10.3% 42.9%
Kenny $246,950 $256,850 $272,500 $313,672 $302,500 ‐3.6% 22.5%
Windom $185,915 $218,900 $216,850 $262,225 $271,450 3.5% 46.0%
Richfield $155,000 $174,950 $183,750 $205,000 $221,625 8.1% 43.0%
Edina $344,000 $350,000 $380,000 $397,000 $436,430 9.9% 26.9%
Bloomington $171,000 $193,100 $201,000 $218,000 $232,000 6.4% 35.7%
Overall Twin Cities Region $167,900 $192,000 $205,600 $220,000 $232,000 5.5% 38.2%
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 15
projects along and near the 494 corridor, the 66th and Nicollet area may never regain the retail
dominance it had (in terms of size) in the 1950s and 1960s. Larger format retail uses (including
junior boxes and bigger boxes) will likely continue to migrate to the 494 corridor, Cedar
Avenue, and other locations in the vicinity with better access to other communities. The
quantity of overall retail space in the 66th and Nicollet area may in fact decline over time.
Retail offerings in the 66th and Nicollet area may be able to reposition to serve more upscale
household types, as Richfield continues to evolve. As more families and other buyers from
around the metro area move into Richfield, help escalate home prices, and bring more
spending power with them, the mix of retail and services at 66th and Nicollet may move more
upmarket over time. The introduction of the Lyndale Cooperative market on Lyndale Avenue,
to the west, reflects this trend. The 66th and Nicollet area may be able to offer more attractive
eating and drinking places and unique, more neighborhood oriented retail tenants over time
that could begin to attract more business from south Minneapolis. The area will continue to
serve some everyday needs (for pharmacies, some groceries, and casual dining) but may be
able to add some better restaurants and more unique retail shops over time, as potential
redevelopment may move forward.
As mentioned, the local housing market in Richfield remains very strong and is changing to
serve a higher income demographic. The area around 66th and Nicollet will likely be able to
attract additional multi‐family construction, as well as potentially townhomes or similar forms
of attached housing. Given the size of the parcels around 66th and Nicollet, developing single
family detached products is less likely. All of the parcels in the area could develop with a
mixture of multi‐family and attached properties. The Academy of Holy Angels could develop a
portion of its property as multi‐family or townhome as well.
The area around 66th and Nicollet could develop a relatively small amount of additional office
space, geared to professional services and other local uses, as part of mixed‐use development.
The area will likely not develop as a more significant area of office space or employment
centers. However, office space could complement the introduction of higher quality
residential or retail space in the vicinity of 66th and Nicollet, as part of a mixed‐use orientation
(with office located either above or to the rear of retail space).
In terms of forms and orientations of development, future development may proceed as
follows:
o The northeast corner of the Holy Angels property (at the southwest corner of 66th and
Nicollet) may develop as purely residential, with attached homes or multi‐family units
oriented and developed to preserve the character and aesthetic qualities of the school
66th & Nicollet, Richfield
Market Analysis Memo
11 May 2017
Page 16
campus and to attract minimal traffic or additional activity to the Holy Angels
property.
o The Richfield Shops, along the east side of Nicollet, could develop with a mixture of
retail / restaurant space on ground floors, with residential space above. The
redevelopment of these spaces could resemble other successful infill projects around
the Minneapolis area in recent years, in which below‐grade parking serves residents,
the first floors contain a mixture of limited retail space, coupled with amenity spaces
for residents, and upper floors contain either multi‐family units or condominiums. The
shape and scale of the parcels on the east side of Nicollet logically orient toward a
mixed‐use configuration that has worked well in the Twin Cities over the last ten years.
o The Hub property is larger and would, logically, provide a developer with greater
flexibility. A developer may choose to keep parts of the existing footprints for retail
operational while developing other portions of the site. For example, the Rainbow
grocery property could continue to operate while a developer proceeded with the
demolition and reconstruction of the actual Hub building as a property with a mixture
of office, residential, and some retail uses. In addition, a developer could explore
options to keep part of the Hub building intact, and to infill underutilized parking
spaces and underutilized portions of the Hub with mixed use space as well. The Hub
could be developed in phases, over time. The overall Hub could support a mixture of
neighborhood retail, various residential forms (including attached product and multi‐
family) and limited quantities of office space.
66TH ST W 1ST AVE S2ND AVE SSTEVENS AVENICOLLET AVE65TH ST W
66TH ST E
65TH ST E
67TH ST E67TH ST W PLEASANT AVEGRAND AVE S101 66th St Site Boundary
Planned Land Use
Low Density Res.
Medium Density Res.
High Density Res.
Neighborhood Comm.
Community Comm.
Regional Comm.
Mixed Use
Quasi-public / Institutional
Park
Water
Right of W ay 0 250 500 750 1,000125Feet
±
DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Designations - 66th Street & Nicollet Avenue Area
Hub
Holy Angels
1
Matt Brillhart
From:Husniyah Dent Bradley <dent_h@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 11:29 AM
To:Melissa Poehlman; John Stark; Matt Brillhart; Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia;
Simon Trautmann; Maria Regan Gonzalez; J Dent
Subject:Comments about Zoning Ordinance Change on 66th between Stevens Ave and 1st Ave
in Richfield
Hello,
I wanted to send along several of the comments that I made at the community section of the Richfield
Planning Commission held on Monday, April 23, 2018, concerning the mixed use zoning ordinance for the
property at 66th Street between 1st Avenue and Stevens Avenue in Richfield.
I am a long time resident of 66th and Stevens Avenue in Richfield and have driven down that street at
different times of the day and night.
Things to consider for this project:
It is a fairly quiet street and does not have a lot of traffic driving down it.We do have children that
walk down the street from time-to-time due to there being no sidewalks
Proper notice of the public meeting was not done -residents complained of receiving the notice a day
before or after the date, typically a notice is sent 10 days in advance
When there was construction on 66th street last year more traffic drove down the street in order to
get around the barriers that were placed in the middle of 6 6th street.
If a mixed use complex is built on that corner it will cause a lot more traffic in the area
It is currently sometimes difficult to see oncoming traffic when you are stopped at the stop sign,
especially when a driver is driving fast or the sun is blocking the view, a lot of vehicles do not see who
is at that corner until they reach the top of the hill driving East towards Portland
Traffic speeds up after they leave Nicollet Avenue and it is sometimes hard to make a stop before
turning right on to 66th and Stevens -when snow is on the ground or ice, your vehicle will slide into
the turn
If a large building is built on that corner then it will make it even more difficult to see on -coming traffic
at the stop sign and snow removal will be a probl em
As you drive from East to West on 66th street you can tell that there is a hill and the top of the hill
meets on 1st avenue -is the building going to level this area out or will the hill remain?
There are people that live on the street that sleep during the day and work at night -a lot of noise will
disrupt their sleep and sleep patterns
If a popular restaurant leases space in the complex then there will be parking issues as seen in St. Paul
and Minneapolis, where residents are complaining about the patrons taking all of the parking spaces
on the street so they do not have spaces for their family or guests -the same thing will occur if the
complex has a meeting room or hospitality room
If people are not able to find parking on the same street as th e complex then they will park on 65th
and Stevens or 65th and 1st Avenue
If residents or customers of the complex take up all of the street parking on Stevens Ave on both sides
then there will not be a lot of room for EMS -the other week when EMS had to respond to an incident
2
they had to park in between two vehicles that were parked on either side of the street and could not
make it up the driveway of the home.
The mixed use complex will have an open ended driveway where people can drive through the
driveway and this could cause an issue
The parking lot entrance and underground parking entrance is across the street from other driveways -
this could make it difficult for the homeowner to get out of their driveway at peak times of the day
On 1st Ave and 66th they are about to allow restaurant patrons from Lakeside Grill to park on that side
of the street so they will be competing for parking spots as well
Can the lot on 1st Ave and 66th be turned into a parking lot?
Brixmor Properties has had a tough time leasing spaces at the Hub (maybe due to high lease rates and
building issues -roof, upkeep, etc.)-how are the developers going to ensure that their spaces will be
leased?
There are no affordable housing units planned for the project, not even 10%
The developers are asking for additional changes to the space that were not initially disclosed when
the project was presented -building it out to the corner, etc.
The developers do not know exactly where trash will be collected, where deliveries for commerc ial
space will come in through or other delicate details that need to be ironed out
It is great that the developers want to redevelop the property.They are not from MN and are not
connected to the community but they have purchased the property and are e ager to get
started.Hopefully this project will not have a huge impact on the value of the homes in the area, etc.
I hope that everyone is able to visit the location and observe it for 10 minutes or so to get a feel of the type of
area it is.
Thanks,
Husniyah Dent Bradley
1
Matt Brillhart
From:Cynthia Norton <cnorton54@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:51 AM
To:Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; John Stark; Melissa
Poehlman; Matt Brillhart
Subject:Post 04/23 Meeting Re Mixed-Use Development at 6601 & 6605 1st Ave & 6600 &
6608 Stevens Ave
If the Planning Commission approves the highly opposed zoning change to multi-use for the parcel
at 66th Street and Stevens and First Ave. South after receiving numerous phone calls, emails and
after listening to 3 hours of heartfelt opposition from longtime and new homeowners directly impacted
by changing zoning to this parcel it will be clear none of you sitting on the volunteer Planning
Commission or the elected City Council care about the long -time loyal homeowner's in Richfield.
Remember we are the citizens who pay the taxes that support Richfield. It is our tax dollars that allow
volunteers and elected officials to sit like stoic statues with your eyes glued to monitor screens
instead of looking into the eyes and faces of citizens whose dail y lives are impacted by the unwanted
decisions you impose upon us.
*Since Sean, the volunteer Commission Chair does not have an email address please forward my
email to him.
Cynthia Norton
132 E. 66th St.
Richfield, MN 55423
2
Matt Brillhart
From:Nancy Norton <nnorton9977@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:29 AM
To:Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; John Stark; Melissa
Poehlman; Matt Brillhart; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; Simon Trautmann
Subject:Re: NO Mixed-Use Development at 6601 & 6605 1st Ave & 6600 & 6608 Stevens Ave
One more very important item the Richfield taxpaying residents said:
1. Home prices will go DOWN as people don't want to live next to appartment buildings.
2. People who purchased homes within the last 1-3 years said they WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED if they
knew about the mixed use development.
This alone is a HUGE reason to NOT approve the mixed use development. Richfield will not only have 35%-
45% of commercial buildings vacant at The Hub but Richfield homes may also sit vacant or the Richfield house
prices may get so low and will negatively impact Richfield.
Don't approve the mixed use development, it will negatively impact Richfield.
Nancy Norton
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 11:05 PM Nancy Norton <nnorton9977@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, You missed a great Planning Commission Meeting tonight. The taxpaying Richfield residents learned the
City Members have been working with this Wisconsin builder since 2015 and has known about the Zoning
Changes for years and only sent out a small card to the Richfield residents a few weeks ago. The builder sent
out a letter a few days ago, which I received the day AFTER the meeting, that the builder wanted to share his
building plans with the Richfield residents.
It was VERY CLEAR the Richfield taxpaying residents DON'T WANT mixed use development as about 15-
20 Richfield residents spoke tonight AGAINST mixed use development and how they would APPROVE
single family homes built on this property. Not one Richfield resident had anything positive to say abo ut mixed
use development, everyone is AGAINST it.
We also learned traffic volumes at peak times will increase to about 91vehicles per hour from our current
volume 10-15 vehicles per hour. There is also not enough parking for residents, workers, handicapp ed, visitors
of residents and Stevens Avenue & 1st Avenue should expect both sides of our streets to be used as additional
parking. This will cause issues for Emergency Vehicles and Police as well as residents trying to get into their
own driveway. In the winter it will be awful for residents as the snow plows will not be able to clear our
streets. Residents are also concerned about the volume of vehicles making turns out of Stevens Avenue & 1st
Avenue to 66th Street and not being able to clearly see traffic, bikers and pedestrian with the huge cement
building blocking the view.
PLEASE, don't approve Mixed Use Development for this area, as it's very clear, this is not the correct location,
Richfield taxpaying residents don't want the additional traffic and congestion.
Thank You
Nancy Norton
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 10:40 AM Nancy Norton <nnorton9977@gmail.com> wrote:
3
CRIME will also be increased with additional unnecessary businesses and traffic. W e had crime already at the
Dairy Queen, Country Buffet, Best Buy and other businesses. Richfield should be making efforts to eliminate
crime not bring it into our neighborhood.
Single family homes would be the best use for this property.
Nancy Norton
132 East 66th Street
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 10:09 AM Nancy Norton <nnorton9977@gmail.com> wrote:
I should also add the additional noise, traffic and congestion this huge ugly dark chunk of cement will attract
will NOT be welcomed. The taxpaying homeowners living access the street do NOT want this.
We would be much happier with single family homes on this property.
Nancy Norton
132 East 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 8:52 AM Nancy Norton <nnorton9977@gmail.com> wrote:
I live across the street and DO NOT WANT to look at this huge cement building.I DO NOT WANT to have semi-
trucks delivering and unloading product to the businesses anytime 24 hours a day 7 days a week, disturbing me. This
cement building will only provide shade to 66th street. There is no place for snow removal and not enough parking
space available. I only see NEGATIVE from this proposed mixed-use development.As a Richfield homeowner for
over 50 years living across the street on Stevens Avenue and 66th Street.
The Hub commercial buildings are 35%-45% EMPTY.Commercial buildings on Nicollet Avenue from 66th Street to
64th Street are 45%-50% EMPTY.YOU should be spending your time getting the empty commercial buildings filled
with businesses.Richfield certainly does not need more EMPTY commercial buildings.
I PROPOSE you build 4 (four) beautiful Richfield style single family homes that will enhance the area between 1st
Avenue and Stevens Avenue on 66th Street.This will enrich Richfield and will not negatively impact the long time tax
paying Richfield residents.
Again I say,ABSOLUTELY NO Mixed-Use Development at 6601 & 6605 1st Ave & 6600 & 6608 Stevens Ave.
Nancy Norton
132 East 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
4
Matt Brillhart
From:Nancy Norton <nnorton9977@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:31 AM
To:Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; John Stark; Melissa
Poehlman; Matt Brillhart; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; Simon Trautmann
Subject:NO Zoning Change for 6601 & 6605 1st Ave & 6600 & 6608 Stevens Ave
If the Planning Commission approves the zoning change to multi-use development for the parcel at Stevens Avenue and
1st Avenue South on 66th Street after receiving numerous phone calls, emails and additionally listening to 3 hours
of heartfelt opposition from longtime and new Richfield homeowners who will be directly negatively impacted by the
zoning changes it will be very clear none of you sitting on the Planning Commission or the Richfield City Council care
about the taxpaying Richfield residents.
Remember we are the citizens who pay the taxes that support your paycheck.The paycheck that allows you sit like stoic
statues with your eyes glued to monitor screens instead of looking into the eyes and faces of the Richfield taxpayers who
are speaking directly to you and who’ve elected you.
Thank You,
Nancy Norton
132 East 66th Street
5
Matt Brillhart
From:Cynthia Norton <cnorton54@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, April 20, 2018 1:54 PM
To:Pat Elliott; Michael Howard; Edwina Garcia; STrautman@RichfieldMN.gov; Maria Regan
Gonzalez; John Stark; Matt Brillhart; Melissa Poehlman
Subject:Mixed-Use Development at 6601 & 6605 1st Ave & 6600 & 6608 Stevens Ave
As a long time resident and homeowner in Richfield, I am opposed to changing the zoning on the parcel that is
across 66th St. from my residence.
I DO NOT WANT this huge cement building that will house commercial and residential.I DO NOT WANT
the noise and pollution of semi-trucks delivering and unloading product to the businesses anytime 24 hours a
day 7 days a week. I DO NOT WANT the residential single-family nature of my neighborhood changed to
become a place where families are unfamiliar and will change monthly as they move in and out.
This unattractive cement monstrosity that resembles a non-descript Soviet Union styled high-rise will block the
sunshine. 66th Street will look dark and shaded and the view will be blocked towards the southw est.
There is not enough space for snow removal. This terrible idea will only add more traffic and congestion to an
already busy crime-ridden area of 66th St and Nicollet Ave.
I see nothing positive for me from this proposed mixed-use development. As a Richfield homeowner for over
50 years I embrace the suburban feeling of single-family homes with a yard for kids to play. I do not want my
quaint suburb to feel like it is a busy noisy downtown corner.
The Hub commercial buildings are 35%-45% EMPTY.Commercial buildings on Nicollet from 66th Street to
64th Street are 45%-50% EMPTY.Spending your time getting the empty commercial buildings filled with
businesses that will provide you with the tax dollars this city needs would be time better spent by the cit y
council.Richfield does not need additional EMPTY commercial buildings.
The Dairy Queen, Best Buy, Rainbow Foods, and The Country Buffet were recent victims of robbery and
vandalism. More commercial shops closer to my home only puts me at higher risk of being robbed, raped and/or
killed in my own home.
I PROPOSE you build 4 (four) new single-family homes with a yard that will enhance the area between 1st
Avenue and Stevens Avenue on 66th Street.This will enrich Richfield. It will not negatively impact the long
time and loyal tax paying Richfield residents.
6
I am 100% against changing the zoning classification. I vote ABSOLUTELY NO to Mixed-Use Development
at 6601 & 6605 1st Ave & 6600 & 6608 Stevens Ave.
Cynthia Norton
132 East 66th Street
Richfield,MN55423
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #9.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 89
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
5/15/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/16/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Public hearing and consideration of the approval of new On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor licenses for Los Sanchez Taqueria #2, LL C d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria located at 2 West 66th
Street.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On March 13, 2018, the City received the application materials for new On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor licenses for Los Sanchez Taqueria #2, LLC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria located at 2 West 66th
Street.
Los Sanchez Taqueria (f/k/a Rosa's Kitchen) will be operating in the city under the new name.
All required information and documents have been received. All licensing fees have been paid.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the investigation are
summarized in an attachment to this report. The Public Safety Director has reviewed the background
investigation report. There is nothing in the report that would cause the Public Safety Director to recommend
denial of the requested licenses.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the issuance of new On-Sale W ine and
3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for Los Sanchez Taqueria #2, L LC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria
located at 2 West 66th Street.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of licenses:
The required license fees have been paid.
Real estate taxes are current.
Proof of commercial and liquor liability insurance have been received showing Travelers
Casualty I nsurance Company Of America as affording coverage.
As a result of this being a new request for On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses,
there is no need for an accountant's statement regarding food/alcohol ratio.
As stated in the Executive Summary, the Public Safety Director has reviewed the background
information and sees no basis for denial.
On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to
comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing
problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of On-Sale W ine and 3.2
Percent Malt Liquor licenses.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor
license establishments to comply with all the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met which outlines the discipline they can
expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of
the establishment.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on May 10, 2018.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean the current applicants
would not be able to serve On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor; however, Public Safety has
found no basis to deny the license.
Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Rosa Sheehan - President/On Premise Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
L os S anchez Taqueria- B ackground S ummary C over Memo
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FOR LOS SANCHEZ
TAQUERIA # 2, LLC D/B/A LOS SANCHEZ TAQUERIA
Officers:
Rosa Sheehan – President
Criminal Histories:
Criminal history checks were conducted on the applicant. Rosa Sheehan who is the
President and is also serving as the On-Premise Manager, has no known criminal
record.
Premises:
The applicant has provided a copy of the rental agreement showing Brixmor SPE 1,
LLC, holding financial interest as lessor of the property.
Record of Service Calls:
Being this is a new business, there are no records of service calls.
Violations:
Being this is a new business, there are no violations for sale of alcohol to underage
youth.
Routine Information:
On sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline
they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been
given to the owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses.
The notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
May 10, 2018.
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #10.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 90
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
5/16/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/16/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending the tobacco ordinance to
include increasing the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products and tobacco related devices
from eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21) years of age and updating several sections to include new and
updated definitions.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Tobacco 21, a movement aimed at raising the minimum legal age for tobacco and nicotine sales age to 21 has
seen recent success in Minnesota and nationwide. A work session occurred on March 27, 2018, with the
Advisory Board of Health, related to increasing the tobacco sales age from 18 to 21 years. The presentation
highlighted the benefits of a Tobacco 21 policy and the protections it provides for younger tobacco users.
I n addition to raising the legal age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21 and adopting findings to
support that change, the proposed ordinance updates and incorporates new definitions in order to stay
compliant with state law and current with new products on the market. The proposed ordinance also eliminates
"purchase, use, and possession" penalties against under-age individuals as studies indicate that such
penalties are not effective in preventing tobacco use by young people.
To date, seven communities in Minnesota have passed tobacco 21 laws. Those communities are Edina, St.
Louis Park, Bloomington, Plymouth, North Mankato, and most recently Shoreview and Falcon Heights.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the tobacco ordinance to include
increasing the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products and tobacco-related devices from 18
to 21 and schedule the second reading of the ordinance for June 12, 2018.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health has a strong track record of supporting policies that
protect the health of its community from the harms of tobacco. The tobacco ordinance has been
amended in the past to keep up with the constant flow of new products released into the market.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
A formal public hearing is not required, but the City Council could allow public comment on the
proposed ordinance changes.
City code states that it is a violation for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco
product, tobacco-related device, or electronic cigarette to any person under the age of 18 years.
The City currently has 22 licensed establishments selling tobacco products.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
N/A
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and approves of its content.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council may decide to not approve the first reading of the ordinance and direct staff how to
proceed.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Proponents and opponents of the Tobacco 21 initiative, including community members and business owners.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
1
BILL NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1146 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO TOBACCO SALES AND THE
REGULATION OF SMOKING
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 840.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
No person may use tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices,
electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products, as these items are
defined in section 1146 of this Code, or electronic cigarettes on City-owned parks,
conservation areas, open spaces, or recreational facilities, including without limitation:
trails within parks used for walking and biking, picnic shelters, athletic fields, and play
areas. This subsection does not apply to the use of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-
related devices, electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products or
electronic cigarettes inside motor vehicles parked on the premises of City-owned parks,
conservation areas, open spaces or recreational facilities.
Sec. 2. Subsection 1146.01 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.01. – Findings and Purpose.
The Richfield City Council recognizes that many persons under the age of 18 years
purchase or otherwise obtain, possess, and use tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -
related devices, and electronic cigarettes, and that such sales, possession, and use
are violations of both State and Federal laws. Studies have shown that most smokers
begin smoking before they reach the age of 18 years and that those persons have
been shown to have several serious health problems which subsequently place a
financial burden on all levels of government. This section is intended to regulate the
sale, possession, and use of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, and
electronic cigarettes, for the purpose of enforcing and furthering existing laws, to
protect minors against the serious effects associated with the illegal use of tobacco,
tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, and electronic cigarettes, and to further
the official public policy of the State of Minnesota in regard to preventing young people
from starting to smoke as stated in Minn. Stat. 144.391.
Subdivision 1. The Richfield City Council makes the following Findings in
support of this section intended to regulate the sale, possession, and use of tobacco
and related devices and products and to protect young people against the serious
effects associated with the use of tobacco and related devices and products:
(a) The City Council recognizes that the sale of tobacco, tobacco-related
devices, electronic delivery devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery products
to persons under the age of 18 violates both state and federal laws;
2
(b) Studies, which the city hereby accepts and adopts, have shown that 95% of
smokers initiate use before the age of 21; and that almost no one starts
smoking after age 25;
(c) Tobacco use has been shown to be the cause of several serious health
problems which subsequently place a financial burden on all levels of
government;
(d) Raising the legal purchasing age to 21 will take legal purchasers out of the
social circles of underage users and studies have concluded that raising the
legal purchasing age for tobacco to 21 would result in a 12 percent decrease
in tobacco use and approximately 223,000 fewer premature deaths for those
born between 2000 and 2009;
(e) Raising the legal purchasing age to 21 is in line with the minimum age to buy
alcohol and simplifies ID checks for retailers;
(f) There is evidence to suggest that enforcement of possession, use, or
purchase (PUP) laws against youth detract from the enforcement of penalties
against retailers and that youth of color in Minnesota are disproportionately
over-represented in similar status-level offenses, increasing their interactions
with law enforcement and the juvenile justice systems;
(g) Enforcement of PUP laws has not been shown to reduce youth smoking
significantly and because PUP laws do not sufficiently take into account the
tobacco industry’s responsibility for targeting youth with its marketing
practices, this section is intended to regulate the sale of tobacco, tobacco -
related devices, electronic delivery devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery
products for the purpose of enforcing and furthering existing laws, to protect
minors and young adults against the serious effects associated with use and
initiation, and to further the official public polic y of the state in regard to
preventing young people from starting to smoke as stated in Minn. Stat. §
144.391, as it may be amended from time to time.
Subd. 2. Studies. In making these findings, the City Council accepts the
conclusions and recommendations of: the Institute of Medicine’s report, “Public Health
Implications of Raising the Minimum Age of Legal Access to Tobacco Products” (2015),
the U.S. Surgeon General reports, “E-cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults”
(2016), “The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress” (2014) and
“Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults” (2012); the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in their studies, “Tobacco Use Among Middle and High
School Students — United States, 2011– 2015,” and “Selected Cigarette Smoking
Initiation and Quitting Behaviors Among High School Students, United States, 1997”;
and of the following scholars in these scientific journals: Xin Xu et al., Annual
Healthcare Spending Attributable to Cigarette Smoking: An Upda te, Am. J. Prev. Med.
48(3): 326-33 (Mar. 2015); Giovino GA, “Epidemiology of Tobacco Use in the United
States,” Oncogene (2002) 21, 7326-40; Khuder SA, et al., “Age at Smoking Onset and
3
its Effect on Smoking Cessation,” Addictive Behavior 24(5):673-7, September-October
1999; D’Avanzo B, et al., “Age at Starting Smoking and Number of Cigarettes Smoked,”
Annals of Epidemiology 4(6):455-59, November 1994; Chen, J & Millar, WJ, “Age of
Smoking Initiation: Implications for Quitting,” Health Reports 9(4):39-46, Spring 1998;
Everett SA, et al., “Initiation of Cigarette Smoking and Subsequent Smoking Behavior
Among U.S. High School Students,” Preventive Medicine, 29(5):327-33, November
1999, copies of which are adopted by reference; Wakefield, M & Giovino, G “Teen
Penalties for Tobacco Possession, Use, and Purchase: Evidence and Issues,” Tobacco
Control (2003) 12, i6 – i13; the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee’s report,
“2016 Annual report to Governor Mark Dayton and the Minnesota State Legislature
(2016).
Sec. 3. Subsection 1146.03 of the Richf ield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.03. – Definitions.
Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section, the terms defined in this
subsection have the following meanings given them:
Subd. 2. Tobacco or tobacco products. “Tobacco” mean s Any substance or item
containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes, and any product
containing, made, or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption,
whether chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested
by any other means, or any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco pro duct
including but not limited to ; cigars; pipe tobacco; snuff, fine cut or other chewing
tobacco, cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and
other smoking tobacco; snuff; snuff flour; flowers, cavendish; shorts, plug and twist
tobaccos; fine cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; dipping tobaccos; refuse
scraps, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco ; and other kinds and forms of
tobacco leaf prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or
smoking. This term excludes any tobacco product that has been approved by the
United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco -cessation product,
as a tobacco -dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is being
marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose.
Subd. 3. Tobacco-related devices. "Tobacco-related devices" shall mean any
tobacco product as well as a pipes, cigarette rolling papers, or other device s
intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing,
sniffing, or smoking, or inhalation of vapors of tobacco or tobacco products . Tobacco-
related devices include components of tobacco -related devices which may be
marketed or sold separately.
Subd. 4. Tobacco-Related Product. Any tobacco, tobacco-related device,
electronic delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product, as those terms are
defined in this section.
4
Subd. 4 5. Self -service merchandising. "Self -service merchandising" shall mean
open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, or electronic
delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery products cigarettes, in any manner
where any person has access to the tobacco, tobacco products tobacco -related
devices, or electronic cigarettes, such items without the assistance or intervention of
the licensee or the licensee's employee. The assistance or intervention entails the
actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco -related device, or
electronic delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product cigarettes, between
the customer and the licensee or employee. Self -service merchandising shall not
include vending machines.
Subd. 5 6. Vending machine. "Vending machine" shall mean any mechanical,
electric or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices, or electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia
delivery products cigarettes, upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of
payment directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase such items. the
tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device, or electronic cigarettes.
Subd. 6 7. Loosies. "Loosies" shall mean the common term used to refer to a
single or individually-packaged cigarette.
Subd. 7. Minor. "Minor" shall mean any person who has not yet reached the age
of 18 years.
Subd. 8. Retail establishment. "Retail establishment" shall mean any place of
business where tobacco, tobacco products , tobacco-related devices, or electronic
delivery device s, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products cigarettes, are available for
sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include, but not be limited to,
grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaura nts.
Subd. 9. Moveable place of business. "Moveable place of business" shall mean
motorized vehicles, mobile sales kiosks, kiosks, trailers or other structure or
equipment not permanently attac hed to the ground.
Subd. 10. Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade,
barter, or other consideration.
Subd. 11. Compliance checks. "Compliance checks" shall mean the system the
City of Richfield uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell tobacco,
tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, and electronic delivery devices, and
nicotine and lobelia delivery products cigarettes, are following and complying with the
requirements of this section. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors
persons under the age of 21 as authorized by this section to attempt to purchase such
items. tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, and electronic cigarettes,
for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by State and Federal
laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for
educational, research and training purposes or for the purpose of enforcing
5
appropriate Federal, State or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices, and electronic delivery devices, and nicotine and
lobelia delivery products . cigarettes.
Subd. 12. Electronic cigarette Delivery Device . "Electronic cigarette delivery
device" shall mean any electronic-smoking device product or electronic device that
can be used to deliver nicotine, lobelia or any other substances to the person inhaling
from the device. The term shall include such devices whether they are manufactured,
marketed, or sold as electronic delivery devices cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic
pipes, vape pens, mods, tank systems , or under any other product name or descriptor
and includes any component part of such a product whether or not sold separately.
This term excludes any product that has been approved by the United States Fo od
and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product, as a tobacco
dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is being marketed and sold
solely for such an approved purpose
Subd. 13. Cigar. A "cigar" shall mean any roll of tobacco that is wrapped in
tobacco leaf or in any substance containing tobacco, with or without a tip or
mouthpiece, that is not a cigarette as defined in Minn. Stat. § 297F.01, subdivision 3
as amended from time to time.
Subd. 14. Smoking. "Smoking" shall mean inhaling or exhaling from, or carrying,
any lighted or heated tobacco, tobacco product , or tobacco-related device or any other
lighted or heated product, whether natural, synthetic, containing, made or derived from
nicotine, tobacco marijuana or other plan t. Smoking also includes the inhaling or
exhaling of vapor from any electronic delivery device or nicotine or lobelia delivery
product cigarette, as well as carrying an electronic delivery such device or product
cigarette that is turned on or otherwise act ivated.
. . .
Subd. 18. Sampling. "Sampling" shall mean the lighting of tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices or the activation of and inhaling of vapor from
electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery products cigarettes in a retail
establishment by a customer or potential customer for the purpose of sampling the
product or device before a pur chase.
Subd.19. Nicotine or Lobelia Delivery Product . Any product containing or
delivering nicotine or lobelia intended for human c onsumption, or any part of such a
product, that is not tobacco or an electronic delivery device as defined in this section.
Nicotine or Lobelia Delivery Product does not include any product that has been
approved or otherwise verified for legal sale by the United States Food and Drug
Administration for tobacco use cessation or for other medical purposes, and is being
marketed and sold solely for that approved purpose.
6
Sec. 4. Subsection 1146.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.05. – Sale and distribution of tobacco.
Subdivision 1. License required. No person or establishment shall sell or offer to
sell any tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, or electronic cigarettes
delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products without first having obtained a
license to do so from the City of Richfield. All licenses issued under this section shall
be valid only on the premises for which the license was issued and only for the person
to whom the license was issu ed. No transfer of any license to another location or
person shall be valid
Subd. 2. Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices, or electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia
delivery products cigarettes shall be made on a form provided by the Public Safety
Director or the Public Safety Director's designee. The fee shall accompany the
application. The application shall be reviewed and action taken on it by either the
Public Safety Director o r the Director's designee.
Subd. 3. Action. The Public Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's
designee may either approve or deny the license, or may delay action for such
reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the
application or the applicant it deems necessary. If the Public Safety Director or the
Public Safety Director's designee denies the license, notice of the denial shall be
given to the applicant along with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the decis ion.
Subd. 4. License term. All licenses shall expire on December 31 of the year in
which the license is issued. The annual license fee will not be prorated.
Subd. 5. Denial, revocation or suspension. A license under this section may be
denied, suspended or revoked by the council, after an investigation and public hearing
where the licensee is granted the opportunity to be heard, for one (1) or more of the
following reasons:
(a) The operation of the business is in conflict with any provision of this code.
(b) The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, fire, building,
building maintenance, zoning, or any other applicable codes or laws.
(c) The applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one (1) or more provisions
of this section or any statute, ru le or ordinance pertaining to the sale of
tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related device, or electronic delivery
devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery products. cigarettes.
(d) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing or
renewing a license.
(e) The owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify for a
license under the terms of this section.
(f) The applicant is under the age of 18 21 years.
7
(g) The applicant has been convicted within the past five (5) years of any violation
of a Federal, State, or local law ordinance provision, or other regulation
relating to tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, or electronic
delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products. cigarettes.
(h) The applicant has ha d a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -
related devices, or electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery
products cigarettes, revoked within the 12 months preceding the date of
application.
(i) The applicant is prohibited by Fede ral, State, or other local law, ordinance, or
other regulation, from holding such a license.
. . .
Sec. 5. Subsection 1146.09 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.09. – Prohibitions.
Subdivision 1. Prohibited Sales. It shall be a violation of this section for any person to
sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco -related device, or electronic
delivery device or nicotine or lobelia delivery product cigarettes:
(a) To any person under the age of 18 21 years.
(i) Age verification. Licensees must verify by means of government-issued
photographic identification that the purchaser is at least 21 years of age.
Verification is not required for a person over the age of 30. That the person
appeared to be 30 years of age or older does not constitute a defense to a
violation of this subsection.
(ii) Signage. Notice of the legal sales age and age verification requirement must
be posted at each location where licensed products are offered for sale. The
required signage, which will be provided to the licensee by the city, must be
posted in a manner that is clearly visible to anyone who is or is considering
making a purchase.
(b) By anyone under the age of 18 years.
(c) By means of any type of vending machine.
(d) By means of self -service merchandising.
(e) By means of loosies.
8
(f) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana, or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled substances except
nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or added as part of an
otherwise lawful manufacturing process.
(g) By any other means prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law, ordinance
provision, or other regulation.
Subd. 2. Child-Resistant Packaging. The sale of any liquid, whether or not such
liquid contains nicotine, that is intended for human consumption and used in an
electronic delivery device or nicotine or lobelia delivery product cigarette or that is not
contained in child -resistant packaging, is prohibited. All licensees under this Section
must ensure that any such liquid is sold in child -resistant packaging, as defined in
Minn. Stat. § 461.20, as amended from time to time.
Subd. 3. Cigar Sales. No person shall sell, offer for sale, or otherwise distribute
cigars in original packages containing three (3) or fewer cigars for a sale price, after
any coupons, multipack or buy -one-get-one promotions, or any other discounts are
applied and prior to applicable sales taxes being imposed, of less than two dollars and
sixty cents ($2.60) per cigar contained within. In addition, no person shall sell, offer for
sale, or otherwise distribute cigars in original packages of four (4) or more cigars for a
sale price, after any coupons, multipack or buy -one-get-one promotions, or any other
discounts are applied and prior to applicable sales taxes being imposed, of less than
ten dollars and forty cents ($10.40) per package. This subdivision does not apply to
premium cigars as defined in Minn. Stat. § 297F.01, subdivision 13a. This subdivision
shall become effective January 1, 2016.
Subd. 4. Smoking and Sampling Prohibited.
(a) Smoking shall be prohibited, and no person shall smoke, in a public place, at a
public meeting, or in a place of employment. This subdivision also prohibits the
sampling of tobacco, tobacco products, electronic delivery devices, nicotine or
lobelia delivery products cigarettes and products used in electronic delivery
devices and nicotine or lobelia delivery products cigarettes.
A licensee under this Section that allows sampling at its licensed premises on or
before the effective date of this ordinance may continue to allow sampling, but only
while that certain licensee operates at that certain licensed premises.
Subd. 5. Smoking permitted. Except sampling, which is expressly prohibited
under subd. 4, smoking is permitted as identified in Minn. Stat. § 144.4167.
9
Sec. 6. Subsection 1146.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.11. – Vending machines.
It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this section to allow the sale
of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, or electronic delivery devices
or nicotine or lobelia delivery produc ts cigarettes, by the means of a vending machine.
Sec. 7. Subsection 1146.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.13. – Self-service sales.
It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this section to allow the sale of tobacco,
tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or electronic delivery devices or nicotine or
lobelia delivery products cigarettes, by any means whereby the customer may have
access to such items without having to request the item from the licensee or the
licensee's employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the item
tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco -related device, or electronic cig arettes, between
the licensee or licensee's employee and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products,
tobacco-related devices, and electronic delivery devices and nicotine or lobelia
delivery products cigarettes, shall either be stored behind a counter or other area not
freely accessible to customers. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products,
tobacco-related devices, or electronic cigarettes, at the time this section is amended
shall comply with this section within 30 days of the passage of the amendments. A
license holder who operates an establishment or fully enclosed portion of an
establishment that sells at least 90 p ercent of its products in tobacco, or tobacco
products, tobacco -related devices, or electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia
delivery products cigarettes, is exempt from the self -service merchandising provision if
the license holder prohibits anyone under 18 21 years of age from entering the
establishment or fully enclosed portion of an establishment and the license holder
conspicuously displays a notice p rohibiting persons under 18 21 years of age from
entering the establishment.
Sec. 8. Subsection 1146.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.15. – Responsibility.
All licensees under this section shall be responsible for the actions of their
employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related
devices, or electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery product s
cigarettes on the licensed premises, and the sale of such an item by an employee
shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be
construed as prohibiting the City from also subjecting the employee to whatever
penalties are appropriate unde r this section, State or Federal law, or other applicable
law or regulation.
10
Sec. 9. Subsection 1146.17 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.17. – Compliance checks and inspections.
All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by Richfield law enforcement
or other authorized City officials during regular business hours. From time to time, but
at least twice per year, the City shall conduct compliance checks . One check will be
conducted by engaging, with the written consent of th eir parents or guardians, minors
a person over the age of 15 years , but less than 17 years of age , to enter the licensed
premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices,
or electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery products cigarettes. A
second check will be conducted by engaging a person over the age of 18 but less than
21 years of age, to enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase such items.
Minors Persons used for the purpose of compliance check s shall be supervised by the
Public Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's designee. Minors used for
compliance checks shall not be guilty of the unlawful purchase or attempted purchase,
nor the unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, to bacco-related devices, or
electronic cigarettes, when such items are obtained or attempted to be obtained as a
part of the compliance check. No minor person used in compliance checks shall
attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minor's person’s age and all
minors persons lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions
about the minor's person’s age, asked by the licensee or licensee's employee and
shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which the minor person is asked.
Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or
Federal laws for educational, research, or training purposes, or required for the
enforcement of a particular State or Federal law.
Sec. 10. Subsection 1146.19 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.19. – Other illegal acts.
Subdivision 1. Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation
of this section.
Subd. 2. Illegal sales. It shall be a violation of this section for any person to sell or
otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, or
electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery products cigarettes, to any
minor person under the age of 21.
Subd. 3. Illegal possession. It shall be a violation of this section for any minor to
have in their possession any tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco -related device, or
electronic cigarettes. This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully invo lved in a
compliance check.
Subd. 4. Illegal use. It shall be a violation of this section for any minor to smoke,
chew, sniff, or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco -related device, or
electronic cigarettes.
11
Subd. 5. Illegal procurement. It shall be a violation of this section for any minor to
purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco products,
tobacco-related devices, or electronic cigarettes, and it shall be a violation of this
section for any person to purch ase or otherwise obtain such items on behalf of a
minor. It shall further be a violation for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a
minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product,
tobacco-related device, or electronic cigarettes. This subdivision shall not apply to
minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
Subd. 6 3. Use of false identification. It shall be a violation of this section for any
minor person under the age of 21 to attempt to disguise their true age by the use of a
false form of identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one
on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an
age older than the actual age of the person.
Sec. 11. Subsection 1146.23 of the Richfield City Code is amended by deleting
the following subdivision 3 relating to penalties:
1146.23. – Penalties.
Subd. 3. Minors. Minors found in unlawful possession of, or who unlawfully
purchase or attempt to purchase, tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices,
or electronic cigarettes, shall be given the option of participating in a diversion
program rather than paying the violation fine.
Sec. 12. Subsection 1146.25 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1146.25. – Exceptions and defenses.
Subdivision 1. Nothing in this ordinance section shall prevent the provision of
tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco -related devices, or electronic delivery devices
cigarettes, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products to a minor person under the age of
21 as part of a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual, or cultural cerem ony.
Subd. 2. It shall be an affirmative defense to the violation of this section for a
person to have reasonably relied on proof of age as described by State law.
Subd. 3. It shall be a defense to a violation of the section that a licensee did not
intentionally aid, advise, hire, counsel or conspire with another to sell tobacco , tobacco
products, tobacco -related devices, electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia
delivery products to minors persons under the age of 21 or otherwise procure the sale
of tobacco such items to minors persons under the age of 21 .
12
Sec. 13. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
City Charter.
Adopted this ____ of ________, 2018.
By: ___________________________
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #11.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 91
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
5/14/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/16/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of an ordinance amending sign regulations and a resolution authorizing
summary publication of said ordinance.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Over the past few months, staff has been researching potential modifications to sign regulations. This study
effort began due to requests from the community for the limited use of portable signs, and for greater flexibility
in the design and illumination of freestanding signs on Penn Avenue. The goal of this ordinance amendment is
to address those issues by providing some flexibility, while simultaneously strengthening regulations related to
the height, size, and quantity of signs.
Portable Signs
Current regulations prohibit the use of any portable signs, and staff annually receives a small number of
complaints regarding this policy. A blanket policy prohibiting all portable signs has been perceived by
businesses and community organizations as being too rigid. This blanket policy is also frequently ignored,
creating a heavy workload for code enforcement. A side effect of prohibiting all portable signs is that
businesses have instead opted to display an unlimited number of small yard signs. The current ordinance
does not explicitly define small yard signs as portable signs, and does not include any restrictions on
quantity.
To remedy those related issues, staff proposes amending the ordinance to allow limited use of
portable signs, with restrictions on quantity, size, placement, and hours of display, as follows:
A-frame "sandwich board" signs, T-frame signs, and small yard signs shall be the only portable signs
allowed.
One portable sign permitted per business, with a maximum of two per lot (large shopping
centers would allowed a higher number based on street frontage).
Limited to 4 feet in height and 6 square feet in area.
Portable signs shall not be displayed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (small yard signs exempted).
Existing regulations will continue to apply: signs must be located on private property (not
permitted in right-of-way), signs must be located on the premises to which they refer (off-site
signage is prohibited) and signs with wheels and/or attached to vehicles or trailers remain
prohibited. Freestanding banner signs (including flag or sail type signs) also continue to be
prohibited. Temporary banners are only permitted when attached to a structure.
Pe nn Av enue De sign Guidelines
Additional sign regulations apply in the Penn Central area (Crosstown to 68th Street), prohibiting
internally lit box signs on building walls and freestanding signs. Staff has interpreted this prohibition
to include dynamic displays (electronic changeable message boards). T hese regulations have made
nearly all freestanding signs on Penn Avenue nonconforming in some way, and have been perceived
as being too great of a departure from regulations affecting the rest of the City. T he Penn Avenue
Design Guidelines acknowledged that size and quantity of signs can be a visual blight, but did not
propose any specific changes to regulations.
Staff proposes amending the ordinance to allow dynamic display signs and to re-allow internally lit
freestanding signs on Penn Avenue, with new restrictions on the height and size of freestanding signs.
Freestanding signs including a dynamic display or internal illumination will be limited to 100 square feet in
area in the Penn Central area. Freestanding signs greater than 100 square feet in area would be permitted on
larger properties, but would remain ineligible for a dynamic display or internal illumination.
Reducing Free standing Sign He ight and Size City wide
Based on staff's research of peer cities' sign ordinances, a review of many existing signs in the community,
and policymaker feedback from the April 10, 2018 W ork Session, staff is proposing to introduce new
restrictions on sign height, size, and quantity that would apply citywide. The maximum sign height for many
commercial properties would be reduced from 27 feet to 20 feet. The maximum area per sign surface would
be reduced from the current 200 square feet to a sliding scale based on site acreage, and the cumulative
area of all freestanding signs on a site would be reduced as well. Under the current ordinance, there is no
specific limit on the number of tall signs per site. Staff proposes amending the ordinance to allow just one sign
exceeding 8 feet in height per site. Exceptions to these new regulations would apply to Planned Unit
Developments over 2 acres in area (e.g. large shopping centers such as Lyndale Station or The Shops at
Lyndale) and properties abutting highways (e.g. car dealerships, hotels). Please refer to the chart in the
"Policy" section below for details.
Other proposed changes to sign regulations:
T he Community Development Director shall have the authority to suspend permit fees and
time limits on temporary banner signs during major road construction projects. T his would
make permanent what was permitted through an interim ordinance for 66th Street
construction, which has since expired.
Clarify regulations for fixed temporary ground signs (typically displayed during the development,
construction, sale, or leasing or commercial property).
Clarify sign setback regulations. The current ordinance states that freestanding signs shall be set back
5 feet from lot lines. Staff proposes to add a clause further clarifying that no freestanding sign shall be
located within 14 feet of the curbline, for situations where property lines and right-of-way vary, such as
when sidewalks are located on private property with an easement.
There shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet between any internally illuminated or dynamic display
freestanding sign and any residential property. Signs located on a wall that faces an abutting residential
property line and within 100 feet of said residential property line shall not be illuminated between 10:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Freestanding signs greater than 6 feet in height will be required to provide landscaping around the sign
base.
Generally speaking, the proposed changes better reflect the quantity and dimensions of many
existing signs throughout the community, and will primarily serve to prevent the addition of new
oversized signage in the future. Benefits of limiting the quantity, size and height of freestanding signs
include: minimizing visual clutter and distractions to motorists, improving the pedestrian experience
by bringing signs closer to a human scale, limiting freeway-scale signage to appropriate locations,
and protecting and improving the overall appearance of the community.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve an ordinance amending sign regulations and approve a resolution authorizing
summary publication of said ordinance.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Sign regulations were last overhauled in 2007, along with minor amendments made over the past
decade. The City Council recently held a work session to discuss sign regulations, as detailed in
the attached Council Memo No. 23 and presentation.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Regarding the proposed changes to freestanding sign height, size, and quantity, the chart in Subsection
549.23, Subdivision 2 is proposed to be amended as follows (revisions underlined, deletions strike-
through):
W ithin commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use regional, and industrial
zoning districts, one (1) freestanding sign per site is signs are permitted as follows 1:
District
Maximum sign area of single
sign
Maximum
height
Total area of all freestanding
signs
S O, C-1, MU-N 60 square feet per surface 15 feet 1 2 square feet per foot
of lot frontage
C-2, MU-C
Sites <1 ac re 100 square feet per surfac e 20 feet 2 1 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
C-2, MU-C
Sites 1-2 acres 150 square feet per surfac e 20 feet 2 1 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
C-2, MU-C
Sites >2 ac res 200 square feet per surfac e 20 feet 2 27 feet 1 4 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
I , MU-R 250 square feet per surfac e 27 feet 1 4 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
1 Additional freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 50 square feet in area.
Planned Unit Development sites greater than 2 acres may request additional signs exceeding 8 feet in
height and 50 square feet in area.
2 On properties abutting an interstate or state highway or the adjacent frontage road, one freestanding
sign with a maximum height of 27 feet may be located within 100 feet of the lot line abutting the highway
or frontage road.
See the attached Ordinance amending Zoning Code Sections 549 (Sign Regulations) and
541.21 (Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District) for all proposed changes.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
None
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
A public hearing to consider this ordinance was held before the Planning Commission on April 23,
2018. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on April 12, 2018.
No members of the public spoke at the public hearing.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance (7-0).
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve the ordinance with modifications.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Resolution Resolution L etter
Work S ession Memo & P resentation B ackup Material
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
TO UPDATE SIGN REGULATIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Section 549 of the Richfield City Code relating to sign regulations is
amended to read as follows:
549.01. - Findings, purpose and effect.
Subdivision 1. Findings. The City hereby finds as follows:
a) Signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the image of the community;
b) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth;
c) The manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs has a substantial impact
on the character and quality of the environment;
d) Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of
messages;
e) Signs help citizens find their way to intended destinations;
f) The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and
property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly
divert the attention of drivers;
g) Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and detriments to property values,
thereby threatening the public health, safety and welfare;
h) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly portable signs whenwhich are commonly
located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at driveway/street
intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic.
This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians; and
i) The City's zoning regulations have, since as early as 1944, included the regulation of
signs in an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote the
economic viability of the business community, while protecting the City and its citizens
from a proliferation of signs of a type, size, location and character that would have an
adverse impact upon the aesthetics of the community and threaten its health, safety
and welfare. The regulation of the physical characteristics of signs within the City has
had a positive impact on traffic safety and the appearance of the community.
Subd. 2. Purpose and intent. It is not the purpose or intent of this sign ordinance to
regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor is it the purpose or intent of this ordinance to
regulate any building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be
viewed from outside a building. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to:
a) Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical
characteristics of signs within the City in order to promote the public health, safety and
welfare;
b) Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the City by preventing
visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community;
c) Improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of
communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the City's goals of public
safety and aesthetics; and
d) Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein
under the zoning authority of the City.
Subd. 3. Effect. A sign may be erected, mounted, displayed or maintained in the City if it is
in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance. The effect of this ordinance, as more
specifically set forth herein, is to:
a) Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and a more limited variety of
signs in other zones, subject to the standards set forth in this sign ordinance;
b) Allow signs which are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner
that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
c) Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all
zones when in compliance with the requirements of this sign ordinance;
d) Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics
negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished
by means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and
welfare; and
e) Provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this sign ordinance.
549.03. - Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this sign ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the
remaining portion of this sign ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
adopted the sign ordinance in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, or
phrases be declared invalid.
549.05. - Definitions.
Subdivision 1. The following words and phrases, when used in this Section 549 shall have
the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The definitions set forth
in this Section 549.05 are in addition to the definitions set forth in Section 507.07, which shall
apply to this Section 549, except that in the event of a conflict between the Sections, the
definition in Section 549 shall apply:
Subd. 2. "Abandoned sign." Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains
without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more,
or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed
to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a
change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless
the property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. Any sign remaining after
demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be abandoned. Signs that are present
because of being legally Legally established nonconforming signs or signs that have required a
conditional use permit or a variance shall also be subject to the definition of abandoned sign.
Subd. 3. "Awning." A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal or glass designed and
intended for protection from the weather or as a decorative embellishment, and which projects
from a wall or roof of a structure primarily over a window, walk, or the like. Any part of an awning
that also projects over a door shall be counted as an awning.
Subd. 4. "Awning sign." A sign or graphic printed on or in some fashion attached directly to
the awning material.
Subd. 5. "Balloon sign." A sign consisting of a bag made of lightweight material supported
by helium, hot, or pressurized air which is greater than 24 inches in diameter.
Subd. 6. "Banner." A sign made of fabric or any nonrigid material with no enclosing
framework.
Subd. 7. "Canopy." A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal, or glass on a support,
which provides shelter over a doorway.
Subd. 8. "Canopy sign." Any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy, made of fabric,
plastic, or structural protective cover over a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee
and is different from service station canopy signs that are governed by Section 534.07, Subd.
11 of this Code.
Subd. 9. "Changeable message." A message that is not permanently attached to the sign
face but that is not a dynamic display.
Subd. 10. "Commercial speech." Speech advertising a business, profession, commodity,
service or entertainment.
Subd. 11. "Dynamic display." Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement
or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing
the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign
structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a
technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or
mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving,
moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display or structural element and any display that
incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any
other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays.
Subd. 12. "Erect." Activity of constructing, building, raising, assembling, placing, affixing,
attaching, creating, painting, drawing or any other way of bringing into being or establishing.
Subd. 13. "Freestanding sign." Any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on,
or anchored in, the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure.
Subd. 14. "Grade." The average elevation or level of the centerline of the closest street
which the sign abuts.
Subd. 15. "Height of sign." The height of the sign shall be computed as the vertical distance
measured from the base of the sign at grade to the top of the highest attached component of the
sign.
Subd. 16. "Illuminated sign." Any sign that contains an element designed to emanate
artificial light internally or externally.
Subd. 17. "Legally established nonconforming sign." Any sign and its support structure
lawfully erected prior to the effective date of this ordinance which fails to conform to the
requirements of this ordinance. A sign which was erected in accordance with a variance granted
prior to the adoption of this section and which does not comply with this section shall be
deemed to be a legal nonconforming sign. A sign that was unlawfully erected shall be deemed
to be an illegal sign.
Subd. 18. "Marquee." Any permanent roof-like structure projecting beyond a theater
building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of that building, generally designed
and constructed to provide protection from the weather.
Subd. 19. "Marquee sign." Any sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any
manner, on a marquee.
Subd. 20. "Monument sign." Any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the
ground or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign.
Subd. 21. "Noncommercial speech." Dissemination of messages not classified as
Commercial Speech which include, but are not limited to, messages concerning political,
religious, social, ideological, public service and information topics.
Subd. 22. "On-premise messages." Identify or advertise an establishment, person, activity,
goods, products or services located on the premises where the sign is installed.
Subd. 23. "Outdoor advertising sign." Any sign that is located outdoors and that advertises
a product, business, service, event, or any other matter that is not available, or does not take
place, on the same premises as the sign (off-premise sign). For the purposes of this sign
ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such
premises and any sign located or proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance
shall be considered an outdoor advertising sign.
Subd. 24. "Owner." In the case of a lot, the legal owner of the lot as officially recorded by
Hennepin County, and including fee owners, contract for deed purchasers and ground lessees.
In the case of a sign, the owner of the sign including any lessees.
Subd. 25. "Portable sign." A sign with or without copy and graphic that is designed or
intended to be moved or transported. By way of example and not by limitation, portable signs
include:
a) A- or T- frame signs, including sandwich board signs;
b) Yard Sandwich board signs anchored only by stakes;
c) Signs designed to be transported by trailer or on wheels;
d) Signs mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, when the vehicle is parked and
visible from public right-of-way, except signs identifying a business when the vehicle is
being used in the normal day-to-day operation of that business;
A sign may be a portable sign even if it has wheels removed, was designed without
wheels, or is attached temporarily or permanently to the ground, a structure, or other
sign.
Subd. 26. "Projecting sign." Any sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner
that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface or such building or wall
face.
Subd. 27. "Public right-of-way." Public right-of-way has the meaning given it by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 237.162, Subdivision 3.
Subd. 28. "Pylon sign." Any freestanding sign which has its supportive structure(s)
anchored in the ground and which has a sign face elevated above ground level by pole(s) or
beam(s) and with the area below the sign face open.
Subd. 29. "Roof sign." A sign located above the eave or parapet wall of a building and/or
located within the projected roof area.
Subd. 30. "Scoreboard Panel." A nonilluminated sign which is affixed to an electric
scoreboard at an outdoor sports arena or complex.
Subd. 31. "Sign." Any letter, word or symbol, poster picture, statuary, reading matter or
representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual
communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated
brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or
communicative purposes.
Subd. 32. "Sign area." The area shall be the area of the smallest rectangle enclosing the
extreme limits of the actual sign surface excluding structural elements outside the limits of such
sign which do not form an integral part of the display; or in the case of wall signs, figures,
symbols, canopy or awning signs, the sign area shall be the area of the smallest rectangle that
encloses the sign message or logo. For multi-face signs, the area shall include the maximum
number of single display surfaces visible from any ground position at one (1) time. Multi-face
signs with display surfaces at an angle to one another shall have an interior angle no greater
than thirty-five (35) degrees, unless the total area of both sides does not exceed the maximum
allowable sign area for that district.
Subd. 33. "Sign face." The surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the message
of the sign is exhibited.
Subd. 34. "Sign structure." Any structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and
framework which supports or is capable of supporting any sign.
Subd. 35. "Site." A lot or combination of contiguous lots that are intended, designated,
and/or approved to function as an integrated unit.
Subd. 36. "Stringer." A line of string, rope, cording or an equivalent to which is attached a
number of pennants, balloons, propellers, banners or similar devices.
Subd. 37. “Temporary fixed ground sign.” A sign which is supported by posts imbedded in
the ground and is designed to not be readily movable.
Subd. 38. 37. "Visible." Capable of being seen by a person of normal visual acuity (whether
legible or not) without visual aid.
Subd. 39. 38. "Wall." Any structure which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a
building or structure and which has a slope of 60 degrees or greater with the horizontal plane.
Subd. 40. 39. "Wall sign." Any sign attached parallel to, but within two (2) feet of a wall,
painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any
building or structure, which is supported by such wall or building, and which displays only one
(1) sign surface.
Subd. 41. 40. "Window sign." Any building sign, picture, symbol, or combination thereof,
designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale or
service, that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from
the exterior of the window.
549.07. - Permit required.
Subdivision 1. No sign shall be installed, constructed, erected, altered, revised,
reconstructed or relocated in the City without first obtaining a permit and license from the City.
The content of the message or speech displayed on the sign shall not be reviewed or
considered in determining whether to approve or deny a sign permit.
Subd. 2. Application. Application shall be made on forms provided by the City. The form
shall include the following information:
a) The name, address and telephone number of the applicant;
b) The name, address and telephone number of the person, firm, corporation or other
organization erecting the sign;
c) The name, address, telephone number and written consent of the property owner on
which the sign is to be erected;
d) Site plans indicating the exact location of the sign on the site including its position
relative to buildings, structures, streets and property lines;
e) Two (2) copies of signSign plans and specifications with the following information:
i. Number of sign faces;
ii. Sign colors and construction materials;
iii. Sign dimensions;
iv. Type, direction, location and intensity of illumination and name of electrical
contractor;
v. Method of attachment to building or ground; and
vi. Stress sheets and calculations showing that the structure is designed to meet
the dead load and wind pressure requirements of the Building Code.
f) If the proposed sign is along interstate highway, the application shall be accompanied
by proof that the applicant has obtained a permit from the State for the sign.
Subd. 3. Review. The City shall approve or deny the sign permit application within the time
period required by State law. If the permit is denied, the issuing authority shall prepare a written
notice of denial within 15 days of its decision, describing the applicant's appeal right under
Section 547.05, and send it by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the applicant.
Subd. 4. Additional permits.
a) Electrical signs must be installed in accordance with the current electrical code and a
separate permit from the building official must be obtained prior to placement; and
b) Building permits (as required) must be obtained from the building official prior to
placement.
549.09. - Exemptions.
The following signs shall not require a permit. These exemptions, however, shall not be
construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and
maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this ordinance or any other law or
ordinance regulating the same, unless otherwise noted: (Amended, Bill No. 2008-16)
a) The changing of a changeable message as defined in Subsection 549.05 or a
dynamic display message.
b) The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. This
exemption, however, shall apply only to poster replacement and/or on-site changes
involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building;
c) Signs six (6) square feet or less in size, including portable signs defined by Section
549.05, Subd. 25 (a) and (b) in accordance with the following:;
i. Portable signs shall be limited to 4 feet in height and 6 square feet in area;
ii. No more than one portable sign shall be displayed per business and no more
than two portable signs per site. On Planned Unit Development sites greater
than two acres, the total number of portable signs shall not exceed one (1)
per 200 feet of lot frontage. Portable signs located at building entrances
which are more than 100 feet from the right-of-way shall not count towards
this total, though the limitation of one portable sign per business still applies;
iii. Portable signs other than yard signs shall not be displayed between the hours
of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
d) Window signs;
e) Street identification numbers/address signs;
f) Bench signs complying with Subsection 805.19, Subd. 4 of the City Code;
g) Signs on vehicles when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation
of that business as described in Subsection 549.05, Subd. 30; and
h) Traffic signs and/or signs erected by public officials in performance of official duties
for the purpose of traffic control and public safety. Traffic signs are also exempt from
size, setback and dynamic display regulations.
549.11. - Fees.
The application for a sign permit shall be accompanied by the fee provided in Appendix D of
the City Code. The fee required in this paragraph is separate from and in addition to any other
fees required by this Code.
549.13. - Variances.
Requests for a variance from the requirements of this section shall be processed by the
Planning CommissionBoard of Adjustments and Appeals in accordance with Section 547.1105.
549.15. - Violations.
Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. Each day that the violation continues is a
separate offense.
549.17. - Enforcement.
Employees of the Community DevelopmentInspections Division of the Department of Public
Safety and additional persons designated by the Director are hereby authorized to enforce the
provisions of this section in the manner provided in Subsection 115.11 of the City Code.
549.19. - Expiration.
Sign permits are valid for one (1) year from the permit issuance date.
549.20. - Retroactive effect.
This sign ordinance shall apply to all sign applications applied for and/or pending prior to its
enactment.
549.21. - General regulations.
Subd. 1. The following regulations shall apply to all signs permitted in all districts:
Subd. 2. Signs prohibited.
a) Any sign located, designed or maintained in a manner which is likely to cause
confusion or interfere with the visibility of traffic signs, traffic control devices,
crossroads, driveways, or crosswalks or pedestrian, bicycle or wheelchair accessible
routes;
b) Roof signs;
c) Portable signs, except those listed exemptions in Section 549.09;
d) Searchlights, beacons, strobe lights or other illuminated signs emitting a beam
consisting of a collection or concentration of rays of light;
e) Outdoor advertising signs;
f) Stringers;
g) Balloon signs; and
h) Abandoned signs.
Subd. 3. Required wall signs. One (1) wall sign containing the street address of the
building is required on each building or portion of a building with a separate address. The sign
must be of sufficient size and located to be clearly visible from the street on which the address
is assigned. These signs do not reduce permitted sign area.
Subd. 4. Banners and other temporary signs. Banners and other temporary signs, where
permitted, are subject to the following standards: (Amended, Bill No. 2011-13) (Amended, Bill
No. 2014-4)
a) Banners shall be attached to a structure, shall be strongly constructed, and shall be
securely attached to their supports;
b) Banners and other temporary signs shall be removed (including all framework and
supports) as soon as damaged or torn;
c) There shall be no more than one (1) banner per tenant on any building frontage (see
Subsection 549.23 for size allowances);
d) Due to the construction methods of banners and other temporary signs and their
tendency toward damage, none may be displayed for more than 28 days. Temporary
fixed ground signs are permitted only during the sale, lease, or construction of a
property. Temporary fixed ground signs may be displayed for a period not to exceed
one year and must be removed within seven days of the sale, lease, or conclusion of
construction on the property. One temporary fixed ground sign is permitted for each
street upon which a lot has frontage. The area of any one temporary fixed ground sign
shall not exceed 32 square feet and 8 feet in height. On sites greater than 2 acres,
signs shall not exceed 64 square feet and 10 feet in height. Wherever possible,
temporary fixed signs should be attached to an existing freestanding sign on a site;
and
e) No more than four (4) temporary sign permits shall be issued to any business
organization or institution within any calendar year; and.
f) During major road construction projects impacting the access or visibility of properties
adjacent to the right-of-way under construction, the Director of Community
Development may waive the application fee and extend the time limit for display of
banners and other temporary signs, not to exceed one year.
Subd. 5. Setbacks. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all signs shall maintain a five-foot
setback from all lot lines. The City may require a greater or lesser setback because of public
safety reasons that may include the following conditions: vehicle sight distance (see Subsection
925.01, Subd. 4), distance from intersection, designation of adjacent right-of-way. In no case
shall any part of a freestanding sign be located less than 14 feet behind the curb adjacent to a
street. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-13)
Subd. 6. Changeable messages. A message that is not permanently attached to the sign
face but that is not a dynamic display may occupy no more than 35 percent of the actual copy
and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to change messages
even if not used.
Subd. 7. Illumination. External illumination for signs shall be so constructed and
maintained that the source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or residential
property. There shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet between any internally illuminated or
dynamic display freestanding sign and any residential property. Signs located on a wall that
faces an abutting residential property line and within 100 feet of said residential property line
shall not be illuminated between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Illumination of signs in the Penn
Avenue Corridor is further restricted by Section 541.21 of this Code.
Subd. 8. Noncommercial speech. Any noncommercial message may be substituted for
any commercial message on any sign allowed under this Code, subject to the same regulations
applicable to such signs. Notwithstanding any provisions of this section to the contrary, all
noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in a general election year from a date that is 46
days prior to the state primary election until ten (10) days following the state election. (Amended
Bill No. 2010-5)
Subd. 9. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable and good state
of repair at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, cleaning and other items
required for maintenance of the sign. Vegetation around, in front of, behind, and underneath the
base of monument signs for a distance of ten (10) feet shall be neatly trimmed and free of
weeds, and no rubbish or debris that would constitute a fire or health hazard shall be permitted
under or near the sign.
Subd. 10. Landscaping required. Freestanding signs located in parking areas shall be
separated by curb or similar means from the traveled portion of the parking lot. Freestanding
signs greater than six (6) feet in height shall have landscaping around the base of the sign.
549.23. - Permitted signs by district.
Subd. 1. Residential Districts.
a) Within residential zoning districts, freestanding signs are permitted as follows:
District Maximum sign area of
single sign
Maximum
height
Total area of all
freestanding signs
R, R-1, MR-1 6 square feet 6 feet 12 square feet
MR-2, MR-3 24 square feet 8 feet 36 square feet
Permitted
Nonresidential Uses 50 square feet 2025 feet 100 square feet
b) Within residential zoning districts, wall signs are permitted as follows:
District Maximum sign area of single sign
R, R-1, MR-1 Not permitted except as required by Section 549.21, Subd. 3.
MR-2, MR-3 10 percent of total wall area of the wall to which sign is attached
Permitted Nonresidential
Uses
1015 percent of the total wall area of the wall to which sign is
attached
c) Within residential zoning districts, the following types of signs are prohibited:
i. Dynamic displays, except for nonresidential uses; and
ii. Marquee signs; and
iii. Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision is prohibited in residential
districts.
d) Scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools are permitted as follows:
i. One (1) scoreboard not exceeding 18 feet in height or 100 square feet is surface
area is allowed per playing field, not including fields used only for practice; and
ii. Commercial or noncommercial speech shall be permitted on the scoreboard as
follows:
1. Commercial and noncommercial messages shall not comprise more than 25
percent of the area of the scoreboard; and
2. Commercial and noncommercial messages shall not be illuminated.
Subd. 2. Commercial, Mixed-Use Neighborhood, Mixed-Use Community, Mixed-Use
Regional, and Industrial Districts.
a) Within commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use
regional, and industrial zoning districts, one (1) freestanding sign per site is signs are
permitted as follows 1:
District Maximum sign area of
single sign
Maximum
height
Total area of all freestanding
signs
SO, C-1, MU-N 60 square feet per surface 15 feet 1 2 square feet per foot
of lot frontage
C-2, MU-C
Sites <1 acre 100 square feet per surface 20 feet 2 1 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
C-2, MU-C
Sites 1-2 acres 150 square feet per surface 20 feet 2 1 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
C-2, MU-C
Sites >2 acres 200 square feet per surface 20 feet 2 27 feet 1 4 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
I, MU-R 250 square feet per surface 27 feet 1 4 square feet per foot of lot
frontage
1 Additional freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 50 square
feet in area. Planned Unit Development sites greater than 2 acres may request
additional signs exceeding 8 feet in height and 50 square feet in area.
2 On properties abutting an interstate or state highway or the adjacent frontage road,
one freestanding sign with a maximum height of 27 feet may be located within 100 feet
of the lot line abutting the highway or frontage road.
b) Within commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use
regional, and industrial zoning districts, wall signs may not exceed 15 percent of the
total wall area of the wall to which sign is attached. In the case of multiple occupancy,
the total area of wall signs which each occupant may display shall not exceed 15
percent of the exterior wall of the portion of the building occupied by that tenant.
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-13)
c) Window signs that do not exceed 30 percent of the window area;
d) Canopies, marquees, projecting signs and fixed awnings that are an integral part of the
structure to which they are attached are allowed in the Commercial, Mixed-Use and
Industrial districts if they meet the following requirements:
i. An awning, canopy, marquee or projecting sign may not project into the public
right-of-way;
ii. Awnings, canopies, marquees and projecting signs may have no part of the
structure other than supports nearer the ground surface than seven (7) feet;
iii. The architectural style on the awning, canopy or marquee must be consistent with
the building being served;
iv. For the purposes of size limitation calculations, awning, canopy, marquee and
projecting signs shall be counted as wall signs; and
v. Awnings, canopies or marquees projecting into required yards may not be
enclosed; and.
vi. Awnings or canopies shall not be internally illuminated.
e) Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision is prohibited in commercial,
mixed-use and industrial districts.
Subd. 3. (Repealed, Bill No. 2011-13)
549.25. - Dynamic Displays.
Subdivision 1. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays
on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers
can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a
changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are
also distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one (1) look. People have a natural
desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end.
Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such
as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are
too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature
signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily
absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent change.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily
update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the
opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to
minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where
signs can adversely impact residential character.
Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such technologies
and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is potential for numerous
dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen
from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is
too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This
impact would obviously be compounded in a corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays
become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change
frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload.
Therefore, a longer display time is appropriate.
A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and
find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and
could adversely affect driving conduct through last second lane changes, stops, or turns, which
could result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays shall generally should not be
allowed to occupy the entire copy and graphic area of a sign.
In conclusion, the City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with
significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety.
Subd. 2. Regulations. Dynamic displays on signs are allowed subject to the following
conditions:
a) Dynamic displays are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for nonresidential
uses in the residential districts and for all uses in other districts. Dynamic displays may
occupy no more than 35 percent of the actual copy and graphic area, and must be
contiguous to the static copy and graphic area, and must include an enclosing
framework of not less than three (3) inches around the dynamic display. The remainder
of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used.
Only one (1) contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face, except when
installed as part of a scoreboard for public parks and public or private schools;
(Amended, Bill No. 2010-4)
b) Only one (1) dynamic display sign is permitted on any individual site;
c) A dynamic display may not change or move more often than once every 60 seconds,
except one (1) for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute, date, or
temperature information. Time, date or temperature information is considered one (1)
dynamic display and may not be included as a component of any other dynamic
display. A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 60 seconds
before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information
itself may change no more often than once every three (3) seconds; (Amended, Bill No.
2008-16)
d) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static
display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects;
e) The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without
continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign;
f) (Repealed, Bill No. 2008-16)
g) Dynamic displays must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position
if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to
immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must
immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the City that it is not complying
with the standards of this ordinance;
h) Dynamic displays must comply with the brightness standards contained in subdivision
3 below; and
i) Dynamic displays existing on the effective date of this ordinance must comply with the
operational standards listed above. An existing dynamic display that does not meet the
structural requirements in clause a) may continue as a nonconforming structure subject
to Section 509.25. An existing dynamic display that cannot meet the minimum size
requirements of clause e) must use the largest size possible for one line of copy to fit in
the available space.
Subd. 3. Brightness standards.
a) All signs and dynamic displays must meet the following brightness standards in
addition to any other requirements of this Code.
i. No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility;
ii. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor
vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's
operation of a motor vehicle;
iii. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
b) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness
standards in accordance with the City's instructions. The adjustment must be made
immediately upon notice of noncompliance from the City. The person owning or
controlling the sign may appeal the City's determination through the appeal procedure
set forth in Section 547.05 of this Code.
c) All signs installed after December 22, 2007, that will have illumination by a means
other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts
the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped
with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the
sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by
the City that it is not complying with the standards in this section.
549.27. - Nonconforming signs.
Subdivision 1. In addition to the standards established by Section 509.23, the following shall
apply to nonconforming signs:
Subd. 2. Relocation. Any legally nonconforming sign may be relocated, subject to compliance with
the other provisions of this Code and subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, to another location
provided that such alternate location is first approved by the Council. The Council may approve
relocation if it finds that the relocation will lessen any adverse impact of the sign upon traffic safety and
aesthetics. If a conforming location is available, the Council shall not approve relocation to a
nonconforming location.
Subd. 3. Incentives regarding outdoor advertising displays. Outdoor advertising signs do not need
to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premise signs. Further, outdoor advertising signs are
no longer allowed in the City, and there is no potential that they will proliferate. Finally, outdoor
advertising signs are in themselves distracting and their removal serves public safety. The City is
extremely limited in its ability to cause the removal of those signs. This clause is intended to provided
incentives for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of outdoor advertising signs in certain
settings. This removal results in an overall advancement of one (1) or more of the goals set forth in this
section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These provisions
are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor
advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community.
a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display on one (1) face of an outdoor
advertising sign if the following requirements are met:
i. The applicant agrees in writing to permanently remove, within 15 days after issuance of
the permit, at least two (2) other faces of an outdoor advertising sign in the City that are
owned or leased by the applicant, each of which must satisfy the criteria of parts ii through
iv of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and
the foundation supporting each sign face. The applicant must agree that the City may
remove the sign if the applicant does not do so within the time frame agreed upon by the
applicant and the City, and the application must be accompanied by a cash deposit or
letter of credit acceptable to the City Attorney sufficient to pay the City's costs for that
removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign voluntarily and that it
has no right to compensation for the removed sign under any law;
ii. The City has not previously issued an enhanced dynamic display permit based on the
removal of the particular faces relied upon in this permit application;
iii. Each removed sign has a copy and graphic area of at least 288 square feet and satisfies
two (2) or more of the following additional criteria:
1) The removed sign is located adjacent to a highway with more than two (2) regular
lanes and with a general speed limit of 45 miles per hour or greater, but that does not
have restrictions on access equivalent to that of an interstate highway;
2) All or a substantial portion of the structure for the removed sign was constructed
before 1975 and has not been substantially improved;
3) The removed sign is located in a noncommercial zoning district;
4) The removed sign is located in a special planning area designated in the
comprehensive plan; or
5) The removed copy and graphic area is equal to or greater than the area of the copy
and graphic area for which the enhanced dynamic display permit is sought.
iv. If the removed sign face is one (1) for which a state permit is required by state law, the
applicant must surrender its permit to the state upon removal of the sign. The sign that is
the subject of the enhanced dynamic display permit cannot begin to operate until proof is
provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered.
b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an
enhanced dynamic display permit for the designated outdoor advertising sign. This permit will
allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to
change no more frequently than once every eight (8) seconds. The designated sign must meet
all other requirements of this ordinance.
Section 2 Subsection 541.21, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code relating to applicable
regulations in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District is amended by adding a
letter (e) as follows:
e) Sign Regulations. All sign regulations applicable in the MU-C District, as found in
Section 549 of this Code, shall apply in the PAC District with the following
additions, qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) Freestanding signs with an area greater than 100 square feet shall not be
internally illuminated or contain a dynamic display.
(ii) Wall signs may include internally illuminated individual channel letters,
and internally illuminated logos not exceeding 25% of the overall wall sign
area. Internally illuminated or backlit box signs are prohibited as wall
signs in the PAC District.
Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City
Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of May,
2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION
OF AN ORDINANCE TO UPDATE
SIGN REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced amendment of the Richfield
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
TO UPDATE SIGN REGULATIONS
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
This ordinance revised Zoning Code Section 549 – Sign Regulations, affecting all
zoning districts. The ordinance reduces the maximum allowable sign height and sign area
for many commercial properties and limits the quantity of tall signs per lot or site. The
ordinance also allows limited use of portable signs. Sign regulations relating to the Penn
Avenue Design Guidelines are added to Section 541.21 – Penn Avenue Overlay District
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office
during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community
Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
May, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
April 5 2018
Council Memorandum No 23 Planning Commission Memorandum No 2
The Honorable Mayor Members of the Planning Commission
and City of Richfield
Members of the City Council
Subject Sign Regulations Proposed changes to Zoning Code Section 549
Council Members and Commissioners
On Tuesday April 10 planning staff will brief policymakers on efforts to update the
City s Sign Ordinance which was last overhauled in 2007 Staff has been considering
changes to two sets of regulations those concerning portable signs and the Penn
Avenue Design Guidelines particularly as they relate to freestanding signs internally lit
signs and dynamic displays changeable message signs
Portable signs Under the current sign ordinance portable signs of any kind are
prohibited Staff is looking to gauge policymaker interest in allowing limited types of
portable signs with restrictions on size placement and hours of display
Penn Avenue Design Guidelines In the Penn Central business district there are a set
of design guidelines that further restrict certain types of signs These guidelines prohibit
internally lit box signs and staff has interpreted this prohibition to include electronic
changeable message signs also known as dynamic displays The Penn Avenue
Design Guidelines document acknowledges that the size and quantity of signs is
perceived to be a visual blight but these guidelines do not currently include restrictions
on height size or quantity of freestanding signs Staff is looking to gauge interest in
modifying these regulations to allow the use of dynamic displays while simultaneously
introducing stricter limitations on the height size and quantity of freestanding signs
Staff would also like to discuss if those regulations should apply only in the Penn
Central business district or be applied more broadly to all commercial zoning districts
Respectfully submitted
Steven L Devich
City Manager
SLD mrb
Email Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
Assistant Community Development Director
Sign Regulations Update
Work Session – April 10, 2018
Table of Contents
•Signs 101 – types of signs
•Current sign regulations
•Proposed portable sign regulations
•Penn Avenue Design Guidelines &
proposed changes
•New regulations: citywide vs. districts
•Discussion / questions
Freestanding signs
Pylon
Small monument
Large monument
Wall
Portable signs are prohibited
•Sandwich board / A-frame signs
•Sail / flag signs
•Businesses and
community orgs
have requested
flexibility in this
blanket policy
Why prohibit portable signs?
Why prohibit portable signs?
Side effect of current policies
•Unlimited ground signs are a nuisance
•Propose limit of two ground signs
per lot
Proposed portable sign regulations
•One portable sign permitted per business
•Signs must be located on site of business, no off-premise
signs allowed (per current ordinance)
•Signs must be located on private property – Not permitted
in public right-of-way (sidewalks, boulevards or medians)
•Signs shall not block any accessible routes for
pedestrians/mobility devices, including on private property
•Limited to 4 feet in height and 6 square feet in area,
preventing oversized boards or other tall portables (like
flag/sail signs, which will remain prohibited)
•Signs shall not be displayed between 10:00pm and 6:00am
•Permit not required
Penn Avenue Design Guidelines
•Additional sign regulations apply in the
Penn Central district (Crosstown to 68th St)
•Adopted in 2008
•Internally lit “box” signs are prohibited
•Staff has interpreted this prohibition to
include dynamic displays (LED boards)
•Guidelines do not include any limitations
on height or size
Internally lit “box” signs
Oversized and out of scale
Proper scale for Penn Avenue
Adaptation to guidelines
•Internally lit letters
•External lighting
Possible adverse effects of Penn
Avenue Design Guidelines
•Nearly all freestanding signs on Penn
were made nonconforming in some way
•Externally lit freestanding signs are
perceived to be too dimly lit for businesses
open in the evening
•Concerns with uniformity of all future signs
using “gooseneck” lamp lighting?
(i.e. Davanni’s, Fraser, etc.)
Changes to Penn Guidelines
•Propose to allow dynamic displays (LED
boards) with new size restrictions on size
•Re-allow internally lit freestanding signs on
Penn Avenue, with restrictions on size
Reduce sign height
•Maximum height – currently 27 feet is the limit
for all commercial property regardless of size
•Propose to reduce height to 20 feet
•Exceptions for Planned Unit Developments
(Shops at Lyndale, Southdale Square, Lyndale
Station, The Hub, etc.)
•Exceptions for properties adjacent to highway
(Honda, Audi, backside of Target/Home Depot)
Reduce sign size
•Maximum sign area – currently 200 square feet
is the limit for most commercial property
regardless of lot size
•Propose to reduce sign size:
100 square feet for properties < 1 acre
150 square feet for properties 1 -2 acres
200 square feet for properties >2 acres
•Similar exceptions as outlined for sign height
Reduce quantity of large signs
•There is currently no maximum number of tall
freestanding signs
•Propose limit of one tall sign (>8 feet) per lot. No
limit on signs below that limit (small monument,
directional signs, menu boards, etc.)
•Similar exceptions as outlined for sign height
CVS on Penn
Example of a recent sign with
dynamic display – 20’ max height
•Lyndale Liquor – 124 square feet
Example of a proposed sign with
dynamic display – along 494
Citywide vs. districts
•Staff recommends implementing size and
height reductions citywide
•Generally, these updated regulations
better reflect the dimensions of most
existing signs and avoid the addition of
new oversized signage
Not changing
•Maximum sign height or size on large
properties (>2 acres), Planned Unit
Developments, shopping centers, and
properties along highways
•Prohibition on internally lit “box” signs on
buildings
•Prohibition on portable signs other than A-
frame/sandwich board signs
AGENDA SECTION:OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM #12.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 92
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/22/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jared Voto, E xecutive A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
5/14/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the appointment of an adult member to the Community Services Commission with a
term expiring January 31, 2021.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On May 2, a commissioner on the Community Services Commission submitted their resignation from the
Commission due to relocation outside of Richfield.
During the December 2017/J anuary 2018 recruitment period for the advisory commissions, four residents
submitted applications and listed a preference for the Community Services Commission, but were not
selected for appointment to a commission. Staff emailed these applicants asking if they were still interested in
serving on the Community Services Commission and heard back from two applicants. A City Council work
session was held earlier tonight to review the applications and discuss appointment of an applicant.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Appoint a person to the Community Services Commission with a term expiring January 31,
2021.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution.
This term is greater than one and one half years, so it is considered a full term and applies to the
three term limit (City Code Section 305.01, subd. 3.).
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Appointment should be made at the May 22, 2018, City Council meeting so the new member may
participate at the next commission meeting.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None