Loading...
072710agendapacketCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2010 SPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan and related rezonings (Council Memo No. 110 ) Notes: Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CONCURRENT WORKSESSION AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding multi-pet residential licenses (continued from July 13; Council Memo No. 102) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS. Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of July 13, 2010 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of July 13, 2010 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Cancel August 24, 2010 Regular City Council Meeting • Schedule Special City Council Meeting (Council Memo No. 111) • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection 509.25 related to defining nonconforming uses S.R. No. 127 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grant agreement between City of Richfield and Minnesota Department of Health S.R. No. 128 C. Consideration of approval of resolution conveying real property located at 7326 Sheridan Avenue from City to Housing and Redevelopment Authority S.R. No. 129 D. Consideration of approval of purchase and installation of 64th Street and Girard Avenue alley storm sewer from G. F. Jedlicki, Inc. in amount of $53,785 S.R. No. 130 E. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and public dance licenses for The Church of the Assumption for annual Fun Fiesta on August 14 and 15, 2010 S.R. No.131 F. Consideration of approval of temporary wine and temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Church of St. Richard for annual Fun Festival on September 18, 2010 S.R. No. 132 G. Consideration of approval of public dance license for Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union for membership appreciation day on July 31, 2010 S.R. No. 133 H. Consideration of approval of new taxi license for Airport Southwest Taxi, 8632 Saratoga Lane, Eden Prairie, MN S.R. No. 134 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 5. Consideration of first reading of amendments to Richfield City Code Section 407, Inspection and Licensing of Apartment Houses and Rental Homes, for changes to license requirements, provisional license, and other minor changes with effective date of January 1, 2011 and scheduling public hearing and second reading for August 9, 2010 Staff Report No. 135 Notes: 6. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending City Code Appendix 1 to remove references to properties within the New Ford Town and Rich Acres area Staff Report No. 136 Notes: RESOLUTION 7. Disciplinary hearing regarding resolution imposing civil enforcement on HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue, for selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 137 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of plans as recommended by Transportation Commission and authorizing advertisement for bids for construction of West Connection Bicycle Route and East Connection Bicycle Route Staff Report No. 138 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 9. City Manager's report • N.O.I.S.E. membership renewal (Council Memo No. 112) Notes: 10. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 11. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager July 22, 2010 Council Memorandum No. 110 PC Memorandum No. 6 Planning Commission The Honorable Mayor City of Richfield and Members of the City Council Subject: Comprehensive Plan and Related Rezonings (Worksession Item No. 1) Council Members and Planning Commissioners: City staff has continued to evaluate and discuss zoning changes related to the Comprehensive Plan with Metropolitan Council staff and the City Attorney. The result of these latest discussions is an alternative that can maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, a Plan that involved years of work and significant public input, but avoid alarming property owners in areas that are not targeted for redevelopment in the near future. State Statute requires that a City's Zoning Ordinance be in agreement with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Richfield staff has proposed to identify areas in the Comprehensive Plan that are not anticipated to redevelop in the near future as "transitional" redevelopment areas. For example, the area along Xerxes and Washburn Avenues would be designated as "transitional residential." The Plan would state that the zoning designation of these "transitional" properties would not change until multiple lots were assembled and redevelopment as defined in the Comprehensive Plan became feasible. Metropolitan Council has indicated that this proposal would be acceptable. Further, Metropolitan Council staff believes that this change would be considered a "minor amendment" given that the actual designation of land within the Community is not changing. City staff is requesting the City Council and Planning Commission to provide feedback on this proposed alternative at the July 27 Special Concurrent Worksession. Other options include proceeding with the rezoning of the parcels that are not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan or amending the Comprehensive Plan. Ily subm «;n L. De(vich City Manager SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Assistant to the City Manager J CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession July 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Brad Sveum, Fire Services Director; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Rick Regnier, Chief Building Official; Charlie O'Brien, Code Compliance Specialist; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPERTY EXCELLENCE TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22, 2010) Public Safety Director Fritz and Chief Building Official Regnier discussed the task force recommendations Nos. 13-17 as they related to their areas of responsibilities. Jay Hermann and Bob Hall, task force members, stated the task force members agreed to serve as an advocacy group. to monitor neighborhoods and be the first contact with residents whose property is not in compliance. They would educate the property owner regarding the property maintenance code. If non-compliance continued, the advocacy group would inform City staff and the enforcement process would be initiated. The City Council consensus was to name the advocacy group the "Good Neighbor Group". There was discussion regarding establishing positive property maintenance incentives and the need to address issues with foreclosed properties. The City Council consensus was to implement the recommendations and have the task force reassemble after one year. Special Worksession Minutes -2- July 13, 2010 Item #2 DISCUSSION REGARDING MULTI-PET RESIDENTIAL LICENSES (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 102) Due to lack of time, this item was not discussed. Item #3 FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY OF RICHFIELD KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES (CONTINUED FROM MAY 25, 2010 -COUNCIL MEMO 75) Due to lack of time, this item was not discussed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Recording Secretary City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ~ Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting July 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Tom Fitzhenry; and Pat Elliott. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Brad Sveum, Fire Services Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM None. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Fitzhenry, S/Wroge to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of June 22, 2010 and ~LRegular City Council Meeting of June 22, 2010. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS The City Council acknowledged the success of the July 4 activities and events. Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 13, 2010 Council Member Fitzhenry acknowledged the importance of the input from citizens related to the recent home eviction on 65th Street and 15th Avenue. Council Member Sandahl acknowledged the success of the Richfield Ambassador coronation and the importance of that program. Council Member Elliott announced the August 8 Penn Fest event. Mayor Goettel announced the August 10 City Council meeting has been rescheduled to August 9 due to the Primary Election. Mayor Goettel requested staff review the "Produce Project" conducted by other cities and consider implementing it in Richfield. She also requested forestry staff review the impacts of the Japanese Beetle. The City Council consensus was to cancel the August 24 Regular City Council meeting and determine the date for a Special City Council meeting to discuss the budget. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Member Elliott requested the City Council consider amending the agenda to add Item 6A -Consideration of a settlement agreement relating to 6315 Penn Avenue. M/Elliott, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of first reading amending City Code Appendix 1 to remove references to properties within New Ford Town and Rich Acres area S.R. No. 114 B. Consideration of approval of Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act Apartment Remodeling Forgivable Loan Agreements between City and Woodlake Park Apartments and New Orleans Court Apartments S.R. No. 115 C. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment roll for 2009 Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet maintenance, and proposing similar assessment process for 2011 and setting public hearing for August 9, 2010 S.R. No. 116 RESOLUTION NO. 10377 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10377 RESOLUTION NO. 10386 RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2011 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10386. Council Meeting Minutes -3- July 13, 2010 D. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment roll for 2009 77t" Street maintenance district, and proposing similar assessment process for 2011 and setting public hearing for August 9, 2010 S.R. No. 117 RESOLUTION NO. 10378 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10378. RESOLUTION NO. 10379 RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2011 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10379. E. Consideration of approval of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment roll for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2009 and setting public hearing for August 9, 2010 S.R. No. 118 RESOLUTION NO. 10380 RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2009 TO DECEMBER 31, 2009. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10380. F. Consideration of resolution authorizing acceptance of Statewide Health Improvement Program Mini-Grant agreement between City and Minnesota Institute of Public Health S.R. No. 119 RESOLUTION NO. 10381 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO STATEWIDE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MINI-GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH FOR $5,000 TO BE USED FOR THE EFFORTS IN CREATING A CITY OF RICHFIELD BICYCLE MASTER PLAN This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10381. G. Consideration of resolution authorizing approval of 2010 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 207, relating to authority to impose limited response time residency requirement for firefighters S.R. No. 120 RESOLUTION NO. 10382 Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 13, 2010 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVING 2010 MINNESOTA LAWS, CH. 207, RELATING TO AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE LIMITED RESPONSE TIME RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR FIREFIGHTERS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10382. H. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting grant of $48,600 from US Department of Homeland Security assistance to Firefighters Grant Program S.R. No. 121 RESOLUTION NO. 10383 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT, RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10383. I. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing the use of ES&S Central Counter Model 650 for the tabulation of all absentee ballots S.R. No. 122 RESOLUTION NO. 10384 RESOLUTION APPROVING ABSENTEE COUNTING EQUIPMENT, ES&S CENTRAL COUNTER MODEL 650 TO BE USED AT THE STATE PRIMARY AND STATE GENERAL ELECTIONS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10384. J. Consideration of approval of amendment to 2010 Emergency Preparedness Contract with City of Bloomington for outreach and training coordination with grant funds received related to CERT (Citizens Emergency Response Team) S.R. No. 123 M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 FOR CONTRACT PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010 S.R. 124 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 124. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10385 Council Meeting Minutes -5- RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF), LOCAL 1215 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2010 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10385. July 13, 2010 Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE HENNEPIN COUNTY RESTRIPING PLANS FOR CONVERSION OF PORTLAND AVENUE FROM 4 LANES TO 3 LANES BETWEEN 68TH AND 76TH STREETS AS ONE-YEAR PILOT PROJECT IN 2011 S.R. 125 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 125. Public Works Director Eastling explained that Hennepin County has agreed to fund the restriping and in return the City will provide sealcoating. Mayor Goettel stated that if the street remains three lanes, cutouts for street parking may be provided when the street is reconstructed. Council Member Sandahl reviewed the information provided by staff related to experiences with four-to-three lane street conversions in other Hennepin County cities and the percentages of rental properties along Richfield's arterial roads. Council Member Elliott expressed support for a pilot project with a timeframe for re- examination of how it is working. Council Member Wroge stated he was originally against the pilot project because of the elimination of street parking on Sunday but has since changed his mind. He questioned the impact of snowplowing if there are cutouts for parking. He expressed concern regarding the percentages of rental properties based on rental permit information. Council Member Eastling explained the City's sealcoating costs. He also said Hennepin County provided the City with a list of cities with converted county roads and staff contacted several and received three responses. Snowplowing impacts are unknown at this time because the street conversion has not been finalized. Public Works Director Eastling stated a public meeting will be held six months after the lane conversion is completed to gather feedback from the residents in the impacted area. M/Goettel, S/Elliott Motion carried 5-0. Item #6A CONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO 6315 PENN AVENUE S.R. NO 125 Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 125. Mayor Goettel expressed support for the agreement because it is an applicable use for the site and is within the Penn Avenue revitalization area. Council Meeting Minutes -6- July 13, 2010 Council Member Wroge stated the site does not meet the City's parking standards for a furniture store. He also questioned what conditions that City could place on the approval. City Planner Poehlman explained staff could not locate any record of an off-street parking permit for the furniture store use or for the subsequent use as an art gallery and art restoration service. City Attorney Heine explained conditions that could apply to the site. Council Member Wroge expressed concerns regarding not having site plan approval, this item being a last minute addition to the agenda with information provided that afternoon and setting a precedent for other businesses. He said he wants the business here but the process should be done according to the City requirements. Council Member Wroge requested the motion include striking the words "settlement" and "litigation" from the Staff Report. City Attorney Heine explained that this is an accelerated application process because she understood from the property owner that timing was critical. A 35-year parking history at the site is being accepted in lieu of a parking study. The site plan calls for 10 parking spaces. Council Member Elliott acknowledged he understood timing was critical and the wording in the Staff Report is from the attorney representing the property owner's perspective. Lisa Christianson, 5528 Kellogg Avenue, Edina, property owner, explained the tenant timing issues and assured the success of parking, including if there is a problem, an agreement will be worked out with adjacent property owners. She said having a tenant is the only way to justify making improvements to the property City Planner Poehlman stated ADA compliance (handicapped parking) is not needed on this site because it has been determined there is no change in use. Ms. Poehlman also stated the site does not meet the City Code landscaping requirements so no percentage requirements apply. M/Elliott, S/Sandahl to approve the settlement agreement relating to 6315 Penn Avenue. Motion carried 5-0. Item #7 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Devich encouraged residents to report any suspicious activities to Public Safety so a record of calls can be established. Item #10 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and ~avrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 07-13-2010 A/P Checks: 195732 - 196220 $ 3,118,910.79 PAYROLL 67730 - 68115, 41496 - 41500 $ 1,129,478.17 TOTAL $ 4,248,388.96 Motion carried 5-0 Council Meeting Minutes -7- OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:09 p.m. Date' Approved: July 13, 2010 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager July 22, 2010 Council Memorandum No. 111 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Special City Council Meeting - 2011 Budget and Tax Levy (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: As part of the annual budget process, a Special City Council Meeting is held to give the Council and staff an opportunity to discuss the proposed budget and tax levy. Accordingly, staff is recommending either Monday August 30, 2010 or Monday September 13, 2010 for the Special City Council meeting at 6 p.m. As the City Council may be aware, as required by State Statute, the City must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2011 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 2010. Finally, once the proposed tax levy is certified. to the County Auditor, the City may not increase the tax levy, however, it may reduce the tax levy. It is important for the City Council to have an opportunity as a group to review and discuss the 2011 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy, therefore, scheduling this meeting is part gfCouncil Discussion on the July 27, 2010 City Council agenda. SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Assistant to the City Manager City Manager AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 12 7 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: " " SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending Subsection 509.25 of the Richfield City Code related to nonconformities. The proposed amendment will define terms to provide additional clarity and allow for expansion of nonconforming uses in some instances. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a first reading of the attached ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection 509.25 related to nonconformities. II. BACKGROUND Nonconformities regulations are intended to provide for the regulation of uses, structures, lots or site improvements which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of current regulations. These regulations are commonly referred to as "grandfather clauses." The State of Minnesota sets minimum standards for the continuation of legal nonconformities and Richfield's Code language is based on language in State Statute Section 462.357 Subd. 1 e. Richfield City Code Subsection 509.25 Subd. 2 paraphrased] Continuance of nonconformities. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance., or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: 072710 - 1st Reading Nonconformities a) The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year...; or b) The nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other disaster to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days. Neither State Statute nor the Richfield Code currently defines the terms repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, improvement or expansion. To clarify the Code, staff recommends amending it to include definitions of these terms. These definitions will be used specifically to interpret the nonconformities subsection of the Code. The following definitions are proposed to be added: Repair -For the purposes of nonconformities, repair means to restore to good condition by replacing or reassembling broken, worn out or malfunctioning components. Repair does not include expansion. Replacement - Construction that provides a substitute substantially equivalent to the pre-existing conditions that preceded damage or destruction. Restoration -For the purposes of nonconformities, restoration means to restore or repair to good condition by replacing or reassembling broken, worn out or malfunctioning components. Restoration does not include expansion. Maintenance -Normal repair, restoration, and improvement including cosmetic changes. For the purposes of nonconformities, maintenance does not include new construction or expansion of a use or structure. Improvement - Where a nonconformity is made more compatible with the use of adjacent properties, efficient, and/or more aesthetically pleasing. For the purposes of nonconformities, an improvement does not include an expansion. Expansion -For the purposes of nonconformities, expansion includes, but is not limited to, intensification of the use, expansion of the use to a portion of the property not previously used, or increased structure dimension(s). While the City of Richfield is prohibited from more strictly regulating nonconformities, cities are permitted to be more lenient than State Statute. For instance, in regard to the rezoning of properties along Interstate 494, the Mixed Use Districts allow for up to a 10% expansion of legally nonconforming uses with a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Council. Structural expansion is also allowed if the expansion brings the property into greater conformance with City regulations. Staff recommends a similar special permission as follows: Construction which would allow additions and alterations to buildings containing nonconforming dwelling units complying with the following conditions shall be permitted when: a) The construction will not result in an increase in the number of dwelling units; b) The building or parcel is not located in an area which the Council has designated as a high priority for redevelopment according to an adopted redevelopment strategy or plan. For the purpose of this section, a redevelopment strategy or plan shall be defined as a document and/or process which specifically outlines the area to be redeveloped and may include timelines and/or action steps to be taken, or which are being taken, to achieve the redevelopment. These action steps may include, but are not limited to, solicitation of developers, the purchase of property, environmental testing or remediation, demolition of structure(s) and other similar activities; and c) The construction would not extend any farther into the required setback than the existing structure. (This provision would allow an expansion that is in line with the existing side setback of the dwelling, rather than requiring compliance with a larger setback that may be required in the applicable zoning district.) This provision is primarily intended to allow expansion of single-family homes in areas that are not expected to be redeveloped in the near future. In the case of a single-family home in the Multi-Family Residential (MR-2) District, this would allow a homeowner to expand based on their current (smaller) setback. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the intent of existing regulations. • Clear ordinance language makes City regulations more accessible to the general public. • The purpose of nonconformity regulations is twofold: o To allow for the continuation of structures and uses that legally existed prior to the adoption of subsequent regulations to continue; and o To encourage nonconformities to be brought into compliance when it is reasonable to do so. • In areas where redevelopment is not anticipated in the near future, the allowance of expansions will not be detrimental to City goals and will help to ensure maintenance and upkeep of existing structures. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 28, 2010. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper. • The Planning Commission voted (6-1) to recommend approval of the attached ordinance. • A second reading is scheduled for July 27, 2010. • If approved, the ordinance will be effective 30 days following publication in the Sun Current Newspaper. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve a first reading of the Ordinance with changes. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 5Fl 1 BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 529.25 RELATED TO NONCONFORMITIES THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 509.25 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new Subdivison 2 to read as follows, and by now renumbering all subsequent subdivisions: Subd. 2.Definitions. The following terms and accompanying definitions are used in the context of nonconformities: a) Expansion -For the purposes of nonconformities, expansion includes, but is not limited to, intensification of the use, expansion of the use to a portion of the property not previously used,. or increased structure dimension(s). b) Improvement - Where a nonconformity is made more compatible with the use of adjacent properties, efficient, and/or more aesthetically pleasing. For the purposes of nonconformities, an improvement does not include an expansion. c) Maintenance -Normal repair, restoration, and improvement including cosmetic changes. For the purposes of nonconformities, maintenance does not include new construction or expansion of a use or structure. d) Repair -For the purposes of nonconformities, repair means to restore to good condition by replacing or reassembling broken, worn out or malfunctioning components. Repair does not include expansion. e) Replacement -Construction that provides a substitute substantially equivalent to the pre-existing conditions that preceded damage or destruction. f) Restoration -For the purposes of nonconformities, restoration means to restore or repair to good condition by replacing or reassembling broken, worn out or malfunctioning components. Restoration does not include expansion. Sec. 2 Subsection 509.25, Subdivision 2b of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: b) Any nonconformity is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. 3A ~ Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. The nonconforming use status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this subsection shall terminate. Sec. 3 Subsection 509.25, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Nonconforming use. Except as otherwise noted in this code, there shall be no enlargement, expansion, intensification, or relocation of any building or premises devoted to a nonconforming use except to make it a conforming use. a) the purpose or tnis section, a reaevelopment strategy or plan shall be defined as a document and/or process which specifically outlines the area to be redeveloped and may include timelines and/or action steps to be taken or which are being taken, to achieve the redevelopment. These action steps may include, but are not limited to, solicitation of developers the purchase of property, environmental testing or remediation demolition of structure and other similar activities: and iii. The construction would not extend anv farther into the reauired Sec. 4 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 9th day of August 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk i. The construction will not result in an increase in the number of dwelling units; ii. The building or parcel is not located in an area which the Council has designated as a high priority for redevelopment accordina to an adopted redevelopment strateav ~r nlan Fnr AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # ~ g REPORT # i ~ Q .~i STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1~ ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: .. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grant agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Health. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grant agreement between the City of Richfield and The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). II. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield applied for the Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grant in April of 2010 and scored enough points to be placed on the list for funding, as soon as the funds become available: The total grant awarded is $10,000. Funds became available at the beginning of the new state fiscal year which started on July 1, 2010. Some of the items this grant money will be used for are: • Identifying high-risk potential contamination sources in high and moderate vulnerability wellhead protection areas. • Provide educational materials to property owners to assist in managing contamination sources under their control. 072710SourceWaterGrant • Develop public support and understanding for the wellhead protection plan through the use of newsletters, consumer. confidence reports, brochures and the website. • Raise the awareness of the connection between land use and water resources. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the funds of the grant money. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Terms of the grant agreement are July 15, 2010 through June 30, 2012. The allotted grant funds must be spent by June 30, 2012. C. FINANCIAL • The grant money aids in reducing the costs associated with managing the City of Richfield Wellhead Protection Plan -Part 2. D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Choose not to approve the resolution, which would void the acceptance of the grant. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution MDH Grant Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION GRANT AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT HEALTH FOR $10,000 TO BE USED IN THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN -PART 2. WHEREAS, the Richfield Water Department, has applied for and received a Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grant in the amount of $10,000; and WHEREAS, The City intends to use these funds to aid in the development and education of the City's Wellhead Protection Plan -Part 2; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the Source Water Protection Plan Implementation agreement with Minnesota Department of Health in the amount of $10,000. 2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the funds in accordance with the grant agreement and terms described by the Minnesota Department of Health. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of July 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Grant Agreement Number (r' ~.~ ti! ~/^ / L, ~ ~~- Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield J ~~// Minnesota Department of Health Grant Agreement THIS GRANT AGREEMENT, and amendments and supplements thereto, is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Health (hereinafter "STATE") and City of Richfield, an independent organization, not an employee of the State of Minnesota, address 6700 Portland Ave, Richfield, MN 55423-2560 (hereinafter "GRANTEE"), witnesseth that: WHEREAS, the STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §114D.50 Clean Water Fund is empowered to assist public water suppliers to implement their source water protection plans. WHEREAS, the commissioner of health is authorized to enter into contractual agreements with any public or private entity for the provision of statutorily prescribed public health services by the department. (Minn. Stat § 144.0742) WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified. and willing to perform the services set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed: I. GRANTEE'S DUTIES: A. GRANTEE, who is not a state employee, shall complete the following work: ® Assess risk of contamination and educate owners of identified high vulnerable contamination sources Develop public support and understanding for the wellhead protection plan through newsletters, reports, brochures and website Perform all the work items listed in Grant Application which is incorporated by reference B. On or before the end date of this Agreement, the GRANTEE shall provide the STATE with one electronic copy of all final products produced under this AGREEMENT, including reports, publications, software and videos. Any GRANTEE activity that involves data collection must be submitted to MDH upon completion of the project and in the format agreed by the STATE. C. The GRANTEE shall submit a Final Report upon submittal of the Final Invoice. The Final Report shall be due no later than the expiration day of the AGREEMENT. The Final Report shall describe activities undertaken and accomplishments of each task, and any problems encountered in the performance of the work under this AGREEMENT, including the costs associated with completion of the tasks, D. In the event the GRANTEE is unable to begin grant activities or to satisfactorily perform the duties specified in this grant agreement, the GRANTEE shall remit to the STATE within five days of demand the amount paid under this section minus. any actual expenses incurred and otherwise authorized which are documented by adequate invoices acceptable to the STATE. II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT A. Consideration for all services performed by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant agreement shall be paid by the STATE as follows: HE-01550-14 (O1/10) O:\DWP\SWP Grants\FY 2011\Implementation\Grant Agreements\Richfield.doc Page 1 Grant Agreement Number i~ ~~~/~ Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield 3g3 1. Compensation. The total obligation of the STATE for all compensation and reimbursement to GRANTEE under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed $10,000 (ten thousand dollars). B. Terms of Paylnent 1. The STATE shall promptly pay the GRANTEE, after the GRANTEE presents an itemized invoice for work actually performed, the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced work and the STATE is satisfied that the work has been completed according to the terms of this AGREEMENT. The STATE can withhold payment for work that is unsatisfactory or illegal. 2. Invoices must be submitted using the form attached as Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this agreement and submitted to: Attn: Cristina Covalschi Source Water Protection Minnesota Department of Health PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 3. If the Final Report is not received by the STATE before the end date of this AGREEMENT, the GRANTEE may forfeit the Final Payment. III. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT All services provided by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant agreement shall be performed to the satisfaction of the STATE, as determined at the sole discretion of its Authorized Representative, and in accord with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The GRANTEE shall not receive payment for work found by the STATE to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation. IV. TERMS OF AGREEMENT This grant agreement shall be effective on July 15, 2010, or upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 16C.05, Subdivision 2, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2012, or until all obligations set forth in this grant agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. GRANTEE understands that NO work should begin under this grant agreement until ALL required signatures have been obtained, and GRANTEE is notified to begin work by the STATE'S Authorized Representative. If the GRANTEE does not commence the Project within six months of the Execution Date of this Agreement, the STATE reserves the right to cancel this agreement and reallocate the funds. V. CANCELLATION A. If the GRANTEE fails to comply with the provisions of this grant agreement, the STATE may terminate this grant agreement without prejudice to the right of the STATE to recover any money previously paid. The termination shall be effective five business days after the STATE mails, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of termination to the GRANTEE at its last known address. B. The STATE or GRANTEE may cancel this grant agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. HE-01550-14 (O1/10) O:\DWP\SWP Grants\FY 2011\Implementation\Grant AgreementsUZichfield.doc Page 2 Grant Agreement Number --/ ~~~~ Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield VI. STATE'S AND GRANTEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 3g.~~ • The STATE'S Authorized Representative for the purposes of administration of this grant agreement is Randy Ellingboe, Manager, Section of Drinking Water Protection Section, or his successor. Such representative shall have final authority for acceptance of GRANTEE'S services and if such services are accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each invoice submitted pursuant to Clause II, paragraph B. • The GRANTEE'S Authorized Representative for purposes of administration of this grant agreement is Robert Hintgen, Superintendent. The GRANTEE'S Authorized Representative shall have full authority to represent GRANTEE in its fulfillment of the terms, conditions and requirements of this grant agreement. VII. ASSIGNMENT GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant agreement without the prior written consent of the STATE. VIII. AMENDMENTS Any amendments to this grant agreement shall be in writing, and will not be effective until it has been fully executed by the same parties who executed the original grant agreement, or their successors in office. IX. LIABILITY GRANTEE shall indemnify, save, and hold the STATE, its representatives and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action,. including all attorneys' fees incurred by the STATE, arising from the performance of this grant agreement by GRANTEE or GRANTEE'S agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies GRANTEE may have for the STATE'S failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this grant agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver by GRANTEE of any of the immunities or limitations of liability to which GRANTEE maybe entitled to pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 466 or pursuant to any other statute or law. X. STATE AUDITS The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE relevant to this grant agreement shall be made available and subject to examination by the STATE, including the contracting Agency/Division, Legislative Auditor, and State Auditor for a minimum period of six (6) years from the end of this grant term. XI. DATA PRACTICES ACT The GRANTEE and the STATE shall comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and other applicable laws as it applies to all data provided by the STATE in accordance with this grant agreement and as it applies to all data created, gathered, generated or acquired in accordance with this grant agreement. OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT The STATE shall have the right to require transfer of all equipment purchased with grant funds (including title) to the STATE or to an eligible non-STATE party named by the STATE. This right will normally be exercised by the STATE only if the project or program for which the equipment was acquired is transferred from one grantee to another. XII. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS A. The STATE shall own all rights, title and interest in all of the materials conceived or created by the GRANTEE, or its employees or subgrantees, either individually or jointly with others and which arise out of the performance of this grant agreement, including any inventions, reports, studies, HE-01550-14 (O1/10) O:\DWP\SWP Grants\FY 201 I\Implementation\Grant Agreements\Richfield.doc Page 3 Grant Agreement Number ~ ~~~/~'~ Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield 38 5 designs, drawings, specifications, notes, documents, software and documentation, computer based training modules, electronically, magnetically or digitally recorded material, and other work in whatever form ("MATERIALS "). The GRANTEE hereby assigns to the STATE all rights, title and interest to the MATERIALS. GRANTEE shall, upon request of the STATE, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to assist the STATE to obtain and register copyrights, patents or other forms of protection provided by law for the MATERIALS. The MATERIALS created under this grant agreement by the GRANTEE, its employees or subgrantees, individually or jointly with others, shall be considered "works made for hire" as defined by the United States Copyright Act. All of the MATERIALS, whether in paper, electronic, or other form, shall be remitted to the STATE by the GRANTEE. Its employees and any sub-grantees shall not copy, reproduce, allow or cause to have the MATERIALS copied, reproduced or used for any purpose other than performance of the GRANTEE'S obligations under this grant agreement without the prior written consent of the STATE'S Authorized Representative. B. GRANTEE represents and warrants that MATERIALS produced or used under this grant agreement do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of another including but not limited to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, and service marks and names. GRANTEE shall indemnify and defend the STATE, at GRANTEE'S expense, from any action or claim brought against the STATE to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or parts of the MATERIALS infringe upon the intellectual property rights of another. GRANTEE shall be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney fees arising out of this grant agreement, amendments and supplements thereto, which are attributable to such claims or actions. If such a claim or action arises or in GRANTEE'S or the STATE'S opinion is likely to arise, GRANTEE shall at the STATE'S discretion either procure for the STATE the right or license to continue using the MATERIALS at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing MATERIALS. This remedy shall be in addition to and shall not be exclusive of other remedies provided by law. XIII. PUBLICITY Any publicity given to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant agreement, including, but not limited to, notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the GRANTEE or its employees individually or jointly with others, or any subgrantees shall identify the STATE as the sponsoring agency and shall not be released without prior written approval by the STATE'S Authorized Representative, unless such ` release is a specific part of an approved work plan included in this grant agreement. XIV. ENDORSEMENT The Grantee must not claim that the STATE endorses its products or services. XV. WORKERS' COMPENSATION The GRANTEE certifies that it is in compliance with Minnesota Statute §176.181, Subdivision 2, pertaining to workers' compensation insurance coverage. The GRANTEE'S employees and agents will not be considered STATE employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the STATE'S obligation or responsibility. XVI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This grant agreement, and amendments and supplements thereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesotae Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this HE-01550-14 (Ol/10) O:\DWP\SWP Grants\FY 2011\Implementation\Grant Agreements\Richfield.doc Page 4 Grant Agreement Number ~ ~ ~~~/ ~ ~~ Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield grant agreement, or breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED: 1. GRANTEE 2. STATE AGENCY The Grantee certifies that tlse appropriate persons(s) have executed the Grant Agreement approval and certification that STATE funds have been grant agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. 51§16A.15 and 16C05. articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordi~zmices. By: Steven L. Devich Title: City Manager Date: July 27, 2010 By: Title: Date: (with delegated authority) By: Debbie Goettel Title: Mayor Date: July 2 7 , 2 010 Distribution: Agency -Original (fully executed) Grant Agreement Grantee State Authorized Representative HE-01550-14 (01/10) O:\DWP\SWP Grants\FY 2011\Implementation\Grant Agreements\Richfield.doc Page 5 Division of Environmental Health Section of Drinking Water Protection P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota SS I64-0975 651/201-4700 Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grants Invoice ~/ Exhibit A Grantee Information PWSID: System: Address: Program Contact Person: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Invoice Information Is this the final invoice? ^ Yes ^ No Work Items and Expenditure Description.- use an additional page if necessary Total Expenditures $ Deduct amount of advance received ~ Net Invoice Amount to be Paid $ The Grantee certifies this invoice to be true and correct. Authorized Grantee Signature Date For Minnesota Department of Health Use Only: Grant Manager's Signature Date Invoice Field PO: Approved by: Period of Service: Date sent to F.S: O:\DWP\SWP Grants\FY 2011\Implementation\Grant Agreements\Invoices\Invoice Form -Exhibit A.doc 07/09/2010 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 C REPORT # I ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Resolution authorizing the conveyance of real property located at 7326 Sheridan Avenue. I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorization of a resolution conveying real property located at 7326 Sheridan Avenue from the City to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. II. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2010 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), working with the Twin Cities Community Land Trust purchased a foreclosed and vacant residential property located at 7326 Sheridan Avenue for redevelopment through the Richfield Rediscovered Program. At the time of closing the seller's Title Company erroneously listed the City of Richfield on the Deed, rather than the HRA. The HRA's legal team and staff have been working to correct the error. Unfortunately, the Hennepin County Registrar's office will not accept a corrected deed from the bank, indicating that they will only accept a resolution from the City, along with an executed deed conveying the property from the City to the HRA. The title company will pay the costs to correct the error and the document recording costs. 072710 7326 Sheridan Resolution MICHELLE LEWIS, HOUSING SPECIALIST III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • HRA funds were used to purchase the property. The City of Richfield did not pay to acquire the property. • The title company's error must be corrected for the HRA to move forward with redevelopment on this site. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Staff is currently collecting bids for demolition. Demolition authorization is scheduled for the August 16, 2010 HRA meeting. C. FINANCIAL • HRA funds were used to acquire the property on March 25, 2010. • The title company will pay the costs associated with correcting the deed. HRA legal representation believes this to be the most cost- effective and time-effective method of remedying the errors. D. LEGAL • The HRA and City attorneys are advising the City to execute a Quit Claim Deed to convey the property to the HRA. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7326 SHERIDAN AVENUE WHEREAS, a mistake on a deed intended for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield conveyed the property located at 7326 Sheridan Avenue to the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Deed"); WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles will not accept a corrective deed and is requiring a conveyance from the City of Richfield to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized and directed to execute a quit claim deed for the conveyance of 7326 Sheridan Avenue, legally described as Lot 5, Block 4, Penn lake Terrace First Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property") and to take all actions necessary for the transfer of the Property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 072710 7326 Sheridan Resolution AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J JULY 27, 2010 Consent 3 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the 64th Street and Girard Alley Storm Sewer Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase and installation of the 64th Street and Girard Alley Storm Sewer from G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. in the amount of $53,785.00. II. BACKGROUND As part of the Crosstown Reconstruction project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) will be replacing the existing storm line that runs underneath I-35W from the Girard Avenue alley to Richfield Lake. In conjunction with the project, the City paid Mn/DOT for an additional 60" storm sewer pipe that will be installed adjacent to the replacement pipe to increase future capacity of the existing storm sewer system serving the drainage area west of I-35W. The 64th Street and Girard Alley Storm Sewer Project was identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan as a needed improvement due to the lack of capacity in the alley on the 6300 of Girard Avenue, during heavy rainfall events. On multiple occasions the alley has experienced stormwater ponding due to capacity constraints with the existing system. The proposed project will increase the stormwater capacity by utilizing the new 60" storm sewer pipe to be installed by Mn/DOT. This alley will be paved once the storm sewer project is complete. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DERICK ANDERSON, CIVII, ENGINEER NanaE, TITLE 072710 64th &Girard Stormsewer III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The 64t" Street and Girard Alley Storm Sewer is identified as a high priority in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Construction on the Crosstown Project necessitates the disconnection of the existing storm sewer pipe that drains this area. C. FINANCIAL • Two quotations were received for the project; G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. submitted the lowest quote in the amount of $53,785. • The project is identified in the 2010 Stormwater Utility Budget (53000- 7350). D. LEGAL • All purchases in excess of $25,000 require City Council approval. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Completion of this project will provide additional storm water capacity in the alley. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may chose to reject all quotes and direct staff to obtain new quotes; however, the prices received for the contract were competitive, and staff does not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor. V. ATTACHMENTS • Quotation Tabulation with Engineer's Estimate • Project Graphic VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3~'~ Quotes Submitted 64th & Girard Storm Sewer Proiect Juiy Zotr,, Zo10 COMPANY Quotation Amount Ames Construction, Inc. $ 69,148.67 G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $ 53,785.00 Engineer's Estimate $74,810.00 MN/DOT Estimated Item No. Specificati Description Unit Total Unit Price Extended Unit Price Extended Unit Price Extended Amount on No. Quantity Amount Amount 64tH Street & Glrard AVOnUe Engineers Estimate G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. Ames Construction, Inc. A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,875.00 $ 1,875.00 $ 12,214.08 $ 12 214.08 2 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 180 $ 15.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 4.85 $ , 873 00 3 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH LIN FT 80.00 $ 9.00 $ 720.00 $ 8.00 $ 640.00 $ 5.63 $ . 450 40 4 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION P CU YD 40.00 $ 25.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 32.00 $ 1,280.00 $ 44.53 $ . 1 781.20 5 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION EV CU YD 12.00 $ 25.00 $ 300.00 $ 32.00 $ 384.00 $ 47.43 $ , 569 16 6 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CV CU YD 12.00 $ 35.00 $ 420.00 $ 49.00 $ 588.00 $ 21.62 $ . 259 44 7 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CU YD 10.00 $ 35.00 $ 350.00 $ 39.00 $ 390.00 $ 23.66 $ . 236 60 8 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA 1.35 $ 600.00 $ 810.00 $2,500.00 $ 3,375.00 $ 436.86 $ . 589 76 9 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 5.00 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 750.00 $ 140.76 $ . 703 80 10 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 7 TON 90.00 $ 25.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 35.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 25.36 $ . 2 282.40 11 2301.529 REINFORCEMENT BARS EPOXY COATED POUND 50.00 $ 15.00 $ 750.00 $ 15.00 $ 750.00 $ 2.04 $ , 102 00 12 2301.604 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SPECIAL " SQ YD 16.00 $ 250.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 238.00 $ 3,808.00 $ 99.25 $ . 1 588.00 13 2531.507 6 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 13.00 $ 75.00 $ 975.00 $ 210.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 118.49 $ , 1 540.37 14 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 312.50 $ , 312 50 15 2573.530 INLET PROTECTION EACH 3 $ 600.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 310.00 $ 930.00 $ 360.43 $ . 1 081 29 16 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN INCL. TOPSOIL & FERT. SO YD 90.00 $ 9.00 $ 810.00 $ 6.00 $ 540.00 $ 8.59 $ , . 773.10 17 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 4 TON 0.10 $ 4 500.00 $ 450.00 $1 000.00 $ 100.00 $ 3 450.00 $ 345.00 SCHEDULE A -SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS $35,335.00 $ 23,270.00 $ 25,702.10 B. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 18 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM LIN FT 30 $ 40.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 15.00 $ 450.00 $ 19.20. $ 576.00 19 2104.509 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN EACH 2 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 650.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 287.95 $ 575.90 20 2451.602 GRANULAR FOUNDATION AND/OR BEDDING TON 14 $ 25.00 $ 350.00 $ 45.00 $ 630.00 $ 14.04 $ 196.56 21 2503.541 30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III LIN FT 125 $ 125.00 $15,625.00 $ 78.00 $ 9,750.00 $ 147.98 $ 18 497.50 22 2503.602 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SADDLE EACH 1 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $1,900.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 2,917.56 , $ 2,917.56 23 2503.602 CONSTRUCT BULKHEAD EACH 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 564.02 $ 564.02 24 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE STORM EACH 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 2,649.42 $ 2,649.42 25 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 54-4020 LIN FT 5 $ 850.00 $ 4,250.00 $ 845.00 $ 4,225.00 $ 945.41 $ 4,727.05 26 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL I EACH 4 $ 450.00 $ 1 800.00 $2 790.00 $11,160.00 $ 3 185.64 $ 12,742.56 SCHEDULE D -STORM SEWER IMP ROVEMENT S $39,475.00 $30,515.00 $ 43,446.57 TOTAL SCHEDULE A & B $74,810.00 $53,785.00 $ 69,148.67 CSl 3~'~ ~~ III I ql i ~I ~;~ fll~ E%.C6 III TC=836.76 ~~~~ Exs ~TC=t=t I i e -~ ro EXISTING 49"RCP STORM SEWER ~, Q~~ ~ ~ d III III I hl it ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ III ~ i dl ~~ II \ ~1 I EXISTING STORM SEDER TO BE REMOVED BY MN/DOT ~I~ I III v ~ 111 I III ~ ~~~ 3 3 II EX CB `~ ~ 3 V TC~ ~ v v EX.CB .~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ 12' z z TC-832.9,`. 16 ~ ~ /~' ° ~& CONC ° ~ -835-- CONC ~'~, 2 z J~ z ~~ E%ISTING 18"RCP STORM SEWER ~ ~p° - 6 ~,J ~ -- ~ BIT ~ ~~~~~C ~ ~ DEW n /~1 ~ /W ~~ 38~ n_ J r-'~1 ~ql/~., WSW o f v v 8 ` ~/ ~ - _ ~ 26' ~ ~~ JJ I A Y 8 ' <-; ~~33~ 6 ~30.. _ _ _ _ - s _ - - _ - - - - _~~ "~~~ 1 - - - - - - - - t7 '~ ~ ~ EXIS lNG 18"RCP STOR SEWER ~ ~ w~ ii i Z i i--- ~ i i / cuea ANO currER - ~ /~~ v ~ III ~ III W ~V ~I ~I ~ , EzISTINO 9_5~;6~TAaY~w~ ~ GIRARD AVENUES ~~ --rte- `° ® _ _ ~ E;WSTING WATER MAIN _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~j_ j _ -$ °j \\ 3 3 ~1?' ~ ~ ~~.. ~ e~_ ~ on \CPRJ/ / / ~ Sa ~ S '". T ~ N /-J ~ wl - ~ ~j7 z z z ~ ° z o Ex.C6 25 / v o/ ~~ v \U7 ° h ? In` ~ ~ ,,8 0 ~ o o ~ TC=83291 6BIT / ~ ~~ I ~ ? /~~ /~~ ~ ~~ ~? _. -~ ,~" ~ hVh..lf °5~ n ~ u o ~ ~ ~o ~yy / ~~//~~,~ CB ~ 14' Si ~ ~ d'3 ~ ~- j ~, X13 ~ n / ~ ~ ~18 =935.06 ~ ~ /W3 s ~ ~ ( r] j / ~ ~i l ~ ~ SILL SILL ~1LL SILL ~ SILL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~~~ ~ ~ SILL 836.75 35.91 B .96 83h.22 835.25 834 84 ~ ~ CJ 835 46 ~ / ~ ~ 839.99 ~40 87 ,, III NEW 60'( STORM SEWER T~ INTERCEPT FLOW FROM ~ ~~ ~~%~,~~2~~~ ~~ EXISTING 4!3 STORM SEWED ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~, i ~ ~ ~ v ~ 9e~~ % ~ i J HP~sE~ (~ i I I I / REPLACE /2 CATCH BASINS ~~~~ - ~/ ~ ~ ~ARA~E ~ II~ ~, CONN CTI, TO PROPOSES STpRM 8350 AND INSTALL 2 NEW ~.~ATCH BASIS ~ ~~ I I ,~ „ti ly ~~EWE~ B,V MN/D~~1,2~~ 13~~ J~ i ~~ ~ ~fi0. ~ ~I i i I ' i~ ~~ ~b i ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ,6~ ~~) ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ II i - - PROPOSEDi RCP / `~ ~ - ~ ~,~ '~~~10~~ ~I/_ ~~ ~ A \ - \ gyp` ~Y i~ ~ GARAGE GARACF~ ~ / GARAGE ~ \ ./ 7 835.73 635~J7 ~ E%.C8 ~ 83422 830.79 ~ N+y AGE ~ III r- ~ TC=832.3 ~, ~ ~ 1 ffi35.91 / BIV 35 g2 61T BIT ~~ 18 ` ~`7x q ~ \ _ l ~ EO BIT BIT ~ - /~ 61~ \ ~ BIT ~ BIT I~ ,9~~W 6~W I C~W ~J3 6~W m~ DEW p/W ~ SHED ~~'~~'Li ~ _ ~ W3 DEW ~ ~D VJ (~ ~ ~ - 8 -- -r... q'~. 833 25~ - ~ ~ - - ~ LREE ROW ~ ~ '9 ~, m _ ,~?~ 9 ~8., X83 ~ -_ - _~---'~ - g Aa its=-°-~,ns ~ ~.~ - , . > _ =~ ~ ~ - ~~~ {.rte t ~ ~_~., ~~~~ 6 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY N0.35W w~EresraTE FIICFIwar 3sw sounlo wAu 1E%cs ~c=633.7, PROPOSED 60" INV=526.30 PER PLANS BY HDR, SHEET 1007 ABANDON EXISTING 12" STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER BY MN/DOT AS PART OF CROSSTOWN COMMONS PROJECT BOTH PIPES 60°' DIAMETER DISCHARGES TO RICHFIELD LAKE 0 FT 25 60 i€ 761 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 ~~ www wsbeng.com & Associates, Inc. _ _, ~ass4laaoaF~7ssuia7oo IhFP,A5I P,UCIURE ENGINtEWNG PLANNING CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1 64TH AVENUE W. /GIRARD AVENUES. STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA WSB Project No.1532-18 April 21, 2009 Figure NEumber 5 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3E REPORT # 31 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~_. BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request by The Church of the Assumption for atemporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and a public dance license for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 14 and 15, 2010. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and a public dance license for The Church of the Assumption for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 14 and 15, 2010. II. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2010, The Church of the Assumption submitted requests for a public dance license and a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor for their annual Fun Fiesta to be held August 14 and 15, 2010. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as nachos, sweet corn, wraps, popcorn, hot dogs, tacos, roast beef, pizza, fried pork skins and potato chips. The Church of the Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. Licensing requirements for the preparation and service of food for this event is covered under The Church of the Assumption's annual food license. 0727 Church of Assumption Fun Fiesta Licenses The event will take place from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Liquor Liability insurance coverage has been provided showing The Catholic Mutual Relief Society as affording the coverage. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been submitted. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fiesta. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The Church of the Assumption staff/representative AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 F REPORT # 13 2 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: d d BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for a temporary wine license and atemporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for the Church of St. Richard for their annual Fun Festival to beheld September 18, 2010. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a temporary wine license and a temporary on- sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for the Church of St. Richard for their annual Fun Festival to be held on September 18. 2010. II. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2010, the Church of St. Richard submitted a request for temporary licenses to serve wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor for their annual Fun Festival to be held September 18, 2010. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as hamburgers, brats, sandwiches, corn on the cob and brownies. The Church of St. Richard has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. The event will take place from 9 A.M. to 9 P.M. 0727 St. Richard's Fun Festival Licenses NA,uE, TITLE Licensing requirements for the preparation and service of food for this event is covered under the Church of St. Richard's annual food license. Liquor Liability insurance coverage has been provided, showing The Catholic Mutual Relief Society affording the coverage. The Public Safety Department received no complaints regarding this event for the previous year. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Church of St. Richard's Fun Festival. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been provided. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Church of St. Richard's Fun Festival. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Church of St. Richard's staff/representative AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 G REPORT # 13 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TrrzE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request from the Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union for a license for a public dance to be held July 31, 2010, for their membership appreciation days. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a license for a public dance to be held July 31, 2010 for the Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union for their membership aaareciation days. II. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2010, Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union submitted a request for a dance license for their membership appreciation days to be held July 31, 2010. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as hot dogs, brats, potato chips, baked beans, pasta salad, popcorn, bottled water and soda. The Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. The event will take place from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The Public Safety Department has received no complaints regarding similar events for the Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union for previous years. 0727 Public Dance License for RBCU Member Appreciation Days III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All required fees have been paid. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any ' basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted similar licenses for Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union events. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union staff/representative AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 REPORT # I ~~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, T/TLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new taxi license for Airport Southwest Taxi, 8632 Saratoga Lane, Eden Prairie, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new taxi license for Airport Southwest Taxi, 8632 Sarato a Lane, Eden Prairie, MN. II. BACKGROUND On May 26, 2010 the City received an application for a new taxi license for Airport Southwest Taxi. The application is complete and all required fees have been paid. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mohamed Omar is the sole owner of the business. He has no known criminal record. The certificate of liability insurance has been submitted showing American Business Insurance affording the coverage. At the present time, the number of vehicles that will be operating in Richfield will not exceed four. However, there is a possibility new vehicles could be added. 0727 New Taxi License for Airport Southwest Taxi The applicant has supplied the information regarding the make, body style and year of all vehicles to be operated by the applicant. The applicant also agrees to supply this information for any added vehicles in the future, as well as pay additional fees for additional vehicles making pick-ups within. the City of Richfield. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant meets the standards that are contained in the City's ordinance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Four vehicles are currently listed on the application to be licensed as a taxicab; therefore, no additional vehicles will be allowed to pick up patrons in the City without first obtaining the appropriate license. Future vehicles could be added to the license, providing that the proper paperwork has been completed, fees paid, and proof of current liability insurance submitted. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for a new taxi company license for Airport Southwest Taxi. This would mean that the applicant could not pick up fares within the City of Richfield. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mohamed Omar, Owner/Operator AGENDA SECTION: proposed Ordinance AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # 135 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a first reading of amendments to Richfield City Code Section 407, Inspection and Licensing of Apartment Houses and Rental Homes, for changes to license requirements, the provisional license, and other minor changes with the effective date of January 1, 2011 and schedule a public hearing and second reading for August 9. 2010. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Conduct a first reading of the attached ordinance amendments to Richfield City Code Section 407, Inspection and Licensing of Apartment Houses and Rental Homes, for changes to license requirements, the provisional license, and other minor changes with an effective date of January 1, 2011.; and • Call for a public hearing and second reading to be held August 9. 2010. II. BACKGROUND The attached Section 407 of the City Code contains revisions that are intended to clarify license requirements, provide changes to the provisional license, and other minor changes. A rental license will not be required for a home occupied by the parent, sibling, or child of the owner of record. A rental license will also not be required for homes 072710 Rental Licensing Code Amendments which have a current valid license from either Hennepin County or the Minnesota Department of Health permitting such use. There are currently 46 homes in the City that are licensed by the State Department of Health or Hennepin County. In these cases; the State of Minnesota or Hennepin County have their own requirements and inspections processes that supersede any City licensure requirements. City staff is notified of these properties and will include them listed in the inventory of rental properties. A provisional license is currently required for apartment buildings that have an excess number of police calls to the property. The Police Department has discontinued tracking calls for this purpose. The new provisions will apply to all rental property. A provisional license will be required for failure to correct inspections orders within 60 days, failure to renew a rental license by February 1, knowingly operating a rental property without a license, and knowingly operating a rental property in violation of the housing maintenance code, zoning code, or occupancy requirements. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A rental property will become eligible to apply for a regular license when the circumstances have been corrected and maintained for at least twelve consecutive months. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The effective date will be January 1, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The provisional license fee will be double the regular license fee. This additional fee is intended to offset the cost for the increased staff time needed to enforce the City Code. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved these proposed amendments to the City Code. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A ~ 1V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ ~ ect the motion to amend Citv Code y. L-ATTACHMENTS • Draft of proposed amendments to City C n 407. e Section 407. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 5~~ Richfield City Code Amendment 407.00 FOURTH DRAFT Section 407 -Inspection and Licensing of Apartment Houses and Rental Homes 407.00. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to assure that rental housing in the city is decent, safe and sanitary and is so operated and maintained as not to become a nuisance to the neighborhood or to become an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive to reinvestment in the community. The operation of rental residential properties is a business enterprise that entails certain responsibilities. Operators are responsible to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to assure that the citizens of the city who occupy such units may pursue the quiet enjoyment of the normal activities of life in surroundings that are: safe, secure and sanitary; free from noise, nuisances or annoyances; and free from unreasonable fears about safety of persons and security of property. 407.03. Definitions. For the purposes of this section the terms defined herein have the following meanings: (a) "Apartment house" means a building containing three or more dwelling units. (b)~ex ",~t~x~*~-er "Dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms located within a building and forming a single habitable unit with facilities which are used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and. eating by persons other than the owner of record regardless of familial relationship or whether rent or other compensation is paid to the owner. (c) "Rental Home" means a one or two-family dwelling which is occupied by persons other than the owner of record, except a parent, sibling or child of the owner of record, regardless of whether rent or other compensation is paid to the owner. i f ll ~~1~'.,.~ ,;1<>~~ "' ea~S 6n i i i - .a > r ' ` oll' '~ .a 1' = ~v z i 6 ~ pc .T6irs-6cC-H~~ iii~crcr vo cmixg amrRncrrrv ~ a > > > > 2 6~$A~ AiA l~32 132-t n n E~62~i~vcii El a - " ~ 'a ~ - i ~x c c f- r C~EF2E'~ii ~P° ; "'1 '°" ,^•,{-~~P 1 '1 ^~^ ~ ~ ' l ~ t n~ • 1 n i ..l,,.ao~ , .. ,.,1 , .. 3 66 , g C6i c tE O pcivrr- ne- (e) "Housing maintenance code" means a subsections 405.01 through 405.19 of this code and also means -all other codes and regulations of the City pertaining to the occupancy and habitability of the licensed premises. (fj Unless a different meaning is intended from the context, all other definitions contained in subsection 405.0 5, subdivisions 1-19 are incorporated in this section by reference and made a part hereof. ~,~ (g) "Owner" or "owner of record" shall have the meaning given in subsection 105.01 Subd. 8, and shall also means, with respect to all matters involving the making of applications and the giving of notices, the individuals or entities holding legal and equitable title to the premises, or the legally constituted agent designated by the owner for such purposes. (h) Director ("director") means the director of communi development and also includes any individual desi agr~y the director of community development to carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to the director under this Chapter. 407.05. License re uired. It is unlawful for any person who is an owner of an apartment house or an owner of a rental home to operate such apartment house or rental home without first having obtained a license under the provisions of this section. There are two types of licenses: regular and provisional. Provisional licenses are defined in subsection 407.13. All references to licenses in this section are references to regular licenses, unless otherwise stated. No license shall be required under this Section for Rental Homes which have currently valid licenses from either Hennepin County or the Minnesota Department of Health permitting such occupancy. s3 Richfield City Code 407.07. Licensingprocedure. Subdivision 1. Application: contents. (a) Regular licenses. The application must contain the following information and any other information that the d~ee~e~ af~txl~l~-s~~et3F director may require to assess compliance with the housing maintenance code and this section: The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals responsible for the maintenance and management of the premises. (2) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of each artner. (3) If the applicant is a corporation, the names and addresses of the majority shareholder, and the names and addresses of the officers. (4) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals responsible for keeping and maintaining the tenant re ism (5 If the applicant is an owner of multiple dwellings multiple apartment houses, or multiple rental homes, the legal address of each dwelling apartment house or rental home owned by the applicant located within the city of Richfield. (b) Provisional licenses. An application from a licensee in provisional status under section 407.13 must contain the fs', information required in (a) above and any other information that the ~ee~e~ ~l~+y director may require to assess compliance with the housing maintenance code and this section: {~-~€-tk~i t~ersli=~tiie~n~~.,~~~c-h ~~ ~e-~p~i~~~s~eerpe~ie~tl~ ~ „a ~~dr~.~~the e ' eIi 'e~e~-an~t~e „ ~ ~'' ° :,~v€~tkc~€€~ser~ ~6" +L, e~il~e~miv°c-an'aziraiicfgciricnc-vr~e~ircn~cr. (4) The ~...~.._~, ~dd:e.,.,e., ,,.:'.d tel l:c~.e ,,,,.,i.o..~ „~+i, a• •a i V~l 11.1111VV1J Vl o n, N~0 ~ M l~oov„N!t nv,r1 w, r+n,r„v, lT +NV +JNftM+ s. ,C+oM[, 407.07 (Rev. 2002) ~ +,M~o ~,S )pL 1H lY[tN~ ~+ VGQIC~SlGZ-Vl 1 ~ /~C. 11 C1T L1~JlV ~~L V~G11111~„ J ~1 ' ' rov,+.,1 1,..,„o ~. .7 1, +1, 7' + 1 + .7 ,,;+l,;V, +l ' ,o .,;+~...f D;..L,~o1.7 a vlllul 11V111V ,/YY l1VU V'' 111V uNN11VU11~ 1VV , 5-~ Subd. 2. Issuance of license. (a) The director may require the inspection of any premises for which a license is requested. The licensee or applicant must notify the residents of the apartment house or rental home of the inspection and must permit the director to enter u op n the premises for the purpose of conducting__ the inspection to verify compliance with the housing maintenance code. (a) If the a;r°°+°M °~„~~'~'~° ~°~ +~~ director concludes as a result of the information contained in the application or other available information, including an inspection of the premises, that an apartment house or rental home appears to comply with requirements of the housing maintenance code and this section, the ~erte~e~uh}ic-~ director will issue the license. (b) If the a;r°°+°r °~„~~'~'~° ~°~ +~~ director concludes as a result of the information contained in the application or other available information, including an inspection of the premises, that an apartment house or rental home °rr°°~~ N°+ +~ ''° is not in compliance with the housing maintenance code and this section the uir~.°+°r °~„~~'~'~° ~°~ *~~ -..,;'z YµL.I~~ ~.,~ +.. .a;«°..+e~~A~2'~f6~cri$E'-6~-E6r~ccm~+ciG Eti6i4-t6~E9ii~pE~E~~39~c~iE~Evue-~~thc~~ eEtien d~ElA~es-~~A~~E~-tke applicant will have a designated time period, to be determined by the ~eEter-°£ „•~'~'~° ~~~~, director from receipt of notice of noncompliance to correct the defects specified in the notice, but only if the defects do not create an imminent hazard. The a;~°°+°r „~r•,~.';,. ~°~ +~~ director may authorize additional time for compliance. 55 Richfield City Code 407.07, subd. 2 (c) (Rev. 2002) (c) From the date that the director has ordered an inspection under paragraph (b), no occupancy .of dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, is permitted until a license has been issued. Apartment units within an unlicensed apartment house for which a license application has been made and which units are determined by the ~;r°^+^r ^~..,,~,~:^ s~ director to be in compliance with the housing maintenance code may be occupied provided that non-complying units within the apartment house do not create an imminent hazard to the health and safety of persons in occupied units. Such occupancy may continue until a final determination on the granting or denial of the license is taken by the city. Subd. 3. Denial, suspension, revocation, non-renewal. (a) The ~ director may revoke, suspend, deny or decline to renew any license issued under this section upon any of the following grounds: (1) false statements on any application or other information or report required by this section to be given by the applicant or licensee. (2) failure to pay any application, penalty, reinspection or reinstatement fee required either by this section or city council resolution. (3) failure to correct deficiencies noted in notices of violation in the time specified in the notice. (4) any other violation of this section. (b) Regular licenses will be revoked, if at mid term, or not renewed, if at the end of a term, upon a finding that the premises are only eligible for a provisional license as provided in subsection 407.13. (c) Before a decision to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license is made, the director must provide written notice to the applicant or licensee setting forth the alleged grounds for the potential action. Before final action to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license is taken, the applicant or licensee may appeal as set forth in subdivision 4 of this subsection. A decision to deny, not renew, suspend or revoke a license may only be made upon written findings. The cal director may consider the frequency and seriousness of violations, the ease with which such violations could have been cured or avoided and good faith efforts to comply. (d) The ~ director may suspend or revoke a license or not renew a license for part or all of a facility. $-b Richfield City Code 407.07, subd. 3 (f) (Rev. 2002) (e) Upon a decision to revoke, deny or not renew a license, no new application from the current owner for the same facility will be accepted for a period of time specified in the ~ director's written decision, not exceeding one year. New applications must be accompanied by a reinstatement fee, as specified in appendix D of this code, in addition to all other fees required by this section. (g) A written decision to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license or application will specify the part or parts of the facility to which it applies. Until a license is reissued or reinstated, no rental units becoming vacant in such part or parts of the facility may be relet or occupied. Revocation, suspension or non-renewal of a license will not excuse the owner from compliance with all terms of this section for as long as any units in the facility are occupied. (h) Failure to comply with all terms of this section during the term of revocation, suspension or non-renewal is a misdemeanor and grounds for extension of the term of revocation, suspension or continuation ofnon-renewal of the license. Subd. 4. Ap>l e~. In any instance where the a;,.°°+°r °~ „~~~~~° ~~~ +-~ director has denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed a license, the applicant or licensee may appeal the decision to the city council by delivering to the city clerk a notice of appeal within ten days of receipt by the applicant or licensee of notice of the decision by the a;r°~-Qf r„ director. The applicant or licensee will be given an opportunity for a hearing before the city council. The decision of the city council or any decision by the -pf ~~~'~=i~~ director which is not appealed in accordance with this paragraph is deemed a final determination by the city. Subd. 5. Renewal. The term of a license granted under this subsection is January 1 to December 31. Licenses are renewed annually. As a requirement of renewal of a license, the enforcement officer may direct that all dwellings owned by the licensee be inspected to ensure compliance with the housing maintenance code. The licensee must give notice of the annual inspection to all residents of dwellings owned by the licensee. Subd. 6. Transfer. A license is transferable upon application to the ~:r°~oi director, and payment of the license transfer fee by the prospective owner. The license terminates if renewal or application for transfer is not made within 30 days i.~ after transfer of ownership of the apartment house or rental home. 407.09. Obligations of licensee. Subdivision 1. Report changes in ownership. The licensee must report to the ~:r°°+°r °~r••'~'~° ~~~ +~~ director any changes in the identity of the owner, including a change in the majority shareholder or shareholders and officers in the case of corporations. The licensee must report a change in ownership at least 30 days be€ere after closing. s.~ Subd. 2. DisplaX. Licenses issued under this subsection must be displayed on the premises of the apartment house or rental home, wherever feasible and produced upon demand of a prospective tenant or the a;r°~*°N „~..,•~..';,. ~°~ *<~ director. S`h Richfield City Code 407.09, Subd. 3 (Rev. 2002) Subd. 3. Tenant re ig Stier. The licensee must, as a continuing obligation of its license, maintain a current register of tenants and other persons who have a lawful right to occupancy of apartments within the apartment house or rental home. In its application, the licensee must designate the person or persons who will have possession of the register; and must promptly notify the ~;r°°+°r ~~ r<~'~'~° ~°~ +<~ director of any change of the identity, address or telephone numbers of such persons. The register must be available for inspection by the a;r°°+°r „~r„i..';° ~°~ *•• director at all times. Subd. 4. Fees. The fees for licenses required by this subsection, as well as any penalties, are in the amounts established in appendix D of this code. 407.11. Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this section or who makes a materially false statement in a license application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The city may enforce the provisions of this section in any court of competent jurisdiction in law or equity. 407.13. Provisional Licenses. Subdvision 1. When required. Unless the director determines otherwise based on exceptional circumstances licensed apartment houses and rental homes ti}~le digs tlrae-ge~~t~:erag~e~av~<•~n~c a~llr P° ,a« °ii;rs •+ ~, ri.,.,.,''' „+i, ° °a ,.:~;,.a ,~,.,,. are eligible only for provisional licenses in the following circumstances: (a) Failure of licensee to correct inspection orders within 60 days (b) Failure of licensee to renew rental license by February 15 (c) Knowingly operating a rental property without a license (d) Knowingly operating a rental property in violation of the provisions of the housing maintenance code or the zoning regulations of the city including without limitation occupancy requirements. In the event that a provisional license is required during a license year the licensee will be given credit for any regular license fee previously paid for that year Subd. 2. .Eli igibility for regular license. A provisional licensee will be eligible to apply for a regular license when the circumstances leading to the provisional license have been corrected and maintained so for a period of at least twelve consecutive months. C~,~l !1 ~ !'~nlln ., o o„+n l;n+v.l ; „l.no.,+;,.,, nn'7 1 c „L..1:<,' 1 . ~n ~ 2l (`n11n o o~+n .,+o ., ~ «;.,v.7 n .,,.~ .. o +L, T T '~ !~ ~ / .. ., ... ~ . ~aa v u«~v aac~~u i ~ l ~~n „+„ + ,o nr, ~~ ~~ j , "1- I7"-e~"'~ ;te1 ~ e 'e ~e~ 1 ~ ~ T v CCr v G~CL g R~-"'~ t'v ZG~ Re~ e~ -CCT. ~ °~`* „ ~ ~ w uw aaau~ ^^„a-- ~~.~ 'n+~,~~"'e G~2 ' e"Eem,,. ~~e~: ~ ~ n 1+ +l,° ~ i n a ~ ~ 7 e~ ; ~`G%Yttt c~i s ' ,~'b""' nl,,.loa , ,;+L.;,, v.,,,h ,. ---_ u~_~ .. _______ .»~~a ., F+L,ono .,n+ ~ .~~~..~ ~...~~b..~~~~ ~ 11 ., ..~ Ewa.., + ,..a "~aawp Ohl (~ ~ 11 n < ,;11 „,.+ L.o „ ,,+o,l F .. ~ ,1 + ,...., 1, +L, i ~ ~ v y...ayv .~v « ~~ « » ~t~ese ~ ~ 5 ~~ 8 •~ ~~ es; see e ~r- - : ~~ -te a} /..~ /'~.,lln < >;11 ,,,,+ L.o .. ,.+0,7 ~ « ,., nF.ao+o,..~,;„;„,< <„L,o+l,,,,. ,. ,.t ~ ~ vvi.;aawu a. cnn~~-: 5 ~~~ ~I&-EiE3 Ee~n ~ 3,-f~ Subd. 2. ~1, !.,\ +~, . , lo,>ol + 1,~+ ., .,1;B PS-~6 - ' °`~ ~ l' } ~~ ~ c ~-~ 6@irS r icc~ 6~~ ~~~ > , ~-i ---- "rr---^----- ..____ r-.,t...,.,_ ... ____ aa .,..~.,~~ t.,.,..1~ ..~~~ ~, t.. ~•.,~-11~~-~.. w ~11V Vl~y ` ~ ~ ~P° ~ ~ ' 2~f~~C- --~I~2-E~1~Ei~-~~~ ' ~ °PP°~v~~xcnra-arccrprcacrrc ' r ' ~ ~ i ~ r6~ 8~ ,..1;.,.,+;.,,,. „a +l,et9i. Picm~ 9~ n4'-F6 b 2-dF -E6i~ Bi~S-ii 8 $-~7A~6 ~I-tY-~6~LE~c-c~~xvar~ Y,-.;+; +;., ,..1., "'6i~2'S-~~'F'i~rE~f u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~° c ~ ~ ~ uu~l , } ¢ ~a' }6i~S~ 1 -~ F -S c k cz ~-ic-is~virr 9i~6 vmg~xi \Vf 11V iv V11UVV 111MU VVllll./1,'' YY llll • ' '-~~e~=e~-~e~e-~~r-~r€rr~-~Pe~e~-e~ r„1.1;,. ~~~~eE~ar~=~e~~~ r a i~ A 9 ~A~'~S} ° ~ vlzar ziccirr , y.~,~....,.,~;L,ly ,,..,,.+,. ,.>1,., , ,'71 L. '1 1.10 = ., ,..+.,,,+ 7~ L...,,«~ ., a..<> a VV1JV11U1V1V ~J(Al {,,' YY 11\T ere~i~ine° - b ~-ll 7 m~n.~anr mrric.4or ~ r.~ ~y~ 1 + +l. 4 '1~1.' p(~ ,a a a Y by b .7 ~ ~1~ Richfield City Code 407.15. Enforcement and administration. . (.,\ T+ ;" +7•,~ ra:.r~~nrihilitsr ~,f thrilir~~ + +t, + +l, 1' ,~1 -~~ -- -.. ~-- --..~..._a...~..~_~., v+ wia~ i~~~iav~~ vv ~,VV L11K1 ~/V1UV11J VV nr t~ t"t'~"°^rSv~Pii4PElit~-~f~iAii~'F~2Pi~~s6~~@riy=E6i~E~uEi-avcTAvvcrr-r6r-purp6S~6~ / ~ 07 ~ nl .,+; .~, Flf 1 `l~xl~'--rF+l n+; v, r. +.~. +b, ~ + t t .a t~. + ~ b Y v l~u ouaratimxc~~cca ?f-li~iPS~At~~#tt2r~@c-~i9i~~n nt ~ l,a' n ,a +;.,~7G n1 „t,~tiSfeii~ A~1~'' C~lzczrccrsccncc~j: uixcr~c~-ccv ~ z~vr~ -macro s ~~t6~1-6~4ii~22~et~i~~~zTScc+rivrrr-~n~rr~~ •7 inn '7~ /1 «ol.,+;,.,. +.. ,~ ,.,.,1,1;,x,.\ 1 V1K~t (\S) Vinl~ti~n nf~~~ ,-ol„+;,, +,. ~"+; µ4'V11 KJ '~ ~ '~ '~'f~ + b YN C+.,+„+o" v„+;..,., inn 271 ,xa .,.,+" «ol.,+;,,.. +,. ,.. ,..,+:+„+:,.., V 4K4K4V U~ JVV41 (h) >vT,~tµ«~fial K.,.. ..: y ;~~~."..iion--vim--a-z~-'rr°cirsiir-vr-vr t iryrrni ~ ~ ~ 9 9i}-6~e~C~tcromrcczc-,~Sc^ccr6ii~v~vTnrccrr2l=~cv-vvrcrra ~ ~/;.,t"~e~^~~--~4i~ese~+"+„+o" +; nn Inc / t t v~ri.~rcr t~c~Scc cr6~i ~v-r.-rv~~arrrc'l~~Cr /n~ X7;,.1.,+;,.~ ,.~>\~;rr„"~+,, c+,.+„+,.,, v,.+;,.~ ono ~i /«;,.+~ \~~ . 1V 1KL1V11 Vl lYlllul\. ~ " , ~1 Al Uinl~tinn of 111Ti + C+ +, + +' inn 71 ~ /+o,.,.,. ' +' +1, +\ ~ ~ K~w~ .~vv cryT„'ry 07TTT~cGS1~iTTCI~Cr1rGTCCf' !_ 1_ ~_L v' „-~~i9i~6~P~9~+.,+„+ +, inn ~ i c / l l 1 ~~. TarcrceS~--SPC-cr6ir~v~-rr~~r~cixcc-ctii ~V4el-a~ie~ree-~e~o~~41~--se~e~-e€~ eeQe=9~~~eter ~~al~ie~esl~3-{degs}-~~-~9-FI}e ~~ o~n ni /,.,,a;,,.,~ p 1, tcrvcri: irrf6rEeii42i} i~. Subdivision 1. The d~ec-te~-°~ •~'~'~~ " _~ director is responsible for enforcement and administration of this section. Thy ~efi~^~irc~uf~3' 407.15 (Rev. 2002) 5,13 ~,~" ,C~1~6~~a°=~~-~~ET~~3@E~-lid-S~~`oT~ivirTrT~ cna~rccc~T~}E L v v 5- ~~ Richfield City Code 407.15, Subd. 2 (c) (Rev. 2002) ~ / ~ r -S '~~et -~`~36~e~Eel - ~ i ' ~ t i n t • + ~ c ~ ~ee 6 r e~ ~99ir rithm~+ ., ,,.;++o„ «o ..,.+ ..~+L,° ~.,+;..,,n + 7 a ,. o ~f fi zr ze~ - a +,. t..,, +.,L,,,:, i e- 3 , +t, 1' s v.,.aiaa++~ w •,1iLLVi1 iV~V14 Vl L11V uVLl , r ~ ...1.,v~...v.aJ La.,v Vl Luv Nivlili~v~ . (~11 Tf ~ third ~+~ ~~ a;c,,,.a «1< ~+ 1, 1• a •+>^• ~ ~ ,A1JV1lL V a ~r~ e~-l~cer~se° ~+ +„ +>,•~ „i,~ee~ ~ ~ ~d ~ +>, a ~e-re a i ~~~ > . +l,°n l,o ,,,a.,,< >,°~~e-t ~P-c~ce~r~e c-r d ~ ~ d L ~ ~~ er ~e P r ei A A , oz 9~ - l ~ i ,,; t rr .~, a eii --~e~ n ~c~ ~ °„ a ,,,. ~ '9~ ° a P ~i ~ E~rz xocree~ ' '~ ~ Att6i~z ~~ 3P rrg--c ~e ' t i ~ i~, -m2 ' y ~ E i~ A ~el~ e~ 6 2 E eIi~G Ai t -6r d°eu.,, a - le °~nn,. +„ ~~uuuly rl•n>, +,,° ~+>1 • +• . ~v/ L Il LVl K 411111,E 111J 1LL11VV ° ,.,.,«.,..«.,,,1L, /a\ +L.° E~f~C~6~6~E-Ss~€~~RP~+xiPzernicf~'~ texixrr~irccrrsc-rric6 r ~ .,1 1 •,. ° ~+„+„ ~ „a o ~ ec~ei~l$'~-~~~ l~et~~ee-~ec}t~ + +t, a • + ~ YM~ ~Ee~see~rise~s-~4~ec-~te~€A~eECder-~e~~~~oe-subedz~r~~~ +~ +iVV11JV •, ill VV tJ11.1.V V11 111 L\T ~L~ ~ '~~exse° ,...:„ ^° e~4r~i9 ~ td° ~ k ~ \ ~se~aa,.~~, ,. ~a„e~-~s-d ~rae es ~ -~--«es~ -e= ~ee~ - ~t~ ~ d ~ i e~r, a~ ic ee~see- ues-z~~~z r-t e ~ ~ r ...aiaav vl.avb' iVi Vl 1VV111V11L U LLl I=J • o ° o `~KVULJ Vl 11 < , 5~~ ^, ...,~,o ~ v~~~ ~ ,;~oo ~+~ ~a SNVUIV Vl 11Y 11.VVV Vl ~ 5--~ Richfield City Code 407.15, Subd. 2 (h) (Rev. 2002) 1$2i~~2-~ii 29~° ~2ii' -c i2 'A •7 .a + ~l •~ a 1,. _ ~,_ _ ~ c ir ~ ~ cc , c~~iFti~tn nr~r~diner (nnl~~x~fi,t + ~ •+t ' '2n ,~ ~ +•„ ° 1, +1, t • Y b \ J .~ v uur b.~, „+L.° „+~ „ ~S-6F2~S~f~°"+ c -= i i ~ c ~ ~ a crr ~ ai ~ x ~ ir-ccE 9xr A e~rL~ 6 , , 111V 4{Al1V V V °. (i) A '~°~~}e11 that thy-lir~a~r,~l nt,rwrr,ar 1~ ~.~ll u~~u •7 ,~ 1 ,,,.,- a°+° ..+;,.~€-~is6~d°crtry==dam •++ t ~ t ~ u'~ 7 ~ . n ~1, ~~~ 1-lAl'i..° .t 1. +1. •+~ ,,.a°,. +L,i~ n°,.+:,.,.. ,; 11 ~ 1.,..~ ,.71 _. ,. _ _a _ v b > > e ~ m°+t~i.~ ~ ~ ,, , i. n +K ~~~p p j~~ ~SI~ GTTiletl~i'~i-j""b"~~~o '~il].~_~"_CT'V~J'~' '~~[e V alll~ A'.~11ZLGT-ef~ ~.7~ Yf°i~Pl"V'GIi'7CiQ Subd. 2. Enforcement actions provided in this section are not exclusive, and the city seal may take- any action with respect to a licensee, a resident, or the licensed premises as is authorized by this code or state law. AGENDA SECTION: proposed Ordinance AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 13 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~} REVIEW: ~( REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct a second reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to remove references to properties within the New Ford Town and Rich Acres areas. These areas are no Ion er within the Cit of Richfield. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 by repealing references to certain properties that are no longer located within the City and correcting map page references. II. BACKGROUND In the late 1990s, as a result of the Airport's decision to remain at its current location and pursue expansion, the homes located in the area of Richfield to the east of Trunk Highway 77 were purchased by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Subsequently, this land became MAC property. Appendix 1 of the City Code, which designates the zoning district of all properties in the City, still references these properties. The proposed amendment will remove these references. Additionally, references to map pages will be corrected and/or enhanced by this amendment. 072710 - 2nd Reading New Ford Town Amendment III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Appendix 1 of the City Code denotes the official zoning district of land located within the City. • The area in question is no longer within City limits. • Map page notations make it simpler to identify areas described by often complex legal descriptions. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing regarding this item was held before the Planning Commission on June 28, 2010. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and notice was mailed to property owners and residents within 350 feet of the subject properties. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (7-0). • A first reading of the proposed ordinance was held on July 13, 2010. • If approved, the ordinance will take effect 30 days following publication in the Sun Current Newspaper. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~,i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REPEALING REFERENCES TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE NO LONGER LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY AND CORRECTING MAP PAGE REFERENCES. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended by repealing Section 1, paragraph 9; Section 3, paragraph 9; Section 5, paragraphs 13 and 24; Section 11, paragraphs 39 -44; Section 12, paragraphs 17, 18, and 36. Sec. 2. Paragraph (51) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: (51) M-1, 2, 4 That area lying between the center lines of Cedar and 19t" Avenues, and between the enter lines of 66t" and 68t" Streets, except any portion lying outside the Richfield City limits. Sec. 3. Paragraph (55) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: (55) M-1,2, 4 That area lying between the center lines of Cedar Avenue and Block 4, Rich Acres Addition, and between the center lines of 68t" and 69t" Streets. Sec. 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Former Areas of Richfield ~~ MS Legend Formely part of Richfield Highway Airport City of Richfield 3 Area of ~-a Airport I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\New Ford Town & Rich Acres.mxd AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 Resolution 137 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER 1=1 d ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of action and a resolution regarding civil enforcement for HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant for sellin alcohol to undera a outh. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, for the sale of alcohol to underage youth, and approve the attached resolution for the third time violating establishment: • Suspending the license to sell alcohol for twelve (12) consecutive days; and • Lev in a fine a ainst the establishment in the amount of $2,000 III. BACKGROUND ~ In May of 2010, staff became aware of some situations that had or were occurring at Jun Bo that caused concern to them. Staff routinely reviews calls for service to liquor establishments and notes when issues occur that either are of escalating concern to the City or are violations of Resolution 9511. This resolution spells out the discipline that establishments can expect for violating any of the sections within the resolution and includes, but is not limited to; issues in the area of noise; any other disturbing conduct; service of alcoholic beverages beyond the interior of the establishment; over-occupancy; facilitating gambling; the effect of the suspension or revocation of their food license; the sale, consumption or service of alcohol to a minor, etc. 0727 Jun Bo Disciplinary Hearing The issue at that time was that there were two separate instances of police reports that contained solid information that two underage youth had been served alcohol, along with other concerns that initially drew officers to stop them or talk to them. On May 21, 2010 a letter was sent by Director Fritz to the listed owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Lo, at their home address as well as another letter to the address of the establishment, 7717 Nicollet. The letter included copies of two Richfield police reports of two separate incidents that were in violation of State and local codes. Copies of the reports were also reviewed by the City Attorney prior to sending the letter to confirm they were violations of the resolution. The letter requested that the owners (and sons managing the business on their behalf) review the reports and contact the City to arrange a face to face meeting to discuss the issues. The meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 3, 2010 and occurred at City Hall. Director Fritz and Support Services Manager Betsy Osborn attended, as did Mr. and Mrs. Lo, and Danny Lo and Ke Lo, who are their sons and manage/run the business for their parents. Mrs. Lo does not speak English, and Mr. Lo speaks some. Both sons speak excellent English. Director Fritz explained his concerns about these kinds of issues and reviewed the contents of Resolution 9511 with them in terms of the intent and expectations the City has for all liquor establishments. The owners of the establishment were made aware that staff would be recommending discipline at the July 27, 2010 Council meeting at the second level (seven day suspension and civil fine of $1,750). On June 24, 2010, a letter confirming the information discussed at the June 3rd meeting was sent again to both addresses. In late June, 2010, staff became aware of a third instance, via a police report, .of underage service of alcohol, and brought it to the attention of Director Fritz and the City Attorney. It was again confirmed to be a violation of the resolution by the City Attorney. Staff was directed to send a second letter which was dated July 8, 2010 to the Lo family. This letter indicated that a third violation had occurred and that the City would no longer be recommending discipline at the second level but would now be recommending discipline at the third level (twelve day suspension and civil fine of $2,000). This resolution is given to all establishment owners at the time their license is initially granted and again at each renewal period, annually. They are strongly encouraged to read it and be aware of the varying levels of discipline. The details of the three events are below. Copies of the police reports are attached from which we have deleted any identifying personal information: On April 5, 2010, Richfield Police officers were conducting extra patrol at Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant when officers observed a vehicle drive into the parking lot in front of them and suddenly accelerate, squealing their tires. The officers followed the vehicle as it exited the Jun Bo parking lot. A traffic stop was conducted. The officer asked for identification and the driver provided a photograph identification card with a D.O.B. of 1-29-90 making him under the age of 21. While making contact with the driver of the vehicle, the officer detected an odor of alcohol. The driver initially denied that he had consumed any alcohol, but later admitted that he was served alcohol by a bartender at Jun Bo. The driver was released with a citation charging him with driving without a valid license, driving without insurance, and Under 21 Drink and Drive Zero Tolerance, MSS 169a.33s2. He appeared before the court on 5-12-10 where he admitted to being served alcoholic beverages at Jun Bo. He was found guilty of underage DWI. On May 9, 2010, Richfield Police officers made contact with an individual in the Jun Bo parking lot for exhibition driving as the vehicle was squealing its tires and creating a large amount of smoke. The driver then backed into an empty parking space where he was approached by an officer. While speaking with the driver, the officer detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from. his breath. He was asked if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages that evening and the driver replied that he had one shot. The officer asked for identification and was given a Minnesota State picture driver's license with a D.O.B. of 8-19-89. The driver was arrested for DWI and transported to the Richfield Police Department. Upon conducting an interview while at the Richfield PD, the driver said that it was "18-and-over night" at Jun Bo; however, when he presented his ID to security, they gave him a wristband. He had no other identification in the vehicle or in his wallet other than his Minnesota driver's license. He also then stated that he had consumed two shots of tequila that was provided by Jun Bo to him and his friends as they were sitting in the VIP area. He appeared before the court on June 16, 2010 and was found guilty of Underage DWI. On May 24, 2010, Richfield police officers were on extra patrol at Jun Bo when an altercation broke out on the east side of the Menards parking lot. Two parties were punching each other and both parties appeared to be extremely intoxicated. One of the parties involved was a juvenile, age 16. When the officer asked the underage party if he had been inside Jun Bo drinking, he stated. that he had consumed two beers and five shots of Tequila inside the restaurant. When asked if he was actually 16 years old, he said yes and that he would be turning 17 on 8/9/10. When searched for identification, aphoto ID was discovered with his name on it but a birth date of 8/26/66. He stated that the ID was not correct. He was then transported to Fairview Southdale Hospital where he was placed on a hold until there was no longer any alcohol in his system. He was cited for underage consumption and disorderly conduct. As of the time this staff report was written, a court date had not yet been set for this individual. Staff believes these reports show that issues exist within the establishment concerning under age service of alcohol to youth, over service of alcohol in general and display what appears to be a lack of the ability of the establishment to monitor on an on-going basis who is and isn't drinking and who should and shouldn't be. It is up to Council to consider whether they want to place additional conditions on their license and the issue is being placed on the Council's agenda for their review and determination at this time. It should also be noted that the progressive schedule of discipline that relates to the penalties of underage service of alcohol contained within Resolution 9511 spells out that if there is a fourth offense (if within 2 years of the third offense -all of the three offenses in this case are within several months of one another), the establishment's license will be brought before the City Council for a revocation hearing and civil fine of $2,000 will be due and payable to the City. A revocation hearing at the fourth offense level would result in a hearing before the City Council to discuss whether there are alternatives available. that can be agreed upon by Council and the owner of the establishment to prevent the. need to revoke the establishment's license. Alternatives would be determined on a case-by-case basis. If no alternatives exist, the license would be revoked. If feasible alternatives exist, conditions will be placed on the licensee by the City Council. For a fifth offense (if within 2 years of the fourth offense) the establishment's license will be revoked and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due and payable to the City. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5Zyears from the date of revocation Unless immediate and consistent action is taken by the establishment to correct the issues the City has identified, it will be difficult to maintain a "no more violations" for the period of up to two additional years. Failure to do so will result in the possible revocation of their license. It should also be noted that at no time in the past 31 years has an establishment reached this level of discipline. One final note is that police have spent a great deal of time responding to issues that appear to be linked to this establishment. This has not only resulted in many police visits but also results in them not being as readily available to respond to other needs within the community, emergency in nature or not. While other liquor establishments are also regularly monitored by police, this establishment seems to have an over use of police service beyond that of others. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant's license to sell alcohol for twelve (12) consecutive days and levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $2,000 for a third violation. Other conditions on their license may be determined by the City Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishment and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. The State of Minnesota will also be notified of these violations should the Council suspend their license at the level that is being recommended. This is a requirement of State law. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishment for the sale of alcohol to underage youth, which would result in no disciplinary action against the establishment. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishment that sold alcohol to underage youth; however that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9511. • If the licensee denies the allegation, then the City Council should refer this for a contested hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS --I • Resolution for HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant • Calls for Service Report -Jun Bo -January -June 2010 • Copy of Resolution No. 9511 • Three police reports VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Yik Lo, Owner • Yau Lo, Owner • Kee Lo, on-premise manager • Danny Lo, establishment representative ~-1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR HKD, INC., D/B/A JUN BO CHINESE RESTAURANT, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR THIRD TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant ("Licensee") holds a on-sale intoxicating liquor .license and a Sunday Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and, WHEREAS, on April 5, 2010, May 9, 2010 and May 24, 2010 the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and, WHEREAS, this is the third violation of sales of underage youth; and, WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on July 27, 2010 and admitted the violations and stipulated to the penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses are hereby suspended for a period of twelve (12) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days after their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed. On or before August 27, 2010, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $2,000. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of July, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SAFETY CONTACTS /~~ January 1, 2010 -June 30, 2010 HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant 2009 Jan. -June 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 81 106 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 49 24 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (44) (22) Alarm (5) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 32 82 Assists (22) (73)* Traffic (g) (~) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (2) (2) The criminal contacts from January 2010 through September 2010 were: seven suspicious activity, one weapon, two fights, four disturbances, one drunkenness, one fraud, three assaults,. one property damage accident, one criminal sexual conduct, one DWI, and two alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) *Assists include public assists, extra patrol, cop initiated patrol (dispatched orpro-active). Many of these (63) were extra patrol by police, some of which resulted in extra criminal contact type activity that isn't reflected in the January through June 2010 criminal contacts ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 9511 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR, WINE ANp 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9204. WHEREAS, at their July 13, 2004 Council meeting, City Council directed staff to update the City's current alcohol discipline document. This, therefore, is a new Resolution that specifies the discipline an alcohol establishment can expect for the types of violations listed and rescinds Resolution No. 8204; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACI4GROUND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the sale of on- sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned'. that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of thE. provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND PROPOSED: SANCTIONS. A. Noise and Other Disturbing Conduct Within or Near the Licensed Premises. Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment whom are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation ~of a licensed alcohol establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact!upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of th,e establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): ~.~ 1) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 2) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 3) For fifteen (15} such incidents occurring within any 91-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine. of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outlined above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the Director of Public Safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code of the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the Director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for services in situations where the licensee is capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The Department of Public Safety shall establish standards and criteria for.the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license: 1) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year -suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. . 2). For the second such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. 3) For the third such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. Serving Alcoholic Beverages Beyond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or Permitting Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Alcoholic Beverages. Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale. intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses: 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. ~ -.~ 2) The second incident during the license year -- up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.. 3) The third incident during the license year- up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth incident during the license year -revocation of license. C. Permitting Occupancy to Exceed the Limits Permitted Under the Uniform Fire Code 25.114 (overcrowding) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an ,environment wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for incidents of overcrowding verified by the City's Public Safety Director or their designee: 1) The first incident during the (icense year - up to a 10-day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the. license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year -revocation of the license. b. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises, wwhich would facilitate'; gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises, which could be used, for gambling. Such. devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01. For any incident of facilitation of gambling, the on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. Effecfi of Suspension or Revocation of Food License. On-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor (icenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. 7-~ F. The Sale, Consumption or Service to a Minor of Intoxicating Liquor, Wine or 3.2 Malt Liquor. Licensees must assure that the sale, consumption or service to a minor of any alcoholic beverage is prohibited under any condition. Failure to do so will result in swift and severe progressive civil penalties. The following discipline-will be imposed upon on- sale intoxicating, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports or compliance checks of misconduct occurring at the establishment: 1) For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for (five) 5 days and a civil fine of $1000 will be due and payable to the City. 2) For a second offense, (if within one (1) year of the first offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for seven (7) days and a civil fine of $1750 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of one (1) year of a first offense, it will be considered a first offense. 3) For a third offense,: (if within 2_years of the second offense), the establishments license will be suspended for 12 days and a civil fine of $2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of.a second offense, it will be considered a second offense. , 4) For a fourth offense, (if within 2 years of the third offense), the establishment's license will be brought before the City Council fora *revocation hearing and a civil fine of $2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a third offense, it will be considered a third': offense. 5~ For a fifth offense, (if within 2 years of the fourth offense, the establishment's license will be revoked for the remainder of the license year and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due and payable to the City. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a License for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. A revocation hearing at the fourth offense level would result in a hearing before the City Council to discuss whether there are alternatives available that can be agreed upon by Council and the owner of the establishment to prevent the need to revoke the establishment's license. Alternatives will be determined on a case-by-case basis: If no alternatives exist, the license would be revoked. If feasible alternatives exist, conditions will be placed on the licensee by the City Council. A fine will be assessed in either instance. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. Step Back Option - It is possible to "step back" a failure level if an establishment. has successfully passed a minimum of two consecutive compliance checks. For example., if an establishment is at the third offense level but has successfully-passed two consecutive compliance checks since the last failure, they are eligible to "step back" to a second offense level. This provides a serious incentive to establishments to work on keeping their record clean so that they can "step back" in the discipline grid. If an establishment passes two consecutive compliance checks, they step back one offense level. It is, however, possible that if an establishment has several failures but continues to pass compliance checks time after time for several years, they may eventually "step back" to the step one starting point. Each step back requires two new consecutive passes. Previous passes to "step back" can not be used toward future passes. ~-~ G. General Provisions Regarding Sanctions. In addition to the sanctions listed for specific offenses listed in paragraphs A through F above, the City Council may impose lother mandatory requirements upon the establishment such as: meetings with the Public Safety Director to present a plan of action to assure that the problem will not continue; mandatory educational sessions with Crime Prevention staff; or other actions that the Gity Council deems appropriate. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time to time and to impose penalties greater than or less than those contained herein when in the judgment of the Council it is appropriate to do so. The City Council may suspend all or a porEion of any penalty or license suspension upon compliance with such conditions as the Council deems appropriate. Prior to imposing ary monetary penalty or license suspension or revocation, the City Council will set an initial appearance at which the licensed establishment-must appear before the City Council to admit or deny the violation. If the violation is admitted, the licensed establishment-will be allowed to explain any mitigating circumstances at the time of the initial appearance. If the violation is denied, the licensed establishment may request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance. Licensed establishments may explain mitigating circumstances or request a hearing in writing prior to the initial appearance or may do so orally by appearing at the ,initial appearance. The City Council strongly encourages licensed establishments to make a personal appearance at the initial appearance. A licensed establishment that does not request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing, and the City Council may deem the violation admitted and impose sanctions as provided in this resolution. Where a hearing is requested, the City Council may conduct the hearing or refer the hearing to an independent hearing examiner. All hearings involving possible suspension or revocation of a license will be conducted in accordance. with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk. Printed by: ri516ac ~ Page 1 Of 2 Printed dateltime: 4/5/1014:50 inCll~@6'lt ~@pOt"~ RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 (s12) 8s1-9800 Incident Number: R110-00001164 Incident Summary Incident Type: CRIMINAL OFFENSE(S) Report Type: Inc Occurred Address: 7717 NICOLLET AV S, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 Sector/Beat: 2/R102 Inc Occurred Start: 04/05/2010 01:56 Inc Occurred End: Report Taken: Domestic: N Bias Motivation: Gang Related: N Substance:• Y Contact Nature: ~~! Reported DateRime: 04/05/2010 01:56 Reporting Officer: DRAYNA, BRAD Primary Assigned Officer: Case Status: CLOSED Disposition: ADULT ARREST Disposition Date: 04/05/2010 14:39 Offenses Statute Code: 169A-33-2 Enhance Statute Desc: TRAF-ZERO TOLERANCE-UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRIVING Counts: 1 Statute Severity: MISDEMEANOR Statute Code: 171-02-1 Enhancers: Statute Desc: TRAF-DL-NO MN DL/WRONG CLASS/MORE THAN ONE VALID Counts: 1 Statute Severity: MISDEMEANOR Statute Code: 169-797-3 Enhancers: Statute Desc:. TRAF-DRIVE WITHOUT INSURANCE -DRIVER NOT OWNER Counts: 1 Stafu'te Severity: MISDEMEANOR Associated Events Association: Event Type: Event#: Event Date (Start): Event Date (End): ARREST TO INCIDENT ARREST RI10-00001164 04/05/2010 01:56:00 Persons Involved Person#: 0001 MNI: 58093395 Event Association: ARREST Contact DatelTime: Name: SSN: DOB: 01/29/1990 Age: 20 - 20 Sex: MALE Height: 5' 10" - 5' 10" Weight: 150 - 150 Ibs Eye Golor: BROWN Address• Phone Type 1: Phone# 1: Ext 1: Phone Type 2: Phone# 2: Ext 2: DL State: DL#: DL Exp. Date: Occupation: ,Employer/School: Vehicles Involved Vehicle: 0001 Event Assoc: IMPOUNDED Vehicle Type: A VIN: Style: Status Dt/Tm: 04/05/2010 01:56 NCIC Date: NGIC#: Year: 1997 License#: Prim Color. WHITE Status Value: Vehicle Status: IMPOUNDED Make: DODGE State: MN Sec Color: Recovered Date: NCIG Reported By: NCIC Cancelled: Agency: RI Can ID Suspect: No Race: WHITE WITH HISPANIC C Hair Color: BROWN Sector/Beat: /BVNE Model: RAM TRUCK Expires On: Ter Color: Recovered Value: Printed by: ri516ac Incl~ient IZ@pOrt ~ /~ Page 2 of 2 Printed date/time: , 4/5!10 14:50 ~ RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 ~s~2) ss~-saoo Incident Number: R110-00001164 Narratives ENTERED DATE/TIME: 04/05/2010 14:39:30 NARRATIVE TYPE: SYNOPSIS AUTHOR: DRAYNA, BRAD Officers were conducting extra patrol at Jun Bo, 7717 Nicollet, and stopped a party who was later cited for zero tolerance underage drinking, no insurance, and no license. The party admitted to having been served at the restaurant. See attached narrative for details. RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. ~` j~ INCIDENT REPORT CASE NAME REPORT DATE CASE NUMBER 4/5/2010 10001164 MINCIS Reporting Officer & Badge # Page Entered Canceled DRAYNA #173 (04/05/10 AC} 1 Narrative: On 04-05-10 at approximately 0156 hours, officers were conducting extra patrol at Jun Bo, 7717 Nicoilet Avenue South. As other officers and 1, Officer Drayna, were standing on the sidewalk of the main entryway, I observed a vehicle bearing ®®drive into the parking lot in front of officers. I saw the vehicle stop for several pedestrians who were leaving the restaurant and walking into the parking lot'. After the pedestrians cleared the roadway for the vehicle, it suddenly accelerated, squealed it tires, and went directly in front of officers. As it passed by me, I also saw a suspended object hanging from the vehicle's rear view mirror and that the vehicle was solely occupied by an adult male driver who was talking on a cellphone. I subsequently entered my squad and began to follow the vehicle as it exited the Jun Bo parking lot and proceeded eastbound on 77t" Street and then northbound on Portland Avenue South. I soon drove alongside the vehicle and again saw the suspended object hanging from the vehicle's rear view mirror. Based on the unreasonable acceleration and the suspended object, I conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle near 68t" and. Portland. The vehicle pulled to the right curb and came to a stop. I made contact with the driver and advised of the reason for the stop. The driver provided .me with a Mexican photograph. identification card that identified him as DOB 01-29-90. While speaking with ~~ I detected a moderate odor of alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath. I also saw that his eyes were slightly bloodshot and watery. Based on these observations, I asked ~~if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages.' Although~~initially denied that he had consumed alcohol, he soon admitted to consuming two beers. ~~also admitted that he did not have a Minnesota driver's license and that there was no insurance on the car because he could not afford it. I asked to exit the vehicle and escorted him to the rear. I retrieved PBT No. 4 from my squad and administered it to ~I~i~1 He provided an adequate breath sample and his reported value was .012 BAC. 1~~is only 20 years old and was in violation of MSS 169A.33. ~ was released at the scene with Citation No. 410301074 charging him with the following. 1. Driving without a Valid License, MSS 171.02s1 2. Driving without Insurance, MSS 169.797s3 3. Under 21 Drink and Drive Zero Tolerance, MSS 169a.33s2 ® ~'wehicle bearing MN Reg.~~was towed to Chief's Towing for safekeeping. It should be noted that admitted that he was served alcoholic beverages by a bartender at Jun Bo. Printed: 4/S/2010, 2:54:47 PM Printer: by: ri513nw It1CIC~eilt RepOt't Page 1 of 3 Printed dateltime: 5!9/1012:20 ~ r f I RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 (s~2) ss~-saoo ~ Incident Number: RI10-00001617 Incident Summary incident Type: CRIMINAL OFFENSE(S) ' ' Report Type: Inc Occurred Address: 7717 NICOLLET AV S, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 Sector/Beat: 2/RI02 Inc Occurred Start: 05/09/2010 02:02 Inc Occurred End: Report Taken: Domestic: N Bias Motivation: Gang Related: N Substance: Y Contact Nature: ~ Reported Date/Time: 05/09/2010 02:02 Reporting Officer: LANDON, ANDY Primary Assigned Officer: Case Status: CLOSED Disposition: ADULT ARREST Disposition Date: 05/09/201011:58 Offenses Statute Code: 169A-20-1-1 Enhancers: Statute Desc: TRAF-DUI 4TH DEGREE Counts: 1 Statute Severity: MISDEMEANOR Statute Code: VEHIMP Enhancers: Statute Desc: VEHICLE IMPOUND. • Counts: 1 Statute Severity: Statute Code: 340A-503-1-A-2 Enhancers: Statute Desc: LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 YEARS OF AGE Counts: 1 Statute Severity: MISDEMEANOR Officers. Event Association Emp# Badge# Name Squad# REPORTING OFFICER 162 162 IANDON, ANDY Associated Events Association: Event Type: Event: Event Date (Start):..- Event Daje. (End):, Agency: ARREST TO {NCIDENT ARREST' ~ ~ .. RI10-00001617 05/09/2010 02:02:00 RI Persons Involved Person#: 0001 -; MNI':58103268 Event Association: ARREST Name: SSN: DOB: 08/19/1989 Height: 5' 7" - 5' T' Weight: 200 - 200 Ibs Address: ~ MINNESOTA,~$107 Phone Type 1: HOME Phone# 1``~. Phone Type T. Phone# 2: • - DL State: MINNESOTA DL#: ~~ Occupation: Contact Date/Time: 05/09/2010 02:02 Age: 20 - 20 Sex: MALE Eye Color: BROWN Ext 1: Ext 2: DL Exp. Date: Employer/School: Can ID Suspect: No Race: WHITE Hair Color: BLACK Sector/Beat: ORIGINAL Printed~by: ri513nw {t1CId@ilt Report i1 Page 2 of 3 Printed date/time: 5/9/10 12:20 ~ ~ 10' RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 Is12) 8s1.9soo Incident Number: R110.00001617 Vehicles Involved Vehicle: 0001 Event Assoc: IMPOUNDED Vehicle Status: IMPOUNDED . Vehicle Type: A Year: 2001 Make: GENERAL M070RS CORP Modei: SIERRA ViN: 1GTEC14T41Z137706 License#: 0886RE State: MN Expires On: Style: PICKUP Prim Coior: WHITE Sec Caloe ' Ter Color: Status Dt/Tm: 05/09/2010 02:02 Status Value: Recovered Date: Recovered Value: . NCIC Date: NCIC Reported By: NCIC#: NCIC Cancelled: ORIGINAL Printed wy: ri513nw I11CICI~tIt Report '~ Page s of 3 Printed dateltime: 519/1012:20 ~' RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY ', 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 (s12) ss1-asoo Incident Number: R110-00001617 Narratives ENTERED DATE/TIME: 05/09/2010 12:00:01 NARRATIVE TYPE: SYNOPSIS AUTHOR: IANDON, ANDY ', ~~,. ORIGINAL RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ~ , ~~ INCIDENT REPORT CASE NAME ' REPORT DATE CASE NUMBER 5/9/2010 10001617 MINCIS Reporting Officer&Badge# ' Page Entered Canceled LANDON #162 (05/09!10 nkw) 1 Narrative: On 05/09/10 at approximately 0202 hours, I made contact with Minnesota License Plate No. _in the June Bo parking lot at 7717 Nicollet Avenue for exhibition driving as the vehicle was squealing its tires, creating a large plume of ,smoke. The driver was identified by his picture driver's license as~~ DOB, 08/19189. After Field Sobriety,'was arrested for Fourth Degree DWI with a breath test reported value of .12. He was later released with a court date. Reason For Stoa/Contact While in Marked Squad No. 2645, I was parked in the old Embers parking lot at 77t" Street and Nicollet Avenue. I was conducting an extra patrol in the area of Jun Bo as the bar had a very large crowd and it was getting ready to close for the evening. At that time, I observed a vehicle in the parking lot driving towards Nicollet Avenue. The vehicle was a white GMC Sierra pickup with Minnesota License No.~ The vehicle stopped as it reached Nicollet Avenue in the parking lot at which time it began reving its engine and I saw the rear tires begin to squeal while the truck stayed still. A very large plume of white smoke then began to engulf the vehicle and the truck continued to squeal its tires for several seconds. The vehicle then begin to back very slowly. There was a very large crowd letting out from the Jun Bo bar and were standing in the parking lot. I entered the parking lot and followed the vehicle as it continued to back up to the far eastern edge of the parking lot where it backed into an empty parking space. At that time, I pulled up in front of the vehicle, activated my spotlight and take-down lights and observed the vehicle was occupied by two people. Sergeant Shelley and Sergeant Griffin were on the scene to assist me. Driver Contact I approached the vehicle on the driver's side door andiiiasked for the license from the driver and insurance card. He provided a Minnesota picture driver's license identifying him as DOB, 08/19/89. While examining~rlicense, he looked at me and smiled and said, "Is there a problem?" I responded, "Is that a serious question?"-stated, "I'm sorry, man, I was just showing off. Can I get a break?" ', While speaking wither l could smell a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and I asked him if he had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight and he said he had one shot. I then returned to my squad to run driver's license checks on~and discovered he had a valid driver's license and and was clear of warrants. Inu~ted: 3/10/2010, 1:02:4? PM RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY INCIDENT ~?--5 10001617 Rn~,..~„y v~~~~e~ - oa.,y~ R - ~~,,~~. ~a.o LANDON #162 (05109/10 nkw), 5!9/2010 2 Field Sobriety Tests I returned to~rehicle and I asked him if he would be willing to perform Field Sobriety Tests and he said yes. He said he did not have any physical disabilities that would hinder his performance. Horizontal Gaze Nvsfacrmus I explained the Field Sobriety Test to who said that he understood the test. He did not have any problems with his eyesight grid did not wear glasses or contacts. His eyes were bloodshot and watery. His eyes had lack of smooth pursuit, distinct jerkiness at maximum deviation and prior to the onset of 45 degrees. PBT No. 055672 (Calibrated by Badge No. 179 on 03/?2/10) I explained the Field Sobriety Test to ~ who said he understood the test. He provided a breath sample and the PBT displayed a digital reading of .139. Arrest/Vehicle Impound From my observations, the odor of an alcoholic beverage and ~ Field Sobriety performance, I felt that he was under the influence of alcohol. I told _ he was being arrested for DWI. He was handcuffed and Officer Gallatin transported~to the Richfie-d Police Department. His vehicle was towed and impounded by Chief's Towing. A female passenger was released at the scene and was not identified for the purposes of this report. However, said it was his girlfriend. Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory At 0241 hours, I read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory to' He said "yes sir" when I asked if he understood what I had explained and he said "no sir," he did not want to consult with an attorney. said he would take the breath test. This was audio- recorded and placed into evidence. Observation Period From 0230 hours to 0248 hours, I observed min the Booking Room and at no time did he consume any beverages or place anything in his mouth. In toxilyzer At 0248 hours, I administered the Intoxilyzer Breath Test to=and he provided two breath samples with a reported value of .12 and, he was provided a copy of the print-out. '. Rvtted: i/!Ql?Q10, 1:02:42YM RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY INCIDENT ~-~~ 10001617 r[eponiny vuwn~ - oauyv x - nepuu vow i LANDON #162 (05/09/10 nkw), 5/9/2010 ~ 3 Alcohol Influence Report I read phis constitutional rights and he said "yes" he did understand them and he would speak with. me. During the interview, said it was 18 and overnight at Jun Bo; however, when he presented his ID to Security, they gave him a;wristband, believing he was 21 years old. He only had his driver's license and: he did not have a fake ID. I did: not see any identification in the vehicle or in his wallet other than his Minnesota driver's license. said he had two shots of tequila that was provided by Jun Bo to his friends as they were sitting in the VIP area. See the enclosed Alcohol Influence Report for answers and questions. It was audio-recorded and placed into evidence. Additional Information was charged with Fourth Degree DWI; he did nQt have any prior DWI's. He did have one prior conviction for Under 21 drinking and driving. He was issued a temporary driver's license or vehicle registration. He was issued a.c~ourt date of 05/25/10. At approximately 0330 hours, was released to the lobby to a sober party. Abated: ~lt0/?010, 1:0?:4? NM Printad by: ri516ac ~ncldent Report ~, i 1 Page 1 of 2 Pri, ted date/time: 5/24/10 8:01 RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 (s12j aslasoo Incident Number: RI10-00001802 Incident Summa Incident Type: CRIMINAL OFFENSE(S) Inc Occurred Address: 7717 NICOLLET AV S, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 5: Inc Occurred Start: 05/24/2010 02:02 Inc Occurred End: Domestic: N Bias Motivation: Gan Contact Nature: PHONE Reporting Officer: BATAGLIA, BRIAN Primary Case Status: CLOSED Disposition: JUVENILE ARREST Report Type: 23 Sector/Beat: 2/R102 Report Taken: Related: N Substance: Y Reported Date/Time: 05/24/2010 02:02 ssioned Officer: Disposition Date: 05/24!2010 07:15 Offenses Statute Code: 340A-503-1 Statute Desc: LIQUOR-MINOR CONSUMPTION UNDER AC3E 18 Counts: 1 Statute Severity: MISDEMEANOR Statute Code: 609-72-1 Statute Desc: DISTURB-DISORDERLY CONDUCT Counts: 1 Statute Severity: MISDEMEANOR Associated Events Association: Event Type: Event: ARREST TO INCIDENT ARREST RI10-00001802 Event Date (Start): Event Date (Endj: Agency: 05/24/2010 02:02:00 RI Persons Involved Person#: 0002 MNI: 57967114 Event Association: ARREST Co ta Name: ~ SSN: ' " DOB: p8/14/1988 Age: 21 - 21 Height: 5 8 - 5' 8" Weight: 160 = 160 Ibs Eye Colo, Address: Phone Type 1: Phone# 1: Ex1j 1: Phone Type 2: Phone# 2: Ex~ 2: DL State: DL#: j DL Ex Occupation: Em olc Person#: 0003 MNI: 58107481 Event Association: JUVENI LE ARREST Name: SSN: DOB: 08/09/1993 Height: 5' 6" - 5' 6" Weight: 165 - 165 Ibs Address: Phone Type 1: CELL Phone# 1: Phone Type 2: Phone# 2: DL State: DL#: Occupation: DatelTime: Sex: MALE BROWN Date: Date/Time: Age: 16 - 16 Sex: MALE Eye CoIo~IF BROWN Ext 1: Ext 2: DL . xp. Date: Can ID Suspect: No Race: WHITE WITH HISPANIC C Hair Color: -BLACK Sector/Beat: 1 /BP03 Can ID Suspect: No Race: WHITE WITH HISPANIC C Hair Color: BLACK Sector/Beat: Printed by: rl5lsao ~ Incident Report ~ (g Printed date/time: 5/24110 8:01 ~ RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY. 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 ts12) 8s1-s8oo Incident Number: RI10-00001802 Page 2 of 2 Narratives ENTERED DATE/TIME: 05/24/2010 07:07:33 NARRATIVE TYPE: SYNOPSIS AUTHOR: BATAGLIA, BRIAN On 05-24-10, officers were on extra patrol with the sergeant at 7717 Nicollet, Jun Bo, when an altercation broke out on the east side in the Menard's parking lot. Two parties wer identified who were punching each other in the face. Both parties appeared extremely intoxicated. Officers broke the two parties up. The juvenile suspect sustained cuts to'his mouth. Both parties were given PBT's. Thei underage party registered .178. I asked the underage party if he had been inside Jun Bo drinking and he stated he had consumed two beers and five shots of Tequila inside the restaurant. When I asked him if he was actually 16 years old he said yes and that he would be turning 17 on 08-09-10. When I searched for identification in his pocket, I found a Mexican ID with his name on it but a birth date of 08-26-86.' He stated thi was not correct. He stated he resides a~ ~~with friends and has no family. contacts. He~was unable to provide family information for contact. ~ The adult suspect stated he is 21 years of age, knows the under~ge party, and is "somewhat" of a friend. His PBT registered .171 BAC. He also stated he had been drinking Inside Jun Bo but did not state how much. He was transported to jail for disorderly conduct. The underage party was transported to Fairview Southdale by ml and cited for Underage Consumption and Disorderly Conduct. He was placed on a hold until there is no longer any alcohol in his system. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 138 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TLTLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of plans for two bicycle routes as recommended by the Transportation Commission. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve plans and authorize the advertisement for bids for the construction of the West Connection Bicycle Route. 2. Approve plans and authorize the advertisement for bids for the construction of the East Connection Bicycle Route. II. BACKGROUND The City received Federal grants in 2008 under the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot (NTP) Program for the creation of two bike routes within Richfield. The final routes and street sections proposed in the project plans are a result of public input, transit considerations, existing traffic patterns, and Transportation Commission and consultant recommendations. West Connection Route Originally the Oliver Avenue Bike Route, the proposed West Connection uses a combination of paved paths and loop roads along the T.H. 62 noise wall to provide an east/west route from Penn Avenue to Girard Avenue. The north/south portion of 072710NTPbikeroute the route uses a combination of Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue to connect to the east/west route to the future Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75t" Street. Public Input Meetings Three public meetings were held for the West Connection Route on the following dates: (Summary of comments attached.) 1. February 24, 2010 at Richfield Middle School 2. April 22, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) 3. June 23, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) Key Connections Identified At the February 24, 2010 meeting, several key connections were identified: o Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail / 76t" Street o Planned Metro Transit Bus Rapid Transit station at 66t" Street & I-35W o Proposed Metro Transit Park & Ride near Penn Avenue & T.H. 62 o Penn Avenue Bridge into Minneapolis. Parking Restrictions The preliminary plan that was shared for public input used the recommended Mn/DOT design standards for bicycle facilities which restricted parking to one side of the street on Humboldt Avenue and Girard Avenue. There was considerable public objection to the parking restrictions and both staff and the consultant felt that the low traffic volumes made it possible to implement a successful route without the implementing full parking restrictions. Subsequently, a variance was applied for anal granted permitting the route to be a `bicycle boulevard'. This designation allows for parking to remain directly in front of residential properties. There are limited areas on the route where parking restrictions are still proposed in the plan. These areas are: o Loop roads along T.H. 62 o Along the I-35W noise wall o South of 73~d Street (non-residential) Excessive Vehicle Speeds Data collected confirmed the public perception of excessive speeds on Humboldt Avenue near Donaldson Park. Bicycle boulevard design features include large on- street emblems and signage which increase awareness to motorists that there are other users on this route and have also been shown to be a beneficial traffic calming technique. Staff also recommends increased Public Safety enforcement in this area. East Connection Route Originally the Richfield Parkway Trail, plans for the East Connection propose on- street facilities on Bloomington Avenue, Diagonal Boulevard, 73~d Street, and 12t" Avenue. Public Input Meetings Three public meetings were held for the West Connection Route on the following dates: (Summary of comments attached.) 1. March 3, 2010 at Mt. Calvary School 2. April 22, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) 3. June 23, 2010 (Joint meeting both routes at Richfield Community Center) Key Connections Identified At the March 3, 2010 meeting, several key connections were identified: o Minneapolis' planned `Southern Bike Connection' route via the Bloomington Avenue Bridge o Metro transit Bus Stops on Bloomington Ave. and on 66th Street o Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 76th Street Parking Restrictions o Using the recommended Mn/DOT design standards for bicycle facilities, parking will need to be restricted to one side of the street on Bloomington Avenue between 66th Street and Diagonal Boulevard (3 blocks). Applying for a variance similar to the West Route was not recommended in this .case due to higher vehicle traffic volumes. There was minimal response on this issue at the public meetings. Additional Considerations The City's 2010 Mill and Overlay operation coincides with the proposed route and striping may be completed in conjunction with the paving. Three River Park District's long term plans for anorth/south Regional Trail connecting the east/west Regional Trail to the Minneapolis bikeway system. Transportation Commission Recommendation At their July 7, 2010 meeting, -the Transportation Commission recommended both the West Connection Bicycle Route and the East Connection Bicycle Route for Council approval. A copy of the full plan set is available in the Engineering Department and will be available at the City Council Meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Both routes have previously been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Appendix 6E & 6F) B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The grants contain a construction deadline of December 31, 2010. If the projects are not under construction by this time, the grant dollars will be returned and reallocated. • If bidding is completed so the schedule allows the East Route to be installed at the time of the mill & overlay, a higher grade street marking could be used. C. FINANCIAL • The costs of the projects are covered by federal grants in the following amounts: • West Route - $105,500.00 • East Route - $112,900.00 D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to not approve the plans which would likely result in the return of the grant dollars to the NTP Program. V. ATTACHMENTS • Graphic of Proposed Routes • Partial Plan Set Summary of Open House Comments Received West Route Traffic Study and Consultant Memo VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jack Broz, H.R. Green ~ Proposed Richfield West Connector Bike Route Proposed- Richfield East Connector Bike Route ~~~Ti~ w ~~ 73 Y w ~x ~~ ~ 74 z ~ IN. ~_~ ~ ~ ~ _. ° W. a ~~~ ~ ~~~~nn a a a Q ST a a ~~~0 ST. ~a ~. ~I_~~~ S1. C ~ STe ~nnnn Q , s r. ~xroo~ Lahe / \~ ° '° K4s~4iNA`Tr AA p~ its r.3~• 1, L w. ~c 'a> a '1~N ~ ~ ? ° °g V`~' ~ ~ ~~, ,' i ~' Minr Inte Vold - L~1 rh+o 3 AT E ARK~.aG. e11 +-. 1~ ~.~ 494 O5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR_~IGNI_N~~_PAUEMENT__MARK~NG,_AND__MITI,1NEi,NQII~__TRAIL~________________. LOCGTED ON --- ----I~UMBOLDT _AVE_ So_ _ _ _FROM_ NJ._75TH_ S7 __ ____-_ _ TO U~®67TN1 ST --------------------- kND ON ___ ____Vdo 67i'H_ST__________ _____FROM_ HLEM~GLDT'__AVE_S~______ _____ TO_ GI~AR®_AVE_ S.______________ AND ON ___ ____G~RARD_ A_V_E__So_____ _____FROM_ _~,_~7TH__S~_ ---10_ ~~_~2~D__~~------------------- AND ON ___ ____b~, 62N®_ST---- --- -----FROM_ _GIRAR®__AVF_~a--------_ _-_-- TO_ P~~~_ AVE--So____________ ____ AND ON ----~2T~i_QV~_ S°---- - ---- FRONi_ Ee 75TH_~T---------------- ----- TO_ ~m_73RD_ S-F------------------- AND ON --- ----E._73~D__S_T_ ________ _____FROM_ P9B~L~~D__~DLE_Sg______ ___-- i0_ _~2_T_~_AVE_5~_______________-- AND ON _ ®FAG0_N~~ BLVD--- -- FROM_ ~2~~_ ASE-S -------------- ------TO_ ~~G<!06~-_~lGTO~_ AVE_ ~, - -- AND ON - --6L®~~IB~~~®~_ AV~ _S._-FROM_ Dd~G~B~Af~_BLV® -- i0_ _~C~_~~- -- ------------- STATE AID PROJ, N0,__~`~~-®~~°~~_____ GR05S LENGTH_____ 11,830___FEET_-_2,24__MILES BRIDGES-LENGTH_____D______ FEET___0_____ MILES EXCEPTIONS-LENGTH__0______.FEET___9_____MILES NET LENGTH_______ 11,339___ FEET___1,24__MILES STATE AID PROJo NOo__E~~°QS~°®S GROSS LENGTH_____ ]3,460___ FEET___~~?5__ MILES BRIDGES-LENGTH_____0______ FEET___0_____ MILES EXCEPTIONS-LENGTH_ Q______.FEET___9_____MILES NET LENGTH________1$459___.FEET___2,55__ MILES ~FEDo PROJ, N0,__S T P_ 150~o_S`I~ a~0~@ STP__350`1 __ GOV~ RNINM E oE I~NS M A o P R oF oRTAnoN tHE 2oos NN EN ~~~ 'STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION"SHALL GOVERN. INDEX SHEET N0. DESCP,IPTION 1 TITLE SHEET 2 STATEMENT DF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 3 STANDARD PLATES Y 3 SOILS AND CONSTAUC T]ON NOTES 4 - 5 TABULATIONS 6 - 8 TYPICAL SECTIONS / 9 - 19 SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS 20 SIGNING DETAILS 21 - 24 PAVEMENT MARigNG DETAILS THIS PLAN COM A]NS X% SHEEiS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH75 PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAI 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PRINT PJ~h?E:_ TIMOTNY_ H. LAMKiN_JR__ LICENSE '__47~9~________ DATE: ----------___ -- SIGNATURE:__-- ~e JOHN A, BROZ, WILLfAM Co KLINGBEIL, DESIGN SOUAD_ ~1ti10THY H, LAMKIN JR, ANDREW C, MCGOTIE'PJ _'m °~_ ao 2. ^~ a~ INDEX MAP PLAN ~~ e~ SCALES PLAN REVISIONS D0.TE SHHEET fJD. APPROVED BY PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY _NENNEPIN DISTRICT ; METRO_____ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL - ------------------------------ --- -20____-- DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION €NGINEER RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL _______________________________ ___ _20_____. OISTRTCT MATERIALS ENGINEEA RECOD,IMEN!DEO FOR APPROVAL ------------------------------- ----20____-. DISTRICT WATER RESDURCES ENGINEER RECOMMENDED fOR APPROVAL _________________ _ ----------- -----20____-. DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEER RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL _______________________________ _____20_____. STATE PRE-LETTING ENGINEER OFFICE OF LAND ~4AN.AGEMENT APPROVAL________________________ ____20_____ DIREC70R, LANG MANAGEMENT APPROVED __________20 -- --------------- ----------- COUNTY ENGINEER APPROVED - _ 20 - _ _ _ _ --------------------- ----------- STATE DESIGN ENGINEER APPROVED __________ 20 _______ FOR STATE AID FDNDING DISTRICT STATE AID ENGINEER REV]EI4ED FOR COMPLIANCE WI TH_____________________________ _____20_____ STATE A[D RULES/POLICY srarE Am ENGINEER 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FINAL FIELD REVISIONS, IF ANY, WERE PREPARED BY ME OR UNDEA MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGMEER UNDER THE LAPIS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PRINT hIAME:_ ____________ LICENSE '__________________ FOR PLANS AND UTILITIES SYMBOLS SEE TECHNICAL lAAPIUAL STATE PROJ.NO 157-091-05 CHARGE IDENTIFIER DATE: SIGNATURE:- --------- STATE AID PROJ, NOa _S..A.F,_1BZ-_Oq_1-C?5___ --------------------- STATE AID PROJ. NOa_S,A.P,,_15Z-_49;L-D6___ SHEET N0,____1____OF__29__-SHEET ~ ~3 WEST SIDE - SECTION 1 HUMBOLT AVE S, - W, 75TH ST TO Wa 69TH ST (24' F-F) EXISTING 12' 12' 17' 17' DRIVE/PARK DRIVE/PARK DRIVE/PARK DRIVE/PARK LANE LANE LANE LANE 0 U 0 s Q v N N 4 ~N F °a s~ ~~ e~ AEVlSI GPIS PROPOSED >(NO PARKING 12' BICYCLE BOULEVARD 12' BICYCLE BOULEVARD NO PARKING ENO PARKING ONLY FROM 75TH ST TO 73RD STREET, WEST SIDE - SECTION 2 HUMBOLT AVE S, - W, 69TH ST TO W, 67TH ST Wo 67TH ST - HUMBOLT AVE S, TO GIRARD AVE S, GIRARD AVE S, - W, 67TH ST TO W, 62ND ST (34' F-F) EXISTING PROPOSED 17' 17' BICYCLE BICYCLE BOULEUARD BOULEVARD SHARE SHARE THE THE POAD ROAD NOTEa to MEASUREMENTS MADE FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB (F-F) 2, REFER TO SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS AND DETAILS FOR SIGN AND PAVEMEN~I MARKING PLACEMENTo DESIGNED CHECttED IhiFRERY LERTff'! THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT ?JAS PREPARED SHEET NILH JAB BY MtE OR LMOER P:1Y DIRECT SUPERU]SICN AND THAT I AY A pLRY LICEPi5E0 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS GF THE STATE CF MEN^IESOTA ~ ~ { "~' ~5 5, f. I i i C I T Y O F R 1 C H F 1 E L D DRAIgN APPROVED , - ~ -' ~ ~ ~`~ 6 _ ~ { 9 - ~ S,A,P, 157-091 -05 NON-MOTORIZED PILO I PROGRAM nc~+ s+trc DATE JOB N0. '.. .. . .~'_ LIC.hID. 47A35 couRTINTERNATIONALFiwLOINC S,A,P, 157-091 -06 TYPICAL SECTIONS OF 5/18/ID 20IOD005.01 TYPED NnlaE '41LLIAA! C.N,LINGBEIL.PE DATE 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENDE W„SUITE 400N ST.EAUL,r,~INNESOTASSila~lo52 P: 65L64?.43B9 F: fi51.5d4.9l46 SHEET ~ ~~ 3 2 Y~ mLL vi 0 ~~ q Cy of a~ ~N a"~ WEST SIDE - SECTION 3 W, 62ND ST - GIRARD AVE So TO PENN AVE So (29' F-F) EXISTING 1405' DRIVE/PARK LANE 1405' DRIVE/PARK LANE PROPOSED 10' TRAIL ~NOISEWALL ~2' _ INSET A NEW BITUMINOUS TRAIL ALONG HWY 62 NOISE WALL FROM NEWTON AVE S TO PENN AVE S REVISIONS . INSET A (MULTI-USE PATFI) 3a0" WEAR COURSE LVWE450308 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 EAST SIDE - SECTION 1 12TH AVE S - Ee 76TH ST TO E, 73TH ST (36' F-F) 14' LANE NO PARKING EXISTING 14' LANE 8' PARKING PROPOSED 14' WIDE OUTSIDE LANE 7' PARKING ~~ BII(E EANE 1 ~II~ SNARE THE ROAD NOTE le MEASUREMENTS MADE FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB (F-F) 20 REFER TO SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS AND DETAILS FOR SIGN AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLACEMENT, DESIGNED CHECNEO ( HEREBY CERTIFY THAT iHlS PLAN, SPFC9FICAT10P1, OR REPORT RAS PREPARED 44CR Jag BY M11E OR DNDER MY O1P,ECP SL'fERV1SI0N AND THAI I Ah1 A DllLY LICEPISED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER DNDER THE LAY1S DF iF; T /~'~i ~ ~ ~ DRAWN APPR04ED E S ATE OF MIPINESOTA. / _ n I~ ~ ~'~ % I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ , ,+. ;, ,, ; S,A,P.T57-091-05 nCPa ~NCS _ - DATE JOB N0. LIC.NO, 43835 COURTIPfTERPInnoNaLRwLOIr10 S,A,P, 157-0;11-06 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE V+'., SURE 4COhl 511Ei10 20100008.01 TYPED NAh4E YaRLIAtJ C.KLINGDEIE PE D,ITE sT.Pau~ MINNESOTnss114~foez P: 557.644.4389 F:fi51.644.9?46 CITY OF RICHFIELD SHEET N01~1-MOTORIZED PILOT PROGRAlb1 7 TYPICAL SECTIONS GF 24 SHEET 2 OF 3 ~-5 _~ 0 s~ o ~~ o a~ ~N e~ EAST SIDE - SECTION 2 & 4 ED 73RD ST - PORTLAND AVE S, TO 12TH AVE S. DIAGONAL BLUD - 12TH AVE So TO BLOOMINGTON AVE S. BLOOMINGTON AVE S. - E. 66TH ST TO E. 62ND ST f44' F-F) 14' LANE EXISTING 14' LANE 8' PARKING BIItE ERNE RE`lISIOidS 8' PARKING PROPOSED EAST SIDE - SECTION 3 BLOOMINGTON AVE S, - DIAGONAL BLVD TO E, 66TH ST f36' F-F) EXISTING 18' DRIVE/PARK LANE 18' DRIVE/PARK LANE PROPOSED ~' 10' 10' 5' S' 10' IKE DRIVE DRIVE BIKE BIKE DRIVE 14' WIDE 7' ANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE OUTSIDE LANE PARKING 7 NO PARKING PARKING OHO i BII(E EAh~E b BIISE LANE ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~Ndl f~ SRGRE ~Iill~ ~~I~ RO D ~ oho ~ NOTE 1, MEASUREMENTS MADE FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB !F-Fl 2, REFER TO SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MAP,KING PLANS AND DETAILS FOR SIGN AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLACEMENT, DESIGNED CHECI(ED 1 HEREBY CERTIfY THAT THIS PLAN, SPELlF (CATION, OR REPORT 'NAS PREPARED G( DRAwN JAB PROFESS ONALD ENGINEER UNDERDiHEVLAItYS OF T E STATE~OF 0.D1 MNESOTA~SEO ~~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~A \ I ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD SHEET 8 APPRaveD ~I ~ li/~ ~ I( L,,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ " S,A,P.15I-091-05 NON-11~OTORIZED PILOT PROGRAM ACs4 Y3CK - = DATE JOB N0. 47835 uc.ND, COURT INTERNATIONAL BUII~IMG S.A,P, 157-091-06 TYPICAL SECTIOPIS of 6/18/10 201000DB.01 TYPED NAP"E 'HILL]ALa C. RLINGBEIL. PE Dn-E 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE Nl„ SURE 4CaPl ST. PAUL, b9NNE50TA 55nJ-lose Paslsaaa3es F:sstsaasaac SHEET 3 OF 3 2 q ~~ of `~o ~o z° o~ a~ o~^ t= N a~ ~o ti ~o (PO! Y PREFORM) ^ =4" x4' MARKINGS ROR BIKE LANES IPOLY PRE-FORMI 3033' o, MARI(INGS FOR SHARED LAMES ~~,-.,;:;:;CGS FOR BICYLE ROUTES fP0!Y PRE-FORM) - IPO!Y PRE-FORM) DESIGNED CHECISED (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PF,EPARE~D ~ !7C8 JAA Y h'~E 0, IPIDEA biv DIRECT SUPERV]SION AP70 THAT I APd A DULY LICENSED '. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAHS F 4 (-~ ~~ ~ I{ ~ '' ^ ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD SHEET - oRAVrN APPROVED O HE STATE OF MINNESOTA, / / _ ~ ~„~' ~~~ I~ -'~t ; `1 ~ ~~~~~ i ~ A S P 157-091-05 ~~ AGM c , - _ . , , NON-MOTORIZED PILOT PROGRAM W rc DATE Joe ~o. uG.NO, aseJS G~URT,NTERNAT1oNAL9HILDIHG 2550 UNIVERS(iY AVEPNE W SURE 4001) S,A,Pe 157-091-06 PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS °F REVISIONS I BY ( APR, DATE 0/18/1D 20100008.01 TYPED NAAiE WILLIAM C. BLINGREIL, PE p:iTE ., Si. Pa.U~. MINIdES0Tn 55t t~~tos2 P:651.641.h389 F: 657 6419446 Zq . SHEET 2 OF 4 I _ 16' -~ ^=a„x4„ 3~ ~4°BROKEN YELLOVV CENTERLINE ~~~ FACE OF CURB c~3` ~~ -_ ®300' NOTESe ~ ORA12'M~NRFROMEFA~EDOFYCURB WITHINPAR{~NGFALANE ORCAS DIIRECTED BYRTHE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD, ® APPROXIMATELY 3D0'SPACING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER ]N THE FIELDo -, TYPICAL PAVEMENT MARKING LAYOUT -SHARE THE ROAD ~4°BROKEN YELLOUJ CENTERLINE via ~ o ~ I FACE OF CUPB ®~, ~ o X300' ~o ao 0 z_ o~ ~s FN a~ NOTESe © ORA 2'M NRFROMEFACEDOFYCURB WITHNPAR~INGFLANE ORCAS DIRECTED BYRITHEGE GINEERI[N THE FIELD, ® APPROXIMATELY 300'SPACING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER iN THE FIELD, TYPICAL PA~IEMENT MARKING LAYOUT - BIKE L~~iE DESIGNED LHECkED 1 HEREBY CERT9FY THAT THIS FERN, SFELVFlCATION, GR REPORT IMAS PflEPAfiE- PICK ,TAB BY ME GR LTNEA P.9Y DIRECT SItPERVISIGN ANG THAT 1 AdA A GL2Y UCEPISED _ PROFESSIONAL EF,UItlEtR LM6ER TxE LBWS OF THE STATE GF >AltdtiE~OTA ~ '` - / 1' I DRAYlN APPROVED , ~ I - -~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ I~ ~ / ' - S,AeP, 1.57-091-05 B ACS WCK _, I DATE JOB N0 LTC. CIO. 43675 COURT IhIIER01ATI0HAL BUILGINC; 7 [~q (' S,A,P, I51 -OJ1-Op ~ 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE UV., SURE JCOP: REVISIONS I BY I APR, KATE 6/18/10 201D0006.01 TYPED NAME 1YILLIAN CJtL ING6EIL PE ~ DAT,. ST. PAUL, ~NINNESQFA 551u-1052 P: 651.6;a X369 F: 651.6=4 a4;6 CITY OF RICHFIELD (\ION-MOTORIZED PILOT PROGRAI'v1 PAVEMEi~IT MARKING DETAILS SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEET 23 OF 2q ~~~ ~~ ' 0® 0® FACE OF CURB ~_ 300' ~ =s 300' NOTESo CD CENTER BIKE BOULEVARD SYN9BOL [N THE ROADNJAY OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD, ® ALIGN BIKE BOULEVARD SYDgBOL TOWARDS TRAFFIC ENTERING THE ROADWAY OR AS DIRECTED BY IHE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD, ® APPROXIMATELY 300'SPACING OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER ]N THE FIELD, TYPICAL PAUEMENT MARKING LAYOUT -BIKE BOULEUARD al _' ~,o ~o 0 z_ o~ a~ o DESIGNED CHECrcEO I HEREBY CERTtfY Tear ThQS PLAfa,SPELIFICATI01a OR REPORT 9JA5 PREPARED WLI( DAB , Y p GA I~NDER A9'f DIRECT SI1P,P,VISION AtY~ THAT 3 A^& A DL4v L1CEh1SED PROFESSIONAL ENDIHEER l1NDER THE A ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD SHEET Y L dS GF THE STATE OF A1INNESOTA, f // __ { ~ 1 T~ ~ ~ ~ DRAWN APPROVED ~ _ ~ ii I ~ ~ 'n ~ ~~ 1~~~ --E ~ -] ~ A P ~ 157-091-05 AcA+ wLx ~~ ..; ~,; 3 ., . . .. NON-MOTORIZED PILOT PROGRAM DATE Do-a No. uc.NO, ase3s couHrlNreH~i~rioNn~aul~~lolG 2550 UPINEP SffY AVED7UE VJ SUITE a00N S,A,P, 157-091-06 PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS °F REVISIONS BY APP, DATE 5118/10 20100000.01 TYPED NAL7E T~ILLIA~A L. uLINGBEII, FE DATE . , Si. PAUL, h41NHESOTa 55n4~1c52 Paslav,ae9 Fae~saa.9aas SHEET 4 OF 4 24 24 Richfield Non Motorized Trail Connections Project ~'~ °, ~~~~o~o Qac~~~oo~~~o~~ G°~~~a0~~ g Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with alternative modes of transportation by building a portion of the City's bicycle network Project Goal • To create two new multi-purpose paths for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as exploring possible connections to the new regional trail along 75t"/76t" Street 1. Do you use the existing infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, roadways) for exercise or commuting? If yes, for what purpose? • Yes -Exercise, relaxing bike ride. • Yes -Commuting & exercise (bike). • Yes - To get exercise, to go shopping, going to a restaurant. • Yes -Commute to work and train for triathlons. • Yes -For local trips. • Yes -For recreational biking and exercise. • Yes -Bike commute on Bloomington and 66t"/Lyndale. Bus routes 4,18, 515. Bike recreationally with kids. • Not enough sidewalks or sidewalks too close to busy streets. • Yes -Bike commuting to work. 2. Are there existing safety concerns that factor into your decision to use alternate transportation modes (walk/bike/transit) within the Richfield community? • I use stop lights as much as possible. • Yes -Getting out of Richfield to Minneapolis or Bloomington results in using sidewalks or entering busy intersections. • Crossing busy streets. Sidewalks are dangerous in winter. • East/west routes are limited to 66t" or 76t" Streets across I-35W. 66t" being particularly troublesome. • Going between east Richfield and west Richfield is a major issue. • No • Motor vehicle traffic. • Difficult to cross 66t" Street at a traffic signal without using high traffic route (i.e. Penn Ave). 3. What are the things that add value to your quality of life? Why do you choose to reside in Richfield? • Safety, ease of biking and walking safely. • Location, location, location. • Small town feel, good schools, lots of destinations within walking distance. • Proximity to Mpls, small town feel, schools. • Easy access to variety of destinations. • Small community feel, a lot of parks, good schools. • I only work in Richfield, not attractive for residency to me because of lack of pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure. • Convenience to entire metro area. 4. What do you consider destination points within the Richfield community? • Veterans Park, Richfield Middle School, Woodlake Nature Center. • Parks, Grocery Stores, Target, Trail Connections. • Woodlake, Richfield Lake, HUB, 66t" & Penn area. • Woodlake Nature Center, Schools, Augsburg Park and Library. • Work location. • Schools, Woodlake Nature Center, Augsburg Park and Library. 5. Are there examples of non-motorized trail systems you find attractive or successful? Why? C ~~ • Minnehaha Creek Trail System. (j • Midtown Greenway, Park/Portfand Bike Lanes in Mpls. • Walking paths at Woodlake and Richfield Lake. • Midtown Greenway • Generally direct routes that discourage vehicle traffic and allow safe cross streets. • East River Road in St. Paul. • Midtown Greenway & Grand Rounds in Mpls, Cycling infrastructure in Davis, CA. • I like separated bike lanes. Additional Comments: • There is a lot of traffic on Logan Ave in morning and evening. • After walking the different proposed routes, Humboldt seems to make most sense...less traffic, less houses and less parked cars. • We are very concerned about the possibility of a Bicycle Route running down Logan between 65th and 66th Street. Our street is already very narrow. If cars are passing each other, they already have to take turns getting down the street. Garbage trucks also have problems getting through on Thursday. Another reason we are opposed to this is that cars are constantly racing by our house from 65th and Logan at high speeds in order to make the abnormally long light on 66th and Logan. I timed the light one day and it took almost two minutes to change. Logan would not be a good block to choose for the bicycle route! • Between 65th and 66th streets, this stretch of Logan is the narrowest street in the neighborhood. Additionally, this section of street is often the site of speeding, as people try to reach the light at 66th and Logan, particularly since that light is very slow in turning. NOTE: These comments are a summary of all the questionnaires collected at the conclusion of the public meeting held at 6:00 P.M. on 2/24/2010 at the Richfield Middle School. Two of the additional comments were received by email. Richfield Non Motorized Trail Connections Project ~~~I ~0~~~0~ 0 ~~~~ G~oa~c~ ~aa~o~ ~~~~o~ o Qa~~~o0~~~0~~ G~~~aO~~ g Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with alternative modes of transportation by building a portion of the City's bicycle network Project Goal • To create two new multi-purpose paths for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as exploring possible connections to the new regional trail along 75tH/76tH Street 1. Do you use the existing infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, roadways) for exercise or commuting? If yes, for what purpose? • Yes -Occasional bike commute, walking and jogging. • Walk to work and for recreation/exercise. • Yes -From Richfield to Nokomis for exercise. • Yes -Bike for exercise, use 12t", 66tH and Cedar for commute by car. • Yes -Walking on Bloomington Ave sidewalk. • Yes -Bike to Lake Nokomis, vehicle to Bloomington via 12tH Ave. • Yes -Both exercise and commuting. • Yes -For recreation and exercise I ride with the Richfield Senior Bike Group. 2. Are there existing safety concerns that factor into your decision to use alternate transportation modes (walk bike/transit) within the Richfield community? • No. • No. • Yes -Safe bike connections to MOA or Airport area. If 66t" Street was bike friendly I would bike to retail locations. • Buses and bicycles sharing the same roadway. • Safety concerns with buses, traffic, street width. • No • Definitely • Yes, I avoid major streets like Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland & 66tH 3. What are the things that add value to your quality of life? Why do you choose to reside in Richfield? • Location. Parks are wonderful. • We have lived here for over 40 years, Good place to raise kids, I can walk to work, I have friends here. • Small, quiet, hometown feel with quick connections to city life. Love the community activities (farmers market, 4tH of July). Easy access to parks & community areas. • Peaceful neighborhoods, schools, shopping • Good place to live, community feel. • Bigger yards, close to airport & shopping, close to lakes for biking. Good schools, great and fast snow plowing. • Location, Good home prices. • Location, Close to all metro, Close to shopping areas, clinics and other services. Good Water! Fast snow removal. 4. What do you consider destination points within the Richfield community? • HUB, Cedar Point, Southdale Area, High school/Augsburg Park area. • Work, Church, Shopping. • HUB, Target, Parks, Lakes, Trails. • Home Depot, Target, HUB, Rainbow Foods. • Parks. • Airport, Mall of America, Rainbow Foods, Shopping on 66tH Street. • HUB, Rainbow Foods. • Augsburg Library, HUB area, Community Center, Farmers Market • Lunds/Aldi, City Hall, Swimming Pool, HUB 5. Are there examples of non-motorized trail systems you find attractive or successful? Why? • Minneapolis Loop Trails. • Veterans Park and Lake Nokomis Trails, easy access, nice trails. • Path along Mississippi from Mendota to St. Paul, wide and smooth blacktop. • I like paved paths. • Cedar Lake Kenilworth Trails, Trails around Chaska. Additional Comments: • 12t" is too busy, do not take property from people. • Stay away from Bloomington Avenue, use Cedar or 12tH • Use 63~d to 12t". I think 12t" is wider and has less traffic. ~.i3 NOTE: These comments are a summary of all the questionnaires collected at the conclusion of the public meeting held at 6:00 P.M. on 3/3/2010 at the Mt. Calvary School. Richfield Non Motorized Trail Connections Project _„ „ '' i ~q3 Project Objective • To provide the Richfield residents with alternative modes of transportation by building a portion of the City's bicycle network Project Goal • To create two new multi-purpose paths for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as exploring possible connections to the new regional trail along 75tH/76tH Street Study Areas West Connection ~ 1 127 ~fit0Yk1 May .. .S ~ ' 62 h, ~~FK~-~c~€4 M"- ~ .. ~~ w~ ~y ~ 1 i ~~il .9t~e ~JJ mk L~ik Praia y ROed53 7Roee~. ftcBani n F&virovd F~11' ;,, w TON s~ ~ V. `*. , ' - - Vnned Heprtw ce~,rn '~~~: - a~~~E~, ~~~t~ ~ ~ ;`F - b i ~ . P k W 7&h S w t ~ ~ $ _.__ .. ti'J Tqh S~ ~= ~.~! ~- _- t D it ~ ~ ~ _ W ~. ~ ~i. ,~,y~ ~ .. ri Q ~~ - ~-r __ _ .. r __ ~ r ' ~~JT~,s< _ ; w emh st _ -- ~ ~ I ' ! East Connection / r~ ~~ 62 ~r ~~ I n ~ A 'fi p 1 .~ hSt NV. ~Co and 57~ - ~t.. ~:.,j , R ;~a; _ ~ : f ,~ y Cnne'tgln i r - f r P .ard1~- + Sf - -. E. 7DCi St 1 ~ F 3 '; ~~ ~.,_ __ ~ ~ - ~ ~ i' Tri # ; ~ '. ~ p _ -_.-.- -.--_. _~ ~Mk i p ~ I - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~J ~ ~„~ _ ; r / ET97i St - E7Btn St _ _, ,, - ~t~,._. The City of Richfield's Non-Motorized Transportation Project consists of two separate study areas; the "West Connection" and "East Connection". The "West Connection" study area is located along the south side of Highway 62 from Penn Avenue to Girard Avenue, and extends southward from 62"d Street to 66tH Street. The goal of the West Project is to provide connectivity between the proposed Penn Avenue Transit Station and the proposed Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75tH Street. The "East Connection" study area is located along the south side of Highway 62 near Bloomington Avenue and extending southward through Richfield. The goal of the East Project is to provide connectivity between Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington and also connectivity to the proposed Three Rivers Park Regional Trail along 75cn/76cn Street. The City wants to hear from you on the best possible ways to provide these non- motorized connections. Please take a few minutes and let us know your thoughts - we welcome your comments and suggestions. If you need more space, please attach additional sheets. A completed questionnaire may be mailed, faxed, or emailed to: Jack Broz HR Green Company 2550 University Avenue, Suite 400N Saint Paul, MN 55114 Fax: 651.644.9446 JbrozCu~hrgreen.com The survey is also available to complete electronically at the following web site: http://www.ci.richfield. mn.us/PublicWorks/index. htmhttp://www.dot. state.mn.us/d4/projects/dlstudy/suiyey.html 1. Do you use the existing infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, roadways) for exercise or ~+,,'~ commuting? If yes, for what purpose? b • Walking (on the road, as there are no sidewalks), commuting sometimes by car and by bus. • Yes, both exercise and some commuting, but these are not dedicated bike trails and biking feels unfriendly and unsafe in Rich. • Yes, mostly for biking (recreational and some commuting). We ride on the sidewalk most of the time. • Yes all of the above. • No • Yes, commuting and exercising. • Yes, for exercise. • Commuting -parking (issue) -walking • There are no sidewalks or bike lanes in my neighborhood. I would like a designated bike path or a means to get to a bike trail more easily. • Yes, sidewalks and pathways for walks only. • Yes, biking, walking, and dog walking. • Yes, driving and bicycling. • Yes, I bike commute in Richfield year round. I also ride for pleasure with children in Richfield. • Yes, exercise, commuting, parking. • Yes, exercise and commuting. • Exercise and some commuting. • Yes, I use the existing infrastructure for commuting, walking to 66t" Street to catch a bus. • Yes, I walk in the roadway mostly on Humboldt and on 67t" to go to Monroe Park. Or I walk on 67t" to Girard to walk down the cul-de-sac. We don't have sidewalks so I like to walk in the parks. And I walk down Humboldt and Girard to go to a bus. 2. Are there any concerns about vehicles sharing the roadway with bikes? If so, what are they? • Yes, with roadway sharing. Cars use Lake Shore Drive/Humboldt/Girard as a shortcut from Best Buy to 66t" and cars go fast and don't stop at stop signs. Also, pedestrians must use the road, as there are no sidewalks. • Yes, the rudeness and indifference of too many motorists towards others. The narrowness of the shared route. • Just impatience on the part of cars. • Yes, I feel that having a bike lane on Humboldt is a dangerous route due to traffic. • Yes • There are always concerns when vehicles and bikes share roadways. • Unmarked intersections where there are no stop signs or only stop signs for part of the intersection. • Don't think it very safe. With biker if they will be obeying rules with for car or biker. Don't mind biker route. Parking issue, biking path not issue. • Bikes and cars increasingly share the road. My only concerns would be biker visibility in the evening and narrowness of neighborhood roads. • Yes - Safety of bike rides. Street traffic from cars and buses Streets are not wide enough to permit vehicle parking on both sides of streets, plus bus traffic and bike lanes. • Only the narrowness of Lake Shore/Humboldt between 69t" and 76t". Two cars could not pass if a bike lane were added. • Vehicles travel too fast even with young children. • Awareness. Respect from vehicles for cyclists. • Yes, safety of bikers and kids in the existing neighborhoods. Commuter bikes go fast; average biker goes 18 miles per hour -that is the conservative estimate. • Yes, if traffic is not controlled, there is a dangerous speed difference. • Yes -definitely buses, trucks. • Vehicles share the roadway with walkers and bikers now. If walkers stick close to the curb and if bikers avoid rush hours, it works. 3. What issue(s) do you feel is the most critical to address and resolve to consider the non-motorized trail connection project a success? • .Parking -Safety. Homeowners concerns -How will this affect our property values (bikes and no parking)? As a senior who is about to sell my house -this is critical. We pay high taxes for living on Lake Shore Drive despite the fact that we look onto a huge wall. • Parking and general sedentary lifestyles of homeowners. • Practicality - I am a biker but also want a plan that makes sense -parts of Humboldt are very narrow -also have concerns over the crossing at 66tH • Do not eliminate parking on any streets 68tH & Humboldt. • Richfield in general is older with many homes having single car garage and single car width driveways. There is no place to park except the roads when households have multiple drivers and vehicles. • Crossing 66tH Street -even with a traffic light, there is too much traffic on 66tH due to Hwy. 62 construction. • Street not wide enough -too many cars park on west side of street already. Biking path ok, parking issue. • I think painting the roads with symbols and/or putting up signs indicating that it's a bike route would help raise awareness, but it seems aimed at bike commuters, and the route goes out of the way of common destinations - Best Buy, along Penn. DO NOT take away my on-street parking. It is not fair to me as property owner and might be for nothing if few bikers use the route. • Amount of traffic on primary north/south streets; biker who does not obey traffic signs and traffic lights. They tend to always ride through stop signs without stopping. • Only the narrowness of Lake Shore/Humboldt between 69th and 76t". Two cars could not pass if a bike lane were added. • Safe intersections and crossings. • Safety, usage. • Commuting path or lanes are best on most direct arterial roads. Recreational trails are best when off road. • That these pathways are for both the professional bikers as well as for the kids and seniors. • My critical concern is losing the ability to park on the street. Restricted parking is major concern. • I don't think many bicyclists and surely walkers will feel safe enough if the street gets more crowded or confusing. There are little kids who take a school bus on Humboldt that dash off the bus and cross to their homes and there are often many cars tooling along. 4. Do you use on street parking along the proposed non-motorized trail connection route more than 4 times per week? If so, in what general area? • No, because our garage is on Irving, but the front of our house is on Lake Shore Drive with the front door- That is where guests should come and people will lose that. Others do not have the option the two blocks on Lake Shore do (parking behind our house on Irving). • No, but we're on Lake Shore Drive where nobody ever has parked. • Yes - 68tH and Humboldt. • Yes, friends visit and I try to park on my property most of the time. Sometimes I need to park on the street. • Yes, 67-69 Humboldt. • Yes, front of home. Parking would be issue, not bike path. • No • Humboldt has many houses with single stall garages and narrow driveways. Homes today often have multiple cars and drivers. On street parking is our only option. Taking that away on ANY LEVEL is wrong and will force me to fight this and any organization/council that supports it. Bike riders can go around parked cars. • Yes, sometimes. Intersection of Bloomington and 70tH Street • No one who values their car parks on Lake Shore. • No, please make it no parking along the bikeway. • NO! B/C I'm a cyclist and as much ire as there is re: parking along these routes, there is also no bicycle parking. • Yes, seven days a week in front of my house. • Yes, Girard north of 66tH Street. • No • Yes, I use the street parking when I have company. Soon I will have a teenage driver and will definitely need the off street parking. • With the proposed parking reduction on one side of 67tH and one side of Humboldt, I would be left with no parking on the north or west side of my house -except across the street. And I live with a blind person who would have to cross the street. Mostly we can park in my driveway BUT friends and relatives would have to park across the street. 5. Are there times during the day, week, or year that finding a parking space along the proposed route is a problem? If so, when? • Not on Lake Shore Drive. • Not on our section but elsewhere - on Humboldt and Girard -sure. • Yes -when we have company over to the house - BUT I would be happy to give up one side of the street parking to make our community more biker friendly. • Yes winter and snow removal street cleanings. • Yes, when kids are home from college, when neighbors are having events with guests, etc. • No • Holidays • Evenings, weekends, and holidays there are multiple cars parked along Humboldt. • Along Bloomington Avenue parking is always a problem through the year. • Only at holidays. • NO! B/C I'm a cyclist and as much ire as there is re: parking along these routes, there is also no bicycle parking. • Unknown? • Generally not a problem. Only issue is occasionally when a neighbor has LOTS of company. NOTE: These comments are a summary of all the questionnaires collected at the conclusion of the public meeting held at 6:00 P.M. on 4/22/2010 at the Richfield Community Center. i 0 ~~~ - mph ~i~~~,., ~~i `~~~~ =~~J'~~ ~OI~CJ~ / 711/2STW ~~ 5/10-12/10 Q Southbound -33 -mph a -226 -ADT ~ Northbound -34 mph -178 ADT mph Southbound ~~ ----~-U~-,JUL -31 -mph 5/20-21 /10 -512 -ADT Southbound ~ -28 Northbound ~ Q ~, _83 ~, -31 mph z ~ ~, Q -206 ADT ~ ~`~ z Northbound " o rrr~,-aYrr~~J L~ Q -fin ~ -mph -ADT mph ?ADT 0 0 0 0 0 ~ `J `J`-J-~~~,, 5117-1911© Southbound ' ~ -30 -mph -42 - AGT ~ > ~ Northbound j z -31 mph i/17-19!10 a ~ -125 ADT Southbound W `~ 32 -mph z a > 116 -ADT ~ z a ~ cn o ~ o ~ u o z a ~3orthbound '~ 33 mph ~ o 124 ADT ~ `- ~ z 1ST T Q w 5/10-12/10 J ~,~~ Southbound z, Sy~R, -30 -mph -136 -ADT Q 73R ST V Northbound ,r ~ n n Q w -178 ADT ~I ~ Q ~/~ I% / z CIR i = = 77T ST P y~ STW ~ _ V / i .i~ , 0 ~z ~\ 0 ~- ~~ ~ 3R w ~ w o a J ~ a Z ST TH T W ao~ 771/2STW a a z z Q o ~ z K Q Z ~ ~ .1'1 _~~ a a a ~' ~ ~ ~ a w z o ~ o w J J a \~~~ED DR a it 5/17-19/1fJ Southbound -33 -mph 6` -385 -ADT o Northbound -30 mph Fs -574 ADT ti°,p~ r~ W J w 5/17-19/10 Southbound ~ -34 -mph -272 -ADT 0 Northbound ~ -35 mph ~ 5/10-12/10 Southbound -39 -mph -276 -ADT Northbound -41mph -464 ADT W a ~I--~IRGreen Nora-f!/lotorized Pi9ot Prograara June, z zolo ~/I~ City of Richfield ®i3,4 FT ,~.___....___ _. __ ___..__.._.._._. _.~ Traffic Count Summary _ _ .~a Humbolt Ave i Girard Ave Time 73rd St - ---- - 75th St 70th St - 71th St -- L 67th St - 68th St - _ 66th St - 67th St 65th St - 66th St 12:00 AM 1 4 S 1 2 1:00 AM 1 1 r 1 - 0 --- 1 - - 2:00 AM 1 - 1 1 0 - 1 3:00 AM -; -_ _- 4:00 AM 15 - 1 0 1 1 ~ 5:00 AM `- 14 - 6 2 - - 1 - 1 - 6:00 AM 13 7 2 3 - 5 __ 7:00 AM . 19 - -- 31 ,_ 12 10 11 8:00 AM 19 15 13 6 13 9:00 AM . 25 14 15 4 10 - , --- 10:00 AM 17 _ _ 22 7 2 24 11:00 AM 34 18 18 3 - - 19 12:00 PM 41 - 19 _ 13 , 3 23 1:00 PM 56 23 21 6 28 2:00 PM 68 _-29 _~ 39 6 31 3:00 PM 64 26 31 8 25 4:00 PM 35 35 37 19 23 5:00 PM 33 51 42 13 27 6:00 PM 21 35 40 _ 9 15 7:00 PM 16 36 23 - 10 -~- 11 -- _ 8:00 PM - - 8 22 27 6 17 9:00 PM 5 18 18 9 13 2 10:OOPM 10 12_ _3 6 _ _ 11:00 PM 1 _ 7 5 ~ 2 6 Speeds > 35MPH Summary ___ Humbolt Ave -- -I'- Girard Ave --_ Time - 73rd St - 75th St i 70th St - 71th St 67th St - 68th St 66th St - 67th St _ 65th St - 66th St 12:OOAM. 0 1:00 AM 0 1 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 _ 0_ 2:00 AM 1 ~ 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 10 0 0 _ 0 0 5:00 AM 6 1 0 _ 0 _ 0 6:00 AM 9 2 0 0 0 _ 7:00 AM 12 6 1 1 1 8:00 AM 9 _ 2 0 _ 0_ 1 9:00 AM 13 3 1 0 0 _ _ 10:00 AM 10 _ 5 _ 0 ~ 0 1 11:00 AM 17 12:00 PM 19 _ 3 1 0 1 _ 1 0 ~_ 2 1 1:00 PM 31 - _ 2:00 PM 38 -- - 3 3 _ 1 2 -.. -- 0 1 1 1 - 3:00 PM 31 2 1 2 0 4:00 PM 21 5 2 _ 0 -- 0 5:00 PM 17 7 _ 1 1 0 _ 6:00 PM 12 5 _ 2 _0 0 7:00 PM 9 ~ 5 1 0 _ 0 _ 8:00 PM 4 _ 3 1 0 0 :00 PM 3 9 3 1 _ 0 0 _ 10:00 PM 2 r 1 0 1 0 - - 11:00 PM 1 rt 3 0 0 , 0 \\hrgspnas\data\20100008.01\Design\Traffic\Counts\calc-2010.06.02-Count_Speed_Analysis.xlsx ~IRGreen MEMO ~~~ Crash Rates - City of RichfieOd Nora®6~otorized Pilot Pro~rarn Project W 66t" St & Logan Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 1 # of C crashes: 3 # of PD crashes: 7 Total # of crashes: 11 Intersection ADT: 25400 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.24 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.70 Severity Rate: 0.35 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 1.0 W 66t" St ~ Girard Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 0 # of C crashes: 2 # of PD crashes: 3 Total # of crashes: 5 Intersection ADT: 25000 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.11 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.20 Severity Rate: 0.15 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 0.31 Key: F =Fatal A =Incapacitating B =Non-Incapacitating C =Possible PD =Property Damage Crash Rate: (# of crashes)(1 million) (# of years)(ADT)(365) Severity Rate: [5(F)+4(A)+3(B)+2(A)+1(PD~] (1 million) (# of years)(ADT)(365) E 66t" St & Bloomington Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 2 # of C crashes: 4 # of PD crashes: 9 Total # of crashes: 15 Intersection ADT: 14550 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.56 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.70 Severity Rate: 0.87 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 1.0 E 73~d St & Portland Ave S. # of F crashes: 0 # of A crashes: 0 # of B crashes: 3 (1 left turn, 2 right angle) # of C crashes: 5 (2 rear end, 3 right angle) # of PD crashes: 8 Total # of crashes: 16 Intersection ADT: 11650 # of years: 5 Crash Rate: 0.75 Metro Avg Crash Rate: 0.20 Cratucal Crash Rate: ®.f7 Severity Rate: '9.27 Metro Avg. Severity Rate: 0.31 r "('lc,~ ell~~ ~ ~ ~I ~, _ ~'<r~ ~ ~.Y `~_ ~~ ~I ~{ i ~` CtL1 `~s ~ ~ '~ ~'CLL k ~' KYLE ®ULEVAR® CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager July 22, 2010 Council Memorandum No. 112 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: N.O.I.S.E. Membership Renewal (Agenda Item No. 9) Council Members: The City has received an invoice for annual membership to the National Organization to Insure ASound-controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.). The annual membership dues for Richfield are $1-,155, an amount that has not changed in several years. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether it wants to continue its membership with this national organization: The primary purpose of N.O.I.S.E. is to advocate at the national level - to both Congress and the FAA - on behalf of locally elected officials. In the past couple of years we really have not used N.O.I.S.E. resources, the quality of the most recent conferences have not been as valuable as in past years and, in terms of our desire to reduce budget expenditures for 2011, the membership dues represent a sizeable amount of money. Incidentally, the City of Eagan has notified us that they have discontinued membership in N.O.I.S.E. for generally the reasons stated in the prior paragraph. I-will be asking for Council direction during the City Manager's report on the meeting of July 27, 2010. SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Assistant to the City Manager