022211completeagendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2011
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:15 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Update regarding Richfield Municipal Center (Council Memo No. 16)
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
ofhers. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items ~nof on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to fhe meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of February 8, 2011; (2) Special
City Council Worksession of February 8, 2011; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of
February 8, 2011 `
PRESENTATION
1. Presentation by Keith Ellison, U.S. Representative 5th Congressional District
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
2. Council discussion
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is
necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the
Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action.
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to City
Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 2 describing
vacation leave accrual and scheduling second reading for March 8, 2011 S.R. No.
41
B. Consideration of approval of resolution modifying Health Care Savings Plan for
eligible General Services employees S.R. No. 42
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield Fire Department
acceptance of five miscellaneous grant donations totaling $500 received from City
residents and organizations during 2010 used to defray cost of fire and life safety
educational programs S.R. No. 43
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing agreement with MN Department
of Public Safety through Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for replacing present
Intoxilyzer 5000 with new breath test instrument that will transmit directly to BCA
S.R. No. 44
Notes:
5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing use of funds for 2011 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program
Staff Report No. 45
Notes:
7. Public hearing regarding resolution amending Richfield Comprehensive Plan
designating 7 East 70th Street, 6941 Nicollet Avenue, 6944 Nicollet Avenue, 6945
Nicollet Avenue, 6949 Nicollet Avenue, 7001 Nicollet Avenue, 7005 Nicollet Avenue and
6800 Penn Avenue as community commercial and 6901 Penn Avenue as medium-high
density residential
Staff Report No. 46
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
8. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Section
1105 adding new subsection related to criminal background checks on certain license
applicants
Staff Report No. 47
Notes:
9. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1
changing zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue from MR-1 (Two-Family
Residential) and MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) respectively, to C-2 (General
Commercial) to bring properties into conformance with Richfield Comprehensive Plan
Staff Report No. 48
Notes:
10. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsection
544.13 related to minimum parking requirements for Class IV (take-out only) restaurants
Staff Report No. 49
Notes:
RESOLUTION
11. Consideration of resolution authorizing amendment to final development plan and
conditional use permit for planned unit development at 7610, 7630 and 7644 Lyndale
Avenue (Kensington Park) allowing additional restaurant space for take-out only facility
Staff Report No. 50
Notes:
CITY IUTANAGER'S REPORT
12. City Manager's report
Notes:
13. 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:
14.Adjoumment
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.
J
Special City Council Meeting
Advisory Board/Commission
Applicant Interview
February 8, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:43 p.m.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and
Tom Fitzhenry.
INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS
The City Council conducted interviews of the following applicants for appointment to City
Advisory Boards and Commissions:
Todd Chase
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:12 p.m.
Date Approved: February 22, 2011
Cheryl Krumholz
Recording Secretary
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
~ Richfield, Minnesota
Special Worksession
February 8, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; Sue Sandahl; and Tom
Present: Fitzhenry.
Staff Present:: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director/Chief; Betsy Osborn, Health
Administrator; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk.
Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE LICENSING IN
RESIDENTIAL SETTINGS (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 13)
Health Administrator Betsy Osborn introduced Council Memo No. 13.
Cathy Jones and Diane Krueger, massage therapists, explained testing and certification for
massage therapist.
The Council agreed with many of the changes addressed in the memo. .
Council directed staff to come back to Council with more information and to schedule another
work session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m.
Date Approved: February 22, 2011
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Nancy Gibbs
City Clerk
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
February 8, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
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; John Stark, Community
Development Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Betsy Osborn,
Health Administrator; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director/Chief; Corrine
Heine, City Attorney; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk.
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 Meeting of
January 25. 2011; (2) Special City Council Worksession of January 25, 2011; and (3) Regular City
Council Meeting of January 25. 2011.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Meeting Minutes -2- February 8, 2011
Item #1 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR FINANCIAL
REPORT TO CITY OF RICHFIELD FINANCE MANAGER CHRIS REGIS
Mayor Goettel presented Finance Manager Regis with a Certificate of Achievement.
Council Member Wroge thanked Chris for his honesty and integrity.
Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Elliott reminded residents to attend the Bike Task Force meeting on
Wednesday, Feburary 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Richfield High School.
Council Member Elliott wanted residents to know that O'Neil Hampton (of the Biggest Loser)
is having a Health and Wellness fundraiser at the Officers Club on February 24.
Council Member Fitzhenry thanked the people and staff that attended and helped at the 66~'
Street project on January 31.
Mayor Goettel reported that she had met with Dr. Slotterback, superintendent of Richfield
School District #280. Dr. Slotterback shared with Mayor Goettel about a new program that will be
offered this summer. The program will be seven weeks of whole day sessions addressing math,
science, reading and specialty programs. Mayor Goettel invited Dr. Slotterback to a future City
Council meeting.
Mayor Goettel presented a video regarding the SHIP, Statewide Health Improvement
Program.
Mayor Goettel thanked everyone from Richfield, Bloomington and Edina for their
participation and support with the SHIP program.
Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item #4D was removed from the agenda.
M/Wroge, S/Elliott to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding from
Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and scheduling public hearing and
second reading for March 8, 2011 S.R. No. 26
Council Meeting Minutes -3- February S, 2011
B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code
Appendix 1 changing zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue from MR-1
(Two-Family Residential) and MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) respectively, to C-2 (General
Commercial) to bring properties into conformance with Richfield Comprehensive Plan S.R.
No. 27
C. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code
Section 1105 adding new subsection related to criminal background checks on certain
license applicants and scheduling second reading for February 22, 2011 S.R. No. 28
D. Removed from agenda.
E. Consideration of approval of 2011 contract with City of Bloomington using federal grant
funds for public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism services and development of
response system S.R. No. 30
F. Consideration of approval of continuation of agreement with City of Bloomington for
provision of public health services for City of Richfield for 2011 S.R. No. 31
G. Consideration of approval of hiring Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. for engineering services for
repair and reconditioning of Logan Avenue water tower for fee not to exceed $69,600
without further written staff authorization; authorizing staff to approve changes totaling up to
$15,000 without further City Council authorization; and resolution for reimbursement of
certain expenditures from proceeds of bonds to be issued by City for this project S.R. No.
32
Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate
net effect of $23,962 in items included in project budget S.R. No. 33
M/Goettel, SNVroge to approve the Consent Calendar as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD
CITY CODE SUBSECTION 544.13 RELATED TO MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS IV (TAKE-OUT ONLY) RESTAURANTS (STAFF
REPORT NO. 34)
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 34.
S/Sandahl
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY
PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE (STAFF REPORT NO. 35)
Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 8, 2011
Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 35.
Council Member Wroge stated he had concerns about more paper for staff. Hospitals he
spoke to would not honor this certificate. He also stated that he did not think it was for the City
Council to make a decision but should go to the state legislature.
Council Member Fitzhenry stated that he agreed with Council Member Wroge. He also
stated he would rather see this passed by resolution not ordinance.
M/Elliott, S/Goettel that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2011-3 establishing a
Domestic Partnership Registration and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance.
Motion carried 3-2. (Wroge, Fitzhenry opposed.)
Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE
SECTION 310.39, SUBD. 6, BEREAVEMENT LEAVE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES,
TO INCLUDE REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERS (STAFF REPORT NO. 36)
Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 36.
Council Member Fitzhenry stated he is only supporting this because the Domestic
Registration ordinance just passed.
Council Member Wroge agreed with Council Member Fitzhenry and also voiced financial
concern with this amendment.
M/Sandahl, S/Elliott that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2011-4 amending
City Code Section 310.39 Subd. 6 Bereavement Leave for City employees, to include registered
domestic partners.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY
CODE SUBSECTION 305.05, SUBD. 3 REDUCING MEMBERSHIP OF PLANNING
COMMISSION FROM NINE TO SEVEN MEMBERS (STAFF REPORT N0.37)
Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 37.
Mayor Goettel stated she prefers a larger commission because it allows more participation.
Council Member Sandahl agreed with Mayor Goettel.
M/Fitzhenry, S/VVroge that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2011-5 amending
City Code Subsection 305.05 Subd. 3 reducing membership of Planning Commission from nine to
seven members.
Motion carried 3-2. (Goettel, Sandahl opposed.)
Council Meeting Minutes -5- February 8, 2011
Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF PLANS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WEST CONNECTION BICYCLE ROUTE AND EAST
CONNECTION BICYCLE ROUTE AS RECOMMENDED BY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (STAFF REPORT NO. 38)
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 38.
Transportation Engineer Pearson explained the time line of the project.
M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to authorize advertisement for bids for construction of West
Connection Bicycle Route and East Connection Bicycle Route as recommended by Transportation
Commission.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #11 CONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SINCLAIR MARKETING
OF MINNESOTA, INC. FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKING AT 6600 PORTLAND
AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $405,000 AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH KENNEDY AND GRAVEN, CHARTERED IN
AMOUNT OF $190,000 (STAFF REPORT NO. 39)
Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 39.
MNUroge, S/Goettel to approve the settlement agreement with Sinclair Marketing of
Minnesota Inc. for right-of-way taking at 6600 Portland Avenue in the amount of $405,000 and full
and final release settlement agreement with Kennedy and Graven, Chartered in amount of
190 000.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
(STAFF REPORT NO. 40)
Todd Chase was appointed to the Human Rights Commission.
M/Sandahl, SlGoettel to appoint Todd Chase to the Human Rights Commission with a term
expiration of January 31, 2013.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #13 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Devich reported that staff is putting final touches on a show about the
Richfield STEM school program. He also reported on his program called City 101, a short video
' production regarding various topics related to the city which can be viewed on the city's website.
His most current programs are on Municipal Bonds and Tax Capacity.
Council Meeting Minutes • - ~ ~ ° -6- February 8, 2011
Item #14 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Goettel, SNVroge that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 2/8/2011
A/P Checks: 200997-201368 $ 1,032,976.46
Payroll: 72807-73128 41835 $ 498,818.65
TOTAL $ 1,531,795.11
Motion carved 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:16 p.m.
Date Approved: February 22, 2011
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Nancy Gibbs
City Clerk
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # ' 41
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIltEC'I`OR
REVIEW: ~
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
7ESSE SWENSON
HR COORDINATOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading consideration of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III,
Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance
amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection
310.33, Subdivision 2, describing vacation leave accrual and schedule
the second reading for March 8, 2011. -
III. BACKGROUND
In 2010, four of the five unions (Police Supervisors, 911 Dispatchers, Police, and
Fire) negotiated for another day of vacation leave to their respective contracts for
employees with 30 or more years of continuous employment. This change will be
negotiated in the 2011 Labor & Trades contract. Under can-ent City Administrative
Code, Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, Subd. 2, employees accrue hours per pay
period for vacation leave based on years of service. As a result, a change is being
recommended to Administrative Code, Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, Subd. 2.
The change would add an additional level of accrual for employees with more than
30 years of continuous employment and prorated for part-time employees based on
hours worked per payroll period.
This change would affect employees included in the General Services and
Management Pay Plans who are not represented by a Union. The amendment is
requested so that the City of Richfield's benefit package.remains competitive with
0211 Vacatlon Leave
~ xa,~ zrTZE
those of other Stanton V cities and to balance the benefits of the City's non-union
employees with those represented by collective bargaining agreements.
In summary, the proposed ordinance changes to Section 310.33, Subdivision 2,
Vacation Leave, are as follows:
Subd. 2, (f) from the beginning of the twrenty-sixth
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
• The proposed modification to Subsection 310.33, Vacation.,Leave,
aids in balancing some of the benefits offered to non-union City
employees. In practice, those benefits offered to Union employees
should not exceed the benefits offered to employees not represented
by unions. Of additional consideration is the fact that the majority of
employees represented by collective bargaining agreements are
males while. non-union employees are primarily female
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to meet publishing requirements for the second reading of an
ordinance amendment, it is recommended that the second reading be
scheduled for March 8, 2011. ,
C. FINANCIAL
• By amending Section 310.33, Management and General Services
employees with 30 or more years of continuous service would receive
an additional day of vacation leave per-year.
• This benefit increase would affect nine Management and General
Services employees.
D. LEGAL
• In order to provide the requested vacation leave accrual rate increase,
the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel
ordinance.
• Do not amend the ordinance.
• Defer discussion to another date.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
e
~ VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
• None.
continuous employment each employee shall earn vacation at the rate of 7.08 hours
per biweekly pay period (23 days per year).
y~ ~ 1
BILL NO.
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 310.33
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OFRICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 2 of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield entitled "Vacation leave" is hereby amended:
Subd. 2, (f) from the beginning of the twenty-sixth year
and through the twenty-ninth year of continuous
employment each employee shall eam vacation at the rate of 7.08 hours per biweekly pay
period (23 days per year).
(q) from the be ig nning of the thirtieth year of continuous employment, throughout
the duration of employment each employee shall eam vacation at the rate of 7.38 hours
per biweeklypa~period (24 days per year).
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
_ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4B
REPORT # 42
_.
--
l;
r
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY: JESSE SWENSON,
HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CrrY MANAGER:
r
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution modifying a Health Care Savings Plan for General Services
Employees.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution modifying a Health Care Savings Plan
for eligible General Services emplo ees.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2001, the Minnesota legislature granted authority to the Minnesota State
Retirement System (MSRS) to offer a post employment health care savings plan to
eligible employees of the State of Minnesota and other governmental subdivisions.
MSRS was authorized to administer these plans after they were adopted by
governmental subdivisions throughout the state.
A post employment health care savings plan is an employer-sponsored program
that_allows employees to save money to pay medical expenses and/or health
insurance premiums after termination of employment. Employees are able to
choose among different investment options provided by the State Board of
Investment. Assefis contributed into the program are tax-free, accumulate tax free,
and if used for medical expenses, remain tax-free.
Legal authority to establish such plans is provided through Minn. Stat. 352.98 and
Internal Revenue Service rulings. The establishment of each plan, including
contribution formulae must be negotiated where dealing with a collective bargaining
0822HCSP
unit or personnel policy where non-union employees are involved. Once
established the plan must be filed with MSRS to initiate the program.
Participation for each individual employee within a bargaining or employee group is
mandatory once the plan is established for that respective group. Moreover, the
amounts contributed for or by each employee in a particular group must be the
same for every employee of the group. Contributed amounts between employee
groups will vary however.
A Health Care Savings Plan was established by the City Council for the General
Services employee group on October 14, 2003. The General Services group has
now agreed upon a modified plan that increases the mandatory bi-weekly employee
payroll contribution and also severance contributions to the plan.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The state statutes have been amended to provide the opportunity for a
. very valuable benefit to City employees. The City of Richfield is
pursuing this benefit with employee groups that are interested in such
a mandatory plan.
• Approval by the City Council of the attached resolution will provide the
City authority to proceed with this modified program for General
Services employees not represented by a collective bargaining unit.
B. CRITICAL TIlVIlNG ISSUES
• There is no time critical issue pertaining to the implementation of this
plan. However, the majority of General Services employees have
expressed a desire to implement the modified program, so it should be
pursued at our earliest opportunity.
• After City approval, this plan must be submitted to MSRS for filing and
implementation.
C. FINANCIAL
• _ There is no cost to -the City in this version of the plan since the City
makes no contribution. In fact, there is a cost savings to the City in
that wages and severance pay that the employee contributes to the
- Health Care Savings plan are not subject to Social Security or
Medicare contributions.
• The plan provides a great tax savings to the participating employees
and provides a tax mechanism to fund post employment medical
costs.
D. LEGAL
• There is legal authority for this plan in Minnesota Statutes and IRS
Code.
The plan modification has been sent to the State for review and has
received informal approval.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could decide not to approve this plan change. If the City
Council chooses to do so, the can-ent plan would remain in effect.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
• Health Care Savings Plan
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~~-i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A POST EMPLOYMENT
HEALTH CARE SAVINGS PLAN -FOR GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, Laws of Minnesota 2001, chapter 352.98, authorizes the Minnesota
State Retirement System (MSRS) to offer a Post Employment Health Care Savings Plan
(Plan) program to state employees, as well as, other governmental subdivisions, and
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service Code provides for such Plans, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is interested in offering the Plan to eligible City
employees as a tax free method for employees to set aside money to cover the ever
increasing costs of health insurance and medical costs after termination of public
employment, and
WHEREAS, such plans must be established by employee group, either through a
collective bargaining agreement for union employees or a personnel .policy for employees
not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and
WHEREAS, the provisions of a Plan have been agreed to by the General Services
group of City employees and the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, the proposed plan is a net savings to the City of Richfield
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield hereby authorizes the City Manager to establish a health Care Savings Plan for
the General Services group of employees in the City of Richfield.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22"d day of
February, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~i 1J ~~
-.Policy: General Services Post Employment Health Care
Savings Plan
Approved by: Richfield City Council on February 22, 2011.
Effective Date: March 1, 2011
Paae: 1 of 2
Plan Purpose The City of Richfield is interested in establishing a means for eligible
employees to participate in a mandatory program to help defray some of
the costs of post employment health related expenses, including health
insurance premiums using pre-tax dollars. Participation in the Post
Employment Health Care Savings Plan, administered by the Minnesota
State Retirement System (MSRS), is intended to provide an opportunity
to accomplish that goal.
Post Employment The Post Employment Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) is an
Health Care Employer sponsored program that allows eligible employees to:
Savings Plan 1) defer payment of a portion of unused vacation and personal leave as
a severance payment at the time of termination to pay for eligible
- health insurance premiums and/or health expenses after separation
from City service: and _
2) defer a portion of an Employee's biweekly salary for deposit into their
HCSP for the payment of qualified healthcare related expenses after
separation from City service.
Employees will be able to choose among several different investment
options provided by the Minnesota State Board of Investment. Under
the Plan, amounts contributed into the HCSP are tax-free and not
subject to FICA contributions. Assets in the HCSP will accumulate tax-
free and since payouts are used for qualifying medical expenses, they
will also remain tax-free.
Eligibility to Participation in the General Services HCSP is mandatory for all
Participate employees that meet the following requirements:
1. The Employee must be a member of the Richfield General Services
Pay Classification Plan at the time of termination of employment, and
2. The Employee must have been continuously employed by the City of
Richfield for at least 3 consecutive years. ~ -
Contribution Mandatory participation in the HCSP shall be in accordance with,
Formula and limited to the following formulas for contributions:
I. Biweekly Contribution
1. An eligible Employee with more than 3 but less than 5 years of
service must contribute 1.0% of their base biweekly wage to the
Employee's account in the General Services HCSP. Such
yQ-3
contributions shall not be based upon more than 40 hours ~p~er
week.
2. An eligible Employee with more than 5 but less than 15 years of
service must contribute 1.25% of their base biweekly wage to the
Employee's account in the General Services HCSP. Such
contributions shall not be based upon more than 40 hours per
week.
3. An eligible Employee with more than 15 but less than 20 years of
service must contribute 1.75% of their base biweekly wage to the
Employee's account in the General Services HCSP. Such
contributions shall not be based upon more than 40 hours per
week.
4. An eligible Employee with more than 20 but less than 25 years of
service must contribute 2.0% of their base biweekly wage to the
Employee's account in the General Services HCSP. Such
contributions shall not be based upon more than 40 hours per
week.
5. An eligible Employee with more than 25 years of service must
contribute 2.25% of their base biweekly wage to the Employee's
account in the General Services HCSP. Such contributions shall
not be based upon more than 40 hours per week.
II. Severance Contribution
1. An eligible Employee with more than 3 but less than 20 years of
service will receive in severance a cash payment for the first 40
hours of accumulated but unused Vacation Leave. Severance
based on accumulated but,unused Vacation Leave in excess of
40 hours shall be paid as a credit to the Employee's account in the
_ HCSP.
2. An eligible Employee with more than 20 years of service will
receive in severance a cash payment for the first 80 hours of
accumulated but unused Personal Leave and 40 hours of
accumulated but unused Vacation Leave. Severance based on
accumulated but unused Personal Leave in excess of 80 hours
and Vacation Leave in excess of 40 hours shall be paid as a
credit to the Employee's account in the HCSP.
3. All severance payments based upon Personal Leave and
Vacation Leave are calculated as described above, by multiplying
the number of hours by the applicable rate of pay at the time of
termination.
4. Contributions authorized under this Plan shall continue until such
time as this policy is amended or repealed by the City of Richfield.
HCSP The HCSP is authorized under the Internal Revenue Code and is
Administration administered by the Minnesota State Retirement System.
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4C
REPORT # 43
~--~!
STAFF REPORT
~' ~~~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM -FIRE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NaME TMzE
DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution accepting five miscellaneous grant donations in the total amount
of $500 received from city residents during the year 2010. These donations are used to defray
the cost of Fire and Life Safety'educational programs conducted by the Fire Department.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Consideration of a resolution accepting five
miscellaneous grant donations in the total amount of $500 received
from residents and organizations during the year 2010. These
donations are used to defray the cost of Fire and Life Safety
educational programs conducted by the Fire Department.
Acceptance of this donation is in accordance with Minnesota State
Statute 465.03.
II. BACKGROUND
Throughout the year the Fire Department receives donations from citizens and
organizations as an expression of their appreciation. Several of these donations
were through the Residential Mortgage Group "Refer a Friend, Build Your
Community" program. These donations are often from new residents purchasing a
house in Richfield. Other donations are from citizens who have lived here for
several years.
0222FIre
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires all donations to be accepted
by resolution of the City Council and adopted by two-thirds majority of
its members.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• This donation aids in reducing the expenditure for Fire operations from
the general fund.
C. FINANCIAL
• There are no financial costs associated with the acceptance of the
grant donation.
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires all donations to be accepted
by resolution of the City Council and adopted by atwo-thirds majority
vote of its members.
E. ENVIltONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS '
• None
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES ExPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
4c-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF FIVE (5) MISCELLANEOUS
DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENTS AND
TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows:
Any city, county school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real
or personal properly and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance
with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or
use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the
council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received five (5) donation from Richfield
citizens, in the year 2010, in the total amount of $500 which is used to offset the cost of
Fire and Life Safety educational programs.
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 accepts the five (5) donation
from Richfield citizens, in the year 2010, in the total amount of $500 and authorizes the
City to administer the funds in accordance with the grant agreements and terms prescribed
by the donors.
f
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
February, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
R$PORT # 44
~,, STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MICHAEL FLAHERTY, POLICE
LIEUTENANT
NAME, T LE q
a __,~l ~,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider for approval an agreement with the MN Department of Public Safety through the
BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) for replacing the present Intoxilyzer with a new breath
test instrument.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to accept an agreement
with the MN Department of Public Safety through the BCA for
replacing present Intoxilyzer 5000 with a new breath test instrument
that will transmit directly to BCA.
II. BACKGROUND
Richfield Police has been informed that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)
will be replacing the current breath test instrument with a new instrument, the
DataMaster DMT-G.
The new instrument allows breath tests to be transmitted directly to the BCA via a
secure network and allow the BCA to monitor and send updates from a central
location. In the near future, the test results and data entry information will be
available for automatically populating portions of eCharging administrative DWI
forms.
0222 Resolution to Approve Intoxilyzer Agreement with BCA
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The BCA is required to have alend/lease agreement in place with all
of their criminal justice partners who utilize their equipment.
B. CRITICAL TIlVIING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no cost to the City for this equipment.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
N. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Since all of our information is connected with the BCA, this agreement-is-
necessary for our law enforcement activities.
V. ATTACHMEN'PS
• Resolution No.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~o-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MN DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY/BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION AND THE RICHFIELD
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT/POLICE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE
INTOXILYZER 5000 WITH A DATAMASTER DMT-G
WHEREAS, the current breath test instrument, Intoxilyzer 5000, is being replaced
by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police, must be connected to the BCA for the
analyzing of data that is currently obtained by the use of the Intoxilyzer 5000; and,
WHEREAS, the new equipment, the DataMaster DMT-G, is the replacement
instrument that must be used in place of the Intoxilyzer 5000; and,
WHEREAS, the BCA must have alend/lease agreement in place with all of their
criminal justice partners who utilize their equipment, including Richfield Police; and,
WHEREAS, permission to sign the agreement is hereby requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that permission is granted to Richfield Police, to approve the agreement by the signing of
the document by the Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police, who is designated to
approve and sign this and any documents relating to this agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd date of
February, 2011.
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
- CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
6
45
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JULIE URBAN, HOUSING SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATC/RE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution specifying the use of funds from the
Communi Development Block Grant allocation for 2011.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
attached resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2011 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and
authorizing execution of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin
County and any required third party agreements.
II. BACKGROUND
Under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, Hennepin
County (County) is awarded funding on a formula basis from the federal Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Richfield is allocated a portion of these
funds to address local needs relating to affordable housing, community
development and public services. An application for Richfield's proposed use of its
allocation is due to the County by February 24, 2011.
Richfield's estimated 2011 allocation is $212,857; however, this amount may
change when Hennepin County receives notice of its final allocation. The chart
below summarizes the recommended use of Richfield's 2011 allocation:
02222011 - CDBG.doc
Project Total Recommendation
1. Public Service
a. H.O.M.E. (Senior Community Services $ 19,128
b. HOME Line $ 6,400
c. CAPSH $ 6,400
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICE $ 31,928 .
2. HRA Scattered Site Ac uisition and Demolition $180,929
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $212,857
The City can use up to 15 percent ($31,928) of its CDBG allocation to fund eligible
public services. The following service organizations have requested funds totaling
$31,928:
Household Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.)
H.O.M.E. provides household maintenance and chore services for residents
who are 60 years old or older or are disabled, with the goal of helping people
stay in their homes. Clients are asked to pay for services~based on a sliding
fee scale.
-• HOME Line
HOME Line offers a Tenant Hotline that provides information and advice on
tenant/landlord law and court procedures, maintenance/repair issues,
management responsibilities, and tenant rights in the event of foreclosure. A
.Renter Education Program- presents information on the rights and
responsibilities of being a renter to high school students.
• Community Action Partnership for Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH)
CAPSH provides foreclosure prevention counseling and loan assistance,
first-time homebuyer education and counseling, financial literacy and budget
counseling, reverse mortgage counseling, and home rehab and maintenance
counseling and education.
The remaining funds are proposed to be allocated to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for the acquisition of property to be developed for
future affordable single-family housing.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The allocation of federal CDBG funds is an annual activity.
• At least 70 percent of CDBG expenditures must be used for activities
benefiting very low and low income persons.
• Applications for the public service portion of the funding were
distributed.to eligible public service agencies. Funds were divided
amongst the agencies requesting funding.
B. CRITICAL TYMING ISSUES
• The application for funds is due to Hennepin County by February 24,
2011.
A local public hearing must be held prior to submission of the
application.
Third party agreements are prepared annually with each of the public
service agencies.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation for
Richfield in 2011 is estimated to be $212,857. This is a preliminary
figure provided by Hennepin County based on last year's allocation
and is subject to change upon receipt.
• In the event of a change in the final allocation, the amount of funds
allocated to each activity will be increased or decreased.
D. LEGAL
• A notice of the public hearing was published on February 10, 2011 in
the Sun Cun-ent.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still meets
funding guidelines.
V. ATTACIEVIENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representatives from HOME Line, H.O.M.E. and CAPSH
~-i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2011 URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, 'is participating in the Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has developed a proposal for the use of 2011
CDBG funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on February 22, 2011 to obtain the views
of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development
needs and priorities for the City's proposed use of $212,857 from the 2011 Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. Approves the following projects for funding from the 2011 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal
of the proposal to Hennepin County.
Activi Budget
1. Public Service
a. H.O.M.E. (Senior Community
Services) $ 19,128
b. HOME Line $ 6,400
c. CAPSH $ 6,400
TOTAL $ 31,928
2. Scattered Site Acquisition and
Demolition $ 180,929
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $ 212,857
2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the
Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party
Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2011 CDBG Program.
3. That should the final amount of FY 2011 CDBG available to the City be differen#
from the preliminary amount provided to the City, the City Council hereby
authorizes the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an
increase or decrease in funding.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
February, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
7
46
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY r
MANAGER: L~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating properties near the
intersection of 70th Street and Nicollet Avenue and 6800 Penn Avenue as Community
Commercial, and 6901 Penn Avenue as Medium-High Densi Residential.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve an
amendment to the Richfield Comprehensive Plan designating 7 Last
70th Street, 6941 _Nicollet Avenue, 6944 Nicollet Avenue, 6945 Nicollet
Avenue, 6949 Nicollet Avenue, 7001 Nicollet Avenue, 7005 Nicollet
Avenue and 6800 Penn Avenue as Community Commercial; and 6901
Penn Avenue as Medium-High Density Residential.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan on June 23, 2009. As
required by State Statute, the City has been in the process of amending the Zoning
Code so as to not conflict with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In the course of
this process, certain properties were identified in which staff, property owners
and/or policy makers felt that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be
more appropriate than a change in zoning.
The first of these instances is the area around 70th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
This intersection is currently a small commercial node. Uses include a dental office,
small retail shop, chiropractic office and realtor office, as well as a small
022211 - 70th Nicollet, Penn Comp Plan Amendments
MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
commercial/residential building. In 2004 the City rezoned aSingle-Family (R)
District property to the Service Office (SO) District in order to allow an additional
low-intensity commercial business (Cornerstone Realty - 6941 Nicollet Avenue).
Staff believes that it was an oversight that the Comprehensive Plan designation of
this property was not also changed at that time. Further, it seems that this action
was a confirmation of the Community's support of continued commercial use at this
corner and that the designation of all properties at the intersection should have
been reconsidered at that time. As the 2008 Comprehensive Plan was considered
to be an update of the existing Plan, rather than an overhaul, this area was not
specifically focused upon and this inconsistency was missed.
The property located at 6800 Penn Avenue is the current location of Salon Junallo.
Upon closer examination of this area, the Council has found that continued
commercial use at this location is appropriate.
Finally, the multi-family building located at 6901 Penn Avenue is designated as Low
Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and
City Council agree that lowering density in a location where it currently exists and is
accepted/integrated into the neighborhood is unwise. The proposed amendment
will designate this property as Medium-High Density Residential which allows
between 12 and 24 units per acre. The existing density of the project is
approximately 20 units per acre. A public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission to consider this item (and the above-listed changes); however, the
proposed designation of this property was listed as Medium Density Residential,
rather than Medium-High Density. A second public hearing is being held before the
Council to ensure that the public has an opportunity to comment on this proposal.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Comprehensive Plan is a vision and guide to future land use
decisions in the City. Residents and policy makers have the most
decision-making discretion and authority at this level of the planning
process (as opposed to the time of individual land use application
submittal). This document is therefore of the utmost importance.
• The Zoning Code is one of the implementation tools used to effectuate
the vision and land use decisions described in the Comprehensive
Plan. Subsection 507.03 of the Zoning Code states as its foremost
purpose, "to assist in the implementation of the City's Comprehensive
Plan."
• MN § 473 requires that a city's comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance not conflict.
• The current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations of the
properties in question conflict and one or the other designation must
be amended.
• Failure to comply with Metropolitan Council requirements could impact
the City's ability to receive funding provided by the Council and/or
leave the City open to litigation to enforce State requirements.
Comprehensive Plan amendments must be approved by the
Metropolitan Council.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Following adoption of a comprehensive plan, cities have nine months
to amend ordinances so as to not conflict with the comprehensive
plan. The Metropolitan Council is aware that the City is in the process
of amending the necessary ordinances and/or considering
comprehensive plan amendments.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Notification of this public hearing was sent to all owners of properly to
be considered and property owners within 350 feet of the subject
properties.
• A public hearing was also held before the Planning Commission on
January 24, 2011. No members of the public spoke.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
amendments (6-0).
• If adopted, the proposed amendments will be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council for review.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
V. ATTACI-IlVIENTS
• Resolution
Planning & Zoning Maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Property owners in and around the subject area
~-i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF
7 EAST 70TH STREET, 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE, 6944 NICOLLET AVENUE,
6945 NICOLLET AVENUE, 6949 NICOLLET AVENUE, 7001 NICOLLET AVENUE,
7005 NICOLLET AVENUE AND 6800 PENN AVENUE AS "COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL"
AND 6901 PENN AVENUE AS "MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing
.particular planning needs for specific segments of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates 7 East 70th Street, 6941 Nicollet
Avenue, 6944 Nicollet Avenue, 6945 Nicollet Avenue, 6949 Nicollet Avenue, 7001 Nicollet
Avenue, 7005 Nicollet Avenue, 6800 Penn Avenue and 6901 Penn Avenue as "Single-
Family Residential"; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classification and determined
that it would be appropriate to designate 7 East 70th Street, 6941 Nicollet Avenue, 6944
Nicollet Avenue, 6945 Nicollet Avenue, 6949 Nicollet Avenue, 7001 Nicollet Avenue, 7005
Nicollet Avenue and 6800 Penn Avenue as "Community Commercial" and 6901 Penn
Avenue as "Medium-High Density Residential"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24,
2011 concerning modifying the Guide Plan and approved the modifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the
amendment on February 22, 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to designate 7 East
70th Street, 6941 Nicollet Avenue, 6944 Nicollet Avenue, 6945 Nicollet Avenue, 6949
Nicollet Avenue, 7001 Nicollet Avenue, 7005 Nicollet Avenue and 6800 Penn Avenue as
"Community Commercial" and 6901 Penn Avenue as "Medium-High Density Residential"
and is contingent upon the following:
1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
February 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1
~ ~ei~uapisad ~isua® ~6ib-wnipaW ~
~eioJauauao~ ~iunuauao~ ~ei~uapisad ~isua® uarnpaW
ash paxiW ~ei~uapisa~ R~isua® nnol
V
N
1069
--~
--
I
1S
m
z
z
m
10089
~~~
001' 1 51Z` 1 098
•sa~{ ~(~iwe~-l~InW Z°dW
~(e~aanp Jopuao~ uuad IM ~°f1W ~bd1~-nW ~ ~I!uae~-a~6uiS ~}isuaa-MOl L-2I
~eioJauawo~ IeJaua~ Z-~ ..: ~ei~uapisad ~(piuae~-a~6wS d
p~oq ui paui~~no
sai}~adoad ~~a~gnS
_, ___I
Iii
r~
L`.
SZb 5'ZlZ
1S H189
-,---
-~--'~
~\ _
- .
__
-~ ~--^ `~
-- ~
i
-- -I -
u>r~d anisuayaadwo~ pasodoad 6uiuoZ 6ui}six3
and uuad L069 ~ and uuad 0089
}aa~ ~
OOZ` 6
I
oggnd _ --J ~ei~aauawo~ ~iunuawo~ ~ -- - -,
Jed ..__~_ g91ny~ - ~~i~uapisa~ ~}isua® nno1
n
0
r
r,
m
~~
D
m'
9001
L
~~sd 6ara~~6~ay
600E
1S HlOL
6b69 bti69
9ti69 Z
1ti69 0
r
r
m
-~
m
ua~d anisua~aadu~o~ pasodoad
006 009 OOE 096 0
p~oq ui paui~}no
sai}~adoad }~a(gns
°sa~ ~(~iuae~-l~InW Z°2iW ~ __
~eioaauawo~ l~iunwuao~ ~-~ ~~ °sa~p ~(~iuAe~-oM16-2~W n ~ ~:"~:
ao0}p-aoiNaS ~ ~ei~uapisaa ~(~iwe~-al6uiS ~
z
n
0
r
r
m
L 9001 m Tad 6~ngsBny
601)1
1S H101
.~, -
f~- ~` ~"~ 669
~~
bti69
_ 9b69
bti69 ~
r
m
- ~ m
~
v :
V
N
6uiuoZ 6ui}six3
a~b~ ~ailo~~N'8 ~S 401
~~.
AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
AGENDA ITEM # 8
REPORT # 47
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CORRINE HEINE, CITY ATTORNEY
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Second reading and approval of an ordinance amendment requiring criminal background
checks for certain licenses.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a Second Reading and By Motion:
1. Approve an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Section
1105 by adding a new subsection related to criminal
background checks on certain license applicants.
II. BACKGROUND
The City has historically performed criminal background checks in connection
with applications for various licenses. The police department performs the
background checks through the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension database.
Under state law, local law enforcement agencies are authorized to have access
to the criminal history database only to perform duties required by law.
The BCA requires that any non-criminal background checks (e.g., for
employment or licensing purposes) must be expressly authorized by state law or
local ordinance. In the most recent BCA audit, the BCA noted that the City did
0222 Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment on Licenses Requiring Criminal Background
Checks
not have :an ordinance that authorizes criminal history background checks for
certain licenses.
The BCA may require the City to discontinue the use of its database for
background checks until an ordinance is adopted. If that occurs, the City can
have the BCA perform the background check, although there is a $15 charge and
a time delay to obtain the search.
First reading of the ordinance amendment occurred on February 8, 2011.
III. BASIS OF RECONIMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The BCA restricts the use of its da#abase for non-criminal purposes
to background checks that are performed by law enforcement
agencies pursuant to a state law or local ordinance.
• The Public Safety Department believes it is in the public's interest
to conduct criminal history background checks for the following
licensees: taxicab and taxi drivers; itinerant activities; pawnbrokers
and secondhand goods dealers; massage .therapy establishments .
and massage therapists; adult establishments; .and establishments
for tattoo, body piercing, body branding and body piercing.
B. CRITICAL TIlVIIrTG~ISSUES
• The Public Safety Department will not be able to perform
background checks on certain licenses, until the proposed
ordinance is adopted.
• Background checks can be performed by the BCA, although in
some cases that may result in a time delay.
C. FINANCIAL
• The BCA charges $15 for each background check that it performs.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney prepared the proposed ordinance.
E. ENVnzONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVVIEENDATION S
• None.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• None
g-1
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO CRIMINAL HISTORY
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR CERTAIN
CITY-ISSUED LICENSES; AMENDING SUBSECTION
1005.11 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 1005.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding
a subdivision as follows:
Subd. 1 a. Background investigation. The purpose and intent of
this subdivision is to establish regulations that will allow law
enforcement access to the state computerized criminal history database
for specified licensing background checks.
a. The Public Safety Department is required, as the exclusive entity.
within the city, to perform a criminal history background
investigation for the following licenses within the City, issued
pursuant to the chapters of this code as identified below.
License T e Code Cha ter
Li uor establishment 1202
Li uor server 1208
Taxicab 1170
Taxi driver 1175
Itinerant activi 1181
Secondhand goods
dealer 1186
Pawnbroker 1187
Massage therapy
enter rise 1188
Massa a theta ist 1188
Adult establishment 1196
Tattoo, body piercing,
body branding or body
aintin 630
b. In conducting criminal history background investigations under
this subdivision, the Public Safety Department is authorized to
access data maintained in the state Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension (BCA) computerized criminal history information
system in accordance with BCA policy. Any data that is
accessed and acquired must be maintained within the
department under the care and custody of the Public Safety
Director, or his or her designee. A summary of the results of the
computerized criminal history data may be released by the
Public Safety Department to the licensing authority, including the
~- a
City Council, the City Manager, or other City staff involved in the
license approval process.
c. An applicant must authorize the Public Safety Department by
prior written consent to undertake a criminal history background
investigation: The written consent must fully comply with the
provisions of applicable data privacy statutes regarding the
collection, maintenance and use of the information.
d. Except for the positions set forth in Minnesota Statutes section
364.09, the City will not reject an applicant for a license on the
basis of the applicant's prior conviction unless the crime is
directly related to the license sought and the conviction is for a
felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor with a jail sentence.
If the City rejects the applicant's request on this basis, the City
will notify the applicant in writing of the following:
1. The grounds and reasons for the denial.
2. The applicant complaint and grievance procedure set forth in
Minnesota Statutes section 364.06.
3. The earliest date the applicant may reapply for the license.
4. That all competent evidence of rehabilitation will be
considered upon reapplication.
Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
February, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~_
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
9
48
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POExLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME, Trrce
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
.$7GNA
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Second reading of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to change the
zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue from MR-1 (Two-Family Residential) and
MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) respectively, to C-2 (General Commercial). The proposed
ordinance amendment will bring the properties into conformance with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan.
I. RECOMIVIENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt an ordinance amending Richfield City Code
Appendix 1 to change the zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar
Avenue from MR-1 and MR-2 respectively. to C-2.
II. BACKGROUND
Minnesota State Statute (473.864, Subd. 2) requires that cities prepare and review
a comprehensive plan at least once every 10 years. The Richfield Comprehensive
Plan (Plan) was adopted by the City Council on June 23, 2009. It contains
information regarding the City's vision and provides specific recommendations for
future land use, housing, parks, utilities and transportation.
In addition to the requirement to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive
plan, State Law requires that cities amend zoning regulations to comply with that
plan. On November 23, 2010 the City Council approved the rezoning of
approximately 300 properties throughout the City in order to meet this requirement.
The. properties at 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue were inadvertently missed when
022211 - 2nd Reading 7410, 7420 Cedar Rezone
that large rezoning action came before the Council. 7410 Cedar Avenue is currently
a duplex and 7420 Cedar Avenue is a 10-unit apartment complex. These properties
are designated as "Office" in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment
changes the zoning designation of the properties from "Two-Family Residentialn
(7410 Cedar Avenue) and "Multi-Family Residential" (7420 Cedar Avenue) to
"General Commercial" in order to align with the "Office" designation. As is the case
with all nonconforming properties, the existing uses may continue as they are
indefinitely. -
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Subsection 507.03 of the Zoning Code states as its foremost purpose,
- "to assist in the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan."
• Current zoning regulations do not adequately regulate development to
be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. -
• MN §473 requires that cities amend their zoning ordinance so as to
not conflict with the comprehensive plan.
B. CRITICAL TIlVIING ISSUES
•• The Metropolitan Council is aware of the fact that Richfield is working
to comply~with State Law.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on
January 24, 2011. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun
Current newspaper and sent to all owners of property to be
considered for rezoning and property owners within 350 feet of the
subject properties. No members of the public spoke.
• A first reading was conducted on February 8, 2011.
• If approved, the ordinance will take effect 30 days following publication
in the Sun Current. -
- E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Direct staff to pursue a Comprehensive F
with State--L- aw.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• c~rainance
• Planning & Zoning Maps
an amendment in order to comply
~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES J/XPECTED AT MEETING ~
• Prooerty owners in and around the subiect area
~-i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING
APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY
REZONING 7410 AND 7420 CEDAR AVENUE FROM
TWO-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by
adding new paragraphs after paragraph (18), the new paragraphs to
read as follows, and by now renumbering all following paragraphs
accordingly.
(19) M-18 (Cedar Ave, S of 74t") Lot 2, Block 1, Bassett's First Addition.
(20) M-18 (Cedar Ave, N of 75t") The south 150 feet of that part of the
east 1/4 of the north 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, lying east of the west 153.15 feet
thereof.
Sec. 2. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing Section 11,
paragraph 38 and Section 12, paragraph 29.
Sec. 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield
City Charter.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ae3
~' 006 5L9
ao!}}p - p
!e!~uap!saH ~suaa u6!H - adH
aaH
133H1S H15L
0 un
as
0
o aaH aaH
0
aaH aH
~ o aaH H
v
~
~ OZti1 0 = a0H a H
D
0 m Li H
Z 0 C IiOH
C m yH
m OGtiL-804L
0 0 dOH
HH
0 0 F1aH H
133a1S H1bL
o daH aaH
0
o
a
0 o aaH
0
~e!oaeuauao~ !eaaua~ - Z-~
05b 5ZZ 5'Zll 0 !a!oaauauao~ pooyaogy6!aN - G-~
!e!}uap!saa /!!uae3-AInW - Z•SW
!e!~uap!saa 1(!!uaa3 onnl • l-SW
!e!~uap!sea ~(!!uae3 a!6u!g - y
e-aw
V
N
~ ' 33a1S H15L
z-o d
d
z-o
z-o a
z-o
b
n z'~ d
°y z-o =
~ ~03SOdOHd a D S
z'd~ m
z d c a
c m
m Z ~03SOdOd
4.dw a a
z-o ti a
133S1S H1ti1
w
d d
~ G~
a
z.o a b
b
d
d~
z.o
suoi~~u6isaa u~~d dwo~ 6uipunoaanS 6uiuoZ ~uipunoaanS
~ ~OZI~ 6uiuc~aa - anuand a~pa~ OZti1 ~ '' ~ti1
AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPORT # 49
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Second reading of an ordinance related to parking requirements for take-out only restaurants.
The proposed ordinance will reduce the number of parking spaces required.
I. RECOMIVIENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt an ordinance amending Richfield City Code
Subsection 544.13 related to minimum parking requirements for Class
IV (Take-Out Onlvl Restaurants.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff continually monitors and notes areas of the Zoning Code that may require
review. This review may be the result of changes in State Law or its interpretation,
changes in social norms, new technology or direct experience with a particular
regulation. Staff is currently researching and reviewing a number of possible
ordinance changes that are anticipated to come before the Planning Commission
and Council over the course of the year.
The first of these issues relates to parking requirements for Class IV (Take-Out
Only) restaurants. There are additional parking-related items that staff is currently
investigating and plans to bring before the City Council later in the year. In this
case, a specific application that includes atake-out only restaurant component has
accelerated staffs need to research this item and present a recommendation.
022211 - 2nd Reading Class IV Restaurant Parking
~,...., T,T..,
Currently, the Zoning Code requires the same number of parking stalls for take-out
only restaurants as for full-service restaurants. There are a number of operational
differences between the two types of restaurants that bring into question whether or
not the same parking ratio is appropriate, e.g. duration of customer stay, percentage
of business devoted to delivery of food, number of employees and/or delivery
drivers.
Staff examined the requirements of surrounding municipalities and considered
American Planning Association documentation as part of this review. Nearby
municipalities reported the following requirements:
Bloomington -Considered on a case-by-case basis examining the number
of employees on a maximum shift, .number of delivery drivers, anticipated
demand, etc.
Edina -1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area.
St. Louis Park -1 space per 25 square feet of customer floor area.
Regulations across the country varied considerably, however nearly all
municipalities required fewer spaces than Richfield.
None of the above-listed regulations seemed to address all of the necessary
considerations. For instance, Richfield currently uses the St. Louis Park standard of
1 space per 25 square feet of customer area for bakeries. Unlike typical take-out
only restaurants, bakeries do not have a heavy delivery component. In the opinion
of staff, that difference makes this ratio inadequate.
The following parking standard is proposed for Class IV (Take-Out Only)
Restaurants:
1 space per 25 sauare feet of customer area, plus 1 space per delivery vehicle on
the maximum shift.
III. BASIS OF RECOIVIMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The adequacy of available parking relative to anticipated demand is
one of the primary factors to be considered in the course of
development review.
• While parking minimums and maximums are generally prescribed by
the Code, there are a number of tools available for staff and
developers to use if a minimum is considered excessive for a
particular project (parking demand studies, transit reductions, shared
parking agreements, etc.).
B. CRITICAL TIlVIING ISSUES
• An applicant has requested approval of a take-out only restaurant
within the City. A decision on that application must be made by March
7, 2011 in order to meet the 60-day requirement.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on
January 24, 2011.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current in
accordance with State and Local regulations.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
amendment (4-1; Schuller dissenting, Hall abstaining).
• A first reading was held on February 8, 2011.
• If approved, the ordinance will take effect 30 days following
publication.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Excessive parking requirements can be detrimental to the
environment by reducing available landscaping area and increasing
stormwater runoff.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Recommend approval of the proposed amendment with additional changes.
• Recommend denial of the proposed amendment.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~o - ~
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
SUBSECTION 544.13 RELATED TO
MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS FOR
CLASS IV (TAKE-OUT ONLY) RESTAURANTS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 The "Restaurants" portion of Subsection 544.13, Subdivision 6 of the
Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows:
Restaurants
Class I; and II;-a~~ 10 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area.
Class III (Fast food /convenience) 17 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area.
Class IV (Take-out only 1 per 25 square feet of customer floor
area plus 1 per delivery vehicle on the
maximum shift.
Sec. 2 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield
City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
February, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 50
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME, 777ZE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
`/
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an amendment to the Kensington Park Planned Unit Development to allow
additional restaurant space for atake-out only facili
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve an amendment to the Final Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development at
7610, 7630 and 7644 Lyndale Avenue (Kensington Park) to allow
additional restaurant space.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2002 the City Council approved plans for a Planned Unit
Development at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The approved plans included
20,000 square feet of ofirice/retail and 8,000 square feet of restaurant which the
developer (The Cornerstone Group) anticipated would comprise of 2-3 restaurants
with one generating morning parking demand and the other(s) generating afternoon
and evening parking demand. Parking standards in 2002 required 164 stalls for this
mix of uses. Based on the availability of mass transit and the proposed mix of uses,
a reduction was approved and there are 143 on-site stalls available. Current
parking requirements would call for 160 stalls with a permitted reduction for transit,
for a total requirement of 144 spaces.
In 2007 and 2008 the City Council examined parking complaints along Aldrich
Avenue in depth. "Resident Parking Only" signs were installed to discourage
022211 -Kensington APUD
parking in front of the single-family homes on the west side of the street. The
Cornerstone Group also leases an additional 49 stalls (19 from the Lynwood
Commons apartment complex, 20 from the Ramada Hotel and 10 from the Richfield
Liquor Store) to provide off-site employee parking.
Since that time, staff has not received any complaints related to parking at
Kensington Park.
The Cornerstone Group is proposing an amendment to the approved plans for
Kensington Park to allow an additional restaurant tenant. There are a number of
unique items related to the particular tenant - Sarpino's Pizzeria. The tenant is
proposing to occupy 2,483 square feet (the former Mother Sauce space) to be used
for offices, a training facility and atake-out only restaurant. The space is to be
divided as follows:
• Customer area -approx. 250 square feet
• Food preparation and training space -approx. 1,500 square feet
• Office -approx. 750 square feet
The applicant and tenant have indicated that Sarpino's Pizzeria operations are
heavily weighted in favor of delivery as opposed to take-out (80% vs. 20%). Their
operation also breaks down into these same percentages when comparing evening
business (80%) to lunch business (20%). A maximum shift will include three
delivery drivers. Additionally, the space will be used for the training of new
employees who will then be employed at locations throughout the metro area. The
tenant anticipates a maximum of four students at any one time. These students will
be on site for up to one week.
III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION
A. POLICY
• The 2,483 square feet of space in question is currently approved for
use aretail/office space.
• 2,483 square feet of retail/office space in a community shopping
center requires 9 parking stalls.
• The proposed use of the space for office, training and take-out only
restaurant requires 20 parking stalls, broken down as follows:
a) Take-out only restaurant -13 spaces (Based on newly
proposed ratio for take-out only restaurants. Current
requirements would call for 25 spaces.)
b) Training operations - 4 spaces (There is no general
standard applicable to the specifics of this situation.
Given that there could be up to 4 additional "employees"
on-site on any given day, it would seem appropriate to
ensure adequate parking for them.)
c) Office - 3 spaces
• The adequacy of available parking relative to anticipated demand is
one of the primary factors to be considered in the course of
development review.
• The proposed use requires 11 spaces more than the approved use.
• Adequate off-site parking facilities are available to accommodate
additional employees and employees-in-training. The tenant has
stated that all employees except delivery drivers will be required to
park at these off-site facilities.
• The Council must consider whether or not adequate on-site parking is
available to accommodate delivery vehicles and customer traffic.
• Staff received one written comment related to the proposal as follows:
"...[I] have strong reservations about more restaurants in this complex.
The lot is so small and over the lunch hour it has been observed that
cars circle 2 or 3 times to find parking spaces. If the take out
restaurant opens for dinner take-out only, that would be OK, because
generally after 2:30 pm the lot is available."
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on
January 24, 2011. A resident of the adjacent townhOmes expressed
some concerns, but was generally supportive of allowing additional
restaurant space as proposed. A draft of the meeting minutes has
been attached for Council review.
• The Cornerstone Group has stated that this is one of the least intense
businesses that they have been able to find to fill the vacant space in
the Center.
• The following findings are required for approval of a Planned Unit
Development application:
a) The proposed development conforms to the goals and
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any
applicable redevelopment plans; This requirement is
met. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
Community Commercial /Office. Comprehensive Plan
policies include to "accommodate business growth,"
"encourage and support the development of strong
commercial districts that respect the values and
standards of the citizens of Richfield," and "encourage
the development of viable and responsive neighborhood
commercial services" (pg. 4-2). The proposal is in
keeping with these identified policies.
b) The proposed development is designed in such a
manner as to form a desirable and unified environment
within its own boundaries; This requirement is met.
There are no proposed changes to the physical
structures or design of the project.
c) The development is in substantial conformance with fhe
purpose and intent of the guiding district, and departures
from the guiding district regulations are justified by the
design of the development; This requirement is met.
The purpose and intent of the underlying General
Commercial (C-2) District is met. The combination of
on-site and off-site parking exceeds the number required
by the Zoning Ordinance. There are no physical
changes proposed.
d) The development will not create an excessive burden on
parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and
utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the
development; This requirement is met.
e) The development will not have undue adverse impacts
on neighboring properties; This requirement is met.
Parking is sufficient to meet the needs of the
development during most times of the day throughout
the year. The proposed change is not anticipated to
create any more of a burden on parking during the lunch
hour peak than any retail or office use would create.
f) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the
integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public
interest. This requirement is met.
• All uses are conditional uses in the PC-2 District. The findings
necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows
(547.09, Subd. 6):
a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; This
requirement is met as discussed above.
b) The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the
Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use;
This requirement is met as discussed above.
c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially
adopted redevelopment plans or urban design
guidelines; This requirement does not apply.
d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the
performance standards specified in Section 544 of this
code; This requirement is met. The combination of on-
site and off-site parking meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. There are no proposed physical
changes to the development.
e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts
on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing
or proposed improvements; This requirement is met.
f) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the
public health, safety, or welfare; This requirement is met.
g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed
location; This requirement is met. It is in the best
interest of the public to have a viable and successful
development.
h) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific
conditions set by this code for the granting of such
conditional use permit. This requirement is met.
The above findings must be made in order to approve the proposed
amendment.
B. CRITICAL TINIING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required application fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on
January 24, 2011. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun
Current Newspaper and sent to property owners within 350 feet of the
property.
• Staff received one written comment and one resident spoke at the
public hearing, both voicing some concerns with the proposal. A draft
of the meeting minutes is attached.
• The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Hall dissenting) to recommend
approval of the amendment and that a traffic study be conducted.
• 60-Day Rule: The 60-day `clock' started when a complete application
was received on January 6, 2011. A decision must be given to the
applicant by March 7, 2011 OR the Council must notify the applicant
that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional
days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NIA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMNIENDATION(S~
• Recommend approval of the proposed amendment with stipulations.
• Recommend denial of the proposed amendment finding that the Code
requirements for issuance are not met.
V. ATTAC~IMENTS
• Resolution
• Existing site plans
• Planning & Zoning maps
• Draft Planning Commission minutes from January 24, 2011
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representative of The Cornerstone Group
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
` TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT SPACE
AT THE KENSINGTON PARK DEVELOPMENT LOCATED
AT 761 Q, 7630 AND 7644 LYNDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
an amendment to the ptanned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit to allow 1,750 square feet of retail/office space to be used for a Class IV (Take-
out Only) restaurant of which 250 square feet shall be designed as "customer area," on
land generally located at 7610, 7630 and 7644 Lyndale Avenue, legally described in the
attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended
approval of the.requested amendment at its January 24, 2011 meeting, and
WHEREAS, this requested amendment~meets those requirements necessary for
approvingg a planned unit development as specified in Richfield s Zoning Code, Section
542.09, Subd.3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ;and
WHEREAS, this requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for
approving a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code; Section 547.09,
Subd.6 and detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ;and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amended
planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
An amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit is issued to allow use of approximately 1,750 square feet of
retail/offce space to be used for a Class IV (Take-Out Only restaurant with 250
square feet of "customer area," as described in City Counci Staff Report No.
on the Subject Property legally described above.
2. This amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit is subject to the following condition:
That the recipient of this amended planned unit development, final
development plan and conditional use permit record this resolution with
the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision
and Richfield Zoning Code 547.09, Subdivision 8.
3. The planned unit deve_ topment, final development plan and conditional use
permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed,
and shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or
more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subdivision
9.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of
February 2011.
e ie oette , ayor
ATTEST:
ancy i s, ity er
,~ ~ r1
[ATTACH EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
It-3
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Land described in the referenced instrument is located in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and is legally described as follows:
Parcel 1:
Lot 1, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 2:
Lot 2, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 3:
Lot 3, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 4:
South '/z of Lot 5, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 5:
The North 20.5 feet of Lot 5, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 6:
South 20.5 feet of North '/2 of Lot 5, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 7:
All of Lot 6, except the South 13.7 feet thereof, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 8:
South 13.7 feet of Lot 6, and the North 6.3 feet of Lot 7, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 9:
Lot 9, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 10:
Lot 10, "Glenn's Addition"
1~ - y
Parcel 11:
Lot 11, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 12:
Lot 12, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 13:
Lot 13, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 14:
Lot 14, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 15:
Lot 15, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 16:
South 22 feet of the North 28.3 feet; Lot 7, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 17:
Lot 4, "Glenn's Addition"
Parcel 18:
The alley dedicated in the plat of Glenn's Addition, lying southerly of the southerly right
of way line of 76th Street and northerly of the northerly right of way line of 77t~' Street,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Parcel 19:
That part of Lot 8, Glenn's Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 51.35 feet of said Lot 8.
i~ -~
Parce120:
That part of Lot 7, Glenn's Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying South of the North 28.30 feet of said Lot 7, lying North of the
South 45.30 feet of said Lot 7, and lying Westerly of a curve concave to the east having a
radius of 17.01 feet. Said curve passes through a point on the South line of said North
28.30 feet of Lot 7 distant 108.99 feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 7, and passes
through a point on the North line of said South 45.30 feet of Lot 7 distant 105.76 feet
Easterly of said West line of Lot 7.
~ ~ - to
- I •, ;
®Y ~ 8 ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ aa ~ Ii : ~ `Pi I I, 3~ ~ ja
._ _. __.... -_ __. __-._ __. _.. ..__. ._ ~-~.. _.... _..... _. -- T« .. _._. __.- _
~,.. - ,. ,.. .__.____ .~ 1
` ~ ~ir/1~ 1 3d1 S H19L '
s g 9 i
rr
i I
g 1i _.ia i
a - ' •r
sag ~ / r ~ `~~~`~--- -.~_~ ~,_ ~' '~ _...... = 6 j '~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ a~~ A ~ra~~ ~~€l
~gi ~ gg~ ~ ~•! ~ ~@e $~! ~ ~~1L% ' .:~. ~~j ~ j ; ~ ~ _ (/~ j ~'i ~' j ~ ~~ agogg ~8 a' i ~aa~!
a° 6 a E~°i ~ U ~ I~ ;~ :~ ~ ~. ids .~
d5 I a i ~ ~ gg~ j I X~f g~1 ~ ~ •P Y 4• I ! ~ . ~ ;f q~~Fo ~ 6 iii
~ , i ~ S~g i tp •yc_ 1~Y~ : ~ ~ - ~ I `~.i ~ ~_ f ~AS~R ~~ ® e f<~~j;
_ ~ ~~jjI a
~ a ~ - ~" air _$',:~~''~~ 8 'i .:-. -_~~~9$~~il, B~~~r. q
I 1 4 §6 ~~ ~~~ -. T~• ~8 ~ 6 ~ i ~ ~
I ~ ~ - ~ • ~_ ,~~~ ~~ .gin, ~ ~,I ~ .
~I
1
M 133X1 S Hl LL
....... ~
8 ~ ~ ~w~
o ~~
v
o ~~°~
J ~ L _._.. _ ._ . .. .
G #, .__I
~ ~~~_ _.
a ~ - -
O
ac
a
}aad
~~40l1a!~aawwop !euo!6ad - ppa 000' L 09L 009
l !e!oaawwo~ !euoi6ad - pb
ao~}pnepaawwop ~}!unwwo~ - p~~
!eioaawwop ~}!unwwo~ - p~
!eguap!sad R}!suap n~o~ - 2iQl
133a1S H111
0 01 a
0
z
~
~
a
~
~ ~i
m
D
~ ~
~~
a~
o~
rn m
a
ia~ ®
133d1S H191
~ o~ 1 ar ~
~ ~i • ~ ~
~' a
a~ 'a~ ,
~~ ~
a
~
a~ ~
i" ~ ^ i
09Z 9Z6 0
uo!}e~o~ 6u!~aed a}!S ~p ~euo!6a~ ash pex!W - d-~W
!e!wawwo~ !e~auap pauueid - Z-~d
min inure nnn mom mn _ es
suoe~eu~esaa ue~d dwo~ 6uipuno~~ns ~uiuoZ 6uipunoa~ns
~aOZI~ Ondd- ~~121b-d NC~ ~JNISN3~i~ 3/1d 3~daNA, ~ )1 aNd 0£91 `091.
i,-$
DRAFT
Planning Commission
Minutes
January 24, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick Jabs, Commissioners Robert Hall, Josh Root,
Tom Rublein, Dennis Schuller and Gordon Vizecky
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Daniel Kitzberger and Maureen Scaglia
STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
John Stark, Community Development Director
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Modjean, 7001 Nicollet Ave
Colleen Carey, 7610 Lyndale Ave
Joshua Colburn, 7641 Aldrich Ave
Nicole Mosiman, representing 7610 Lyndale Ave
Chairperson Jabs called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Root, SlRublein to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2010 Planning
Commission Meeting.
lViotion carried: 5-0
OPEN FORUM
None
PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Vizecky arrived.
ITEM #1
Case No. 11-RZN-01 -Consideration of an amendment to the Richfield Zoning
Ordinance that would bring the properties located at 7410 and 7420 Cedar Avenue
into conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. The amenmdnet will
1~-q
January 24, 2011
change the zoning of the properties from MR-1 (Two-Family Residential) and MR-
2 (Multi-Family Residential) respectively, to C-2 (General Commercial).
City Planner Poehlman (Poehlman) presented the staff report, explaining that the
proposed change was part of a much larger action that the Commission had considered
late in 2010 that would bring approximately 300 properties into compliance with land
use designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
M/Hall, S/Root to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/Hall, S/Rublein to recommend approval of the attached ordinance amending Richfield
City Code Appendix 1 to change the zoning designation of 7410 and 7420 Cedar
Avenue from MR-1 and MR-2 respectively, to C-2.
Motion carried: 6-0
ITEM #2
Case No. 11-CP-01 -Consideration of an amendment to Comprehensive Plan
designation of properties near the intersection of 70~" Street and Nicollet Avenue
and 6800 Penn Avenue as Community Commercial, and 6901 Penn Avenue as
Medium-Density Residential.
City Planner Poehlman presented the staff report stating that the proposed change
would bring the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations of the properties into
conformance. The Planning Commission had recommended these changes at a
previous meeting.
Mark Modjean, 7001 Nicollet, stated that he was in favor of the proposed amendment.
M/Root, S/Rublein to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-0
Commissioner Root asked staff how many units could be built at 6901 Penn Avenue if
the property was redeveloped.
Poehlman stated that she did have those numbers immediately available, but the
number of units would be similar to what currently exists.
M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to recommend approval of an amendment to the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan designating 7 East 70t" Street, 6941 Nicollet Avenue, 6944
Nicollet Avenue, 6945 Nicollet Avenue, 6949 Nicollet Avenue, 7001 Nicollet Avenue,
7005 Nicollet Avenue and 6800 Penn Avenue as Community Commercial; and 6901
Penn Avenue as Medium Density Residential.
Motion carried: 6-0
2
II- ~o
January 24, 2011
ITEIUI #3
PC Report #'I - Consideration of an arnendrvaent to parking requirements for take-
outonly restaurants.
City Planner Poehlman presented the staff report. Poehlman stated that parking
standards for take-out only restaurants have been on staffs list of things to review for
some time. The operational differences between a traditional restaurant with seating
and stake-out only restaurant would seem to lend themselves to different parking
requirements. Staff reviewed similar uses within the Richfield Code as well as
restaurant parking standards in the metro area and across the country. Staff proposed
a new standard of 1 space per 25 square feet of customer area, plus 1 space per
delivery vehicle.
Staff responded to a question from Commissioner Rublein regarding the calculation of
parking needs in a mixed use development and designation of particular spots.
M/Root, ,S/Hall to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-®
In response to a question from Commissioner Root, Poehlman defined "customer area"
as the public area in front of any counter or ordering station.
Commissioner Hall asked why consideration of this ordinance amendment had been
expedited instead of considering this along with other ordinance changes that staff
mentioned would be considered later in the year.
Poehlman responded that the owners of the Kensington Park development at 76tH
Street and Lyndale Avenue are requesting an amendment to the site's Final
Development Plan that would allow stake-out only restaurant.
Commissioner Hall stated that he felt there had been inadequate time to review the
proposed change.
Commissioner Vizecky stated that the proposed change seemed relatively minor in that
it aligned parking requirements for take-out only restaurants with a use that has similar
operational practices.
Commissioner Schuller stated that this proposal seems to encourage take-out only
restaurants when the community has indicated interest in traditional, sit-down
restaurants.
M/Vizecky, S/Root to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Code Subsection 544.13 related to minimum parking requirements for Class IV (Take-
out Only) Restaurants.
Commissioner Hall stated that he felt the move to be hasty and would abstain. from
voting.
11- ~~
January 24, 2011
Motion carried: 4-7 (Schuller dissenting, Hall abstaining)
ITEM #4
Case No. 11-APUD-01 -Consideration of an amendment to the approved Final
Development Plans for Kensington Park to allow additional restaurant space.
City Planner Poehlman presented the staff report stating that the approved plans for the
Kensington Park Development at 76t" Street and Lyndale Avenue allow for up to 8,000
square feet of restaurant space. Poehlman stated that current parking requirements call
for 144 parking spaces and the development include 143 spaces. The developer, The
Cornerstone Group, also leases 49 off-site parking spaces for employee parking. The
Cornerstone group is requesting an amendment to allow atake-out only restaurant with
250 square feet of customer area. Additional space will be used for a corporate ofFce
and food preparation and training area. Poehlman stated that adequate off-site
employee parking was provided. The Commission should rather consider the on-site
needs for delivery drivers and customers.
Colleen Carey, President of The Cornerstone Group, addressed the Commission. Ms.
Carey stated that employee parking rules were now being strictly enforced and parking
demand has gone down by 15 percent. Further, 80 percent of Sarpino's business is in
the evening, when there is no parking shortage.
The Commission discussed the bigger picture issue of providing parking for future
successful developments with Ms. Carey. Commissioners and Ms. Carey agreed that in
a built-up, urban environment like Richfield, successful developments will likely lead to
some street parking.
Commissioner Hall asked if parking spots would be designated specifically for delivery
driver parking. Given the location of the business, adjacent to Potbelly's, this could be
an issue.
Ms. Carey said that Sarpino's had not requested designated parking spaces at this
point, but that they could and it may be considered.
Commissioner Hall asked if staff had received copies of the leases for the off-site
parking.
Poehlman. and Stark responded that the City had received documentation when the
development was originally approved. One of the agreements is with the City for
parking at the Liquor Store.
Ms. Carey said that she could provide documentation ifi necessary.
Josh Colburn, 7646 Aldrich Avenue, stated that he would be delighted to see the vacant
tenant space in Kensington Park filled, however he has a few comments and concerns
related to the parking situation.
• Some of the spaces reserved for specific businesses are not used frequently, but
remain unavailable for ofiher businesses. Parking calculations likely do not
account for this.
i,_~~
January 24, 2011
• Visitors to the residential units also use the lot.
• Chipotle is currently open until 10 p.m. and he would appreciate the same closing
time for any new restaurant.
• Traffic circulation (waiting for customers to enter/exit parking stall) seems to be
the biggest issue. Concerned that business weighted so heavily toward delivery
could exacerbate this issue.
Nicole Mosiman, representing both The Cornerstone Group and Sarpino's, stated that
the actual parking demand for the proposed use is far less than many "retail" uses.
M/Root, SNizecky to close the public hearing.
IP~oti®n carried: 6-®
Commissioner Root stated that he felt comfortable making the required findings for the
proposal. The bigger picture is considering "who we are" as a community -urban or
exurban. In looking to redevelop areas of the City, we will need to be okay with some
on-street parking.
Commissioner Rublein stated that he believes a reasonable effort has been made to
provide additional parking off-site and that the fact is that additional parking cannot be
created on-site.
Commissioner Jabs stated his appreciation for the creativity of The Cornerstone Group
in finding this particular tenant.
Commissioner Schuller asked if the Commission could recommend an additional
parking study.
Poehlman responded that the Commission was free to make any recommendation they
found appropriate.
MNizecky, S/Root to recommend approval of an amendment to the Final Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development at 7610, 7630 and
7644 Lyndale Avenue (Kensington Park) to allow additional restaurant space.
Commissioner Vizecky agreed that fihe Commission's recommendation include a
comment to the Council recommending a traffic analysis.
BVlotion carried: 5-1(Hal/ dissenting)
M/Hall, S/Rublein to amend the previous motion to include stipulations requiring that off-
site parking space leases be provided to the City annually and that enforcement of
lease requirements for off-site employee parking is continued.
Commissioner Vizecky responded that he felt that this would just create busy work for
staff and the applicant when there has been no demonstrated problem.
1t -i3
January 24, 2011
Commissioner Schuller agreed, stating that it is in the best interest of the owner to do
this anyway.
Chair Jabs agreed.
Motion failed: 7-5 (Jabs, Root, Rublein, Schuller, Vizecky dissenfing)
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Rublein asked fihat staff explain when and how the City can get involved
in the condemnation of a building.
Director Stark responded that the City Attorney recently drafted a letter in regard to-this
and it would be provided to the Commission. He stated that the rules related to
condemnation are very stringent. In regard to the Lyndale Garden Center in particular,
The Cornerstone Group is currently working to acquire the property.
OLD BUSINESS
LIAISON REPORTS
Community Services Advisory Commission: Report by Chairperson Jabs
City Council: Report by Director Stark
HRA: No report
Richfield School Board: Report by Commissioner Rublein
Transportation Commission: No report
Other: No reports
ADJOURNMENT
M/Vizecky, S/Root to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried: 6-0
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:47 p.m.
Thomas Rublein
Secretary