10-12-04 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion of four city dispatching consolidation study results
Notes:
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda,
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
- Approval of minutes of (1) Special Concurrent Worksession of City Council/HRA/Planning
_ Commission of September 28, 2004; (2) Special City Council Meeting of September 29,
2004 and (3) Special City Council Meeting of October 2, 2004
PRESENTATION
1. Presentation by Acting Fire Services Director Brad Sveum of citizen's award to Maggie
Robinson for meritorious service
2. Annual meeting with Planning Commission
Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
2. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
3. City Manager's report
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved,. the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action 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 authorization of purchase of winter deicing salt for the 2004/2005
winter season from North American Salt Company at the price of $31.71 per ton,
delivered, plus sales tax S.R. No. 161
B. Consideration of approval of resolution approving subdivision waiver for 7233
Emerson Avenue S.R. No. 162
C. Consideration of approval of resolution approving subdivision waiver for 6525
Emerson Avenue S.R. No. 163
D. Consideration of first reading of an ordinance rezoning the property at 6941 and 6945
Nicollet Avenue to SO-1 (Service Office District) S.R. No. 164
E. Consideration of approval of resolution approving off-street parking permit at 6421
Penn Avenue S.R. No. 165
F. Consideration of approval of resolution approving off-street parking permit at 6419
Penn Avenue S.R. No. 166
Notes:
6. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
7. Consideration of approval of first reading to add new Section 1355 to Chapter XIII of the
City Code to include language controlling the use of recreational motor vehicles and
setting date of second reading for October 26, 2004
Staff Report No. 167
Notes:
8. Consideration of approval of second reading of an ordinance amendment to City Code
Section 905 regarding multi-pet residence licenses and summary publication of the
amended Section 905
Staff Report No: 168
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
9. Reconsideration of the three-month temporary, multi-pet residence license for 6436
Portland Avenue (continued from June 22)
Staff Report No. 169
Notes:
10. Consideration of a proposal from Orfield Laboratories to develop noise standards
Staff Report No. 170
Notes:
11. Consideration of appointments to fill youth terms on City advisory commissions
Staff Report No. 171
Notes:
12. 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 fheir comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opporturnty 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:
Adjournment
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
immediately following regular meeting
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion of extension of the Academy of Holy Angel's Starpome Hours
Notes:
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702.
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
OTHER BUSINESS
11
171
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST.
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of appointments to fill youth terms on City advisory commissions..
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Appointments to fill the youth terms on the City's
adviso commissions.
II. BACKGROUND
The Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission, Friendship City.
Commission, Arts. Commission and Celebrations Commission have youth term
vacancies. Advertisements were placed in the Richfield Sun, on the Cable TV
Community Bulletin Board, message boards outside City Hall and the Water Plant,
and the City's Website. Notices were also sent to Richfield High School and the
Academy of Holy Angels.
Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2005.
Applicants were interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on October 6, 2004
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
1012commissionappointments
A. POLICY
• The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or
resolution.
• The Mayor directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking
applicants to fill expiring terms.
• Interviews of the applicants were conducted at a Special City Council
meeting. The meeting was posted in accordance with the open meeting law
requirements.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meeting on
October 6, 2004.
• Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2005.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Defer appointments to another Council meeting.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Vacancy list.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
YOUTH COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH -1 vacancy
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - 2 vacancies
FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION - 2 vacancies
ARTS COMMISSION
CELEBRATIONS COMMISSION
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
August 31, 2005
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BIISINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPORT # 170
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CrrY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 36
ArrD/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 25
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a proposal from Orfield Laboratories for the development of design criteria for
low fre uenc noise-com atible construction in the 87dB area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the terms of a proposal from Orfield Laboratories
for the development of design criteria for low frequency noise-
compatible construction in the 87dB area and authorize execution of
an a reement.
II. BACKGROUND
• In 2002, the City received a grant from the Metropolitan Council to partially pay
-- for consulting services to develop design criteria for construction in the 87dB
area.
• A consultant was hired in late 2002 to develop these standards. The standards
were to have been completed by Summer of 2003. The consultant requested
and received several extensions to the project deadline.
101204 Orfield Design
~v
• As of this date, the City has received only partially completed work from the
consultant and have received no communication from the consultant since June
of this year.
• Staff sent notice of cancellation of the original consultant's contract to his last
known address. That notice which was sent on September 9, 2004, came back
to the City with no forwarding address known. Staff has since resent the notice
to a previous known address.
• In the interest of completing this project in time to provide appropriate direction
regarding construction standards to the proposed Ryan Development in the
Cedar Point area, staff has contacted Orfield Laboratories to develop standards.
• The proposal from Orfield Laboratories is attached.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The 87dB area has been identified as an area in which impacts from
low frequency noise will be significant. Existing buildings have not
been constructed in such. a manner as to adequately mitigate the
impacts. It is necessary to develop standards for new construction in
the area which will mitigate the impacts.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The existing consultant has not performed to the standards laid out in
the contract.
• Orfield Laboratories is capable of providing the necessary standards.
Orfield Laboratories is currently conducting noise measurements for
the City and is currently working and has worked in the past with
developers constructing buildings near airports and other noise
generators.
• It is important to complete the work in time to provide direction to Ryan
Companies and future developers in the 87dB area. Orfield
Laboratories anticipates completing the work in two to three months.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of the proposed study is $35,000.
• A grant of $20,000 was received from the Metropolitan Council. The
grant must be expended by the end of 2005. A 1:1 match is required
to access the grant.
• The Housing & Redevelopment Authority has budgeted to cover the
remaining expenses.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Decide not to hire Orfield Laboratories to complete the work.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposal from Orfield Laboratories
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• NA
September 9, 2004
OrField Laboratories Inc
Oas~9n
q~o~st/9ese~~c
e
s / ~brh o~~,~9
i
Gs'o
0
i
~~
9i
jf
~
9
~
'9,.
o,~
~~~c
~G
~~
9'
rf
1D
r
~
~
~~
PREPARED FOR
Ms. Julie Urban
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Voice: (612} 891-9758
Fax: (612) 861-8974
PROJECT
Low-Frequency
PREPARED BY
Mr. Steven J. Orfield, Pr sidE
Mr. Derrick Knight, Con ultan~
Orfield Laboratories, I c.
2709 East 25`h Stree
Minneapolis, MN 5 06
Email: steve@orfi dlabs.com
Phone: (612) 721 2455
Fax: (612) 721- 457
Construction
Mr. Steven O field and Mr. Derrick Knight of Orfield Labs (OL) met with Ms.
Julie Urban nd Mr. John Stark of the City of Richfield to discuss an ongoing
study and coustic preparations for the redevelopment of land near the new
north-sou runway at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. A proposal
for provi ing design criteria in relation to Aircraft Noise Standards for New
__ Richfie Development was subsequently requested. This proposal addresses
that r uest.
Client City of Richfield
PROJECT INTENT
The intent of this project is to provide the City of Richfield with design criteria
documentation that addresses the need for new aircraft noise construction
standards near the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. In order to provide
this documentation in a clear and useful manor, the following phases are
proposed.
Phase 1-Measurement and Recording
A site will be selected for measurement and recording which is similar in
distance and other conditions from a current runway to the proposed
development in relation to the north-south runway under construction.
This simulation site will provide detailed, event-based acoustic
information which will help determine the necessary degree of sound
attenuation which should be provided by building facades at the
development site in order to provide significant interior-to-exterior
reductions. Recordings of aircraft ground noise and aircraft overflights will
also allow the simulation of building facade effectiveness and be
presented either over headphones or at OL.
Phase II -Develop of Sound Standards Documentation
After analyzing the measurement results and reviewing the projected site
noise, acoustic standards for two classes of residential facades and one
class of commercial facade will be developed. General practices to
achieve the criteria will be provided as examples. The documentation is
intended to be distributed to developers and well set a standard to
provide conditions more conducive to residential and commercial
activities. These standards will include required testing to determine the
actual performance of facades and roofs.
Phase III -Simulation of Sound Standards
Audio simulations will be generated which demonstrate the effectiveness
of each sound standard and compare them to typical construction results.
The final product may be a CD or preferably a demonstration at OL
where more accurate simulations may be made in regard to low
frequency noise.
Phase IV -Meeting with City of Richfield Regarding Standards
A meeting will be held at Orfield Labs to demonstrate and discuss these
standards, and to determine if further review and action is desired with
regard to these standards.
Phase V -Completion of Additional Consulting -Optional
If additional consulting efforts are requested, these efforts will be quoted
and completed in accordance with a schedule to be negotiated.
Phase VI -Development Contractor Meetings and Assistance
Meetings with contractors to assist in their efforts to meet the standards
developed under this study, including assistance with design, research
and testing as requested and / or required.
Orfleld Laboratories Inc
Client City of Richfield
PROJECT STAGES
1. Receipt of signed proposal
2. Receipt of requested documents
3. Selection of Simulation Site
4. Measurement/Recording
5. Summarize Results
II
6. Receipt and review of requested documents
7. Preparation of Sound Standards
8. Deliver Standards document and meet with client
III
9. Simulate Sound Standards
10. Provide Audio CD or present simulation at OL
ADDITIONAL SERVICES: (ADDITIONAL COST)
1. Meetings not listed (Hourly)
2. Additional formal reports beyond report specified in this proposal
3. Additional testing and site visits beyond those specified
4. Additional, non-quoted consulting
(SCHEDULE
Upon receipt of our signed proposal or a purchase order authorizing our
proposal, review will be completed within a schedule to be negotiated. Other
phases will follow within the framework of the project schedule.
~rtleld Laboratories Inc
3
Client City of Richfield
FEES
All fees are billed as quoted on a flat fee basis, unless otherwise noted. Billings
are on 1-month intervals and are due in 30 days; work may be suspended for
non-payment, and full payment must precede additional phased work. Any
services not offered but requested will be quoted for approval. Expenses
noted in the following section, reimbursement of expenses, are additional to the
fees quoted and are charged including a 20% processing /handling fee.
Interest rates on unpaid balances are accumulated at the rate of 2% per month
on outstanding balances. Any collection costs are the obligation of the client.
Billings are due upon completion of monthly contract work and not upon
execution of the project for which that work was intended. This project is quoted
on a set-fee basis as follows: (Fees are based on hourly rates of $200-$250
for consulting efforts and $250-$350 on days of testimony and depositions, if
expert legal consulting is required.) Higher figures are for Steven Orfield. This
project is quoted on a set-fee basis derived from time and systems employed
as follows:
Phase I - Measurement and Recording $8,500
Phase II - Develop of Sound Standards Documentation $20,000
Phase III - Simulation of Sound Standards $6,500
Phase IV - Meeting with City of Richfield Included
Phase V - Completion of Additional Consulting - Optional
Phase VI - Development Contractor Meetings Hourly
Total $35.000
Ortield Laboratories Inc
4
Client City of Richfield
CONFIDENTIALITY
The client has full control over this information and any release of information will
be only to the client, to the extent that it is not publicly disclosed. The specific
testing results are deemed to be confidential exclusively for the client's use.
Orfield Laboratories involvement on this project is quoted to the client for this
project application; this consulting is the work product of Orfield Laboratories
and is not to be used on other projects or disclosed to other parties, beyond
disclosure for reasonable use by the City of Richfield.
DOCUMENTS
Our design work often requires a set of documents drawn to conventional scale
(1/4,1/8,1/16) that are available from our client at no cost. The documents must
be in the same scale and accompanying specifications must also be easily
available. It is assumed that these documents are accurate and this accuracy is
the responsibility of the client. Specific documents requested at the
commencement of this project are:
• Background- Information/Documents on Project and Intent X
• Plan and Section Set
• Materials Information
• Cad files (.dwg format) on development X
• Materials Information
• Reflected ceiling plans
• Interior wall sections & elevations
• Architectural spec set and finish schedules
• Currently Contemplated Development Plans /Schematics X
CONSULTING SERVICES
The services offered are design services and are not services in the fields of
architecture or professional engineering. The fields of acoustical and lighting
consulting are not recognized under any professional registration practice. Any
services needed in those areas related to our work are the specific responsibility
of the client and are not offered by Orfield Laboratories, Inc.
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
All expenses are billed, and may include:
- Plan Copies/Photo Copies
- Phone charges (long distance)
- Auto expenses .50/mile (out of metro)
-Air/Ground transportation
- Delivery of plans/copies
Ortield Laboratories Inc
Client City of Richfield
GUARANTEES
While services offered are considered to be state of the art in approach, any
specific stipulations as to the performance of particular designs must be stated
by the client, or no stipulations are assumed to be present. Legal liability for
professional services provided is limited to the total costs of these services.
Claims relating to delivery of professional services are subject independent
arbitration (AAA)
This section shall not apply to claims arising out of the placement or use of test
systems or equipment. By entering into this agreement, the client agrees to
indemnify Orfield Laboratories from legal liability and judgments under this case
or from actions resulting from this case.
We look forward to working with you on this project, and we hope that this
particular consulting experience will support the view that there are substantial
benefits to be derived through the use of specialized consulting services.
PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE
Mr. Steven J. Orfield
Orfield Laboratories, Inc.
Date
Authorized Signature
City Of Richfield
Date
Orfield Laboratories Inc
6
AGENDA SECTION: pTAF.R RIISTNFSS
AGENDA ITEM # q
REPORT # 169
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
-ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Re-consideration of the three-month temporary, multi-pet residence license for Stephen M.
Lewis, 6436 Portland Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve or deny a request for a new multi-pet residence.
license for Stephen M. Lewis, 6436 Portland Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
April 2003
• Environmental Health staff received two complaints regarding. the number of
animals and .barking dogs at this location.
• A Community Service Officer .left a .note informing the owner that if he had more
then two dogs, he needed to apply for amulti-pet residence license. At that
time, staff was not aware of the number, of animals that the resident had.
• The owner stated that he only had two dogs and that occasionally he brings in
other dogs for breeding purposes. The owner was advised that breeding is not
1012 Lewis Multi-Pet Residential License
allowed in a residential area. He agreed to take his dogs out for breeding
purposes. The Environmental Health staff informed the owner that he couldn't
have a total of more then six animals over the age of six months on his
property.
• He stated that occasionally he will have puppies on his property, but will not
keep them over six-months.
September 16, 2003
• Stephen Lewis submitted an application fora new multi-pet residence license.
• A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property and noted
that there were no apparent problems with the residence.
• The Community Service Officer noted that Mr. Lewis only had two dogs at that
time. Mr. Lewis was informed that in order to apply for amulti-pet residence
license, he has to have three dogs. He stated that he would be taking in his
son's dog. Mr. Lewis was advised that he could apply for the multi-pet
residence license when he takes in his son's. dog.
November 2003
• Mr. Lewis obtained animal licenses for two additional dogs and staff proceeded
with the processing of the multi-pet residence license.
• Staff notified the neighbors of the. request for amulti-pet residence license. Staff
received three .letters from residents that were opposed to this multi-pet
residence license. The residents were. opposed due to the barking dogs (letters
attached).
February 10, 2004
• Mr. Lewis' request for a new multi-pet residence license appeared before the
City Council.
• The City Council issued Mr. Lewis afour-month conditional license, with the
provision that breeding ceases immediately.
• City Council requested that staff conduct four inspections of this property.
Per City Council's request, staff inspected the property on April 12, 2004, April 18,
2004, April 28, 2004, and June 1, 2004, and there were no apparent problems.
In May of 2004, staff notified neighbors again regarding the request for amulti-pet
residence license. At that time staff received one phone call opposed to the multi-
pet residence license. The resident stated that the dogs are rarely left outside now
and that the barking has gotten better. The resident wanted it noted that she had
concerns about the City approving a license where four or more large dogs are
allowed at one residential location.
June 22, 2004
• After the four-month conditional license period, Mr. Lewis' request for a new
multi-pet residence license appeared before the City Council.
• The City Council issued Mr. Lewis athree-month temporary License with the
provision that all ordinance requirements are met, and that Mr. Lewis decreases
the number of dogs on his property from four to three.
During the three-month temporary license period staff received three calls regarding
barking. Dan Scott received one complaint regarding barking and possible breeding
at this location again because the complainant heard puppies at the property. It
was explained to the complainant that they could have puppies as long as they are
less than six months of age.
On August 19, 2004, staff inspected the property, but was unable to make contact
with Mr. Lewis regarding breeding on his property. Staff observed three large
German Shepherds barking in the front window. Staff stated the dogs were barking,
but feel they started when he approached the property..
On September 30, 2004, staff inspected the property again and was unable to make
contact with Mr. Lewis. The dogs were in the house and only barked briefly when
staff rang the doorbell.
In September of 2004, staff again notified neighbors of the request for the multi-pet
residence license. Staff received one phone call and one a-mail from residents that
are opposed to this multi-pet residence license. The residents are opposed due to
the dogs' barking, and are also concerned that the City allows multi-pet kennel
licenses in the City. (E-mail attached).
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the
area of the multi-pet residence .license application. In November 2003,
staff notified the neighbors of the request for amulti-pet residence
license. Staff received. three letters from residents that were opposed to
this multi-pet license. The residents were opposed due to the dogs'
barking (letters attached).
• In May of 2004, staff notified neighbors again regarding the request for a
multi-pet residence license. At that time staff received one phone call
opposed to the multi-pet residence license.. The resident stated that the
dogs are rarely left outside now and that the barking has gotten better.
The resident wanted it noted that she had concerns about the City
approving a license where four or more large dogs are allowed at one
residential location.
• In September of 2004, staff notified neighbors again regarding the
request for amulti-pet residence license. At that time staff received one
phone call and one a-mail (attached) opposed to the multi-pet residence
license. The resident that called wanted to make sure that Council
reviews the letters that were previously sent in and stated that the facts
remain the same. They are keeping the dogs quieter now but they have
put up with the barking for nine years. She wanted to make sure that the
letters were read again by the Council and was adamant that they be kept
confidential from Mr. Lewis. Thee-mail complaint staff received
expressed their concern about granting multi-pet licenses to residences
within the city limits.
• Per City policy, staff checked on police contacts at this location. The
Police Department received one call on April 27, 2003 for a disturbance.
Police assisted and advised.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Mr. Lewis' application does not contain the signatures of three contiguous
property owners. He received signatures from. two contiguous property
owners. The third contiguous property owner is in a nursing home and
Mr. Lewis was not able to get her signature.
• One of the contiguous property owners signed the petition, however, also
sent a letter stating his concerns regarding barking, odors, and animals at
large (see attached).
C. FINANCIAL
• Pending the City Council's approval of this license, the applicant will be
required to fill out a new application and pay the fee for the upcoming
2004-2005 year.
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
_ Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the
request for amulti-pef residence license::
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Three letters from neighbors opposing the license.
• Letters sent to Mr. Lewis from city staff.
• Two e-mails, one from 2003 .and. the other 2004, from neighbor.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Stephen Lewis
~ ~Y ~ ~ ~
_„~
i - ~
ti- ~~ ~ ~
- ,~:
~, t l ~ ~~ _ ~.t ('~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ' ' ~
r
q ~ ~,~
_~ ~~ ~:
~:. ~ ;~
.t
( ~,, ._1. J ~ ~ 1 ~ _.
a~ , li ~`I. ~ ~ t
~~ ,~ I i Ct-.. ~, ; ~ (~ ~. ~/^<jJ~ r`y ~ ;tire 1
~ /'~ ~ i r 6.1 ~}'" ~ ,~, .;.fit... . `+,~G', -.
~;~~,,.
.-_
~r~2 ~ZZ h~vy., ~/u15 (~=1,~~ SS~ xM.~~> 5'P~ ~._l'~?J~:~ ~~"`i ~'bd'E~ 17D~ ~ ~ ~
4\
J ~ ~ ~-. I yam/ ~r/~~ - ^ /~ ~ ~ V '
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~
p~ ~,
_.~ v °~ /~ ' - ~ ~. ~ 'ems {~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~....k. ~. ~~
~-^~ ,_
is
i
v-^ I tom, ~ ; ~ ~ V _ '~. ~]' 'l z.~
~~ i, ,~ ~.
~ __ ~ b
_ ~ ply ~> ~- ~ ~ ~, ~
~ . _ ~ iii C I'=~ cJ ~ r 'P I "'- ~ (^^y''~ ~~ ~~ Iii
_ ~ ~ ,
._ ~ :~' ~-
3 1 ., V r,
~A ~ ~~ ~v
"„mil; "1 ~- --~ I ~ ~.l_ f.
1 ~ ' 1 ~ 1.~~ lli~~V//
y ~ r_
~ ~ ~ ~./ ~J
iii ~.y ~.
•` > ~
_ ACS ~ Cr ~
L~ o ~ _. ~ _
=. _ . .
-~ ~
. ' ~-~.~
~N\~ ~q ~ . M.~.~ ~`~~U~ ~-~wz5 j 9Nbd-a L: Yes Gvr~x`~- ~o oi~c..
_...
U._ i
~..
,~ _ ..
~~ ~ d'1_ cS ~ ~ ~"CTs-~ttit`3~- ~ ~ 'Z.-o-a~ 1nJ ti~~ . A~ ~.~ Q ~s ~'~'" ~0 ~'2- .
._.
_ ~: - `O ~ _ . rv~,~z t ~ ' S r 6-nJ N~ . ' lV~w,s~- - a .~ ~4 Q ~-;~+5~ +IZ: _ c~U rZ. ~~I r'~o-u~, (.,
a
_ _
~, . ~' - ~ ~ G~ L s ~s.-c~- ate. ~ r~ , rv ~ .~- }L:r~,°°rt:~ u c,~vc~. ~'o. i2 l~ ~ s ~~S
~ ~ -
~ ~ ~
~~
~ ~' ~ ~ . _ ~' ~ Ccs~l ot7-'1 t3nl ~ z-~a~/~~ hid ~ ~v-a~L.~ ~ ~e~.r~
~ ~--~
~ ~ ~; v i'v'y ~U ~ ~ d?c~~r.' . ~~ _._, ,e- ~//tl~~, ~>e~
1 ~/~ ~
~~
"~ ~.~ /2-lrr/~ . .% .mod"g ~~~ ' " ~~~~` ~~i~vv~~,: ,
^'" _ - G~~
V
..-.
~ r
~ ~ ~ ''
~~i2o~c.r~- c~-r.1~'' ~~~ p~ ~ <_ o ~~ ~~cit/l-~ /(moo i s~~:
~ ~ :-. ~ i
J ~ , . Pry
>_~ ~ ~
. _ _
._ .
~. ,
_~ ~_
- :_
~a~~.~:
.-
s ., `
... ~ f "77'Z2_..=i~~isl j1/ ~~i~T'1'~.:1~ . l~'~ - S._ /~it~
(b-~ ~=~
~t
' 1~~ - .
~St 1 '~~~ i1'jU~~S~,, 1.~ :: _ ~~~ LCJI`7l` ~~ d~l~~~'
Z ,.
_ - _
~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ,~~~~~ ~~ ~ . ~~ ~~~~ ~J
,~ ~l ~/ ~~ ,~~ ~'~ ~ -- ~=/~(/~~'l ' Sl,~- ~ ~u~7`" :;mod ~
S ~ye~ ~~~~~ 7'/mom ~~.i ~~~~ , ~c_772~
R L~ u ~ 112~L I~GU~ S,ct l1~ ~i°~ 1v~ erP G~'~' ~i?,~-9
~- /
-'_.
l ~2~,4 rte' ' ~..
C~n/6~2~~ !_ ~' ~5'~ Lr~~ d,rc~ su~, /??afi~~~s% ~ ~a e~//~..
fftll~~b Yf S.17" ~° rvl;~~~l.~~~' :-~T'~;,6C,.~~2,, ~~~-'/Gli~ J _ ~y S^-~n1' l~ ,
r ,;
~-
-~c,~' -- a c~~~ c~~ ~~-,,fob-~% . ~o r2N~~l~
~-~ ~~ -s'7~~~ ~ ~iL~n-,r~?T" ~.~~-f2~? C~~~--~ .b~ 02'I~Z Lars:..
..
J
. , °~ ~"'
_. ~ ; ~
z
_v ~ ~`
.... .
e l~~'~'~ ,~~. ~` 7~ 1 ?~- ~.o~~ `7TH ~ ~ s,~t~ }~i.~rv~ `.~~~ ~-~~
~,
e~
X7-0 ~Q _ ~,~'
~ -
_... ,_ __
.~ ~ . _ .
_ __
~'. _,
~ _ ~_
__
---
~\ : ~~~~~~ /~'=~ ~ ,gip v~~~~ - `~ ~;cu~~ ` 7 ~ s
. ~ ~ A --
~l r~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1v~~1~ ~~ ~~~ ,~ ,~~ ~~
i ~ ( y - _ y
... -
R`~^1J `
_..
r .... ~.
_.
~_
~ ~ - ~-- ; .
~ ~~ _ ~
a~
~~'
~ ~ ~ ~~~ _
~ ~\ l~a~Bf.~ ~,~~~~'-ems- _: _C3rc f ~ ~/~~~q~f~dd~ • ~`-~` ~ "G~a ~,G~r
~ ~;~ -~T`~' `lam ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ `~
._ -
`~ ~"~
~ ~ e~ ~~~~ ~f~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~r-~
~~~
~~r~~~ /t/~ l sue:-
i~
~ ~~ ~ 20~~~ ~ ~S ~~ ~
~,~y' _ _
.._ ... l _ ~. ~.
~-- _ _ _,
_ _ '/
_._ - _ _
~~~ - LV~ s. cis- _ ~,~'
~' ~, ~~
~ ~' ~~ .
~~l~a~ ~: ~ ~~rc~~ f
~_
JJl~
o
.._.
~~
.~ ..
._. .._
...
,_ ~ ~~`~
,_
~~~,~_~- . ~,~-~.~ ~ ~2 ,~~r~.~~1s. ~~~~ ~ .Gil-~.,~ ~/~
_.
., .. ...
:. _ ~ ., .
--_.J_~ - .= .-~
. ~.
~ `~'`
l- __ ~ ._
_.
~, ~ ~
,...
~~~~ ,~'-~~d=~,_ ~~v~ -ate ~~i-;~h/ ~' ~r~.~.s
page 2
information to make a
rocess will provide the necessary articipate and
I am confident that this p Council. I appreciate your willingness to p
uestions.
recommendation to the City
coura a you to contact me at 861-9870 if you should have any q
en 9
Sincerely,
~_
Kathy. Mueller
Licensing
KNl atf
~_ ~t
- , ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ ~~- ~ r
. ~ ~'~~
~~~-" e
~~'~%
~~_ 'ta~ ~
~ ~ ~.. ~ ~
~~
~~ ~ ow ~~ -~~~
~~~~y~
~, ~ -~
D
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
September 10, 2004
MAYOR Stephen Lewis
MARTIN J. KIRSCH 6436 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
CITY COUNCIL
JOHN ENGER
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M. SANDAHL RE: Your application request for aMulti-Pet License
GERTRUDE ULRICH
This letter is notification that your request for aMulti-Pet License has been scheduled
CITY MANAGER to appear before the City Council on October 12, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council
SAMANTHA ORDUNO
Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
Please be present at the meeting so that you can address any issues or concerns
that may arise. If you have any questions prior to the date of the meeting, please feel
free to contact me at (612) 861-9880.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mueller
Business Licensing
KM:ttf
The Urban Hometown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
www.ci.richfieltl.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RICHFIELD
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH
CITY COUNCIL
JOHNENGER
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M.SANDAHL
GERTRUDE ULRICH
CITY MANAGER
SAMANTHA ORDUNO
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
June 25, 2004
Stephen Lewis
6436 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This is a follow-up to the City Council's June 22, 2004 meeting in which they made a decision
on your request for amulti-pet license. The City Council's decision was to issue you athree-
month conditional license pending the completion and approval of a new multi-pet residence
ordinance.
After the three-month conditional license period, the City Council will meet again on October
12, 2004. You must be present at this meeting to address any issues or concerns that may
arise. We will also contact neighbors prior to that meeting to obtain any feedback they may
have to share with the City Council. If you have any questions prior to the date of this
meeting, I can be reached at 612-861-9880.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mueller
Business Licensing
KMatf
Copy: Dan Scott, Director
~~~ ~~
The Urba~Z Honletotirrr
G' Z~ J~ y
a
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
www.ci.richtield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
J
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
February 19, 2004
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH Stephen Lewis
6436 Portland Avenue South
CITY COUNCIL MN 55423
Richfield
JOHN ENGER ,
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M. SANDAHL Dear Mr. Lewis:
GERTRUDE ULRICH
- This is confirmation of the decision that was made by the City Council on Tuesday, February
CITY MANAGER 10, 2004, regarding your request for amulti-animal residential license. The City Council's
SAMANTHA ORDUNO decision was to issue you afour-month conditional license.
Per our conversation on February 12, 2004, amulti-animal residential license does not allow
you to breed your animals at your residence. Breeding is not allowed in residential areas
and you must cease breeding immediately. Breeding is only allowed in areas that are zoned
commercial and have a commercial kennel license.
After the four-month conditional license period, the City Council will meet again on June 22,
2004. You must be present at this meeting to address any issues and concerns that may
arise. We will also contact neighbors pr'sor to that meeting to obtain any feedback they may
have to share with the City Council. If you have any questions prior to the date of this
meeting, please feel free to contact me at 612-861-9880.
The City Council will be meeting on April 13, 2004, in the council chambers at City. Hall to
discuss the multi-animal residential license process. Discussion regarding this matter will
start when all council members are present, between 5:00 and 5:15 p.m. You expressed an
interest in attending this meeting and are welcome to attend.
Sincerely,
f: f-_........
/ ..__...
Kathy Mueller
Business Licensing
KM:ttf
Copy: Dan Scott, Director
0
The Urban Hometow~z
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
www.ci.rich(ield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
i
RICHFIELD
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
June 10, 2004
Stephen Lewis
MAYOR 6436 Portland Avenue South
MARTIN J. KIRSCH '
Richfield, MN 55423
CITY COUNCIL
JOHN ENGER
SUSAN ROSENBERG RE: Your a Ilcation re nest for a new Multi-Pet License
SUZANNE M. SANDAHL pP ~ q
GERTRUDE ULRICH
This letter is notification that your request for the new multi-pet license has been
CITY MANAGER scheduled to appear before the City Council on June 22, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the
SAMANTHA ORDUNO Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
Please be present at the meeting so that you can address any issues or concerns
that may arise. If you have any questions prior to the date of the meeting, please feel
free to contact me at (612) 861-9880.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mueller
Business Licensing
KM:ttf
~~ ~~
0
The UYban Hoinetvti-'n
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
www.ci.richfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH
CITY COUNCIL
JOHNENGER
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M, SANDAHL
GERTRUDE ULRICH
CITY MANAGER
SAMANTHA ORDUNO
January 29, 2004
Stephen Lewis
6436 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
This letter is notification that your request for amulti-animal residential kennel license
has been scheduled to appear before the City Council on February 10, 2004 at 6:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
RE: Your application request for aMulti-Animal Residential Kennel License
It has come to my attention that the licenses for two of your dogs expired on January
11, 2004. I have enclosed the renewal forms for these two dogs. Please license
these dogs ASAP. All animals need to have current licenses before your request for
a multi-animal residential kennel license will be approved.
Please be present at the meeting so that you can. address any issues or concerns
that may arise. If you have any questions prior to the date of the meeting, or are
unable to attend the meeting please contact me at (612) 861-9880.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mueller
Business Licensing
KM:ttf
Enclosures
~}
~'
~ 1 ~~,~,
The Urban Hometown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
www.cl.richfieltl.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Mueller
From:
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:39 AM
To: Kathy Mueller
Subject: licensing
As I indicated in my phone message, I continue to have concerns about granting multi pet licenses to kennels
within the city limits. Kennels tend to have more animals and animals that are younger and not as well trained
because of their youth. I don't feel that it is appropriate and I continue to object to the concept. I appreciate that
our neighbors have made efforts to restrain their dogs, but feel that the city is not the place for a kennel operation.
thank you,
n/ten ~~nnn
Mueller
.~
From:
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003.2:50 PM
To: kmueller@ci.richfield.mn.us
Subject: dog license request for 6436 Portland Ave
As I said to you in our phone conversation this past week, we have some
serious concerns about amulti-animal residential license for this
neighbor. In the past they have bred dogs and have had multiple dogs in
their yard. We have had problems with the increase in dog barking at all
hours--the dogs are frequently kenneled outdoors. It is especially annoying
in the early hours of the morning--every morning!! We have not called in
complaints because we have tried to be "good neighbors", but to make this
an official situation is not acceptable. We are hesitant to make this
complaint known to the neighbor because we have 1 dog and are afraid that
if we complained about their dogs, they would look for a way to report our
dog if she barked at all! It is because of this concern that we are
requesting that our name/address not be entered into the public record.
thank you
AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT # 168
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. 24
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO
N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Motion to Approve:
• Second reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 905, which deals with multi-pet
residence licenses;
• Approve summary publication of amended Section 905
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve second reading of attached ordinance
amendment to Section 905, which deals with multi-pet residence
licenses and approve summary publication of amended Section 905.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2004, at a worksession, staff met with the City Council to discuss the subject
of multi-pet licenses in the City of Richfield. A second worksession was scheduled for
June 22, 2004. Staff had been looking for direction from the City Council on several issues
1012 Second Reading Multi-Pet Ordinance
relating to the subject of multi pet licenses. The direction that Council gave staff at that
worksession was as follows:
• The City Council agreed to change the name of residential kennel licenses to multi-pet
residence licenses.
• The definition of a multi-pet residence license needed to be more clearly defined as
well as the definition for a commercial kennel.
• The maximum number of pets a person can have on their property should be
decreased from six to five.
• The licensing year for these types of licenses should be changed to a calendar year.
• The Council agreed to delegate licensing to staff, with afee-based appeal to the City
Council. There will be a provision to appeal a staff administrative decision to the City
Council but there will be anon-refundable $500 fee to do so.
• Residents currently holding residential kennel licenses, which now may have up to six
animals, will be allowed to continue to exist. This is with the understanding that as the
number of their animals decrease due to death, moving, illness or adoption, that they
will not replace animals in excess of five.
• Staff will continue to request neighborhood feedback on the licensed property at the
time of license renewals each year.
• A multi-pet residence license will be defined as one in which there are three dogs and
two cats or three cats and two dogs. A multi-pet residence license will not be needed if
there are only two dogs and two cats. If a resident wants a third dog or a third cat, they
would need to make application for amulti-pet residence license and go through the
process with the understanding that there cannot be more than three dogs or three cats
on the property at any time, or a total of no more than five animals. Animals less than
six months of age do not require a license.
• The breeding of animals will require a commercial kennel license and they will be
prohibited from being located in a residential neighborhood.
• A first reading of the ordinance was heard on July 27, 2004 and approved.
• All currently licensed residential kennel license holders were sent a letter in late
September highlighting the changes to the ordinance and were given a copy of the
ordinance for their review. They were also made aware that the Council would be
conducting a second reading on October 12, 2004 and they were invited to attend, if
they choose to do so.
• The second reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 905 is submitted for
Council approval at this time.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council has made it clear that six animals at a property, with
the size of the lots in the City, is too many animals to have on one lot
without it affecting the neighborhood.
• The City Council is interested in staff administratively approving multi-
pet residence license requests. If an applicant is not pleased with
staff's denial of their license request, they can appeal the decision to
the City Council but only after paying a nonrefundable appeal fee.
• The City Council is extremely concerned about the impact on
neighbors and the neighborhood in general, when having too many
animals results in issues for others.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Current residential kennel license holders will be allowed to continue
to maintain more than five animals, but no more than six, with the
understanding that as the number of animals decreases due to death,
moving, illness or adoption, that they will not replace animals in
excess of four. If they decide to add animals in excess of four, they
would have to undergo the multi-pet residence license process with
the new added animals.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could decide to do nothing. This would .mean that property
owners could have up to six animals on a single lot and would be approved.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Section 905, Animal Control with changes.
• Resolution approving Summary Publication of City Code Section 905, Animal
Control
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
Richfield City Code
Section 905 -Animal control.
(Amended, Bill No. 1996-10)
905.01
(Rev. 1996)
905.01. Licensing of domestic animals. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section
the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, harboring or having custody of an
animal.
Subd. 3a. "Commercial kennel" means a place where ~ ° +~,.,,, ,-...,, a°^~ ,,,.,-.,,^ ^.,+~ „
m°~+'~~ °~ ~^° °~°'-°r+ °ra ~=~'~°r° the business of selling, boarding, breeding, showing, or grooming
dogs or cats is conducted.
Subd. 3b. "Veterinary kennel" means a kennel facility or clinic operated and maintained by a
licensed veterinarian, where treatment, care, diagnosis, and veterinary procedures are performed.
Subd. 4. "D°~~~'°r+~°"~°„'^°'" Multi-Pet residence means a place where more than two dogs
or two cats over six months of age are kept on premises which are zoned and occupied for residential
purposes.
Subd. 5. A dog is "at large" when it is off the property of its owner and not under restraint.
Subd. 6. A dog is "under restraint" if it is controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length,
or at heel beside a competent person having custody of it and obedient to that person's commands, or
within a vehicle being driven or parked on a public street or within the property limits of its owner's
premises. An unattended dog on the property of another, without the consent of such property owner,
is "at large" and not under restraint even though it is on a leash.
Subd. 7. For purposes of subsections 905.03.- - 905.33, "animal" shall refer to domestic dogs
and cats.
905.03. License. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may own, harbor, keep or have custody of an
animal over six months of age within the city, unless a current license for the animal has been obtained
as provided in this subsection. Applications for animal licenses must be made when the animal attains
six months of age, (i) and not later than 30 days from the acquisition of an animal, (ii) and not later
than 30 days from the moving of an animal into the city, (iii) this registration will expire on the date the
animal's rabies vaccination expires, and must be reinstated within 15 days of the expiration of the
animal's rabies vaccination. Owners whose animals have received rabies vaccinations which are
effective for more than one year may apply for a two or three year license, depending on thetype of
rabies vaccination. When making application for amulti-year license, the owner must submit all of the
information required for an annual license as well as documentation indicating that the animal has
received a rabies vaccination which is effective for the multi-year license being applied for. The multi-
year license may not exceed the period of effective rabies vaccination stated on the vaccination
certificate provided by the veterinary clinic, or veterinarian, which vaccinated the animal. These multi-
yearlicenses may only be issued for animals, which have been spayed or neutered.
Subd. 2. License fees. The license fee for each animal license, and the. charge for a duplicate
animal license is as provided in appendix D.
Subd. 3. Late penalty. If an animal license is obtained while the animal is impounded by the
city, or if the 15 day period allowed for reregistration of the animal has expired there shall be added to
the regular license fee a late license penalty as provided in appendix D for each animal; provided that
an owner who newly acquires an animal, or an owner who has an animal at the time of becoming a
resident of the city, shall be allowed 30 days to secure a license, without incurring the late license
penalty provided in this subdivision.
Subd. 4. Contents of application. Application for an animal license shall be made to the Public
Safety Deparhnent. The application shall include such descriptive information as is necessary to
provide reasonable identification of the animal and its owner. Applicants shall provide a certificate
issued by a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine showing that the animal has been vaccinated against
rabies, that such vaccination is effective on the date of the application, and that the vaccination will be
effective for the period of time for which application for animal license is made.
Subd. 5. Identification of licensed animal. Upon the issuance of an animal license by the
c~er~ public safety director or designee or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be provided with
a metallic tag bearing the license number and the word."Richfield." Except where the animal for which
the license is issued is indoors on the premises of his owner, the animal shall have a collar or harness
on which the license tag, and current rabies tag is axed. No person may counterfeit any tag of this
city or use a counterfeit tag.
Subd. 6. License nontransferable. A license tag is nontransferable to any other animal or to a
new owner of the animal for which it is issued.
Subd. 7. Replacement of lost tai. If any such tag is lost or stolen, the owner may obtain a new
tag by surrendering the receipt for the first tag and by paying the charge for a duplicate. license as
provided in appendix D.
905.05. Dogs not to be at large. An owner may not permit a dog to be at large in this city, but shall
keep dog under restraint at all times.
905.06. Immediate disposal of animal feces. An animal owner, or person having custody or control of
an animal, shall. immediately clean up and sanitarily dispose of any feces of the animal, except that this
provision does not apply to blindpersons with respect to their ownership and use of seeing eye dogs.
905.07. Confinement when necessary. A female animal in heat shall be confined in a building, secure
enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding kennel, or shall be controlled on a leash. while being
exercised, provided the animal does not create a public nuisance.
905.09. Public nuisances. The keeping of an animal which annoys other persons is a public nuisance
and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint of such annoyance by the occupants of two or
more neighboring properties, the city shall notify the owner of such an animal that the nuisance shall be
abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey a notice is a violation of this subsection and may be grounds
for the City to take further legal action.
905.11. Citespound. The council may provide for a city animal pound either within or outside the
limits of the city.
2
905.13. Pound keeper. If a city pound is established, the manager shall designate the pound keeper
who may appoint and deputize special officers to enforce this section. The special officer shall have
police powers to cite owners of dogs or cats for violations of this section, to impound animals and to
enforce the provisions of this section.
905.15. Enforcement procedures. Such officers, as the manager shall designate to enforce this section,
may pick up and impound any animal found not to be kept, confined or restrained, or licensed in the
manner required by this section. The officers may enter upon private property where there is
reasonable cause to believe that an animal is on the premises and is not licensed as required by this
section, or that there is an animal on the premises which is -not being kept, confined or restrained, as
herein provided. An owner shall produce for inspection an animal license receipt when requested to do
so by the officer.
905.17. uarantine. Any animal capable of carrying the rabies virus that has bitten a person shall
immediately be impounded for at least ten days and kept apart from other living creatures, under the
supervision of a veterinarian or the Department of Public Safety, until it is determined whether the
animal had or has a disease which might have been transmitted by the bite. The impounding may be
done by the owner at owner's residence, or veterinary facility with the ,approval of the Department of
Public Safety, but if it is not at the city pound or designated pound, the owner shall notify the pound
keeper or director of public safety immediately and shall furnish proof in writing that the animal is
being impounded, and shall follow all policies .and procedures relating to the .quarantine as directed by
the Department of Public Safety. Upon the expiration of ten days, if it is determined that the animal
does not have a disease which might have been transmitted by the bite, the animal may be released and
the pound keeper or director of public safety shall be notified immediately prior to the release by the
owner of the animal. If the animal is impounded at the city pound, it may be reclaimed as hereinafter
provided. Any animal which has been bitten by a rabid creature shall be euthanated or impounded and
kept in the same manner for a period of six months; provided that if the animal which has been bitten
by a rabid creature has been vaccinated at least three weeks before the bite and within one year of the
bite and if it is again immediately vaccinated, then such animal shall be confined or impounded for a
period of 40 days before. it is released. The owner of an animal which has been bitten by a rabid
creature shall notify the city pound keeper. or director. of public safety. immediately prior to the release
of the animal.
905.19. Dangerous animals. Adoption by reference. Minnesota Statutes 343.40, 346.57, 347.50,
347.51, 347.52, 347.53, 347.54, and 347.55 as they pertain to domestic animals, are adopted by
reference and are as much a part of this code as if fully set forth herein.. Any violation of the statutes
herein adopted by reference is a violation of this code. If an animal is diseased, vicious, dangerous,
rabid or exposed to rabies and the animal cannot be impounded. after a reasonable .effort or cannot be
impounded without serious risk to the persons attempting to impound it, or if an animal has made more
than one attack on a person or persons, the animal may be immediately killed by or under the direction
of an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this section..
905.21. Treatment during impounding. Any animal, which is, impounded in the city pound or
designated pound shall be kept, with kind treatment and sufficient food and water, and. sanitary
conditions, for the animal's comfort. If the animal is not known or suspected of being diseased and has
not bitten a person or been bitten by a rabid creature, it shall be kept in the pound for at least five days,
unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If the animal is known to be or is suspected of being
diseased with a disease which might be transmitted to persons, it shall be kept in the pound for at least
ten days.
905.23. Redemption of animals. An animal may be redeemed from the pound by the owner upon
paying the following:
(a) the license fee for the animal, if the license has not previously been obtained;
(b) the late license penalty, where a license has not been obtained within the time provided
in this section;
(c) the amount of the boarding fee which the city is required to pay to the pound keeper; or
(d) an impounding penalty as fixed in appendix D.
905.25. Disposal of unredeemed animals. The city pound keeper or designated
pound keeper shall make an effort to contact the owner of any animal which has been impounded and
which has identification on it. If at the end of the impounding period the animal is not reclaimed by the
owner, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of or sold to any
person following the procedures contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 514.93. If the animal is to be
kept in the city, a license shall be obtained before possession of the animal is given to the purchaser, if
a license is required.
905.27. Limit of dogs and cats on one premise. Not more than two dogs or two cats over six months
of age may shall be kept on any one premise, except at a licensed commercial kennel, veterinary
kennel, ored r°~~~'°„*~°"-°„„°'. multi-net residence.
905.29. Abandonment. It is unlawful for any person to abandon any animal in this city, or at the city
pound, or designated city pound.
905.31. Kennel licenses. Subdivision 1. Definitions. -The terms "commercial kennel," "veterinary
kennel," and "r°^;a°r+~°"~°~~°'" "multi-net residence" are defined in section 905.01.
Subd. 2. License required. No person may operate a veterinary, or commercial kennel or a
multi-net residence r°^~''°„+~^' '~°rr°' in this city without first obtaining a keel license as provided
in this subsection. Application for the license shall be made to the si~lerk public safety director or
designee and must be accompanied by the license fee set by appendix D. The public safety director
or designee c~er~ shall- r°~ r +''° ^rr'~°°*~^N +^ +''° °^~•~^~', administratively approve or deny the
license. v°'~~^'' ,r^~~ ^~-°r+ °r ''°N•~ *'~° '~^°r^°. Licenses issued for kennels shall be on an annual
calendar basis.-_, .which will run from January 1St through December 31St. Any resident. who
chooses to appeal the .director's or designee's administrative denial of the multi-pet residence,
comercial kennel or veterinary kennel license may appeal that decision to the City Council.
There will, however, be anon-refundable $500 appeal fee to do so. The director or designee or
council may impose conditions upon the granting of any multi-pet residence,.°°'~~al, veterinary, or
commercial kennel license.
Subd. 3. Approval of Conti ug ous property owners. The .application for a r°~~a°„+~^' '~°r~°'
multi-net residence license, ' ' ' '' '~ +' ' ,shall be accompanied
by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the
premises on which the multi-pet residence lo~el is to be located. Whether or not all of the occupants
4
of abutting property approve the application, the ~ director or designee may grant or deny the
license. The license may not be granted unless the-een~i~ director or designee finds that the use of
the applicant's premises as a multi-pet residence r°~~ a°„+~ ^' '~°r„°' will not have, or will not be likely
to have, any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute a
nuisance to the neighborhood.
Subd. 3a Multi-pet licenses; special provisions. The maximum number of animals
allowed under amulti-pet residence license is five, either two cats and three dogs or three cats
and two dogs. Except as provided in this subdivision, no license may be granted to allow more
than three cats or more than three dogs on any one premise. No license is required for a
combination of up to two dogs and two cats on one premise. For any multi-pet residence licenses
issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision 3a, where the license allowed more than three
cats or more than three-dogs on the premise, the director or designee may renew the license for
the same number of animals, on the condition that the licensee may not replace any animals that
die or are removed from the premises until the licensee can do so in compliance with the
maximum number stated in the first sentence of this subdivision. A multi-pet residence license
may only be granted if the keeping of the dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the
premises for residential purposes.
Subd. 3b Zoning Compliance.. A license will not be granted for a veterinary kennel or
commercial kennel unless the kennel use complies with applicable requirements of the zoning
code.
Subd. 4. Revocation. Kennel or multi-pet residence licenses may be revoked by the council
by reason of any violation of this subsection or by reason of violation of any other provisions of this
code or any order, law or regulation.
Subd. 5. Notice and hearing. Before revoking a kennel license or a multi-pet residence
license, the licensee shall be given notice of the. meeting at which such revocation will be considered,
and if the licensee is present at such meeting, the licensee must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Notice of the meeting shall be given to the licensee in writing: Written notice shall be mailed to the
address of the licensee as set forth in the licensee's application for the kennel license or multi-pet
residence license, and it shall be mailed at least five days before the date of the meeting at which the
revocation is to be considered by the council
Subd. 6. License fees. The fee for a veterinary or commercial kennel license and the fee for a
r°~~a°~*~^' '~°H^°' '~^°„°° multi-pet residence license are as fixed in appendix D. The r~=si~enti-al
keel multi-pet residence license fee is in addition to the usual animal license fees provided in this
section, if applicable.
Subd. 7. Sanitation. Kennels and properties holding amulti-pet residence license shall be
maintained in a clean and healthful condition. at all times, and shall be open to inspection by the
director of public safety, or their designee, at all reasonable times.
. ,
905.33. Reports by pound keeper. The city pound keeper or designated pound keeper shall account for
and pay over monthly to the city all monies received by the pound keeper on behalf of the city as
license fees or other charges. The pound keeper shall also give an accurate written report each month
to the city, stating (i) licenses issued, (ii) fees or other charges collected, (iii) sales made, (iv) dogs, cats
and other animals impounded, (v) the duration of any such impoundment, (vi) all animals destroyed,
and (vii) other pertinent data relating to animal control which may be requested by the city manager.
6
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. #/iE##
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City
Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of
publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the
following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. ####
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 905, ANIMAL CONTROL, OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD .
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City
Charter.
On October 12, 2004, the Richfield. City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill
No. ####, the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant
to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance amendment changes the name of a
kennel license to multi-pet residence license; changes the licensing year to a calendar year; allows
staff to approve the license request with a fee based appeal to the City Council; and limits the
maximum number of animals that may be kept on a property to five, with the exception of those
residential kennel license holders already having more than five animals. Copies- of -the ordinance
are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours, or
upon request by calling Betsy Osborn of the Public Safety Department, Support Services Division,
at (612) 861-9881.
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is directed to keep a copy of the
ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a
public place in the City for a period of two weeks.
2004
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of October,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1
AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDTNANCE
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT # 167
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
BARRY FRITZ, POLICE CAPTAIN
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: ~ ~~
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:.
Consideration of amending the City Code, Chapter XIII by the addition of a new Section 1355,
controllin the use of recreational motor vehicles._
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a first reading to add the attached nevi Section
1355 to Chapter XIII of the Richfield City Code that includes language
controlling the use of recreational motor vehicles.
Schedule a second reading for October 26, 2004.
II. BACKGROUND
Small, self-propelled electric and gas powered motor vehicles have become popular
items. These small "gopeds" or "pocket rockets" are frequently used by youngsters
on the streets and sidewalks in the City. Their inexpensive cost and small size
make them popular items. However, they pose a serious threat to the operators
when operated on roads and sidewalks. The operators are typically very young,
1012 First Reading Recreational Vehicles
unlicensed and unaware of traffic laws and regulations. Additionally, their small size
makes them very difficult to be seen by operators of standard motor vehicles.
Current City Code and State Statutes do not adequately address the use of these
types of vehicles.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Amendments and/or additions to the City Code require Council
approval.
• A resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance will be
provided at the second reading.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• These types of motor vehicles are becoming .increasingly popular. It is
wise to establish ordinance language to control their use before there
is proliferation of them on our streets and sidewalks.
C. FINANCIAL
• The only cost would be related to the publishing of the ordinance in
the paper.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance language.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• No action by Council will lead to the inability of the City to control the use of
these vehicles.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed ordinance number .
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE
OF RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND
OFF-ROAD VEHICLES
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Chapter XII1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to add the following new
Section 1355:
1355.01. Purpose. The~purpose of this section is to provide reasonable regulations for the
use of recreational motor vehicles on public and private property in the City. This section
is not intended to allow what is prohibited under Minnesota Statutes nor is it intended to
prohibit what is expressly allowed under Minnesota Statutes.
1355.03. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subsection
have the meanings given them.
Subdivision. 1. "Recreational motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle,
power-assisted vehicle and any vehicle propelled or drawn by aself-propelled vehicle
powered by a motor. having a piston displacement capacity of 25 cubic .centimeters or less
or an electric motor that is incapable of propelling the vehicle at a speed in excess of 20
miles per hour on a flat surface, including but not limited to trail bike, mini-bike, go-cart,
motorized scooter, or motorized skateboard (also known as "powerboard").
Subd. 2. "Off-road vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle, power-assisted
vehicle and any vehicle propelled or drawn by aself-propelled vehicle powered by a motor .
having a piston displacement capacity of over 25 cubic centimeters or an electric motor
that is capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed in excess of 20 miles per hour on a flat
surface, including but not limited to all-terrain vehicle, hovercraft, or motor vehicle licensed
for highway operation that is being used for off-road recreational purposes.
1355.05.1. Exemptions. This section does not apply to:
a) snowmobiles as defined in Minn. Stat. § 84.81 and regulated by Minn. Stat. § 84.81,
et seq;
b) licensed mopeds and motorized bicycles as defined by Minn. Stat. § 169.01, subd.
4a, and regulated by Minn. Stat. §§ 169.222 - 169.223;
c) electric personal assistive mobility devices (also known as "segways") as defined in
Minn. Stat. § 169.01, subd. 90, and regulated by Minn. Stat. § 169.212; and
d) electric-assisted bicycles as defined in Minn. Stat. § 169.01, subd. 4b, and
regulated by Minn. Stat. §§ 169.222 - 169.223..
1355.07. Prohibited Areas and Acts. It is unlawful for any person to operate a
recreational motor vehicle or off-road vehicle:
a) On private property of another without specific written permission of the owner of
said property. Written permission may be given by a posted notice of any kind
or description that the owner, occupant, or lessee prefers, so long as it specifies
the kind of vehicles allowed, such as by saying "Recreational Vehicles Allowed,"
"Trail Bikes Allowed," "All-Terrain Vehicles Allowed," or words substantially
similar.
b) On publicly-owned land including school grounds, park property, playgrounds,
recreation areas and golf courses, except where permitted by this section.
c) In a manner so as to create a loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which
disturbs, annoys, or interferes with the peace and quiet of other persons.
d) On a public sidewalk or walkway provided or used for pedestrian travel.
e) At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or
controlled substances as defined by state law.
f) At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding
circumstances.
g) At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger or
be likely to endanger any person or property or to cause injury or damage
thereto.
h) On any public street, highway, or right-of-way, unless licensed pursuant to
Minnesota law.
i) To intentionally drive, chase, run over, or kill any animal, wild or domestic.
j) To operate or halt any recreational motor vehicle or off-road vehicle carelessly or
heedlessly in disregard of the rights or the safety of others, in a manner so as to
endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property. or in excess of 25
miles per hour on publicly-owned lands.
1355.09. Street crossings. No person under 14 years of age operating a vehicle regulated
by this section may make a direct crossing of any street, highway, or public right-of--way.
1355.11. Hours for use: The .vehicles regulated by this section may be operated only
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
1355.13. Minimum equipment requirements. All vehicles regulated under this section
must comply .with the following equipment requirements.. Subdivision 1. Mufflers.
Standard mufflers must be properly attached and in constant operation to reduce the noise
of the gasoline motor of any recreational motor vehicle or off-road vehicle to the minimum
necessary for operation. No person may use a muffler cutout, by-pass, straight pipe, or
Ordinance 1355 2
similar device on a recreational motor vehicle motor; and, the exhaust system may not
emit or produce a sharp popping or cracking sound.
Subd. 2. Brakes. Brakes must be adequate to control the movement of the vehicle
and to stop and hold the vehicle under any conditions of operation.
Subd. 3. Lam s. At least one clear lamp must be attached to the front of the
vehicle with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100
feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head
lamp must be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming
vehicle operator. It must also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a
minimum candlepower of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a
distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric
conditions. This equipment is required and must be in operating condition when the
vehicle is operated between the hours of one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before
sunrise or at times of reduced visibility.
1355.15. Designation of public areas for use. Subdivision 1. Process. The City Council
may designate areas for use of recreational motor vehicles and off-road vehicles by
approval with a majority vote. The areas designated may be changed from time to time by
the City Council. Designated areas will be published in the official newspaper of the City in
a conspicuous place after such. approval. If an area is changed, the change will also be
published in the official newspaper of the City.'
Subd. 2. Map of designated areas. A current map of designated areas open for
recreational motor or off-road vehicle use will be kept on file in the office of the City Cierk.
The City Manager will provide, on request, a copy of such map together with the. applicable
rules, regulations, and this section to each person requesting such information from the
City.
Subd. 3. Park property. .Unless designated by the City Council as an area for
recreational motor vehicles or off-road vehicles, use on City park property is unlawful. Use
in City parks designated by the City Council must be in accordance with all of the
applicable provisions of this section and the rules and regulations of the Director of
Recreational Services.
1355.17. Penalty. The following penalties apply to violations of this section. Subdivision
1. Misdemeanor. Violations of subsection 1355.07 (e), (g), (i) and (j) are punishable as a
misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. Petty Misdemeanor. All other violations of this section are punishable as
a petty misdemeanor.
Adopted this day of , 2004.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Cierk
Ordinance 1355 3
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # SF
REPORT # 166
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A aND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 27, 31
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, T]TLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
LJ
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution regarding an off-street parking permit at 6421 Penn Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking
ermit at 6421 Penn Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• Mr. Gary Russell is requesting an off-street parking permit for a sign
business, Signs By Tomorrow, at 6419 Penn Avenue.
• The location is zoned `I' Industrial District, but the permitted uses of the `C-2'
General Commercial District, are also permitted uses in the `I' District.
• A retail business such as this is a permitted use in the `I' district as long as
the retail space is under 80,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
• The site currently contains one building with three tenant spaces. The
businesses share a total of 12 parking spaces. The proposed tenant space
is approximately 1,617 sq. ft.
101204-OS P-6419 Pe n nAve. do c
• City parking standards require uses such as this to have the one space per
1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area; resulting in a requirement of two parking
spaces for this tenant space. The tenant's lease further requires that all
employees park off site. This will free up all parking on site for customers.
• The applicant proposes to have two employees. The business hours will be
Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
The applicant's proposal has gone through the site plan review process with staff,
where the following matters were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site
plan:
• The site can accommodate the required two parking spaces for customers.
• The proposed deliveries to the rear of the building require using the property
to the south for access. There is a legal agreement in place that allows
tenants of this space access to the rear of the building using the property to
the south.
• Landscaping does not adequately meet the City's landscape requirements.
The entire lot is paved for the existing parking spaces. The entire site is
used for parking and if landscaping was added it would further constrain the
parking availability on the property.
• The proposed parking lot meets parking lot standards, for drive aisle width,
stall dimensions, and the provision of handicapped spaces.
• The parking lot does not meet setback requirements. City standards require
a minimum three-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to right-of--ways;
however, such a setback would make it impossible to keep the parking on
this parcel. Meeting the parking lot standards would make the entire lot non-
conforming and useless for any business. It is important that sufficient area
is ensured, so that the City sidewalk fronting this property can be plowed
properly during winter conditions.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in
City Code Section 800.17, which authorizes the City Council to issue a
permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have
an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the
community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was
received on September 20, 2004. A decision must be given to the
applicant by November 19, 2004 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.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
V. ATTACPIlVIENTS
• City Council resolution
• Site Plan
Certificate of Survey for 6419 Penn Avenue
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Gary Russell, applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT
AT 6419 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 6419 Penn
Avenue, legally described as:
UNPLATTED 28 028 24 - S 109 6/10 FT OF N 438 4/10 FT OF W 1/8 OF SW 1/4
OF NW 1/4 EX ROAD
WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff
and meets city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and .will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street
parking permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That an off-street parking permit for 6419 Penn Avenue is hereby approved for a
parking area as detailed in the site plan.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
October, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
SB GN~
E7cn-~r.~r.~zc~:r_-:r:~n~y~~r_~rrrsl-~r~LIT~
Ga-y ~tusse//
"s gjbtrussellcaearthlinknet ----
(~
` ~ 131.8'
_
'`
D m
z ~ ~,
~ _
~
'~ - -P
i c~ ~ ~
~ m~ ~ ~ ~
I ' ~
i
roax
n`°m
~ N~~ cn ,
.h:
m
m ~ ~ -- --~-- --- -
1
i
z
i
1
2 -~
mr
~r
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ °o
~- - - - - - ------- aT
mm
\ i
~ ~r\
CT7 m
-~
C~ ~
a
h
m
N
N
1 - ~J
~~
~ 9 D
'~9 r
ACCESS AGREEMENT DVER ~ z~
ADJACENT DRIVE. ~°o
' v
r
mz
~ ~ m
~~
i' '
i
1
i
1
<;., .
.~. u- ,,;~ _ .. _.
F ~-t.~ BRADLEY ~ ~~~ ~~
a -'
CIb .G INEER AND SURVCYOR n
!?.9829-.2tTN AVENUE SOUTH: .,'. .."~. w~,t,..,~: - - ' J~r ~jr~ ~]J{~~' ~~
x MINNEAppLJS~ MINN. _~ `' ~ ~ l~ c}•J u~A~V~ rl V`+~ //~~•~l
` PARKWAY 4 2169 - 1 ~~ ii~fi~`'4~'iL~i~
} {.
Cr \ _- ~ I ~1 ~ r., 1, ,(. • `,~.1 ~ T !. ,
~. ;
fir': : _ ~ ~ l
W ~ 6 3 ~t i ~ ~ ~ . .f
F~.~ { ~ ~ {
~ _ ~ (' p
i j! f
1+~'~ }.~ z 9 ' fR~ :` hi it ~ ~ ~`y;--.% ~ ~\ . ~~:
~-'~ vat ,~,~ :~ j ~ ~ r
t't~' ~. ! . n / . t
f .~. p
z t f ~.
~-
~. '
.r-. ~+r. ~`' ~f~}~v ~'FIGld~~.~ t'~/1'3`9a,~l~/f~-"J'TCJ~~I e
~' ~ f ..,d~r` .JE'~ .~~ E~,'Y.C'~1 ~~'. L'.'~/'c(,.i' ~ •G'C".. ~~! 14`4 ~ `.
t ~ ~r
~ , `r T - - ~ f..; r via= ~ ~~~'~ :..~ ~ ~~ ~'~'~~::.,•c ~ . ~.,~
-~.c.c ,r~ f f~~ ~ #r~•,' F j si '~ ~~ i.. ~ ~ ~`"~ _ .+ . ~~.v - ~13w' . I
}~ by ~~ ,,r~ ,,lam y~ 1 J~ ~~+~}~, +,
~-••/'~'~.Y~i"1 ~. ~-~V'~~~~'" ~%' !''j~_1 ~~ .~~,~'f',.. +c-'`.'Y ~,p~~.~~r/.~~f1~ ~.'G'Jf ,~ slr. i++j ~ 1fr»-j_t ~f+r"
1 ~ / 1 {
1 '• F f. ~`
4 ~ ~ ~ ~-':
>~• _ ~ ~ ~ _
-x- ~~. _ ... 2 ~ '
~?~ ~ -
AGENDA SECTION: (:nNSEIdT
AGENDA ITEM # 5F.
REPORT # ~ (, 5
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, _2004
Related to:
CrrY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A AND/oR RICI-~TELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 27, 31
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution regarding an off-street parking permit at 6421 Penn Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking
ermit at 6421 Penn Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• Unbank, the proposed tenant at 6421 Penn Avenue South, is requesting an
off-street parking permit for a check cashing and possible payday lending
store.
• The location is zoned `I' Industrial District, but the permitted uses of the `C-2'
General Commercial District, are also permitted in the `I' District.
• A retail business such as this is a permitted use in the `I' district as long as
the retail space is under 80,000 square feet of gross floor area. Unbank is
proposing 1,617 square feet of gross floor area.
r~
r.
101204-OSP-6421 PennAve.doc
• The site currently contains one building with three tenant spaces. The
businesses share a total of 12 parking spaces. The proposed
Unbank is approximately 1617 square feet.
• City parking standards require bank uses to have the one space per 250 sq.
ft. of gross floor area; resulting in a requirement of six parking spaces for this
tenant space. The tenant's lease further requires that all employees park off
site. This will free up all parking on site for customers.
• Unbank is proposing to have 2 employees. The business hours are Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. - 8 p.m., and Saturday 9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
The applicant's proposal has gone through the site plan review process with staff,
where the following matters were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site
plan:
• There are no proposed deliveries to the rear of the building, but if there are
any required there is a legal agreement in place that allows tenants of this
space access to the rear of the building using the property to the south.
• Landscaping does not adequately meet the City's landscape requirements.
The entire lot is paved for the existing parking spaces. The entire site is
used for parking and if landscaping was added it would further constrain the
parking availability on the property.
• The proposed parking lot meets parking lot standards, for drive aisle width,
stall dimensions, and the provision of handicapped spaces.
• The parking lot does not meet setback requirements. City standards require
a minimum three-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to right-of--ways;
however, such a setback would make it impossible to keep the parking on
this parcel. Meeting the parking lot standards would make the entire lot non-
conforming and useless for any business. It is important that sufficient area
is ensured, so that the City sidewalk fronting this property can be plowed
properly during winter conditions.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in
City Code Section 800.17, which authorizes the City Council to issue a
permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have
an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the
community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was
- received on September 20, 2004. A decision must be given to the
applicant by November 19, 2004 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.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Council resolution
• Site Plan
• Certificate of Survey for 6421 Penn Avenue
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Stuart Tapper, applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
- RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT
AT 6421 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 6421 Penn
Avenue, legally described as:
UNPLATTED 28 028 24 - S 109 6/10 FT OF N 438 4/10 FT OF W 1/8 OF SW 1/4
OF NW 1/4 EX ROAD
WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff
and meets city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street
parking permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That an off-street parking permit for 6421 Penn Avenue is hereby approved for a
parking area as detailed in the site plan entitled "King Wok."
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
October, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
R: -
,, _ o m
~ ~ ~N
~ - i d =
~~j~r-+t~ ''V' S Y~ 9 m
~~
E
$
a Z
~ ~ ~
a y~nog anuany uuad LZti9
~u~~u~
Old %n
v o
~
~ s d
s,, z~
~ N
_
ffi
~~
3aS'i m~Ea ~ _ ~ € yv!!
H ~~m _~na m~`o N 2
y>I
I
~I
JMI~
I
I~
X
~ II
L II
Y ~I
Y I~
Y *I I~
m ~
Ll
JI1~
I
3 ~
~.
1
Z
J
~ r
W ~~\(~\
E V I
5 ' ^ % S
\J J g O°~
Q
W
Z
W
Q
Z
Z
W
O
Ii
,,~^
VJ
X
W
a--
3l
t~"
4< ~ ..
+ I+ Lx ~ s c I~ d 1 ~ f1, >
~ ~.~ .,.~ 3 c'Y
r' ~ H. BRADLEY ,~~' ~- I1~~ ~~U
CI .~GiNEER AND SURVEYOR ~ ~ v ` y,_./`~~~~
~~ . 9829 ~ 2tTt1 AYENUE SOUTH - S~~
? ~ MINNEAPOLIS t. M/NN _ ;- 1 ~J
s ~~ ~.._ PARKWAY 4-2169 ~ •1 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ IR ?~A~(~,5~~'~~.
w
~--~~ ~ .
,w~''{ -~
I
'~ I[ r) ~~ ~ u~, ~+i ~ ar.r .r`~ FJF~".rr`~ ~.. -- ~ ~ /F ~` -. ~ i
~ ~ ~~:
s ~~ -. `
~ ,,~... tt
.t ~ v-
i
__ t - ~ ,. ~ rat.. 1 ice. '
~, . a) "
fz~ x ~ ~ t 3 3 ?:
t.
v ~~ } +i/i } ~F ~f~ f ! rj ~ ierf F ^ "Y ~,+^ ~~t~~~ ~• ~(.~ ~t.+'~~
_ ~ ~ P n
.~~~~~. ~~~ :.~ rf:. cif rl r~~~ ~,,,. ..:, ~ .r ' ~
~ -~ _
~u a $
4 ..
_~~ ;
~~
~- a~ ~:
h3'
•
;fit ~-~~~'~. i.. .. ~. _.
...__-.. _. _. .. ~ ~ I
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 5D
REPORT # 164
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2003
Related to:
CITY CouNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
aND/ox RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 27,29
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of first reading of an ordinance rezoning the property at 6941 and 6945 Nicollet
Avenue to SO-1 Service Office District .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached ordinance rezoning
6941 Nicollet Avenue from R (Single Family Residential) to SO-1
(Service Office District) and 6945 Nicollet from C-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to SO-1 (Service Office District).
II. BACKGROUND
• The petitioner, Kevin Anderson of Cornerstone Realty has purchased the
house at 6941 Nicollet Avenue.
• Cornerstone Realty would like to convert the house into additional office
space for their real estate business.
101204-RZN 1 stRDG-6941-6945Nicollet.doc
11~
• It is proposed that the house will have the same appearance as their existing
business next door at 6945 Nicollet Avenue, which is also proposed to be
_, rezoned to SO-1.
• SO-1 is the recommended zoning district for low intensity commercial uses in
areas designated as Single Family High Density in the Comprehensive Plan.
• The applicant is proposing to employ six to eight employees in the new
office; and parking will be located in the rear of the building for approximately
six vehicles.
• The business will primarily operate Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., but will occasionally be open during limited weekend hours.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The SO-1 zoning district was created in order to permit a low intensity
business primarily oriented to providing professional services to
individual customers in a small office environment that do not include
retail sales.
• The property at 6945 Nicollet Avenue is currently zoned C-1. This
classification is not being proposed because the permitted uses
include retail sales, while the SO-1 district does not include retail
sales.
• The rezoning of the two properties for commercial uses is consistent
with. the Comprehensive Plan as a conditional use. An Off-Street
Parking permit would be required of this use in-lieu of a conditional
use permit.
• The Comprehensive Plan designation for this area pre-dates the SO-1
zoning area classification.
• As a requirement for rezoning, the petitioner must obtain the
signatures of the owners of at least 50% of the property within 300
feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. The petitioner has obtained
the required number of signatures.
• Building permits may not be issued on the land while proceedings for
a rezoning are pending unless the improvements would be permitted
under both the existing and proposed zoning classification or unless
City Council approval is obtained. The applicant has taken out
building permits for a number of items such as replacement of
windows, re-roofing and siding. This type of work can be done on a
single family home, therefore the work has been allowed. The item
that can not be installed is the proposed parking lot; which will have to
wait until the rezoning is approved.
• The applicant will also be applying for an Off-Street Parking permit for
the site at 6941 Nicollet Avenue. This process is required when there
is a change in use. Review of an Off-Street Parking permit requires a
professional survey indicating required parking, drainage, landscaping
area, and screening. Applications for an Off-Street Parking permit are
heard by the City Council at the time of the second reading for
rezoning.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The property at 6941 Nicollet Avenue is zoned R. It is currently a
vacant single family residence. The Comprehensive Plan designates
the property as single family residential -high density. The proposed
zoning is SO-1.
• The property at 6945 Nicollet Avenue (existing business) is zoned C-
1. It is currently the existing business of Cornerstone Realty. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as single family
residential -high density.
• The map attachments illustrate the surrounding zoning, land use and
Comprehensive Plan classifications.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Notification: A mailed notice was sent to all property owners and
occupants within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned.
• Other Actions:
Council hearing would be rescheduled for October 12, 2004.
The Council holds a second reading and conducts a public
hearing. The second reading would be scheduled for November
9, 2004.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request to rezone the property at 6941 Nicollet Avenue from R
(Single Family Residential) to SO-1 (Service Office District) and 6945 Nicollet
from C-1 (Neighborhood Business) to SO-1 (Service Office District).
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment A: Map of land uses around the property
• Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
• Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the
property.
• Proposed plan
• Rezoning aerial map
• Letters of opposition
• Amendment to Appendix 1
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Mr. Kevin Anderson, Cornerstone Realty
Mr. Steve Penney, Cornerstone Realty
REZONING AND OSP REQUEST FOR 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
SEPTEMBER, 2004
LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
69TH ST.
RE
RE RES
ES RES
RES_ RES
RES ••
RES APT
RES
RES COM
-°'"
RES RES
RES RES
RES -RES
ppU( RES
RES ES
6RES~ RES
COM RES
COM DPLX
LAND USE SYMBOLS
RES =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DPLX =TWO FAMILY.RESIDENTIAL
APT =APARTMENT BUILDING
COM =COMMERCIAL
PUB =PUBLIC
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
N
9-2-04
1
REZONING AND OSP REQUEST FOR 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
SEPTEMBER, 2004
ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN .350 FEET
ZONING SYMBOLS
R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MR-1 =TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
- MR-2 = MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY
C-2 =GENERAL COMMERCIAL
N
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
9-2-04
2
REZONING AND OSP REQUEST FOR 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
SEPTEMBER, 2004
COMPRENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SYMBOLS
R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
_ R-SFH =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY
PUB =PUBLIC
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet. N
9-9-04
3
.~~,
"~
a9
dr-
a 3
rr
~~
e~1
x
5
.ate.
w~
~; r ~
s .-F
1
~. " r
~"~ .I,
Asfl
~`',
~~,
' ~~
r ,r r ~
~ ~I,
~~Yrs
~ ~ .' i„
r~ ~ ~rF
g !
`~_ ~~ ~ ~_
a ~ ~,.
. ~
g
~~ i r
r~~ '.
~.,
~ '~
^'
~ -~- ~
t.,..~..,~,1i,.
/ ~ ~1~ ~
~~~.~
~'~
~~
~~
~~',~'~`
i ~ 1 ~~.
l ~`'-
c'-~`~- ', G ~ ~ C ' ' r'10
~_.:~~'U"'"
~ ~ ~.~~
w "...," 7 n /1
C~3..~~)^~ ~ ~~,c~ ~(J CVO` ''v9~ t ~V
C~~',-tom` ~}\ '''`"` _ ~ f `'Q' ~~` ~
~ ~~~
~. ~~
~s~
~~ ~
'v`~~.
c..~.n,-t c h~ ~"
(~~`~,\ ~~.~~
-~-~ `~ G
.-~- ~.~-
~~ ~ ~ ~ .1~
~~~ ~ ~
~~~~
~ ~~
°~ ~
~t~ ~~`~ 6
c~; ~-~ t~ Cam. '~`~
,~~ ~~ ~~
~~~
4 ~
~ 1
., ~,. ~ ~ r
P~
`z-fi`t` ~
~-~'` ~
~--~-ss-~--- '
~~ ~_~~"
~~ ~~ ~.
~~ - ~ L
~--~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ s
~ 1~ ,~ dry
`~-~w 3
,. ~r~
r r ~G~~2i~.~- ~i
~~ (~
t r ~~ ~t
r
~ / ~r L~~~~ ~~
L
~~y ~~~ ~ ~~~~ c ~~~
~~r~' ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~, .
~~ ~-~~
~ _ ~~
~~, ~, ~~
~~~ ~~
~~
~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~ s
~~~ ~~~~
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~"
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1 which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is
hereby amended in the following respect:
Section 2, Paragraph (9) is amended to read as follows:
(9) M-6,
That area Ivinq between the center line Nicollet Avenue and the west line of
Meredith's Addition, and between the center line of 70th Street and a line
distant 130 feet northerly and parallel thereto.
APPENDIX 1. BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION 14, SERVICE OFFICE DISTRICT (SO-1 ).
(1) M-6 (NE corner, 70th and Nicollet) That area lying 130 feet north of the
center line of 70th Avenue and extends a line distance of 95 feet for an area Ivinq between
the center line of Nicollet_Avenue and the west line of Meredith's Addition.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Rich#ield, Minnesota this 9th day of
November, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # SC
REPORT # 163
~J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CrrY CouNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
AND/ou RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No N/A
CHRISTINE COSTELLO,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
NAME, TITLE
ACTING DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a subdivision waiver for 6525 Emerson Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision
waiver for 6525 Emerson Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• The applicant, Mr. Andy Bast, is seeking to divide the southern 25 feet of
6525 Emerson Avenue; and to sell the 25 feet section of property to the
property to the south, 6529 Emerson.
• If split, both parcels will meet minimum City requirements for lot area, width,
and depth. Both properties have existing houses on the lots.
101204-Su bd ivisio n W giver-6525 Emerson.doc
• If there were plans to build any addition to the houses or to add an accessory
structure it would have to meet all zoning ordinance requirements. At this
time there are no plans for any additional improvements.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interfere with the
purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05.
• Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05,
Subdivision 1 of the City Code would result in an unnecessary
hardship.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the subdivision waiver will create two parcels that meet
minimum City requirements for lot area, width and depth.
• The minimum lot width in the R district is 50 ft. and the minimum lot
area is 6,700 sq. ft.
• Parcel A will be 89.7 ft. wide, 99.7 ft. deep and include an area of
8,943 sq. ft. This parcel will have the existing house on it.
• Parcel B will be 85 ft. wide, 99.7 ft. deep and include an area of 8,475
sq. ft. This parcel will have the existing house on it, as well as
additional 25 ft. from Parcel A.
• Both Parcel A and B do not meet the current standard for lot depth of
100 ft. But both lots were a lot of record on or before June 1, 1995,
and as long as the lot width is not less than 40 ft. and the lot area is at
least 5,000 sq. ft they are allowed. Both of the proposed lots meet this
requirement.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION S
• Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Zoning Map
• Land Use Map
• Survey of proposed parcel
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• Mr. Andy Bast, applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER
6525 EMERSON AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield (the "City")
which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of
land located at 6525 Emerson Avenue, legally described as:
The South 114.70 FEET of Lot "A" and the North 60.0 Feet of Lot
"B" SILVERWOOD ADDITION.
WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is
sought is legally described as:
Parcel A: The South 114.7 feet of Lot "A" except the south 25.0 feet thereof,
SILVERWOOD SECOND ADDITION.
Parcel B: The North 60.0 feet of Lot "B" and the south 25.0 feet of the north
114.7 feet of Lot "A", SILVERWOOD SECOND ADDITION.
WHEREAS, the resulting parcels A and B will comply with Section 521.09 of the
City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the
subdivision waiver; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section
500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply.
therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section
500.01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above
is hereby granted; and
2. Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels
as described above as Parcel A and Parcel B; and
3. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to
effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances
complying with the terms of this resolution.
4. Any proposed additions or accessory structures will need to meet zoning
ordinance setback requirements of the current code.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
October, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
101204-Su bdivisionWaiver-6525 E merson. doc
SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST FOR 6525 EMERSON AVENUE
OCTOBER 12, 2000
ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
M
~i~
Z
O
w
w
ZONING SYMBOLS
R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N
PMR =PLANNED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
10-6-04
1
~~ _ - .
SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST FOR 6525 EMERSON AVENUE
OCTOBER 12, 2000
LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
uu u~
o ~.
~a . ,.,
,....
~. ,~.
. .,____
M
~ _RES ! i_ P,ES I ~Q
RES_..; it RES I "•
. ~.T ~ "'
66TH ST. r ~ e
.,
~. ..
`:
J
t
~ 1
. , ` ~
~ PRK
• ~.
,_._.
~~
1 RES i -
~__ _
~ - - ! PRK
RES i RES
j ~ - 1,~/
~~s ~Z1 ~,
'~ RES Iii
' RES ~ ~ I
;w
' RES ~ ~ ••
w 6525
RES ~
RES APT ~
RES
---~
~, RES ~ RES ~
RES ORES, ~ _
~ RES '~ - ~ p ~~~ ~ 65TH' ST.~
LAND USE SYMBOLS
RES =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
APT =APARTMENT BUILDING
PRK =PARK
Q
10-6-04
2
•
.~
8030 Cedar Avenue South Suite 228
Bloomin ton, MN 55425 ~ ~aa~~~~~~
Phone 0952) 854-4055
Fax .(952) 854-4268 ~.C~,Y~R17,1~tY'~.~1'~~ ~„~~ rJ~.lt ~° Qlg':
N07E• No Search Was
® Denotes Iron
Monument Found
o Denotes Iron
Monument Set
6° Retaining Wall
on line
~~ ~~$ Mode f=or Any
Easements.
99.70 plat ~ Scale; 1 "=20'
~d 7Pl w,arvs _._ ~
NORTH
The North. line of Parcel B
& the South line of Parcel A
r:
a
The North line of
Lot "B"
The South line of
the North 60' of Lot "A"
w
1$7-04
92/34
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The south 114.70 feet of Lot "A" and the north 60.0 feet of Lot "B"
SILVERWOOD SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel A: The South 114.7 feet of Lot "A" except the south 25.0 feet thereof, SILVERWOOD
SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Rarcel B: The North 60.0 feet of Lot '°B" and the south 25,0 feet of the north
114.7 feet of Lot "A", SILVERWOOD SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
I hereby certify that this survey, plan ar report was .prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of .Minnesota.
W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Dated: 'September 20, 2004
Woodrow A. Brown, R.LS NO. 15230
1 of i
AGENDA SECTION: C~
AGENDA ITEM # 5$
REPORT # 162
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
Related to:
CrrY COUNCIL, GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
CHRISTINE COSTELLO,
PLANNING BL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
NAME, T/TLE
// SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ /V/
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a subdivision waiver for 7233 Emerson Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision
waiver for 7233 Emerson Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• The applicant, Mr. George Holter, is seeking to divide his property at 7233
Emerson Avenue into two parcels. Currently, a house sits on the south half of
this property and the north half is vacant. The parcel is immediately south of
the Woodlake Nature Preserve.
101204-SubdivisionWaiver-7233Emerson.doc
• If split, both parcels will meet minimum City requirements for lot area, width,
and depth. The south parcel will contain the existing house and the north
parcel will be a vacant lot.
• The applicant proposes to build a new single family residence on the vacant
lot that will meet all current zonin ordinance requirements.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interfere with the
purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05.
• Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05,
Subdivision 1 of the City Code would result in an unnecessary
hardship.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the subdivision waiver will create two parcels that meet
minimum city requirements for lot area, width and depth.
• The minimum lot width in the R district is 50 ft. and the minimum lot
area is 6,700 sq. ft.
• Parcel A will be 60 ft. wide, 134 ft. deep and include an area of 8,040
sq. ft. This parcel will be the vacant parcel.
• Parcel B will be 75 ft. wide, 134 ft. deep and include an area of 10,050
sq. ft. This parcel will have the existing house on it.
• A Administrative Review Committee Meeting was held on September
18, 2003, and there were a number of comments that will need to be
resolved before a building permit can be issued.
• Planning
• The steps on the north side of the existing home will need to
be reoriented to face the west.
• The new lot will need to be cleared of all existing
improvements, including gravel driveway and retain walls.
• Public Works
• All private amenities located on the adjacent city-owned land
will need to be removed including any playground
equipment, gravel driveways, etc.
• New property irons will need to be set to identify the new
property lines.
• Recreation Services
• No additional plantings will be allowed on Wood Lake Nature
Center property to the north of the proposed new lot.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Zoning Map
• Land Use Map
• Survey of proposed parcel
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• Mr. George Hotter, applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER
7233 EMERSON AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield (the "City")
which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of
land located at 7233 Emerson Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 11- and N 1 /2 OF Lot 10 Also the S 60 FT OF Lots 12 and 13
WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is
sought is legally described as:
Parcel A: The south 60 feet of Lots 12 and 13 of Irwin Shores.
Parcel B: Lot 11, and the north half of Lot 10 of the Irwin Shores.
WHEREAS, the resulting parcels A and B will comply with Section 521.09 of the
City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the
subdivision waiver; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section
500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply
therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section
500.01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above
is hereby granted; and
2. Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels
as described above as Parcel A and Parcel B; and
3. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to
effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances
complying with the terms of this resolution.
4. To the existing home the steps on the north side of the house will need to
be reoriented to face the west
5. The new lot will need to be cleared of all existing improvements, including
gravel driveway and retain walls.
6. All private amenities located on city-owned land will need to be removed
including any playground equipment, gravel driveways, etc.
7. New property irons will need to be set to identify new property line.
8. No additional plantings will be allowed on Wood Lake Nature Center
property to the north of the proposed new lot.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
October, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
-2-
SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST FOR 7233 EMERSON AVENUE
OCTOBER 12, 2004
ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
M
FSyoR~ oR
ui
a
t-
0
J
O LLI
m ~
~ a
r o
C9
1
WOOD LAKE
R
R
7233 R
R R R
R R I R I R I
R R 73RD ST.
ui R
> a
w R Q R
a ~ o ''z
O
a_
~ ~
~ W
ZONING SYMBOLS
R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-1 =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -LOW DENSITY
N
ll
~~~
i~
R
R-1 L/ \
R-1
OAK GROVE gLV~~
R-1 R-1
R u.i ui
R ~ Q a
LL
J Q
O r
~
U m
10-6-04
ui
Q
x
U_ i
Q
SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST FOR 7233 EMERSON AVENUE
OCTOBER 12, 2004
LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
WOOD LAKE
a
~_
',
RES ~/ \
RES
pP~ GRpVE gLVD•
RES RES
LLj
¢ RES RES W RES ~ LLI
a w
a
ui RES RES RES a RES ; Q
a Z RES ' ~"
Z ~ ~ U
z ~ a -~' ~ o
~ U
~ ~ m Q
W
~
PARK
~~Sy
pRF
~
R.
_
ui
Q
~
F- ~
7233 REs
Q ~
~ RES RES
= RES
RES
w RES ~ RES RES
~ w
LAND USE SYMBOLS
N
RES =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
10-6-04
2
~s
-.--
~~
r
N _~ ~
~ ~
s ~ ~
m
~ ° ~ ~
"' ~ ~
a ~ a
~~ ~ .
c ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~~
r
WA~~~~ ~~
Z~ Y i a
~Y
'o~~
N
z~
W
~~ ~q
~ ~ ~.u'S
W=
~ w~
~d
~~ ~~
s
~~.~ ~~
~~~ J ~ ¢~
a ~ ~
~~°~ ~
~E~
~~~ ~
fi
~ !~
~~ ~ ~ a
~ ~~ ~ .~r ~
~~ ~ ~~~~
aw ~
w ~}°,
~ ~
@~
,~
~ ~
~ , 1 <s~
1 1 ~' ~ r-
1' ' <, ' C7 ~ C 1
~ -a ~ ~
_, 1 _; ~"
~ ~ ,~ ~ ' 1
~,
o ~
~ _ c~ ~ t~~
~ - ~" ~`~~
c ~ ~ ~ C7 '~ - ' h- ~ C7
1 '
~,
_ ~ Wz~ ..:: ~ t
~ ~ _.; ~~ ~
(~ f ~; ~ r
,...,- -
~ ~ ~
~~.- ~ 4 ~ ~_ ! F g
Ali 1 ! c- 4 _ :_-
S .~" 1
n ^^'
c` f ~1
U °`
_} 'C`
Y1 1
r'^~ $ ,fit tl V-
1, 3 ~ ~~ V ~-' "'
t ~ ;~., r .-.- ~- ---
.,"'
_ ~ -"-
...- ~`
~ .r- -'~
~^ ""' ---
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
,.. ~ ~,r
~§
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
CONSENT
5A
161
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO
TRENT JUTTING, STREET
SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE
''~~~%~
SIGNATURE
N/A
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of purchase of winter deicing salt.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the purchase of an estimated 1,700 ton of winter
deicing salt for the 2004/2005 winter season from North American Salt
Company, Overland Park, KS at the price of $31.71 per ton, delivered,
plus sales tax.
II. BACKGROUND
Each year the City purchases rock salt, to control ice on road surfaces during the
winter season.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
101204sa1t
A. POLICY
• The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with the State of
Minnesota.
• The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint
purchase agreement.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount, and may
purchase up to 120% of the agreed amount, in accordance with the
contract.
C. FINANCIAL
• A recent history of prices for this product is:
Year Base Price Vendor
00/01 26.33/ton Cargill Inc., North Olmsted, Ohio
01/02 39.02/ton I.M.C. Salt Inc., Overland Park, Kansas
02/03 27.97/ton Cargill Inc., North Olmsted, OH
03/04 27.71/ton Cargill Inc., North Olmsted, Ohio
• Funding for this. purchase is included in the 2004 and 2005 operating
budgets for street maintenance.
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment, or
.construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted
to the City Council for consideration.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council could choose to discontinue the use of rock salt to control ice on
road surfaces during the winter season. However, staff is not aware of a
more effective means of providing the safest road condition possible under
icy conditions.
• Although the City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount for the
2004/2005 winter season, further participation in the cooperative State
bidding process for deicing salt could be abandoned.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.