06-26-00 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 P.M.
934TH AIRLIFT WING BASE
Call to Order
1. City of Richfield C-130 aircraft dedication ceremony
Adjournment
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Study Session of June 12, 2000 and (2)
Regular City Council Meeting of June 12, 2000
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recognition of Richfield's local legislators: Senator Dave Johnson, Representative
Dan Larson, Senator Jane Ranum and Representative Mark Gleason
2. Presentation of 27th Annual Gene and Mary Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen Award
to Lloyd Holt
3. Presentation of proclamation designating Women of Today Founder's Day July 1,
2000
4. Acknowledgement of Fairview Southdale Hospital for their support of On the Move
in Richfield walking paths brochure
5. Presentation of Medal of Merit Award to Richfield Police Officer Jay Henthorne
6. Swearing In of three new Richfield Police Officers
0
Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name
and address on the Speaker's Register for the record.
7. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda
AGENDA APPROVAL
8. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
9. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by
the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been
approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been
approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council
Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and
placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items
listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of authorizing consent and conflict waiver for Moss and
Barnett regarding representation of Animal Care Clinic before City of Richfield
S.R. No. 150
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City Council not to waive
monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04
• S.R. No. 151
C. Consideration of approval of environmental site assessment professional services
agreement for 1710 East 78th Street, 77th Street, Phase III Underpass Project
S.R. No. 152
D. Consideration of approval of community celebration event license and temporary
on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license with fee waiver for Fourth of July
Committee events scheduled at Veterans Memorial Park, 6335 Portland Avenue,
on July 1-4, 2000 S.R. No. 153
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
10. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning property at
6612-15th Avenue from general commercial to single family residential
Staff Report No. 154
Notes:
0
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
11. Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of 6309-18th
Avenue to Time Warner for construction of cable television switch station
Staff Report No. 155
Notes:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
12. Consideration of request for new residential kennel license at 7413 Bryant Avenue
Staff Report No. 156
Notes:
AIRPORT BUSINESS
13. Airport status report
0 Notes:
CORRESPONDENCE
HRA BUSINESS
14. Housing and Redevelopment Authority report
Notes:
COUNCIL CHOICE
15. Council discussion items
Notes:
16. Claims and payrolls
17. 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: Admin. Reports
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 156
STAFF REPORT
WdA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 26, 2000
0
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
V ?h
NATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Fernando Pardo, 7413
Bryant Avenue South.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve or deny a request for a new residential kennel
license for Fernando Pardo, 7413 Bryant Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On May 8, 2000, Fernando Pardo submitted an application for a new residential
kennel license. He owns three dogs. Mr. Pardo's application contains the
signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner was not willing
to sign the application.
Of the two property owners who signed the application, one has since stated that
the signature was only given out of fear of what would happen if they did not sign.
Mr. Pardo's dogs are currently licensed; however, it was not until just recently that
he obtained the required licenses. Staff made several attempts, including the
issuance of a violation notice, before Mr. Pardo understood the necessity of
obtaining these animal licenses.
0626Pardo
Staff made a decision not to initiate a mediation session between concerned
neighbors and the applicants due to the number of residents who indicated they
were fearful of and intimidated by the applicants.
III.
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on May 15,
2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
Staff has had questions as to the actual number of animals that Mr. Pardo actually
has. At one point, staff was told there were four dogs. Neighbors have stated that
there have been as many as nine. Staff is currently told there are three. There are
concerns from neighbors that in the event of the issuance of a residential kennel
license, the number of animals would again increase.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding
the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received three phone
calls and three letters regarding this application, all of which were
opposed to the issuance of a license. Some of the concerns include
barking, jumping, dogs at large, odor, harassment issues, and
uncertainty as to the actual number of animals at the residence.
Copies of these letters are attached.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or
deny the request for a residential kennel license.
Staff has been unable to determine if Mr. Pardo has proven that the
keeping of more than two dogs would not have an adverse effect on
the neighborhood.
IV.
V.
10 1 VI.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
N/A
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None
ATTACHMENTS
Copies of letters from surrounding neighbors.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
Fernando Pardo
Public Safety Department
Support Services Division
MAYOR
MARTIN J. KIRSCH
CITY COUNCIL
SUSAN ROSENBERG
SUZANNE M.SANDAHL
Dear Resident:
V
I am writing to you because your neighbor at
j..UA"f,1 T_ has
recently made application for a res entlal/commercial ennel license in the City of
Richfield. They currently own j '* dogs and cats. I want to take this
opportunity to explain to you what that means and the process that is involved.
KRISTALSSTOKCES A residential kennel license does not mean that your neighbor will be introducing a
commercial business in your neighborhood. It does not mean that an unusually large
structure will be constructed for breeding purposes, etc. They may have an average
size kennel on the property for their pet's exercise and shelter. It simply is the name
we have given to the license that is to be obtained for anyone owning more than two
dogs or two cats in a residential neighborhood.
If you should have any concerns regarding these neighbors' animals, please call me
at 861-9870 or write a brief letter outlining those concerns and return it to us at 6700
Portland Avenue, Attn: Stephanie (Public Safety . Either your telephone call or letter
should be received in our office by ?, - !,in order to process their
license request.
If we should receive information indicating that there may be a problem with the
animals, you will be asked if you and others who may have similar concerns would be
willing to attend a mediation session, at no cost to you. This would be conducted by
a trained mediator who takes a neutral position on the matter. Hopefully, this
mediation session will provide an opportunity for the problems between neighbors to
be worked out. v
If that process is unsuccessful or you choose not to participate in it at all, a public
hearina will be held on the license request before the City Council. You will be
contacted and made aware of this public hi.lett ri ou may choose to attend in
person to present your testimony (either foagainst th license being issued) or
you may request that we include your writt er ' City Council's information
packets.
Lj,
kll? elz?l ,3
The Urban Hometown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911
ww ci nchfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
- J
• Page 2
•
I am confident that this process will provide the necessary information to make a
recommendation to the City Council. I appreciate your willingness to participate and
encourage you to contact me at 861-9870 if you should have any questions.
Public Safety Departmen
SG.- ttf
0
• May 21, 2000
Stephanie Gillette
Business Licensing
Public Safety Department
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Gillette:
This letter is in response to recent correspondence regarding our neighbors at 7413 Bryant and their kennel
license.
My name is Kathi Korum and my family and I live across the street from the Pardos. When they acquired
their first dog, Otis, my husband and I talked with Terry and Fernando about the dog entering our yard at
will because of not being confined to their yard and not being controlled by a leash. They responded by
saying it would not happen again. When it did keep happening, we contacted the Richfield non-emergency
number several times. Eventually, we worked with our neighborhood police officer and he suggested a
mediation meeting. I attended that meeting in the Pardo's home and Terry stated that she was unaware that
she needed her dog on a leash. The neighborhood police officer made it clear that Richfield has a leash law
and that it was expected that she comply with it. Terry seemed sincere in making sure she followed the law.
For a while, she did. Then she blatently did not, going so far as to let the dog run all over several
• neighborhoods as she rode her bike after it.
As time has progressed, she has repeatedly been inconsiderate of surrounding neighbors and even
neighborhoods a few blocks away. Since she has had up to five dogs in her house for long periods of time,
the situation has become very annoying and disgusting. Her response to any stated concern is to act
innocent and maintain that the problems will be brought under control. As soon as the concerned party is
out of sight, she goes back to being inconsiderate.
As far as Fernando's response to problems, he just accuses the concerned party of being against his race and
prejudiced. He tends to get angry, defensive and threatening.
A few weeks ago, when an animal control officer visited the Pardos, Otis came across the street to my
driveway and barked at me and my son while we were raking. The animal control officer witnessed this and
Fernando came to retrieve the dog. 1 am uncomfortable allowing a threatening animal in my yard and seem
to be unable to do anything to prevent it.
Because of these circumstances, I am absolutely against allowing the Pardos to obtain a kennel license.
They have proven many times that they are untrustworthy and immature in their actions. To reward their
behavior by allowing it to continue would be destructive, to say the least.
0
• Stephanie Gillette
May 21, 2000
Page Two
Please let me know if a mediation session or public hearing will be planned on this matter, as I would be
willing to participate. If you should need it, my telephone number is (612) 866-4781.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathi A. Korum
7408 Bryant Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
•
0
r-CoM M _112-
Cathy Undo
7412 Aldrich Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
May 17, 2000
Stepanie Gillette
Richfield Public Safety
6700 Portland Ave, S.
Richfield, MN 55423
?-? ?? DU J T ?7 ? r.LG-
?'I 1 Val C; tJV? 0-f_l t% --
MOT _TC? M c D I ^-7 -
l'V M ?-f A-0?20 t U-rF_ L--r
ICI e-c i? P- -r
Dear Stephanie:
I am writing in regard to a request for a residential kennel license by my backyard neighbors,
Terri and Fernando Pardo, residing at 7413 Bryant Ave. S.
The following is a list of reasons outlining my objections to this request:
1. One of the three dogs currently living there jumps and barks excessively when my kids try to
play on our swing set. For the past two summers my young daughter has come running to me
and won't play in the back yard when the dogs are out. The Pardos have made weak efforts to
call their dogs back from the fence.
2. The smell of dog waste the past two years has been so bad that we have had to spend our
outdoor time at the park or in the front yard. I have noticed recently that they are keeping their
back yard cleaner and that the yard has been reseeded.
3. Going by past performance, I'm not convinced this family will limit the number of dogs to
three. In the past couple of years, there have been as many as nine dogs at a time residing there,
due to multpile litters back to back. I am also not convinced that two of the dogs have found
permanent homes and could be returned after the license is issued.
4. Finally, they have used fear and intimidation because I told them I would not sign for the
license. I have been subject to verbal abuse by Terri. On Tuesday, May 16, she approached me
as I was waiting for my son at the bus stop. She told me my husband was a "woos" and that she
wanted to slap my face. She continued the name calling and verbal attack for several minutes
until other moms arrived at the bus stop and then yelled at everyone to mind their own business.
The entire time she allowed her dog to walk on the neighbors' lawns with no effort to restrain it.
I hope these concerns will have a strong impact on your decision to issue a kennel license. My
husband and I are willing to participate in a mediation session to resolve these issues and come
to a peaceful settlement.
is Sincerely,
•
AGENDA SECTION: Pron. ordinance
AGENDA ITEM # _L.1
REPOR I # 155
STAFF REPORT
ma"A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 26, 2000
0
PERRY THORVIG,
REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAMii, Tno-
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAML T170
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: I 1 ?, n
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of 6309 18th Avenue to Time
Warner for the construction of a cable TV switch station. -
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing
the sale of 6309 18th Avenue to Time Warner for the construction of a
cable TV switch station and schedule the public hearing and second
reading for July 24, 2000.
II. BACKGROUND
Time Warner's main cable TV and Road Runner internet access service enters the
Richfield cable network at their current switching station at 65th and Cedar Avenue.
This property is in the process of being acquired to facilitate the reconstruction of
the TH 77 and 66th Street interchange. Time Warner needs to find a location for a
permanent switching station within three blocks of its existing site.
• The City of Richfield owns a vacant parcel of property at 6309 18th Avenue. It was
conveyed to the City of Richfield in 1957 along with several other parcels to be used
for park purposes. However, there was no deed restriction language that was made
part of the conveyance. Most of the original conveyance to the city has been
0626-6309 18th
developed for park space at Taft Park. This piece is separated from the park by
63rd Street.
This property does store some stormwater runoff but has no outlet. The water must
evaporate or soak into the ground.
Time Warner finds this site suitable for their cable TV switching building. They
would build a 35' by 45' one story brick or decorative block building to house their
equipment and to provide cable and Road Runner access to the entire City of
Richfield. No one would be employed on the premises. No noisy equipment would
run inside the building.
Time Warner employed a private real estate agent to search for possible sites in the
area. They found none. They have also discussed the possibility of locating the
building across the street in Taft Park or on the area of the park along Cedar
Avenue where wood chips and other equipment are stored. Neither Public Works
nor Recreational Services staff thinks it appropriate to locate the facility at the sites.
Both departments think the site in question is appropriate for use by Time Warner
and does not interfere with their needs. Public Works does want to make sure,
however, that the lot retains as much stormwater storage capacity as already exists
on the lot.
This property is within the area designated by the legislature for property purchases
with the first $5 million grant. Concepts being developed call for the eventual
redevelopment of the entire area south and west of this parcel. But, it is on the
edge of the proposed redevelopment area and will not interfere with future
redevelopment plans. Sixty-third Street in this vicinity will likely not be vacated
because access needs to be provided to U.S. West and to Taft Park's parking area.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• To consider the sale of City-owned property not used to support City
functions.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Time Warner needs a site close to its existing fiber optic distribution
line and within three or four blocks of the existing location. Relocation
needs to be accomplished by December 31, 2000. To keep on
schedule, construction needs to begin by September 1, 2000.
C. FINANCIAL
• An independent appraiser will determine a market value for this
property. That information will be available for the second reading.
• D. LEGAL
• A conditional use permit is required as this would be a utility locating
in an R zone.
A variance will also be required due to minimum lot size requirement
of 40,000 sq. ft. for non-residential use in an R zone. Additional
variances for setbacks may also be required.
E. OTHER
• An informational meeting for the neighbors will be held on July 6, 2000 at
Mount Calvary School.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Do not authorize first reading.
• Delay action.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Transitory Ordinance
• Map
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Bernard Doffing, Time Warner
• Attorney for Time Warner
is
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUTNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
6309 18TH AVE. S.
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1:
The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of,
and conveyed by the city as herein provided:
Lot 8
Section 2:
The Mayor and City Manger are hereby authorized to take all actions as required to sell,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing
Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all
documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments
connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2000 by the Richfield City Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
- - 62ND - ST- -
??? ??
? Op a pa
o ? ?
? ?
-d ?
TAFT PARK
r-)
I
,I 1
I 1
L- 1
I I '
i US
----?? West[ c
F___? I I I I Proposed
_j L Relocation
6309 18t" Av.
I IL
63RD ST. -'
?
I f:P ? ILL! D In f, L J
? o
~ o
a
_ $ D
° =
I m NO
? 1 - 113 13 4 ?
= q ?a
p I?
o
MC7I GO o
-?a0 a I 0
I
u I
? vo
-I Q Q ?
?lo??
? I Q
? I Q ?
0 ID
ob a
Q ?° &I
9 721-
°? 1 ?
C QI a
?l?
? IF
0 o ? 10
?
- 47 Q o
?°
13 o0-0 0 ? ? -° Q
?
E:i ry o-
q
r? -nom fir--?
00
L f, -t ' .
I? a ? I, ;.
l ??D -
? CO
Irk
?
? a LL
I? o ? o
64TH ST. `J
I ,
Oil
I
? 1 A '
I
1
ZJ r ' I Y
I ,
? I ;??
? D0
I I
h I I
C3olo? ?
I
65TH ST.
° ?O i I Existing
Time Warner
? ' F
LJ i I Location
oil
F T- it
4 p?
r? I I
0
66TH IST.
HDI
WT
•
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPOR 4 154
=099A STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 26, 2000
10
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, Ti7Zr
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
NAMIi. T17'IJi
/' / NlGN47 t lltl:
C
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property at 6612
15th Avenue from C-2 (general commercial) to R (single family residential).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and By Motion: Conduct second
reading and approve an ordinance amendment rezoning property at
•
6612 15th Avenue from C-2 to R.
IL BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be brought into conformance with
their Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's
zoning classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that
one category of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these
properties was rezoned by the City Council in December, 1999. A second group
was rezoned by the City Council on April 10, 2000. At that time, the Council
referred the property at 6612 15th Avenue back to the Planning Commission for
additional review.
062600rezoning
The property owner testified before the City Council and Planning Commission of
her concerns that the rezoning would have an impact on the property's value and
• potential reuse of the property given proposed airport improvements.
On May 30, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning
recommendation and confirmed their original recommendation to rezone the
property to residential. They found that leaving this property as commercial would
be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be inconsistent with the
residential land uses and zoning to the west and south of the property, both of
which were rezoned in April. Development of this property as commercial could
have a negative impact on these adjacent residential uses.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The property at 6612 15th Avenue is zoned C-2 (general commercial).
It is currently used as a single family residence. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property as single family residential, either low or
high density. The proposed zoning is R (single family residential).
• In 1995, the Legislature passed language that states, in cases of
conflict between a City's Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the
zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the Plan. Up
until that time, the zoning superseded the Plan in cases of conflict. In
• 1998, the Planning Commission held several study sessions on this
issue and determined that the best way to address the statute would
be to rezone those properties where the land use and Comprehensive
Plan are consistent but the zoning is not. Rezoning these properties
would bring the zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan without creating nonconforming uses. They made this decision,
in part, because of the issues that were raised with the development
of the day care facility at 1100 East 66th Street and the problems
caused by the inconsistency among the land use, zoning and
Comprehensive Plan. There is no clear direction from the state level
as to how to comply with the statute.
If the Council chooses not to rezone this property, they may or may
not want to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Because the Planning
Commission continues to recommend rezoning this property, they
have not held the required public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Any amendment would need to be referred back to the
Planning Commission.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
It would be difficult to develop the property as a separate commercial
development. The property is 6,500 square feet; the minimum lot area
in the C-2 district is 9,000 square feet. It would be difficult to meet
commercial building and parking lot setbacks as well. The most
realistic option for commercial development would be to combine the
property with the adjacent property on 66th Street.
• The property is currently taxed as Residential Homestead.
The property is currently legally non-conforming as a residential use in
the C-2 district. Residential uses in the C-2 district require a
conditional use permit and must have a lot size of 10,000 square feet.
The map attachments illustrate the surrounding zoning, land use and
Comprehensive Plan classifications.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• On May 30, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning
and recommended unanimously to approve the rezoning.
• The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on March 13, 2000.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and
mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the
subject property.
• Four out of five votes are required to approve a rezoning.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Decide not to rezone the property.
Rezone the property to a different zoning classifications.
• V. ATTACHMENTS
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Pat Kargel, property owner, 6612 15th Avenue
• Ordinance amendment
• 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
• Attachment D: Letter from legal counsel regarding the issue of taking
property without just compensation
• Attachment E: List of permitted and conditional uses in the R and C-2 zoning
districts
0
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield
Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended:
A. Section 3, Paragraph (71) is amended to read as follows:
(71) M-4 That area lying between the center line of 14th Avenue and 15th
Avenues, and between the center line of 66th and a line distant 158 feet southerly
thereof and carallel thereto. ;ria 4?&,/art 105 foot p ly ± f and---Pare aal
the-rata, caJ bot !ic center 4f 00th Etr°et ia. f9et
s th?cr!.?_`I;er?cof ar<d pjro,!41ul thlonto.
B. Section 3, Paragraph (72) is amended as follows:
{72) M-4-That c". !y4i- et` ee t-hc Qc=-tor liar of 15th Av a o,nd e
d+sta4t ". Ci? foot viaatcrly thw-cV and pa-Falle4he-r4ate-,-and-betw4aen the ter44ie--Gf
64th Et t and & aaam diatant 230-foar e theme ? p a4lel, to-
C. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 6612 15th Avenue South.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of June,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
Land Uses Near 6612 15th Avenue
(Li
Q
a
0
0
d
?-
-_ 66'
C-AY
ibb?cemmn+b a.»ron.mmmrr.?Wytaadro r?ea.
a
fi
--zl[lz
Q
m
U
63rd St.
9M MA I _L
66th St.
12 15th Ave. M Commercial
Apartment
Duplex
- _ - [ ] Residential
-- -- -. _ ?? P_,G?Ar Quasi-Public
- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - School
Church
Vacant
MM. Park
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
May 2, 2000
H
H
a
z
H
a
Zoning Classifications Near 6612 15th Avenue
u
Q > >
? < Q
m ?
63dSt
\ Veterans Memorial Park = - -? - --
--- -- -- - -- -
f -
?- - - - - - / 66th St.
,rA =14
IM, X111
VIA
6612 15t v --
- - - Z - -- - -- -- -? C 1- 1 L-1_-I --
- -- - ----- -----
-\___ ---
-r- r--r « m m m ? ? r? (-1-1 Q? F ?i ?--:-- i G--a -1 1
=I Industrial
C-2 General Commercial
R Single Family Residential
MR-1 Two Family Residential
MR-2 Multi Res - Med. Density
w s 800 0 800 1600 Feet ® PC-2 Planned Gen. CommT
s ? -
May 3, 2000
a
H
H
a
r?
z
H
w
Comp Plan Classifications Near 6612 15th Avenue
Q
0
a
Z
Q
Q
63rd St.
66th St.
[I1 IIl1 [Ell -- {{I
C-
?` -NINE
-- -- - 6612 15 -- "?
th Ave. -- -_ -_ _?
FF-
cammnN omewo?e
[ViskamuM'tlv?abpmer[mIM?NI}iMMainp mrtp plan
...........
N
s8
Community Comm'L.
Neigh. commT
Reg'l. Comm'I./Office
Com. Comm'I./Office
Office
Single Family Res.
S. F. Res.- High Dens.
Multi Res, High Dens.
Public
Park
Church
School
Quasi Pub. - Utility
1000 _ 0 1000 2000 Feet
---- - - - - -- May 3. 2000
H
H
a
C)
t?1
z
H
C')
Kennedy
Gravoi
. C H x R T E R E D
470 Hl.burr Ccntcr
200 SUUth S,xth Strccr
Maio.ipulii MN 554U2
(o12) 337-93UU tckphunc
(612) 337-9310 F"
Lttp.//www kcnnctlq-Srs*vcn cum
ATTACHMENT D1
KAxEN R COLT
nitotncy it Ljl
Dirccl Utal (612) 337-9212
Enu,l k:olo(jJkcnncdy-Semen cnm
June 20, 2000
Mayor and Richfield City Council Members
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Property at 6612 Fifteenth Avenue South
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Corrine Thomson asked me to evaluate whether or not the proposed regulation of property at 6612
Fifteenth Avenue South would give rise to a "taking" of property which requires compensation
under the Constitution.
Factual Background
The City is considering downzoning property at 6612 Fifteenth Avenue South from C-2 (general
commercial) to MR-2 (single-family residential). The property has been held by the family of the
current owner for over 40 years. It is not known exactly when the family acquired the property.
Nor is it known when the current owner acquired the land.
The 1953 Zoning map designates the property as C-2 (general commercial). It has been zoned C-2
ever since then. The 1972 comprehensive plan guided the land for Mixed Land Use (single family,
small offices, townhouses, limited retail commercial.) The 1982 comprehensive plan guided the
land for single fancily residential use. The 1997 comprehensive plan guides the property for high-
density single family residential use. A single family home was built on the site in 1961. The site is
currently fully developed.
Anal.
The takings clauses of the state and federal constitutions require that a landowner be compensated if
property is regulated too restrictively. The applicable tests under state and federal law are
somewhat different. A land use regulation generally does not give rise to a taking under the
Minnesota Constitution unless it deprives the property of all reasonable use. DowIiZoning the
property from C-2 to MR-2 would not give rise to a taking sunder this standard, because the property
could continue to be used for a single family home.
Whether there would be a taking under the federal constitution is somewhat more difficult. A land
use regulation constitutes a taking under the U.S. Constitution in two situations. first, a "categorical
KRC-1819701
RC 100-5
•
Mayor and Richfield City Council Mrmbers
June 20, 2000
Page 2
ATTACHMENT D2
taking" occurs if the regulation destroys the entire value of the property. There would not be a
categorical taking here, because the dowrizoning would not eliminate the entire value of the
property; the property could continue to be used for a single family home, as noted above. Second,
if a regulation diminishes but does not completely destroy the value of property, a taking may still
occur based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In making this type of determination,
courts look at such things as (1) the nature of the regulation, (2) the extent to which the regulation
affects the value of the property; and (3) the legitimate investment-backed expectations of the
property owner.
The first factor the Courts consider is the nature of the regulation. Zoning regulations which
balance public and private interests are less likely to be determined a taking than other kinds of
regulations. The rationale for this is that all property owners benefit - at least to some extent --
from a system for ordering development.
The second factor considered by the courts is the effect of the proposed regulation on the value of
the property. We do not have an estimate of the effect of the down2oning on the property value.
The fact that the property has already been developed for single family residennal use would limit
any reduction in market value due to the downzorans.
The third factor is the extent to which the regulation interferes with the legitimate investment-
backed expectations of the property owner. An investment-backed expectation can arise from the
land use regulations that are in effect when the property is acquired which are reflected in the
property's purchase pnce_ For example, if a property owner purchases a commercially-zoned
• property at a higher price because of its zoning, that owner has an investment-backed expectation in
a commercial use of the property. On the other hand, if an owner purchases commercially-zoned
property at a price comparable to residential properties and lower than commercially-zoned
properties, that owner does not have an investment-backed expectation in a commercial use. We do
not know when the property was originally acquired by the owner's family, and when it was
acquired by the current owner. Nor do we know the purchase price for the property, and how that
compares to other commercially-zoned land. For these reasons, we are unable to identify what the
zoning of the property was at the time of acquisition, and therefore the reasonable investment-
backed expectations.
Thus, two of the three factors tilt against finding a taking, and we do not have enough information to
analyze the third factor.
Very truly yours,
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
?4 C-AX_.\_1 C-C_7_?
Karen R. Cole
cc: Corrine Thomson
KRC:cm
KRL-1 d 1970,1
"C' 60"5
Attachment E
0 Permitted uses
R District
• Single family (detached) dwellings.
• Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities serving
six or fewer persons.
• Governmental buildings and public libraries, including their appurtenances.
• Minor public utilities.
Conditional uses
• Day care facilities serving more than 12 persons licensed by the appropriate
governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities licensed under
Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons, or as
otherwise permitted by law
• Accessory foster family homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities
serving more than six children, or as otherwise permitted by law.
• Private non-commercial recreational facilities as a principal use.
• Two family dwellings
• Cluster home developments with three to ten units
• Bed and breakfast inns
• Accessory roof-mounted antennas which extend higher than 15 feet from the antenna or
related structure's point of contact with the building to the highest point of the antenna
(not including those antennas that are owned and operated by a telecommunications
company)
• CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than 15 feet from the antenna
or related structure's point of contact with the building or rooftop to the highest point of
the antenna
• CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City
Code and that they are located in the following residentially zoned locations; church,
park, government, school, utility and institutional sites.
• Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning institutions
• Cemeteries (may include mausoleums and crematories)
• Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages
• Emergency shelters within non-residential buildings (e.g., schools or churches)
• Major public utilities.
• Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the
City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
0
Attachment E
Permitted uses
C-2 District
Shopping centers or similar multi-tenant developments with 100,000 square feet or less
of gross floor area.
Retail, service, and office uses with 50,000 square feet or less of gross floor area
(excluding those uses listed in Section 526.27 of this code). Permitted uses may exceed
the 50,000 square foot size limitation if located within a shopping center or other multi-
tenant building. Such permitted retail, service, and office uses include, but are not limited
to, the following:
a) antique stores or secondhand goods stores that do not require a license under
Section 1186 of the City Code;
b) bowling alleys, pool halls, or arcades;
c) carpet, decorating, or paint stores;
d) Class IV (take out only) restaurants which do not provide drive-up window
service;
e) clothing or shoe stores;
D computer, duplicating, or office products stores;
g) craft stores;
h) dry cleaning service or self-service laundries;
i) fabric, sewing, or tailoring stores;
j) financial institutions without drive-up window service, including currency
exchanges licensed by the State;
k) furniture or appliance sales stores;
1) general merchandise or drug stores;
m) gift or book stores;
n) hardware stores;
o) municipal liquor stores;
p) music stores;
q) nursing or rest homes;
r) offices, business or professional;
s) photography studios or film development;
t) printing establishments or book binding shops;
u) stereo installation services within an enclosed building;
v) taxi or limousine services;
w) tire or auto/motorcycle parts stores;
x) tree trimming services with no outdoor storage of trimmings or materials;
y) veterinarian clinics;
z) other retail, service, and office establishments of the same general character as
those enumerated above, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05
of this code.
• Governmental buildings and public libraries, including their appurtenances.
• Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning institutions.
• Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages.
• Adult business establishments as defined and regulated under Section 1196 of the City
Code.
0 Minor public utilities.
Conditional uses
• Shopping centers or similar multi-tenant developments with over 100,000 square feet of
gross floor area.
• Retail, service, and office uses with over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless
located within a shopping center or other multi-tenant development.
• Funeral homes, provided the lot abuts an arterial or collector street.
• Theaters
• Uses which provide drive-up window or teller service, (excluding Class III restaurants)
• Class I (full service) restaurants and Class If (traditional/cafeteria) restaurants
• Class III (fast food/convenience/drive-in)restaurants
• Hotels/motels
• Hospitals and medical clinics
• Auto or boat sales/lease lots
• Service stations, service station/convenience stores, and conversion of a service station
to a service station/convenience store
• Automobile detailing establishments licensed under Section 1195 of the City Code.
• Car washes licensed under Section 1125 of the City Code.
• Accessory car washes
• Public-mechanical garages
• Public-auto body garages
• Pawn operations, secondhand goods operations which require a license under Section
1186 of the City Code, auction houses, and consignment auction houses
• Gun or ammunition sales/repair
• Tattoo establishments
• Single family dwellings that comply with the R-1 District provisions and requirements, as
set out in Section 521.17 of this code.
• Two-family dwellings that comply with the MR-1 provisions and requirements, as set out
in Section 521.37 of this code; and
• Multi-family dwellings that comply with the MR-2 District provisions and requirements, as
set out in Section 521.59 of this code.
• Cemeteries (may include mausoleums and crematories) that comply with the R District
provisions and requirements, as set out in Section 521.07, Subd. 10 of this code.
• Apartments within commercial buildings which exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area.
• Licensed day care facilities
• Accessory roof-mounted antennas which extend higher than 15 feet from the antenna's
point of contact with the building to the highest point of the antenna, provided that they
conform to Section 425 of the City Code. (Amended, Bill No. 1996-21)
• CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than 15 feet from the
antenna's point of contact with the building to the highest point of the antenna, provided
that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. (Added, Bill No. 1996-21)
• CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City
Code. (Added, Bill No. 1996-21)
• Major public utilities.
• Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the
City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 9D
REPORT # 153
?W9A STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 26, 2000
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, Tiac.E
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER
NAME, TiaE
1 (,O
_Jr J GNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a community celebration event license and a temporary on-sale
3.2 percent malt liquor license, with a request for a fee waiver, for the Fourth of July
Committee events scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park, July 1 through July 4,
2000.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Council approval of a community celebration event
license and a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license with
fee waived for the Fourth of July Committee events scheduled to take
place on July 1 through July 4, 2000 at Veterans Memorial Park, 6335
Portland Avenue.
IL BACKGROUND
Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a community
celebration event license and requests that the fee be waived for the activities that
• take place throughout the City on July 1 through July 4, 2000.
This year they have also included a request for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent
malt liquor license which would allow them to serve beer and wine coolers at
0626 4th of July
Veterans Memorial Park during the July 3 activities. They have provided proof of
• liquor liability insurance to cover this event.
A detailed activity plan of the days' events is currently on file. A copy of the
committee's bylaws and articles of incorporation are also on file. The food
concessions will be staffed by members of various organizations, most of which
have been with the committee since the celebration began.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to
ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with
Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome
food handling. In addition, each individual concessionaire has been approved by
Duane Hudson of the Bloomington Health Department.
All fees for each professional concession have been received.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City
application process and meets the requirements for fee waiver.
• The temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license was also issued
for the event last year. There were no alcohol related incidents during
the event.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Deny the request of a community celebration event license and an on-sale
3.2 percent malt liquor license. This would result in the applicant not being
able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation and
temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor sales, on July 1 through July 4,
2000.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
0 None
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 9C
REPORT # 152
STAFF REPORT
=099A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
JUNE 26, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAM/:, D77.1:
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TiiZh:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
i / SIGNATURE
t
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Approval of an Environmental Site Assessment Professional Services
Agreement for 1710 East 78th Street; 77th Street, Phase III, Underpass Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Ia
By Motion: Approve an Environmental Site Assessment Professional
Services Agreement for 1710 East 78th Street, 77th Street, Phase III,
Underpass Project 1
II. BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2000, the City Council authorized the condemnation of 1710 East 78th
Street for the 77th Street, Phase III, Underpass Project. This action was taken after
the property owners made an unsubstantiated counteroffer to the City's purchase
offer and their legal counsel requested condemnation action.
is
At this time, an environmental site assessment is needed to determine if there are
any hazardous contaminants to the property which may influence market value and
marketable title to the property.
Staff is recommending utilizing the firm of Liesch Associates, Inc. to undertake this
work for the subject property. Liesch is currently working on the 66th Street/ TH 77
0626PSALiesch.doc
Interchange Project and could easily absorb this additional workload. Liesch has
indicated that the fee for the work would cost $2,000.
•
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Entering into a Professional Services Agreement with a professional
consultant is a standard operating procedure for projects which
involve state and federal funding.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Environmental site assessment work needs to be completed before
the Court awards title and possession of the property to the City.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• The City's legal counsel has concurred with obtaining an
environmental site assessment for the subject property at this time.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Direct staff to obtain a different environmental consultant.
• Do not approve the contract.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Environmental Site Assessment Professional Services Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
0
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of
Richfield, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the
Liesch Associates, Inc. hereinafter referred to as Liesch.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City wishes to purchase the services of Liesch for the
77th Street, Phase III, Underpass Project; and
WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and Liesch agree as follows:
1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT.
Liesch agrees to furnish services to the City as indicated on the attached
Exhibit A. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $2,000.00 for
the property located at 1710 East 78th Street. All reports, memos, and
other data produced by Liesch become the property of the City.
2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made
directly to Liesch by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the
City to determine the activity and personnel for which payment is being
made. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by
the City.
3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Liesch shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the
services herein in consultation with the City. Nothing is intended or
should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the
relationship of copartners between Liesch and the City or as constituting
Liesch as the agent, representative, or employee of the City for any
purpose or in any manner whatsoever Liesch is to be and shall remain an
independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this
Agreement. Liesch represents that it has or will secure at its own
expense all personnel required in performing services under this
Agreement. Any and all personnel of Liesch or other persons while
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this
Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the City, and shall
not be considered employees of the City. Any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel,
arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without
limitation, claims of discrimination against Liesch, its officers, agents,
contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City.
Liesch shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any
determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or
court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be
entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever
from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and
hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA.
4. NONDISCRIMINATION
No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service
performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the
grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against
discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Liesch shall
i (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's
Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall comply with the City's Equal
Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to
employment and contracting (See Exhibit B).
5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
Liesch agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, and
employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments,
or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or
indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional
errors or omissions) of Liesch, its agents, employees, or assignees in
performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss
by reason of the failure of Liesch to fully perform in any respect, all
obligations under this contract.
6. DATA PRIVACY
Appraiser agrees to abide by all applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations concerning the handling and disclosure of private and
confidential information concerning individuals and/or data including but
not limited to information made non-public by such laws or regulations.
Appraiser shall maintain all appraisal reports submitted to him on behalf of
City as confidential until released by counsel for the City.
7. RECORDS - AVAILABILITY.
Liesch agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any of their duly
authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and
as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to
and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books,
documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting
practices and procedures of Liesch and involve transactions relating to
this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of
final payment with respect to the project.
8. NON-ASSIGNMENT
Liesch shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract
and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in
part, without the prior written consent of the City.
9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the
parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral
agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are
incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this
Agreement.
b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have
been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement
signed by the parties hereto.
10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
a. If Liesch fails to perform any of the provisions of
this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger
the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default.
Unless the default is excused, the City, may upon written notice,
immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety.
b. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision
or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed
a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in
writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or
relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement.
C. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party
upon twenty (20) days written notice.
40 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
In order to coordinate the services of Liesch with the activities of the City
so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Katia Medvetski shall
manage this contract on behalf of the City.
12. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto
under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing.
Notices shall be sent as follows:
City of Richfield
Attn: Katia Medvetski
Community Development Department
City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Liesch having signed this contract, and the City having duly approved this
contract on June 26, 2000 and pursuant to such approval and the proper
City officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be
bound by the provisions herein set forth.
Approved as to legality, form and execution.
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
City Attorney
Date:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
City Manager
0
STATE OF MINNESOTA
0 )
)SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2000, by Samantha Orduno, the City Manager, of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the City.
Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment
Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2000, by Kenneth Olson, the Vice President , of Liesch Associates, Inc., a
corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment
Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank)
H:CdAdmin:Agreeements:Professional Service Agmt - Liesch
0
40 EXHIBIT A
WORK TO BE PROVIDED BY LIESCH
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1710 EAST 78TH STREET, RICHFIELD, MN
A. Visual on-site walk-over assessment at each site, identifying existing
surface conditions and any obvious signs of contamination. A visual
assessment of potential asbestos containing material will also be
conducted.
B. Visual survey of adjacent properties for current land use and any obvious
signs of contamination.
C. Contacts with state, county and city regulatory agencies to determine if
any environmental problems or spills have been reported on are adjacent
to the site under investigation.
D. Review of U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps for location of pipelines and other
features which may potentially impact the property.
E. Review available plans and specifications, drawings, site plans, surveys
and similar materials pertaining to the referenced site.
F. Review available historic aerial photographs and Sanborn Maps (if
available).
G. Review of historic property records made available to use by the City of
Richfield or the property owners.
Liesch will also prepare and submit a written report summarizing the factual
findings of the assessment. The scope of the assessment will conform to ASTM
Practice El 527-97. One draft and two final copies of the report will be
submitted.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 9B
REPORT # 151
STAFF REPORT
=099A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 26, 2000
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
M
1-
N TITLE
SIGNATURF.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits on statutory municipality tort
liability
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council not to
waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield purchases its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each
participating municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of
liability. This action must be taken on or before July 1 of each year.
The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an
individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by
allowing an individual claimant to recover more than $300,000, up to the $1,000,000
occurrence limit or more if limits are waived and excess liability insurance is
0612LMC Liability
purchased. They may also waive the per occurrence limit and purchase excess
• liability insurance.
Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of liability. This is true of more than
half of the cities in Minnesota. Richfield has also elected not to purchase excess
liability coverage for the past several years.
The issue of purchasing excess liability insurance may be reviewed in greater depth
at a Council meeting in July if the City decides to affirm the statutory limits of
liability.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The State Statute establishing liability limits for cities has been raised two
times in the last few years to the current $1,000,000 level. The legislature felt
that the $1,000,000 limit was more reasonable than the previous lower limits.
• Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota are not waiving the
monetary limits on municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes
466.04.
• The Council could waive its statuary limits in future years if the Council
should decide to do so.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust will renew on July 1, 2000. This action must be completed before that
time.
The City does not have to make a decision on purchasing excess liability
coverage at this time. Coverage such as excess liability may be added at
any time.
C. FINANCIAL
There is a slight premium savings for political entities that affirm the statutory
monetary limits. For Richfield the savings would approximate $5,000 for the
coverage year.
The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage because of
the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of coverage
would be $49,000 if the City does not waive its liability limits.
D. LEGAL
• The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have protected
cities historically and no Minnesota court has ever established a monetary
award in excess of the statutory limits against a municipality.
• Each city must annually decide whether the City would voluntarily waive the
statute for both the single claims each occurrence limits.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• If the Council feels that any single claimant should receive more than the
$300,000 limit, the Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits.
• If the Council feels that the $1,000,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate,
the City could purchase excess liability coverage and subsequently waive the
limits of liability up to the amount of excess coverage purchased by the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
•
J
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for
Minnesota cities; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked that each
city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive
it's limits; and
WHEREAS, such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report
to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not
waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes
466.04.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of June
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 9A
REPORT # 150
J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 26, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR
s NAME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to authorize the Mayor to sign a consent and conflict waiver for Moss & Barnett
regarding representation of Animal Care Clinic before the City of Richfield.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the Mayor to sign a consent and conflict waiver
for Moss & Barnett regarding representation of Animal Care Clinic
before the City of Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
Brian Grogan, a partner at Moss & Barnett, represents the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission (SWSCC) and indirectly, the City of Richfield on various cable
communications matters. Luanne Wendland, DVM, has asked Paul Zisla, a partner
at Moss & Barnett, to represent her with regard to the acquisition of her property
(Animal Care Clinic) at 6521 Cedar Avenue South by the City of Richfield. Dr.
Wendland is not opposed to the acquisition, but the City is using its power of
eminent domain to complete the process and resolve all issues.
Moss & Barnett has advised the City of the potential conflict of interest. However,
the Moss & Barnett firm does not believe that their representation of Animal Care
Clinic would adversely affect their relationship with the City because this matter is
0626MossBarnett
outside of the scope of their normal representation of the City on cable
communications matters. Moss & Barnett further believes that it is necessary to
obtain written consent from both parties and have set forth a request for a written
waiver from the parties.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is appropriate in cases like this for the attorney to seek a consent
and conflict waiver. The conflict waiver request has been discussed
with the City Attorney.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Moss & Barnett does not work directly for the City of Richfield. They
are employed by the SWSCC, which covers Richfield as a member
City.
• Under the rules that regulate the conduct of lawyers, Moss and
Barnett cannot simultaneously represent directly adverse parties
unless the lawyer reasonable believes the representation will not
adversely affect the relationship with the other party and each client
consents after consultation.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council may decide not to authorize the conflict waiver. If this would
occur, Moss & Barnett would need to consider resigning representation of
either the City or Animal Care Clinic.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Letter and acknowledgement from Moss & Barnett.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
is
•
LAW OFFICES
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
4800 NORWEST CENTER
HERMAN J. RATELLE PETER A. KOLLER
THOMAS A. KELLER III RICHARD 1. KILBER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
JAMES B. O'BRIEN KEVIN M. BUSCH
EDWARD L. WINER SUSAN C. RHODE
MINNESOTA 55402-4129
MINNEAPOLIS
STE
WILLAM N . KOSTER M. . HUG HUGHES
THOMAS ,
WILLIAM A. HAUG NICK HAY
CHARLES A. PARSONS, JP, THOMAS A. JUDD TELEPHONE 612) 347-0300
THOMAS B. HARMS DAVID W. LARSON
RICHARD J. JOHNSON DEANNE M. GRECO FACSIMILE 612 3 3 9 - 6 6 8 6
ROBERT J. LUKBS CASS S. WEIL
JAMES A. RUBENSTEIN GLEN E. SCHUMANN
:RIOMAS ft SHERAN JANNA R SEVER !?"
WRITR'.S DIRECT DIAL. NUMBER
1. MIC-11AEL H-ESCN M. CECILIA RAY
(612) 347-0340
EDWARD I. BLOMME JOSEPH R. KLEIN
JEFFREY L. WATSON NANCY M. KISKIS
THOMAS J. SHROYBR BARRY LAZARUS
DAVID P. JENDRZEJEK RONALD A. EISENBERG WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
CURTIS D. SMITH
DAVE P. SENGER PAUL B. ZISLA
BRIAN T. GROGAN
GroganB@moss-bamett.com
MITCHELL H. COX J. MICHAEL COLLOTON
MICHAEL J. BRADLEY ERIC J. OLSEN
June 7, 2000
•
Mr. Steve Devich
Assistant City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
JOSBP IBRINOWSKI
sTKVi
VS-fuR&A= TIMOTHY L GU
v
WILLIAM A. CUMMING J ACH
JAYMES D. LITTLEJOHN
MICHAEL R. NIXT
JAMES F. BALDWIN
4..,.,n.,. J. PAHNLANDER OF COUNSEL
JAN M. WAGNER LEE A- HENDERSON
PHILIP J. YOUNG
BEN M. HENSCHEL
JON M. TYNJALA
Sr---EN B. CULBERT w9=0
MATHKW M. MEYER VERNE W. MOSS
DAWN M. KNUTSON JAMES H...n.,.r SY
PAUL J. YECHOUT STANLEY R STASEL
KELLY M. McSWERNEY PATRICK P. FLAHERTY
JEFFREY W. POST WAYNE A- HERGOTT
ANN K. PHILLIPS MICHAEL L. FLANAGAN
MEGAN J. HERTZLER PAUL VAN VALKENBURG
H. LB PHAN W. SCOTT HERZOG
JERRIE M. HAYES PAUL G. NEIMANN
Luanne Wendland, DVM
3155 801h Street West
Northfield, MN 55057
Re: Representation of Luanne Wendland, DVM
Our File No. 27510.6
Dear Mr. Devich and Dr. Wendland:
Luanne Wendland, DVM, has asked Paul Zisla, a partner at Moss & Barnett, to represent
her with regard to the acquisition of her property at 6521 Cedar Avenue South (the location of
her business, Animal Care Clinic) by the City of Richfield. Dr. Wendland has not opposed the
acquisition, but the City is using its power of eminent domain to complete the process and
resolve all issues. Brian Grogan, also a partner at Moss & Barnett, represents the City of
Richfield on various cable communications matters. The City and Dr. Wendland are both highly
valued clients of Moss & Barnett. Under the rules that regulate the conduct of lawyers, we
cannot simultaneously represent directly adverse parties unless: 1) the lawyer reasonably
believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other party; and 2)
each client consents after consultation.
We do not believe that our representation of Dr. Wendland will adversely affect our
relationship with the City because the land acquisition matter is outside of the scope of our
normal representation of the City on cable communications matters. However, we believe it is
necessary to obtain written consent from both parties. This letter is our request for a written
waiver from the City and Dr. Wendland to allow Moss & Barnett to represent Dr. Wendland in
the land acquisition matter.
0
1896
RECEIVED
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Steve Devich and Dr. Luanne Wendland
June 7, 2000
Page 2
If you consent to Moss & Barnc;tt's reques , Yiease sign and date the aca-tiuwledgrnent
below. If you have any questions, or if you need any additional information, please call.
PBZ/jmm
339213/1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
Very truly yours,
P4
Brian T. Grogan Paul B. Zisla
0 LUANNE WENDLAND, DVM
By:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Its:
Date:
Date:
0