Loading...
10-09-00 agnedaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2000 RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE **,. r, f.,. ********* :.:..:,.,. ***************************:.:.:..:..:.:.:. ************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSON COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Call to Order Roll Call 1. Annual meeting with Planning Commission II. Discussion of dog licensing and kennel operation policy Adjournment 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 Meeting of September 13, 2000; (2) Special City Council Meeting of September 18, 2000; (3) Special. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2000; (4) Special City Council Meeting of September 19, 2000; (5) Special City Council Meeting of September 21, 2000; (6) Special City Council Meeting of September 25, 2000; (7) Special City Council Meeting of September 25, 2000; (8) Regular City Council Meeting of September 25, 2000; and (9) Special City Council Meeting of September 27, 2000 PRESENTATION Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council inone motion. ,OnceAhe 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 resolutions appointing additional election judges and high school student trainee election judges for General Election on November 7, 2000 S.R. No. 254 B. Consideration of approval of stipulation of settlement for 6409 and 6417 Cedar Avenue for 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77, Interchange Project S.R. No. 255 C. Consideration of approval of contract with Dennis Daniels to provide house moving administrative services for homes on 18th Avenue mitigative area S.R. No. 256 D. Consideration of approval of purchase of estimated 1,700 ton of winter deicing salt for 2000/2001 winter season from Cargill Incorporated at price of $26.33 per ton, plus sales tax S.R. No. 257 E. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses with fee waiver for Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue, annual Fall Festival on November 18 and 19, 2000 S.R. No. 258 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Public hearing regarding re-issuance of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555, Inc, d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake • Shore Drive Staff Report No. 259 Notes: 5. Public hearing regarding conditional use permit for drive-up teller window at 6613 Penn Avenue with stipulations Staff Report No. 260 Notes: RESOLUTION 6. Consideration of resolution supporting preferred design for 1-494/1-35W interchange Staff Report No. 261 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 7. Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance adopting City's Comprehensive Plan with amendment to Guide Plan and changing designation of property in Interchange West area from high density single family residential and neighborhood .commercial to regional commercial/office Staff Report No. 262 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 6817 Penn Avenue, four dogs Staff Report No. 263 Notes: 9. Consideration of Mayor's appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner for five year term expiring in October 2005 Staff Report No. 264 Notes: • AIRPORT BUSINESS 10. Airport status report Notes: CORRESPONDENCE Notes: COUNCIL CHOICE 11. Council discussion items Notes: • 12. Claims and payrolls 13. 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. 0 • AGENDA SECTION: ADMIN. REPORTS AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 264 STAFF REPORT =Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MARTIN J. KIRSCH, MAYOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Mayor's appointment of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Confirm the Mayor's appointment of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner for a five year term which will expire in October 2005. III. BACKGROUND The term of HRA Commissioner Kristal Stokes will expire in October 2000. Commissioner Stokes was appointed to the HRA in 1997. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY I • Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to confirmation of the City Council. The Mayor has indicated he will make an appointment to the HRA for a five year term at the October 9, 2000 City Council meeting. 1009HRA B. CRITICAL ISSUES • An appointment needs to be made for a term which expires in October 2000. This item has been scheduled for the October 9, 2000 Council meeting so the appointment can be made to ensure a full complement of Commissioners on the HRA. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the appointment confirmation to a future Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • s AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # 263 =9' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CmusTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: (? ' L SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Joseph and Suzanne Carrano, 6817 Penn Avenue South. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consider and approve or deny a request for a new residential kennel license for Joseph and Suzanne Carrano, 6817 Penn Avenue South. III. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2000, Joseph and Suzanne Carrano submitted an application for a new residential kennel license. They own four dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Carrano's application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner was not willing, or able, to sign the application. There is currently a restraining order between the Carranos and this property owner. A copy of this restraining order is attached. Joseph and Suzanne Carrano have submitted three letters on their behalf regarding the request for this residential kennel license. They have also submitted copies of health records, Canine Good Citizen awards and copies of obedient dog training 1009Carrano • class certificates that their animals have received. They have also included pictures showing the condition of their property. An inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer on September 15, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. III. 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 two letters regarding this application. The concerns include barking and fighting. 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. C. FINANCIAL • N/A • D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS I • Letter from applicant. • Copy of restraining order. • Copies of letters from veterinarian and surrounding neighbors. • Copies of animals Good Citizen and Obedient training awards. • Pictures of applicant's yard. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Joseph and Suzanne Carrano 0 August 20, 2000 Dear Mayor and City Council Representatives: Attached you will find our application for a kennel license, copy of a restraining order against the Cipala family at 6813 Penn Avenue South, copies of health records for our four dogs, copies of obedience certificates for our two female dogs, printed copies of photos of our fenced and privatized back yard, and letters of recommendation for approval of the kennel license from a neighbor, our veterinarian and a family friend. We have enclosed the above items to show you what type of responsible pet owners we truly are. We regularly maintain our yard by cleaning up after the dogs daily and by making sure there are no hazards for the dogs. We have privatized the yard for our pleasure as well of that of the neighbors. Our dogs are kept inside in kennels during the day and allowed in the yard when supervised. We make every effort to prevent the dogs from hindering the neighbors' enjoyment of their yards and homes by making sure the dogs do not bark. When they do, as dogs tend to do, we bring them in or cease the activity which is causing the barking (keep away with the ball type games between the dogs). We do believe the dogs have to "be dogs" by playing and chasing and such, but we make sure their fun doesn't interfere with the lives of our neighbors. We obtained signatures from 10 neighbors around us. We gave them our phone number as well -just in case the dogs were bothering them. We did not obtain a signature from our neighbor to the North of us, Bill and Pam Cipala. Referring to the attached copy of a 1998 restraining order, we are to have NO contact with them in any shape or form. We have had repeated problems with the Cipalas and their children since 1996. The problems ranged from their children throwing rocks at our dogs to Mr. Cipala getting into yelling matches with us in the back yard. We prefer not have any further contact with them. As the information provided shows, Joe and I are very responsible pet owners. Although we had a kennel license in 1997/1998, we did not renew it because at that time we had two of our current dogs and a Doberman Pincher, Chloe. Chloe died in May 1998 and we did not renew our license because we did not plan on getting other dogs, at least for a while. When we did, we never even thought of the license. When the Cipala's friend, Helen, who lives behind them, called Public Safety about our dogs on August 11, 2000, we advised the officer we would gladly comply and obtain the necessary information for the issuance of the kennel license. We explained we are law-abiding citizens and want to continue to be so. I hope the information contained in this letter and in the attachments aids in you decision to issue our kennel license. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Z, Carrano j 6817 Penn Ave So 1IR ?, DI Richfield, MN 55423 STATE OF MINNESOTA C Aow COUNTY OF HENNEPIN QsJtan' fj Jose)() and HA 4 DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ------------------ .? 1 C lr&itioner(s), )Res ondant(s). Oct 0'? U? C_l ?.na ?tlstbl MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER File No. HA qq)- The above-entitled matter came ?o/n? for hearing before the undersigned, a Referee of District Court, on <L?? I \.J U' /? Cb upon a motion by Petitioner(s) for the relief specified?ir, the Petition for a Restraining Order filed herein. Both Petitioner(s) and Respondent(s) appeared. Now, therefore, based upon the evidence adduced and upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, THE COURT FINDS: 1. Petitioner(s) have filed a Petition for a Restraining Order. 2. Respondent(s) have been served with a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order and Respondent(s) have been given notice of the time and place of the hearing on the Petition for a Restraining Order. 3. Petitioner(s) and Respondent(s) have agreed to the issuance of a Mutual Restraining Order and the following Mutual Restraining Order shall issue. he-sby acirn t c'ue and personal vfl is ".ta ''•,i .7 P?tit.crcr Resp ndent -l- ?r • IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: HA 4 1. Resoondent(sj shall named Petitioner(s). avoid the harassment of the above- Resoondent(s) shall not do any of the following: NOTICE THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDUCT WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS RESTRAINING ORDER: a. Any repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of Petitioner(s). b. Any contact with Petitioner(s) in person, by telephone, or by other means or persons. 40 2. Petitioner(s) shall avoid the harassment of the above-named Respondent(s). Petitioner Us shall not do any of the following: NOTICE THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDUCT WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS RESTRAINING ORDER: a. Any repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of Respondent(s). 0 b. Any contact with Respondent(s) in person, by telephone; or by other means or persons. ?HA 4 3. This Mutual Restraining Order shall remain in effect until 4. The Court Administrator shall send a copy of this Mutual Restraining Order to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department and the r 5. VIOLATION OF THIS RESTRAINING ORDER BY AN ADULT IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR UP TO 90 DAYS OR A FINE OF UP TO $700 OR BOTH. 6. VIOLATION OF.THIS RESTRAINING ORDER BY A JUVENILE MAY RESULT IN DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS. 7. A PEACE OFFICER MUST MAKE AN ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT • AND TAKE THE RESPONDENT(S) INTO CUSTODY IF THE PEACE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE PERSON HAS VIOLATED THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. The foregoing facts were found by me after due hearing and the foregoing order thereon Findings of Fact and Order approved as of is recommended. Referee of District Court / Dated:.XC?- I low date-4:ieard. THIS !S A. ''OPY THE ORIG;NAL vJ v ORDEP SIGNED SY A JUDGE OF THE A-M.it iniC CAL DISTRICT MAYBE Judb;._SjCD j? ic?t ?t,?ott rt ~4`- Dated: 0 August 14, 2000 To whom it may concern,` The Carrano's and their pets have been clients of the Banfield Pet Hospital sinc 1997. Over the years they have been attentive to the minor and major illnesses of their pet and have maintained the yearly and required vaccinations for their pets. Please contact the Banfield Pet Hospital of Richfield if we can be of any assistance o you have further questions. Our phone number is 612.661-1951. Thank You, t The hospital staff of Banfield Pet Hospital • STORDAHL CONSTRUCTION 6821 PENN AVE. & RICHFIELD, MN 55423 612-866-6670 PERMIT #2917 August 15, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: We have lived next door to Joe and Suzanne Carrano ever since they moved to this area and we enjoy them as neighbors very much. They have fixed up the house inside and out to make it an asset to the block. They have dogs for pets and a wonderful back yard to have them in. They also have the inside of their home immaculate with their many pets. We never have been great dog lovers ourselves, but the way they take care of their dogs is better than many people take care of their children. The dogs are never outside without either Joe or Suzanne. We have a lot of company and enjoy our backyard very much and the dogs have never bothered us one bit. We have no objection to them getting a kennel license for their pets. I think if you look at the situation, you will be able to tell that they love their animals and take care very good care of them. Cordially, d>f ? JerYY and Helen Stordahl 6821 Penn Ave. S, Richfield, MN 55423 0 s 0 August 15, 2000 Heather Gorder 320 Blake Road North #703 Hopkins, MN 55343 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in response to the kennel license that Suzanne and Joseph Carrano are applying for. I have known Joseph and Suzanne since I moved to Minneapolis two years ago. In that past two years I have watched Mr. and Mrs. Carrano's dogs several times. During those times, I was left specific directions in how to handle the dogs. I was instructed to make sure if the dogs were making any noise to bring them in the house. However, I have never had to do that being the dogs never bark. I was also instructed that if the dogs were bothering any of the neighbors or showing any type of nuisance to the neighbors to bring them in the house. Again I never had to do that. I have also been over to Mr. and Mrs. Carrano's home for frequent visits. There is only one specific example that I can remember where one of the Carrano's dogs has been barking. The neighbors (right next door to the left of the Carrano's property) was being harassed by the neighbor's children (even though the Carrrano's do have privacy fencing) the neighbor's children were poking sticks through the fence at the dog, the dog barked and Mrs. Carrano immediately put the dog in the house. The Carrano's take Ex-rREME measures so that their dogs are not a nuisance to the neighbors. The dogs are kept in the house when they're gone and only in the back yard when supervised. The yard is also well kept up. The dogs have been through training for obedience and for Good Canine Citizenship. These dogs are also treated like children. If there are any questions regarding any additional information, please feel free to contact me at my business number of (952) 918-1100 ext. 1237. 0 Heather K. Gorder Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 September 1, 2000 To whom it may concern: This letter is in response to the letter that we received regarding the application for a residential/commercial kennel license at 6817 Penn Avenue South in Richfield. Yes, We do have a major concern about the kennel license being approved. We have lived in our home for 10 years. We used to have a dog, too. The folks who live at 6817 Penn Avenue can be very nice folks as can the dogs when taken pareof properly. They -have .lived -there about 4-:5 years. -There havebeen several times in those 4-5 years that the police/animal protection have been called to that residence due to the loud barking of their dogs. When.they originally mme&n Ythey.-had 3 doga:° Then we wbeed about -2 years ago one dog was gone, but shortly after they had another to replace it but it was smaller, yet it still barked Then we noticed there were 4-dogs---have vou-ever .lived. next-to someonewith 4 dons who don't tell their dogs to shut un or better vet take them into the house? It is very nerve racking. Two years ago when the lady of the residence approached_me.to once again signher permit, I said I would if she could keep the dogs quiet, as my husband works nights and needs to sleep and the kids I have get woken up by the barking dogs. It is not unusual for these dogs to bark for at least half an hour or more. Barking dogs are fine when you can tell they are playing. But when we have witnessed both residents prying the dogs apart because they are fighting, that is not having control of your pets. In February of 1998, we had to get rid of our dog as the neighbors consistently would let their dogs out whenever we took ours out for bathroom breaks (mind you, our dog is on a leash) because our dog couldn't take the barking from the neighbors dogs who would huddle at the fence and bark non-stop whenever our dog was out. Try explaining that to two small children as to why we needed to get rid our the family pet when it would snap at us, wet in the house for fear of going outside and jump when it would hear the neighbor dogs bark For the safety of our children, we chose to give up our dog. We have not made any calls to the police/animal protection in over 2 years due to barking dogs, as we never saw any changes being made and due to a mutual restraining order between these people. They came over once and pounded on my door at night to say, "you need to keep your dog from barking in the morning while I am sleeping". Well, we consistently are hearing their dogs barking morning and night and anytime from midnight -3am we have heard their dogs barking up a storm outside and yet they don't shut them up. We are not the only neighbors who had complained of the dogs. Just check the police/animal protection log of the barking dog complaints to the residence and it should be clear that there is a problem with the noise. I am tired of other neighbors complaining about the barking dogs and asking us how we cope with it...we choose to ignore it as nothing ever seems to be done to stop it if we do call. Even the other neighbors calling in, doesn't seem to help. But trust me, the barking has got to stops! r J We will not come to mediation as we have done that already with the residents and they did not comply completely with what the final decision was. Mediation doesn't even bother to follow up as they said, we trust what is signed to during mediation. Please use this letter at the public hearing. Hopefully, the other neighbors who complain will respond to let their voices be heard about the obnoxious barking. Thank you for hearing us out. ?La ko- 4z- Sept d-OOOWj?d v `r Deam., S-?eph Qhtee G i Ild ,, re S o h d t 40 ?"? r u? r y ?e5?'?' 7 ?1 ?if1 t1 P.? ?1 CP?YI S? a f L?8/'? Ae/ it Act, sa 1 R u/hS?" C IOU) t`il ?hPint Td (?. are ?? 1 y 5 6o fm * e, 4o house. ?I dos on -f"he r? Oj-oOer7y . Sinee- Mvd?d h"? 4Aase doles avtc ? all?w? ?l-?e. ,beery, a p,-c?,6l?rn. ,?xctilz cc,?d 5 a hd rev lads ?? close- ? ua?f?s ?ICSe R? ?SYt7 u l ? pl o S, w4la be, alop 4ZI, dos loch ,?? N a v> ?f Yl rn ern 5 he{o-re -?ivi?t+? 11? osf,?e? "`?e'? 5 he, C&Oe, 40 ri U k- AMC, au o?? Ccrn Ceo us . GcI e. ld he'` .y h ,6?vs with Oe, 4 5s bca ?1ny. ?o f ???' ?a5s slope 5 a??s lvha cl0 A0 ?,p s a hat ?'? °y' ,? j e?isplay? A?y `IGS4-1 ? heeS these Scc?e GS5? //V lallai6 7v • Certificate of achievement This certifies that ) F,1 1V,t1o after completing all requirements necessary % ? . -kNi to graduate, has earned the status of OBTD11TNT DOS (Basic Levu) as offered by the PETsMART Dog Obedience Training Program • • Paw Print of Approvaf _ Instructor: Date: S/''. Aa©©O METMAARr. • Certificate of achievement This certifies that *-- S aaA a Z./ g , after completing all requirements necessary to graduate, has earned the status of OBITDIITNT DOG (Intermediate Levef) as offered by the PETsMART Dog Obedience Training Program Instructor:'' Paw Print of ApprovaC Date: A lao AETSOARr • s s , E ,,:: -. ? / Dog's Name <,,,x0a-,V141Z is a CANINEO GOD CITIZEN and has been awarded this certificate on C? `? r00Q in recognition of successful completion of the American Kennel Club's CANINE GOOD_ CITIZEN,, TEST Owned By Signatdre Organization CK9GC1 (11/97) • • s I? C ertificate of achievement This certifies that 4z&4z_I_2:: W'L"/a after completing all requirements necessary to graduate, has earned the status of WN OBEDIrFNT DOG (Basic Levef) as offered by the PETsMART Dog Obedience Training Program see Instructor: _ Paw Print of pp ? A rovaf Date: /.f/Jep r' ® A R PITS0 ? Our 3OK yq-rzD 0 cuffs-r s l 'Dlt) t N ??2.0<or2?, SS CC-?S?r S ? o c ? Nv De T44 S I DE- So UnA S\ -t>e- R,&p,iZ 0-F E-bmP- AGENDASECTION: Prop. Ordinance AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 262 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 0 JULIE URBAN, REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 9TURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of a transitory ordinance adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan with an amendment to the Guide Plan and changing the designation of property in the Interchange West area from R-SFH (high density single family residential) and C-N (neighborhood commercial) to C-R/O (regional commercial/office). 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct first reading of a transitory ordinance adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan with an amendment to the Guide Plan and changing the designation of property in the Interchange West area from R-SFH and C-N to C-R/O. • II. BACKGROUND On March 20, 2000, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a Contract for Private Development with Best Buy. The proposed concept plan for the Best Buy development includes 1.5 million square feet of office space. The office development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Regional Commercial/Office classification for the majority of the property. The northern portion of the development is, however, guided for housing and neighborhood commercial, which the Best Buy concept does not include. A Plan amendment to 1009compplan designate this northern area as Regional Commercial/Office is necessary to proceed with the proposed office development. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the text for the West 1-494 subarea are supportive of the proposed amendment. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a net gain of 1,125 housing units throughout the City. The net gain with the amendment would be 1,038 housing units, a reduction of approximately 87 housing units. While housing is no longer a part of the proposed concept plan, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Comprehensive Plan amendment is one step in the review process for the Best Buy development. Additional zoning, financial, and environmental approvals will also be needed before the development can move forward. At this time, staff anticipates consideration of these items in November and December 2000. • The Comprehensive Plan provides a broad framework for the City to use when reviewing specific development proposals. The Plan will provide that framework when the Council reviews the Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the planned unit development plan, and the final development plan. • The current Comprehensive Plan suggests that 77th Street could be developed similar to 77th Street east of 35W, serving as a buffer between commercial and residential development and a connection from 76th Street to Penn Avenue near 1-494. The Best Buy proposal would not accommodate an arterial road through the center of the development; however, the on-site circulation patterns provide for a similar connection for Best Buy employees. In addition, 76th Street and the intersection at 76th Street and Penn Avenue will be upgraded to provide the connection to 1-494 and Penn Avenue. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • The City Council must adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance by two-thirds vote of the full Council. • On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the amendment and voted unanimously to approve the amendment. On May 8, 2000, the City Council authorized submittal of the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. • On September 27, 2000, the Metropolitan Council approved the amendment with the following. conditions: 1. The wastewater system improvements to the local lift station must be completed prior to the occupancy of the office complex. 2. The City must complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for approval a Tier II sewer plan prior to any further development that reflects an increased discharge to the regional system. The Metropolitan Council approval included the following recommendations: 1. Richfield should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as a result of the land use change. 2. The City should use the TIF to be generated by the proposed development to assist the development or preservation of affordable rental housing in Richfield. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay the Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time; however, this decision would delay many other aspects of the development process. • Do not approve the amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance Attachment A: existing and proposed Guide Plan designations VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A BILL NO. • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AMENDED CONCERNING THE INTERCHANGE WEST AREA THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property. The property located in the Interchange West area, specifically between Knox and Penn Avenues and 76th Street and midway between 77th and 76th Street is designated R-SFH (high density single family residential) and C-N (neighborhood commercial) [the "subject area"]. The City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to classify this area as C-R/O (regional commercial/office). Section 2. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning modifying the Guide Plan classifications of property in the subject area. The Planning Commission approved the modification on March 28, 2000 following a public hearing. The City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on April 24, 2000 and May 8, 2000. The Metropolitan Council approved the amendment on September 27, 2000; and Section 3. The City of Council makes the following findings of fact: A. An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The proposed amendment is consistent with this objective. B. The amendment is also consistent with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." C. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." D. The amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater metropolitan area." E. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." F. The amendment is consistent with the description of the 1-494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between 1-35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of 1-35W." 10 G. Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. Section 4. The City's Comprehensive Plan as amended, changing the classifications of property in the subject area from R-SFH and C-N to C-R/0, is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of , 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Attachment A Existl ln'?nMrv 1MV, ?u?uovn, ,nnnnn, n , .n 0 II II II ll1 1 VL ,.•" Z UYYYU4IJ,IM l?W1AMnA/i. in pp? O j N {9 ?.z )494 ing Comp Plan Classifications •r,,., ?? ? ?„?,? ----gin ? i i ? 'N^ wry XI I y . .?a ?.:.tv?.vti v:.v ttv.}, .....r...c .... .tt v.... • :w:::: • : nvvYnv: xt\v '•: t...t..... . . . .. ................ t.. ...:..:.. n....• ..v.:. .; ..:... t.. .... - - 77TH ST W N W 6 (78TH ST W7 INTERSTATE--JttyyY NO 494 smnHTO MV OR Properties with Proposed Classification Change Proposed Comp Plan Classifications M. , r. u444W v S„ M. ? vUin UAW 7(0. WVLi +,l:.o io ? , I i 1 7? I I I i VJ,Y$UV :LA r v.W_ 0 .z . - ". f?AMY,hhAA VNUTAAJ uR -A V O ? ?nn?e•7ri n`'ri nYeUnn 78TH s7 w o? Y O R w :•z NO 494 0 0 1 200 Feet Comp Plan Classifications Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial/Office Single Family Residential ® S. F. Res.- High Density ® Multi Residential- Medium Density Multi Res.- H.D./Office MM Church J 0 200 Feet March, 2000 ,.: am sr W) INTERSTATE HWY NO 494 N sanwom M • AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 261 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ?- SIG?JATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution in support of preferred design for the 1-494/1-35W interchange I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution supporting the preferred design for the 1-494/1-35W interchange. • II. BACKGROUND In December 1998 the City hired BRW, Inc. to prepare a new layout for the 1-494/1- 35W interchange. Five alternatives were developed and evaluated. A technical committee representing local, state and federal governmental agencies recommended the preferred alternative that was shown to the public at the Remodeling Fair in January 2000. This layout consists of a set of collector- distributor roads on 1-494 and a flyover ramp to carry northbound to westbound traffic. The proposed design limits some access that is available with the existing interchange but its removal has enabled the construction cost to be lowered significantly. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), in partnership with the cities of Richfield and Bloomington, held, public meetings/open houses on the proposed layout of the 1-35W/1-494 interchange in August 2000. The proposed 1009Res494-35 layout will also be included in the preparation of the 494 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is due to be completed in the fall of 2000. The Planning Commission and the Community Services Commission have had discussions about the 1-494/1-35W interchange. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The 1-494 Corridor Commission has identified the interchange of 1-494 and 1-35W as a critical infrastructure improvement that needs immediate attention. • The City of Richfield has identified improvements at the 1-494/1-35W interchange as a top priority of the City of Richfield and supports efforts to secure federal funding to provide improvements for the I- 494/1-35W interchange as quickly as possible. • The proposed design reduces the cost of reconstruction in comparison to the design advocated in the draft 494 EIS. The reduced cost increases the chances that the interchange will be rebuilt sooner than the year 2011 or beyond as currently proposed by MnDOT. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed design reduces some access offered by the existing 494/1-35W interchange. This means additional capacity needs to be provided at 76th Street and Penn Avenue, and at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Similar improvements are needed in Bloomington at 82nd Street and Penn Avenue, and at 82nd Street and Lyndale Avenue. These proposed improvements might have right of way implications. • The proposed layout respects the right of way lines shown in the original draft 494 EIS done in 1992, but some deviation has occurred because the preferred layout has changed significantly from the layout recommended in the 1992 draft 494 EIS. C. FINANCIAL • The approximate cost of the improvements is estimated at $125 million or more including the 1-494/1-35W interchange ($100-$130 million), the Penn Avenue bridge ($16 million, excluding right of way costs), the Lyndale Avenue bridge ($11 million), and the 79th Street bridge ($7 million). The State of Minnesota has approximately $66 million committed for the project in the years 2011 and beyond. • Although funding has been identified for portions of the proposed roadway improvements related to the 1-494/1-35W interchange, funding for all segments of the preferred design has not be secured. The 1-494 Corridor Commission is actively seeking funding for ,improvement of 1-494 infrastructure from the Minnesota River to 1-94 in order to increase its people-moving capacity and to improve mobility for businesses and residents throughout the region. • Layout approval will not require any financial commitment on the part of the City. D. LEGAL • MnDOT is required to obtain City Council approval for the design of any proposed state highway improvements. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may chose to support one of the four other, alternatives considered during the interchange study. • Council may choose to delay approving any layout. This may delay work in preparing the design for the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution endorsing the preferred design alternative for the 1-494/1-35W interchange. • Map of the preferred layout for the 1-494/1-35W interchange. • Response to written comments received at August 2, 200 Open House. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0 ON RESOLUTION NO. I RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PREFERRED DESIGN OF THE 1-49411-35W INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has identified improvements at the 1-494/1-35W interchange as a top priority of the City of Richfield; and and WHEREAS, alternative designs for the 1-494/1-35W were developed and evaluated; WHEREAS, the proposed preferred layout respects the right of way lines shown in the original draft 494 EIS done in 1992 and reduces the cost of reconstruction in comparison to the design advocated in the draft 494 EIS; and WHEREAS, the alternative designs have been shown to the public with the preferred alternative receiving little or no negative comment; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is required to obtain City Council approval for the design of any proposed state highway improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby declares its support for the preferred design of the 1-494/1-35W interchange as noted in the April 2000 documentation of the 1-494/1-35W Interchange 10 Study conducted by the City of Richfield in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, City of Bloomington, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and Federal Highway Administration. 2000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of October, ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor N ------------------ --------- I , '-'--'--'? -- -- - -' ------------' - -- - ---, - -,- _ _ ---='j I I i `r -- J-' o ------ --------------- ------ ---- --------- t ?,reet Bridge over I.3 - rya ; "; ; ' - - - - - - - - TUT - _ -6 -'? "- '-' - - - _ 1. _.1-- - - - - - - 1 - --------- ---- ---- ---------- } --•+--• ------ - ------------------ - ---------- _.+._ tttt _ Street Reliever -- _ _ - _.t._- _ _ - - - - T -- i I o _ _ tt !- L_ '? ?, l.- ! ? 1 r tea '! _i ' y, , ? . ?"-? •?_ - _?" - C _.L- L -??_ ? _1: _ W. 76th ST. W.78th`5T. a i S? ?ie Roint - _ _ i , x? -,- -CrM-- -I-'-" I-"- - - - + -E LO _ -- _ ._"t" r I ?- IHFl -?-- -? - -'?- . _ ercha a -" ELI s' -J - , U _. ! xuo !_ J I a' conE J - I 1 I 1 I -'- -' -' 1 -11 11?g -: 4 _ahlirI --?'- -1-- -- -' -'i' --- APARTMEtA pas$ Ramps - ±_ '- -'-' - ;? t- -t'- - r 511C1 ,? . I - - - --- - - - -- - J ? t W e ' W. 77th ST IN 77th ST. I N ruuER TT.- ? ?--- ? t ,; "I ., i I v I t ? ,a 1 L ., W I -f-_K ` a _; .•,c I I _.J EC_- Q cl wlss wuKnexrs 7l, ti ;>r ,J¢..- g 'Iw.rxami N (,h s 1' ---{ ?- is r • `?? o • Ca?in ie om - ?. t: eovr a SHW X Hl i ?. o, ., a....6 .n{: ?r°r u a us r,• rw.. - -ot .LE W. 77 1 2 ST. (! i xx 4 n r : • ! } II ,. ..., ?. P II' I Y?,` .._,. 1 .sown ";?J {; a ax .n. I , a ,' x^sr'•r7,iE I I t a _ o I . ... t 7 ! v J7G w 1112 y wE l tr xi So6n I r I Y' .•i'o c .j ^ ?, wa' ?• :,,{- I 1 +' R ?/ "`},? E i ?\ -ti...«Mli AREA L&ED TIT _ ----- , r ; e '+? Jr L ,? ? .. ;. ox urt I „ I , I•. • • •. • I' ?,` "' ?, I ry+'7 .g' VpEWE ..r ,,. tunER l5,^ -_.___RSxF?. 11BIRC RICN , AW& RIF ....,• ?... a e:.: r•rr w:.a -?P'N " ? , .. . _:. . -..... -.. .,.. c ..,..'.,' ,,.. . i' , - .:. - fork ,....? mac. 3 - low , I - 1 i .. ?,, ,. I,::,c ^ .; •,,. woorcwR a .? •+T •, ??,.'? , :: r•p ' _v:T-?. -`7 -?• w., THEAHE t... ` t ,, i j' ' I`so7mzl.. u71 ma I R ?r? ? , ;s P !,, . ? I ? •r 1 } ? _ ?, . ._ .... , + s°wE°? {(tN f k `•, x sfi' 'F 1:,„. µM. ?f >. [ • NK I t .. '4 : _ NE ,0 - CA I \'S JOV 11 .?,. , < 1701 1 2Mp•xv»:m? Y1 ('I .• i, J ^ ??I'F BEDAPf EOR?PGROE ?. ". _?, r...:, I:;._.....?., ,,-„ --?., - ' ,, :• ?.,::;,..- ?.,`. i ?? x-.??'._ 1 ER? .E•mR y, 3 .;?'"ml?.? . h ,? .-m.,>K a p - uwemsa+PCU ?-- d X; 8 10 uxli ?' J, P ?" I t' 1 in ?2, 4 t I T caa ocutR n Ne (?I?Q' EgANEJ•.. I..? r w . ov ? ^ ? 1 ' , TTLJJl 111 SOUTHTOWN I t 1. : `7 1 I 0% RE f p t a1lL:. : ' I rumd J v , :? •x?, I / ,y,. ^ •:: , ? +m••+.•m,a•u,, - W ? ^- ??", '? ? e , r Qy 4" l Y EIpP I ,:.. CI , 1 1 n o' - t A001 `*? IF e i --? .., d91 0 ,....,i mEIEE I, t 1lij,,' LF' I I 7, n J _ :: III I ? 1 ? Ir •0 J C--•r-r;. 7 ,' ,, e, ' ? , . ..{`. ? ? , . I lY! ! .. '';: i I „.-,.. 1 ; :I I,,,•_,_ 1 J,;,. I +i _ 5 •? . J t 1:...._._...',`.:.u:„ _ ?iv w ,..a .:+....,,.. - f«J..,, IF TF I ,",'li• tl -irr-?, . r,r , C C , t; i ?' I 1 ..._ ? .: l?, , t ; , nt ? e. , - ' ' '•. .. ... I I '•'r•"' .?" ? ?. C' ? ?"?t . I d ? ?47? 4. I :. ., I : . ;i,' I I, ? s ! ;? ; '. I: ,: .:.. ,,;. ,.: «, ? 1 , %.' ,j ?= ;?. ,.` L w1•-!"i.. ?'? ^r, ?,-r. ?i?,?s?t ar ,"n:. I ! .: Y I , i I,,.?•. , { ?, • ? {??t?i, r .et ???lever-j I ?.....' .. -..?, I, ry f -., i , EK?y, y...?{ x??Y? n i i (•^p,I ?K ?•^q i ? 'r. ' r . ..: ?, ? ' I_' i .; -ppp ^ ,.: ? ', L.,•?-? ^ i ; a'. '. - - ,•, ^. ,. t ? : 7• i C P:-,: ,.. ?'I v ,• I ;_, >. I' ?1 .. I'I '1' ti; .;,:L:. Iu'A ,^i ..h ^"'it - ! .:'4 d Ma ! . I' I'.".?.'_? -J.• i .'.??. iI. ? ? 1 I . I la ?, I ?• I ,: .,: 7 -14 L itt I a"E? J ' 1 a? . ! L ,.. , • !? ?i Gradete?m . + ? r ! i ", 1I IY .I r'. i 1 4 ?' ? Pu -.11, ?^ J ...:b I,.--? I J? I I I . 'I, t' 1 ¢. y. r h.`b` t, 7 ?'? j•' ''"`"'' I ' S i r '.:.u i f • q^ ?*^ ' P ;,r. . 111 ?I .., {._; ,...... , ,? I ? {; •.: :::: a..., rP?'' t. If •I 1 i??l ?" '1 ",.? ? xl q,l wiJ;. ?""„? ?r ?li; i I ., i.. , 1,?, ? - li `>.?y 1 w .J .tf'•: , ..? ! J ? .t I ', d::r? I i . , ? I 1 .... I .., ?,;_ . ... ? _.. u}. .. I 1 , , K OV. dr ? + tl ? ! 1? , .:I 1 IVi ? :...J'--r.•o^ .,..- ' • . pp g j B §s, r" s v, a Z S. ,:G. I l:,d 1 4 Ampe I, ji! y- 97 : I i I 'r'; ' .. :.,,. 7 ?r:;?. - d :.: I ? .. .. a x:• !" A ? k .. , -. ??.,?..• ® j : :: : v: '..,...,, ; T C .. T` T-a1''1 r ',-`r. ,1 `.f ",n 4 • 1 w?W i r , t .. .':.•, va ?' r .F .::,y; `rv x ....,.._. .,. m al ??, • _,? } ,. I: _ _ I "J' r ! : I . to ,. CI b ?. 777-7 ;._. 1, A g C _- -( r ,?. '..I ,? •:. ,: ? I l TO _ p P `I ;r 1 J Fact, _., 1 3. U I1T? C w . ,' i I f , •. ?, .. n, : .:. • '... ...,^.: ?'4 _ ._,, ._, r-ur V '?!' t I -! I if •.1 .I ".•G."Y .a? i S. I , p Ire ? .• ; C , s• ,. ICI'' ? '?!?:I ,I ,i I? ; .. .__, 1 , _. 1 A W ?I Ci ;: I c : , ? cJ ,,,.: ,? ? d.?„Y: ,.,? '?,? ?--??•- ,. :,,. I ,., n:- n{.n , NI ?f?: y ;. II I '.i ?, i. c ., 1 -. .? .:. ??t4•,? cc? e. -! I^' ;. w .! ?"• :,' 1. 11?i r: I . U ?j ? ?? - " I. , , : .,., r r ..... • , .. ' _: I . _ , •?:.' ,•i -r c ?. } I ! I ' ? a ,l i I ( ? I f i r^?? ' y? (? (' I. ??.I, t 1 „ . -, ?. 1 ..? ?.? •?. r ti I t,, 11 j?, f 111 Imo, _ t n11 L,.. _.. ry•7 Rq?'t .. r . 1 • "1 ? .,. , .. ;,, , :,' : . ?• .: ,,1 -t-1•-•-. j?-?,? 5 r+?r1 (i?.'r:ir? r rn, ;r?i't Y, URS BRK Inc. 0 To: Tom Foley, City of Richfield From: Nancy Hanzlik Date: September 22, 2000 MEMORANDUM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 Copy: Chris Roy, Mn\DOT File: 33879-036 Subject: Open House Comment Response Two written comment cards were received at the August 2, 2000 Open House for the Phase 1 Penn Avenue/I-494 Interchange Improvement Project. The comments are listed below in italic type and the response is in regular type. Larry Wosniczke 6744 Westbrook S Richfield,lllV 55423 (612) 869-1236 1. Southbound I-35W exit ramp moved south of 76th Street better serves Best Buy and allows traffic wishing to use 76th to go north on Knox Ave to signal. This eliminates signal at 76th Street exit ramp. 2. West of Penn Avenue frontage road should be designed for 2- way traffic. Eventual tie to Penn-77th signal light will make this a greater benefit to Best Buy. This requires reduction in separation between 1-494 mainline and westbound entry ramp. In response to your first comment, in 1998 a committee was formed to evaluate the I-494/I-35W interchange. The committee members represented the following agencies: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Richfield, Bloomington, Hennepin County, BRW, FHWA, and the Metropolitan Council. The committee evaluated several options for the interchange in order to optimize the traffic flow and economize the design. The preferred alternative was presented at the open house for informational purposes only to show how the Penn Avenue bridge will accommodate the future I494 projects. Presently, Mn/DOT is updating the Final EIS for the I-494 corridor between I-394 and the Minnesota River. Mn\DOT will be conducting open houses for the Final EIS in early 2001. Please attend the I-494 open house if you would like to address this issue further. An exit ramp from southbound I-35W south of 76th Street was not shown in the I-494/1-35W Layout displayed during the open house for the following reasons: • Insufficient weave length from SB I-35W onto the Penn Ave ramp. • Galyan's would incur a substantial right-of-way take to provide the requested exit ramp. CAWINDOWSWEMP\open house response.doe • Improvements made to 76th Street are intended to accommodate the traffic flow. In response to your second comment, the frontage road west of Penn Avenue could not be relocated to the north without significantly impacting the Century Court Penn apartment complex located in the NW quadrant of the interchange. If two-way traffic were allowed on the frontage road, a signal would be required to make left turns. The location of the signal would be too close to the interchange to allow the traffic flow to optimize. Under the future 1494 project we are re-considering the concept of detaching the frontage road from the Westbound 494 entrance ramp. If this change is made, the north frontage road will be two-way all the way up to Penn Avenue. However, there will be no left turns allowed to or from Penn Avenue at this location due to the proximity of other traffic signals. Shari Kawiecki 7600 Thomas Richfield, AN 55423 (612) 861-1249 I support the new changes to Penn Avenue as well as the Best Buy development. I would like to see improvement to 76th west of Penn. I would like to see improvements made like those along 77th (shops at Lyndale). I support a plan proposed a few years ago to remove homes on the north side. of 76th, move the road over, put sound walls up and limit access to 76th Street for homes between the freeway and 76th Street. Thank you! . No response is provided to this comment. is C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\open house response.doc AGENDASECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM 9 5 REPORT # 260 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAW, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE VJ ? ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a conditional use permit to allow a drive-up teller window at 6613 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a conditional use permit for a drive-up teller window at 6613 Penn Avenue with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND First National Bank of the Lakes is proposing to purchase the property at 6613 Penn Avenue South and open a branch office. A financial institution is a permitted use in this zoning district (C-2, general commercial); however, the bank is proposing a drive-up teller service, which requires a conditional use permit. The site was originally developed as a restaurant in 1968. A new building was I constructed in 1989 for a dry cleaners with drive-up pick-up and drop-off service, which replaced the restaurant. In 1996, the use changed to a retail/office space and the drive-through window was no longer used. Because the drive-through window has been closed for over one year, all approvals for the window have expired. 1009pennave The building and the drive-through window were developed prior to 1995 when the City adopted buffer yard requirements for drive-through windows. The current ordinance requires a buffer yard of not less than 20 feet in width to separate the drive-through facilities from any lot line. That buffer yard can be reduced to 10 feet in width adjacent to another commercial use. The applicant is able to provide a 10 foot buffer yard on the north side of the property, adjacent to the Amoco gas station. On the east side of the property, adjacent to single family residences, a buffer yard of 15 feet is the maximum area that can be provided. The Council has the authority to reduce the buffer yard on the north side. The east side buffer reduction will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. The bank is proposing to make several improvements to the property. • The parking lot would be reconstructed. • A new dumpster enclosure would be constructed on the east side of the parking lot. • The existing landscaping would be cleaned up and additional landscaping installed in the two buffer yards. • Improvements would be made to the building facade. • The fence along the east side of the property would be replaced. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The bank is proposing to make improvements to the property and building. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • There is adequate parking provided. City standards require 14 spaces for a building this size; there are 20 parking spaces on-site. • The site plan would provide queuing space for four vehicles behind the vehicle at the drive-up window, as required by City standards. • The bank contacted the three neighbors directly behind the property to inform them about the proposed project. One concern expressed was that a fence remain along the east side of the property. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • On September 26, 2000, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. • The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the variance request to reduce the buffer yard from 20 to 15 feet on October 3, 2000. The decision is expected before the City Council meeting. • A drive-up window is a conditional use in the C-2 district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designation is Regional Commercial/Office. A bank is consistent with this designation. b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: Improvements to the property would be consistent with the PASSE area design guidelines. c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: The trash enclosure would be replaced. The parking lot would be reconstructed according to City standards and a new stormwater management plan submitted. d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: The property is currently developed; the CUP is for a change in use. e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare: A buffer yard will be provided between the proposed use and the adjacent residential property. there is a public need for such use at the proposed location: The property is in a commercial area, and the bank is complementary to surrounding commercial uses. g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. A 10 foot buffer yard will be provided on the north side of the property. The applicant has applied for a variance from the 20- foot buffer yard requirement on the east side of the property because the property was developed 11 years ago with a drive- through window and a 15-foot buffer yard. That 15-foot buffer yard was later reduced to 10 feet without City approval. The bank would reinstall the 15-foot buffer yard. • Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a final landscaping plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That the fence along the east side of the property be replaced and that the design of any new fence be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • 5. That plans for facade improvements be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 6. That the adequacy of the parking lot lighting be reviewed, and if the existing lights remain, they be painted and repaired. Any adjustments to the lighting must minimize any impact on . adjacent residential properties. 7. That final plans for reconstruction of the parking lot be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 8. That the Hearing Examiner approve a variance for the reduced buffer yard. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the conditional use permit for a drive-up window with a finding that the 15-foot buffer yard would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. V. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Surrounding land uses Attachment B: Site plan (approved in 1989) Attachment C: Original building elevations Attachment D: Original approved site plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Rick Sheridan, representing First National Bank of the Lakes • Randy Moon, SKD Architects is 0 Attachment A ? Surrounding Land Use 6613 Penn Avenue 0 U i ?I ul h Ax ':. ?:.? I_ I I ? I I ?µ I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I ? AN C I II y j P a 66TH ST W I ?r I I l% ?: _ ??. W a? ! I I I ?? r. R ? '?' r I II I i " . I I I I I I I? _ ?° '? ?t, I II ?I 1 ? tl ? t I I I N? I j? I ?; ?? Z I I I ?> I I I I I I s: r. o f II i ?I I! i I. L I 12 I ?I I ICI II IQI I °` I I I I II I WI i I I I C, I ii I II I I I?°;? iV 100 0 100 200 Feet TWEMMWEEW .I I I 851/2ST W 66TH ST V I I i Il II I I ? II I I I °f > I Z WI I I i of I r 87TH ST W \ FOREST DR Lu Land Use Commercial Apartment Duplex Residential Quasi-Public ® School Church Vacant Park al la I0 ii 1 September 20, 2000 • Z .a CL W W > H a- o W LLI CL Cl) M O CL ro CO a • a z 0 m 0 W CO) O IL O m a 13 0 N T aZ N N r CPA6 o r v r bolos L , 10 .8Z ,. 15082 'S '3Ad NN3d g?--Q S ? ?S ,00'OS L r X9 ;WL T • sv?PE ImAc's ?'? to s 654 23 ?G/o PEW Avg SD. tZ?CHF/OLD, ?N erA6? KS )_ i i .r VESTy I/W-1'-0' -4-26-89 SIGN PERMIT AFFLICF}-f10N 60:5, w DE ftv,A- ?. 4 MGW- ?lS?oM?tF( (' ?1F.M?'Al.? 1 11 1 -- IOU8 SF f Romr gt-DG FA"F- H940ACiA;p FRET c?c. 516NA6E f i rj! HID T:., ? -rn , ? ? tom, two 1 - -I TRTII i -_ I:I I I?? IF -i MCR/ TS4P +? ! 'i i I I ) ALUM. WpvwJ:m4w&.F_ 4- - \ -(1 P y . u i,= mmA?AL- tee i S lNDIV J At, LEMPS MOVMT ?5-D 411.MaG4-*owpgI Roofrl-M w4Qummd?taN pioj^("N6tfst?O??I\? IGP.1 ON BUIL >IN G A:?pieDx 2?f epr ftz0POSED SIGW A(? I I ' - I ?- I WEST . ELEVATION GRVfSTONE CONBTPMCTION COMPANY P.O. BOX 177. SHAKOPEE. MN 55379 • (812).495.2227 u L15' i V*WjCE f EgUEGT _ • ExiSTINl 5Q P 5 F4AlkD V! 6 I LEND Q 3 I N r o , '.fINOLE Z U a ' '.ICH BASIN N? W WATER SERV. LARD POST a - DRANT C) I r LO N Z YYY O SAN. SERV. 9 fup BOX o J MER POIE. I IAL COVER - 4 All POLE ; ,;NT POLE ON CONC. BASE a a L C. BOX O VERHEAD WIRES OOD FENCE , .OJT. PARKING SURFACE ?. IMEAR CURB WATER SERV. ® .? ... - SAN. SERV, •V O O z „ _ SAN. SERV. ;r- 11 Try I? WATER SFRV - ? NOK"I I ME F AN lw- LEAD V v ?l'RN EXISTING TREES S K D -i --RE?L'ACE FENS E pMPZt?. t - • r • - - J - ILL) _x Y i?Y;, L ILL. Z:x 0 a9 r - ' t f c'• ? ? T ? ? y?? Y- a`?•7 •I ' _ _ ? A• .???{a-? OVA GARAGE / - IRON OPTION "B" Nam" M 15' SETBACK A2 BUILDING WEST el 33.50 OCTOBER 99 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CmusTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAAE, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAVE, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 11_\JiN?a `v tv SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: i ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding request for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the re- issuance of club on sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, at their new location, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. III. BACKGROUND On August 24, 2000, the City received an application and other required documents for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink. This is a re-application for the VFW at their new location rather than an application for a "first time" license. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1009FouftckelsFoodandDrink The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Harry LaVan now serves as Commander; Boyd Tate serves as Sr. Vice Commander; and Gerald Hager serves as Quartermaster. The on-premise manager is Gin Ng. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramercy Park Cooperative. The $10,000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Commercial Union insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period from August 1999 through July 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 10% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 90% of the total sales. Food totals are significantly lower than normal as a result of their building relocation site size while their new building was being constructed. From August 1999 through July 2000, there were two Public Safety contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555. This compares with four contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this staff report. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding the V.F.W. in 2000. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on September 13, 2000. In August 2000, Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their second violation. They were also cited previously, in July 1999. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL I D. LEGAL • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS), • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond November 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no • revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gin Ng, Manager of establishment • V.F.W. • • 1999 Post Officers Harry LaVan Boyd Tate Gerald Hager Gin Ng Commander Sr. Vice Commander Quartermaster On-Premise Manager 0 PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS August 1999 - July 2000 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST 5555 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 4 .2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 1 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (1) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from August 1999 through July 2000 was one drunkenness. This compares to four contacts from the previous year. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3E REPORT # 258 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 BETSY CMUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses, with a request for a fee waiver, for the Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held November 18 and 19, 2000. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses, with a fee waiver, for the Church of St Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held November 18 and 19, 2000. II. BACKGROUND On September 18, 2000, the Church of St. Richard submitted a request for an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for November 18 and 19, 2000. They are requesting that the fees be waived. The event will take place from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. on Saturday, November 18, 2000 and 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Sunday, November 19, 2000. They plan to serve food items such as roast beef sandwiches, pizza, hot dogs, cole slaw, cake, and soft drinks. 1009StRichard Festival III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with City codes pertaining to this license. • The Church of St. Richard has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. • The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the Church of St. Richard's Fall Festival. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3D REPORT# 257 STAFF REPORT =09a CITY COUNCIL MEETING 0 OCTOBER 99 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, STREET SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NA&ff, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: iIGTIA'IrURE l REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 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 200012001 winter season from Cargill Incorporated - Salt Division, North Olmsted, Ohio at the price of $26.33 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. The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with the State of Minnesota. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • I A. POLICY The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchase agreement. q 1009SALT • 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 provided the safest road condition possible under icy conditions. Although the City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount for the 2000/2001 winter season, further participation in the cooperative State bidding. process for deicing salt could be abandoned. N/A • V. ATTACHMENTS 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 97/98 27.69/ton North American Salt Co., Overland Park, Kansas 98/99 25.32/ton I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas 99/00 24.02/ton Cargill Inc. - Salt Division, North Olmsted, Ohio • Funding for this purchase is included in the 2000 and 2001 operating budgets for street maintenance. D. LEGAL • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0 ;J AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3C REPORT# 256 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: I-A SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1 ---------- ---- ---- --- ----- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the execution of a contract with Dennis Daniels to provide house moving administrative services for homes on 18th Avenue mitigative area. , 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the execution of a contract with Mr. Dennis Daniels to provide house moving administrative services on 18th Avenue. II. BACKGROUND When the 2000 Legislature appropriated money for the City of Richfield to purchase homes to mitigate airport noise, they required that the City of Richfield attempt to move as many homes as possible rather than demolish them. There is considerable work required to administer such a process. Staff has negotiated for those services with Mr. Daniels. Mr. Daniels was for many years the chief administrator of the City of Bloomington HRA. He also worked for several years with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA). More recently, he I assisted Richfield staff in the administration of the Livable Communities Grant from the Metropolitan Council for apartment rehabilitation. 1009daniels.doc Mr. Daniels would formulate a schedule of activities and assume responsibility for administering the process, and report to staff on a timely basis. It is extremely • difficult to estimate the number of hours required to complete the process. Staff and Mr. Daniels have estimated up to 240 hours or $12,000. Assuming a good marketing plan, the competitive conditions in the marketplace will determine the ability to sell the houses and garages and realize revenue. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City of Richfield must comply with the legislative mandate if the City is to obtain additional funds for more property acquisition in the mitigative area. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The process needs to get underway so the structures can be cleared soon after the City takes possession. C. FINANCIAL The fee of up to $12,000 is a reasonable estimate. It would be disbursed to Mr. Daniels on the basis of invoices indicating hours worked and paid at the rate of $50 per hour. • Funding will be provided by the legislative grant. Revenues from sales will help offset the cost. D. LEGAL The professional services contract is a standard contract and has been reviewed for adequacy by the City Attorney. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not contract with Mr. Daniels. Direct staff to renegotiate the fee. V. ATTACHMENTS Professional services agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 0 MOVING AND DEMOLITION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota (whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, ATTN: Perry Thorvig), hereinafter referred to as the "City" and DENNIS DANIELS, (whose address is Minneapolis, Minnesota), hereinafter referred to as Consultant. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wishes to purchase the services of a moving and demolition administrator for the Cedar Avenue Mitigation Area 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 the Consultant agree as follows: 1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT, The Consultant agrees to furnish services to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The fee shall be $50 per hour and shall not exceed $12,000. • 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Consultant shall develop an activity schedule, contact moving and demolition contractors, select and provide oversight for all of their work. 3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Payment for services shall be made directly to the Consultant after completion of the services upon the presentation of a claim in the manner provided by law governing the City's payment of claims and/or invoices. Payment shall be made within 45 days from receipt of the invoice and following certification by the Consultant. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The Consultant shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Consultant as the agent, representative, or employee of the City for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Consultant is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The Consultant 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 the Consultant or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or i services required by the Consultant under 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 the Consultant, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City. The Consultant 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. 5. NONDISCRIMINATION In accordance with the City's policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performed 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. If the Consultant is not an individual or sole proprietorship: (1) it shall furnish all. information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy; and (2) it shall adopt and comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE The Consultant 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 the Consultant his agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of said Consultant to fully perform in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. 7. DATA PRIVACY Consultant 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. 8. RECORDS - AVAILABILITY The Consultant agrees that the City, the State Auditor, Federal personnel 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 the Consultant and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment of Federal funds to the State with respect to the Project. 2 9. NON-ASSIGNMENT The Consultant 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. 10. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this 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. 11. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If the Consultant 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 Consultant's default is excused, upon written notice to the Consultant the City may 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. Any such consent shall apply only to the specific circumstances described in the writing granting the consent and in no event shall constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement unless specifically so stated. c. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon ten (10) days written notice to the other party. 12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of the Consultant. with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Perry Thorvig, Community Development Specialist, shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the Consultant. 13. RECYCLING PROGRAM The City encourages the Consultant to develop and implement an office paper and newsprint recycling program. • 3 14. NOTICES .' Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party at the address stated in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. Approved as to legality, form and execution. KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED City Attorney Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD CONSULTANT STATE OF MINNESOTA City Manager 0 0 4 • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )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 the of 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) 5 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3B REPORT # 255 STAFF REPORT =09a CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 • • REPORT PREPARED BY: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: \ J ?J SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Stipulation of Settlement for 6409 and 6417 Cedar Avenue - Gerald E. Holman - for the 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a Stipulation of Settlement for 6409 and 6417 Cedar Avenue - Gerald E. Holman - for the 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project. III. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2000, the City Council set just compensation and authorized negotiations for several properties in the project. The commercial properties at 6409 and 6417 Cedar Avenue owned by Jerry and Jackie Holman were two of the properties. Just compensation was set at $674,575. More recently, on August 14, 2000, the use of eminent domain on this property and several others was authorized. However, negotiations have continued. Staff and the property owner have agreed on a price of $700,000. 1009hol mansti pu lation • I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed Stipulation is consistent with the policy of continuing negotiations even after eminent domain proceedings have been initiated. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • While the proposed settlement is approximately $25,000 or more than the offering price, the fees to complete the eminent domain proceeding would push the costs. higher. C. FINANCIAL I • This purchase is funded by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) based on agreements in place. D. LEGAL I • Legal counsel is recommending the settlement. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay consideration. • Modify the proposed settlement cost. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 0 • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 254 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 99 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. 'DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ft. • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution appointing additional election judges, and a resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for the November 7, 2000 General Election RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolutions appointing additional election judges and appointing high school student trainee election judges for the General Election on November 7, 2000. III. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statute 20413.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. On August 14, 2000, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8904, which appointed as election judges individuals whose names were on the updated election judge availability list. That appointment by the City Council allowed for them to serve as election judges at the Primary Election, the General Election or both elections. Election judges are assigned to the precincts based on availability, party balance 1107ELECTIONS and the number required for each election. The General Election will require assignment of the greatest number of available judges. Since the August 14 City Council appointment of election judges, the City Clerk's office has received several additional names of individuals who are eligible and able to serve as election judges for the Tuesday, November 7, 2000 General Election. Also Minnesota Statute 20413. 19, Subd. 6 provides that a student enrolled in a high school in Minnesota who has attained the age of 16 is eligible to be appointed as a trainee election judge (without party affiliation) in the municipality in which the student resides. The student must meet qualifications for trainee election judges specified in rules of the Secretary of State. A student appointed as a trainee election judge may be excused from school attendance during the hours that the student is serving as a trainee election judge if the student submits a written request signed and approved by the student's parent or guardian to be absent from school and a certificate from the appointing authority stating the hours during which the student will serve as a trainee election judge to the principal of the school at least ten days prior to the election. The principal of the school may approve a request to be absent from school conditioned on acceptable academic performance and the requirement that the student must have completed or be enrolled in a course of study in government at the time of service as a trainee election judge. The City utilized high school student trainee election judges in the 1994, 1996 and 1998 elections. The City Clerk's office again has worked with Richfield High School and the Academy of Holy Angels to facilitate student participation in the High School Student Trainee Election Judge Program for the November 7, 2000 General Election. The City Clerk's office has received a list of students who are eligible and able to serve as student trainee election judges for the Tuesday, November 7, 2000 General Election. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election. • The proposed resolutions contain names of those qualified individuals who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge and also names of high school student trainee election judges for the November 7, 2000 General Election. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • If the City Council does not appoint additional election judges or high school student trainee election judges, the conduct of the election would be hindered. J C. FINANCIAL I • Election judges are paid the following compensation: Chair $8.00 per hour Assistant Chair $7.50 per hour Judge $7.25 per hour Student Trainee Judge $7.25 per hour D. LEGAL • Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.21, Subd. 2 regarding election judges. • Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.19, Subd. 6 regarding high school student trainee election judges. • The General Election will be conducted on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. Therefore, the City Council should appoint additional election judges and student trainee judges to serve at this election. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could choose not to appoint the additional individuals who are named on the. resolution to serve as judge. • The City Council could choose not to appoint the students who. are named in the resolution to serve as student trainee judges. V. ATTACHMENTS I • Resolution appointing additional election judges for the General Election of November 7, 2000. • Resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for the General Election of November 7, 2000. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 0 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 7, 2000 WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election: Ralph E. Anderson (R) Marie Dallager (D) Bernt Houghland (R) Evelyn E. Johnstone (R) Rebecca Lowden (R) Martha E. Obenchain (D) Marjorie Oswald (R) Jerome Rollay (R) Lorraine Schanzenbach (R) Evelyn Kae Baldwin (D) H. Duane Edberg (R) Jerold E. Huntington (R) Mary Ellen Judge (R) Ann Lutz (R) Janett E. Oldowski (D) Allan R. Parker (R) Loretta J. Root (D) Kenneth L. Vevea (R) Robert M. Doebler (R) Sheila Fitzgerald (D) Marilyn Jackola-Roetman (D) Doris Long (R) Eleanor Maanum (R) Joan Olinger (R) Ila J. Rasmussen (D) Worthy Roy (D) Jerad Morey (Ind) And, that these names be added to the list of those appointed as election judges in Resolution No. 8904. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of October, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk is RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 7, 2000 WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following are hereby appointed as high school student trainee election judges for said election: Kristin Krause Jeet Sausen Ben Robison Rachel Kuykendall Tim McKeon Sarah Savengseuksa Annie Peterson Bethany Amundson Stacey Winston Nick Svac Dave Drone Pat Audette Pat Kopper Kristine Lowman Heather Schrenk Angie Bersie Bethany Amundson Ryan Flynn Megan Bornholdt Justin Holl Katy Devlin Jolene Johnson Tom Schroeder Brian Oman Vicky Lutgen Andy Fellows Meghan Johnson Matt Moynihan Lindsey Stevens Ta Yuan Hu Sarah Lenarz Kim Lunneborg Ryan Whitman Casey Adams Nicole Doerr Tim Toeung Dave Nguyen Tom Noretzke Nick Nelson PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of October, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk •