3-25-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1996
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/RICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
5:30 P.M.
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 5:30-5:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF SOUTH HENNEPIN
FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE
II. 5:45-6:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND RICHFIELD
• COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING
COUNCIL
III. 6:00-6:05 P.M. DISCUSSION OF IMPACT OF CITY
REORGANIZATION ON SCHOOL
IV. 6:05-6:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
V. 6:30-6:45 P.M. GENERAL ITEMS
6:45 P.M. 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 861-9702.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
• MARCH 11, 1996 AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996.
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
2. RECOGNITION OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN RICHFIELD COALITION
AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE POSTER CONTEST AND AWARDING U.S.
SAVINGS BONDS TO WINNERS, SUSAN ANDERSON AND MARSHALL
PEARSON
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 79
3. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENDATION AND RECOGNITION OF MICHAEL KOOB
FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AS A POLICE OFFICER
4. PRESENTATIONS RECOGNIZING FRIENDSHIP CITY DELEGATION TOUR TO
HEREDIA, COSTA RICA
AGENDA APPROVAL
0 5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
•
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. 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 AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF
MINNESOTA FOR $50,000 MIGHTY DUCKS GRANT FOR LOCKER ROOM
MODIFICATIONS AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA C.L. 80
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR STATE SHARE OF COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PHASE II LANDSCAPE PROJECT ON 77TH
STREET C.L. 81
. C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 1996 REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY,TO ARPS TREE SERVICE IN TOTAL ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $76,678.00 C.L. 82
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
TO LEASE ONE EZ-60 UTILITY VEHICLE FOR USE BY ICE ARENA, POOL
AND MINI GOLF FACILITIES IN AMOUNT OF $5,366.16 C.L. 83
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
FOR REPAIR OF 1995 FORD CROWN VICTORIA SQUAD CAR FROM B&U
AUTO BODY IN AMOUNT OF $8,122.42 C.L. 84
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
FOR PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE, SETUP AND
SUPPORT FROM BRAUN INTERTEC IN AMOUNT OF $14,700 C.L. 85
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
FOR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM FROM SOKKIA MEASURING
SYSTEM IN AMOUNT OF $10,595 C.L. 86
H. FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHELTER BUILDING AT
WASHINGTON PARK, CP897; C.K.C. CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $16,909.64
1. ESTIMATE #2 AND FINAL PAYMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF WELL #6;
E.H. RENNER & SONS; $3,210.00
;7
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF DECISION MADE BY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REQUIRING PETSMART TO AMEND PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT OF PHASE I OF SHOPS OF LYNDALE IN ORDER TO INCLUDE
VETERINARY CLINIC IN DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 87
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE CHARTER TO REFLECT CURRENT STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO
CONTRACT BID LAW (DEFERRED FROM FEBRUARY 26, 1996)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 88
9. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 13.02, OATH OF OFFICE, OF RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
(DEFERRED FROM FEBRUARY 26, 1996)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 89
RESOLUTION
10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION
AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 7700 LYNDALE AVENUE, CONOCO
PETROLEUM; 77TH STREET PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 90
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
11. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
AMENDMENT REGARDING COUNCIL ATTENDANCE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 91
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
12. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PHASE II 77TH STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM WORK
TO MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE, INC.
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 92
13. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN HAMMEL, GREEN AND
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 93
ABRAHAMSON, INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, PREPARATION OF
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES FOR EXPANSION OF LOCKER ROOMS AT RICHFIELD ICE
ARENA
14. CONSIDERATION OF STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION CLAIM IN AMOUNT OF $18,710.16
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 94
15. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR NEW COMMERCIAL KENNEL
LICENSE TO OPERATE VETERINARY CLINIC FOR A CARING DOCTOR
(MINNESOTA) P.A. IN NAME OF VETSMART PET HOSPITAL AND HEALTH
CENTER, 1100 WEST 78TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 95
16. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARD AND
COMMISSIONS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 96
AIRPORT BUSINESS
17. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
18. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
19. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
20. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
21. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
49 Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative
Services Director at 861-9702.
/(0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 96
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of appointments to various Advisory Boards and Commissions.
Background:
Several terms of City Board and Commission members expired on January 31, 1996.
Some appointments were made in January 1996 which were effective February 1.
However, not all vacancies were filled. In addition, there are two vacancies due to mid-
term resignations.
Applicants were interviewed on March 18, 1996.
Recommended Motion:
Appoint persons to fill the terms on the various Boards and Commissions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Terms of several Board and Commission Members expired on January 31, 1996.
2. In order to assure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be made at
this time.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer appointments to a later Council meeting..
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the March 25, 1996 City Council agenda for consideration.
Appointments will become effective immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
169-1
L-1
0') 0) CY) CY) (3) 0') 00
M M M M M M M M M M
(u fu cu Rf fQ cu (6 t6 (6 cu
: :3 :3 : 7
(6 (u cu f6 m cu cu (4 cu cu
N
W
V
Z
Q
V
Q
Z
O
N
N
O
C)
U
C
(c
U
ca
r
F-
J
W
2
LL
O
Q
O
m
O
N
D
a
E
.Q
x
9
L
W
.Q
X
N
N
U
C
f?
U
M
M
0
N
N_
c?
G
O
V
U
a
D
z
w
R
LL
/6-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 95
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a new commercial kennel license to operate a
veterinary clinic for A Caring Doctor (Minnesota) P.A. in the name of VetSmart Pet
Hospital and Health Center, 1100 West 78th Street.
Background:
City ordinance Section 905.01, Subd. 3, defines a commercial kennel as a place where
the business of selling, breeding, boarding, showing, treating or grooming dogs or cats
is conducted. Section 905.31, Subd. 2, requires that a license application for a kennel
license be deferred to the City Council, which may grant or deny the license.
On February 2, 1996, A Caring Doctor (Minnesota) P.A. submitted an application for
VetSmart Pet Hospital and Health Center, 1100 West 78th Street, for a commercial
kennel license for providing full service veterinary services. The application is complete
and the $150 fee has been received.
Dr. Roland Olson of the Minnesota State Veterinary Board has been contacted to
determine if the applicant must be a licensed veterinarian in the State of Minnesota. Dr.
Olson indicated that an applicant not currently licensed in Minnesota as a veterinarian
can apply for a commercial kennel license. Individuals providing veterinary services on
the premises, however, must be licensed veterinarians in the State of Minnesota..
It is intended that these services will occur in a leased space from Petsmart, Inc., at the
same location.
Council will have addressed the zoning issues that had been a source of discussion
prior to the review of this license application request.
After review by staff, the applicant appears to comply with the licensing requirements
and there is nothing that prevents them from having a license.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that a commercial kennel license be granted for veterinarian services
purposes only to A Caring Doctor (Minnesota) P.A. in the name of VetSmart Pet
Hospital and Health Center, 1100 West 78th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It appears that the applicant meets the standards set forth in the ordinance. The
applicant has also indicated the desire to comply with all codes and reasonable
expectations of the City.
15-1
0 2. To date, the City Council has issued three commercial kennel licenses for
veterinary services.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could deny the application. To do so would require the Council to
issue findings of fact as the basis for denial.
2. The Council could issue the license with stipulations.
•
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a new commercial kennel license for
veterinarian services for A Caring Doctor (Minnesota) P.A. in the name of VetSmart Pet
Hospital and Health Center, 1100 West 78th Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 94
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of a Stipulation for Settlement of workers' compensation
claim in the amount of $18,710.16.
Background:
In early 1994, a Firefighter for the cities of Richfield and Falcon Heights allegedly
injured his back which was aggravated in July 1994. The employee failed to give timely
and proper notice of his alleged injuries. The City denies the employee's claims,
however, the parties have reached a Stipulation for Settlement in the amount of
$12,618.06, less attorneys' fees. This matter is scheduled for a settlement conference
on April 1, 1996 if a settlement is not reached.
The proposed settlement represents a release of the employee's claims to 11 %
permanent partial disability to the back, temporary total disability benefits, medical
treatment expenses, and attorneys' fees. Of the settlement amount, $5,529.22 less
$1,105.84 in attorneys' fees would be repaid by the employee to the City and the
employee's sick leave balance would be replenished in the amount of-$5,529.22. An
additional $601.11 in attorneys' costs would be paid. The City maintains its denial of
liability for the employee's claims. In addition, the City shall pay Group Health, Inc.
$5,490.99 in full satisfaction for its claim to reimbursement of $7,799.22.
The City still faces a possible exposure to some future medical bills associated with the
r employee's back injury, and additional related temporary total disability payments.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the payment of $18,710.16 for the workers' compensation claim, attorneys'
fees and costs, and the Group Health, Inc. claim to reimbursement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The parties hope to resolve the dispute in this matter before the settlement
conference scheduled for April 1, 1996.
2. Group Health, Inc. will accept a $2,308.23 reduction and consider its claim fully
satisfied.
3. City Attorney and City staff consider the items and amounts reasonable and
recommend issuing their payment.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for March 25, 1996, the next scheduled City Council
meeting.
Respec Ily submitted,
James Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:cak
/3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 93
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Authorization to retain Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. for the architectural
design, preparation of construction documents and construction administration services
for the expansion of locker rooms at the Ice Arena.
Background:
The Richfield City Council previously approved the application for a $50,000 "Mighty
Ducks" grant to expand locker rooms at the Ice Arena. The inability to provide privacy
has been a major concern of the facility users and staff since girls' and women's hockey
has been initiated. In addition, the locker rooms, as they currently exist, do not provide
even a minimally adequate space for teams to dress and/or shower. The lack of space
essentially eliminates options to provide privacy within the existing structure. This need
to assure dressing room separation is especially critical now with the growth of girls'
hockey programs and the concurrent use of the Ice Arena by individuals ranging in age
from young children to adults.
The requirements of the female teams for games and practices simply to not
accommodate time separate with male teams. Arena staff has attempted to use
scheduling plans to avoid conflicts with male and female use of locker room facilities.
However, their efforts have not been fully satisfactory.
The City was recently notified that it was awarded 1 of the 23 "Mighty Ducks" grants.
The grant requires that the City must match the $50,000 and that the project must begin
prior to June 30, 1997. In anticipation of the grant award, the City hired the
architectural firm of Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. in August 1995 to perform a
locker room feasibility study. That feasibility study was completed in February 1996 (a
copy is attached). The study provides the background, the need and potential costs of
such a locker room renovation.
The window of opportunity to use the $50,000 grant is fairly limited and the need for
locker room improvements is a pressing concern. As such, the Community Services
Commission toured the locker rooms prior to their regular meeting on March 19, 1996.
After that tour, it was their unanimous recommendation that the City proceed
immediately to take advantage of the grant assistance and begin the construction
process to renovate the locker rooms.
The project, as envisioned, would provide for adding two additional adjacent shower
and toilet areas and expanding the changing space to provide for a total of four locker
rooms of adequate size each with independent shower and toilet facilities. The
construction is planned for the middle west side of the existing arena directly behind the
current locker room configuration. In addition, a minor alteration would be made at the
players' box area to permit access to the locker rooms without trafficking directly
through the players' boxes.
13- )
The architect estimates total project costs at $226,000 (excluding flooring estimate -
$8,000) which would include a $10,000 contingency and basic services for design. In
order to construct this project so that it may be completed in time for use during the
1996-97 hockey season, work on this project must begin immediately. The first step in
this process would be to engage an architect to prepare the plans and specifications
and assist with the administration of construction documents.
Staff solicited quotations from four architectural firms for this service. The quotations
received are as follows:
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson $19,000
WOLD Architects $22,000
Bonestro, Rosene and Anderlik $23,956*
(*estimate based on bid of 10.6% of construction costs)
RSP Architects, LTD $14,800
Based on the quotations and discussions with each of the architectural firms, it is staff's
recommendation that the City engage the firm of Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
to continue work on the Ice Arena project and to commence the architectural services.
• If the construction is to be complete at or about the first of November 1996 (prior to the
main hockey season), it would be necessary for architectural work to begin
immediately. Staff is seeking City Council approval to hire the architect to begin the
work on this project. While the project is not included in the 1996 Capital Improvement
Budget, the limited window of opportunity to use the grant and the pressing need for
renovations have led to the current recommendation by the Community Services
Commission and staff to proceed with this project at this time.
Of the approximately $225,000 funding needed for this project, $175,000 would have to
come from City funds. It is anticipated at this time that the up-front funding would be
provided through an inner-fund loan internally from the City's capital fund with
repayment scheduled by dedicated funds from liquor profits over the next two or three
years.
In addition, the Community Services Commission has also unanimously recommended
parking lot improvements at Veterans Memorial Park in the amount of $110,000
scheduled for 1996 and previously approved in the 1996 Capital Improvement Budget
not be completed and that the funding instead be used for the locker room
improvements at the Ice Arena.
Staff is seeking approval of the architectural firm at this time. Further approval for the
actual project bidding and construction would be brought to the Council in the near
future.
One final threshold issue that will be considered initially by the architect will be the
application and potential impact the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect
/ 3-Z:1?
to the project. If the impact of ADA requirements alter the project requirements or
estimated costs significantly, the project cost and feasibility may have to be
reevaluated.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the contract with Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. as the architects of
the Ice Arena locker room expansion project for $19,000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. have been involved in the preliminary
study and design for the project. Staff is very satisfied with their work.
2. The Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. fee is competitive with other
architects.
3. Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. has experience in ice arena projects.
4. The architectural work must begin immediately to allow for a November
completion of the project.
5. The Community Services Advisory Commission unanimously supports the locker
room expansion project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could direct staff not„to proceed with this project at this time.
However, any delays would make it virtually impossible to have the project
completed by the start of the hockey season for 1996/1997. The project would
then be scheduled to begin in spring of 1997.
2. The City Council could direct staff not to proceed with this project now or in 1997.
3. The City Council could direct staff to select another architect for the project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the City Council meeting on March 25, 1996. Action is
requested at this time to allow the locker rooms to be completed by the hockey season
in November.
Respectfully submitted,
sser
Jame fager
City M 40 JDP:cak
f
' RICHFIELD ICE ARENA
636 EAST 66TH STREET
RICHFIELD, MN 55423 Locker Room Study
February 1996
Rv&*ia GRmv AND ABRAi AMsoN, INC.
EDUCAmNAL PLANNING GROUA
1201 HARMONPrACE • MrNNEAPoiB,MwNEsoTA 55403
612/337-41000 612/332-9013FAx
CONTACT': DAN SWEDBERG, PRTNcrpm, 612/337-4123
19--3
t i3- Ci
10 RICHFIELD ICE ARENA LOCKER ROOM STUDY
HGA Commission Number 969.002.00
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Utilizing a two-stage study of 1) identification of need, and 2) examination of multiple options, a
integrated approach with existing locker areas, adding two additional adjacent shower and
Minor alterations would be required at player's box and locker room access to omit current traffic
The addition is planned at 2,400 GSF in area. If an addition of 3,000 GSF area high school locker
rooms were added, this could be accomplished by extending along the full west side. Budget
figures for this added element may total $282,000, leading to a total project cost of $508,000.
STUDY PROCESS
The first stage of the study involved data gathering and definition of need. The following
Planning Committee individuals contributed, to an understanding of the existing condition and
need:
Darrell Esala, Richfield Hockey Association
Brad Mitchell, Richfield Hockey Association
Steve Carroll, Richfield Youth Hockey
Al Payne, Richfield Arena
Willy Speltz, Richfield High School
Lynn Olson, Holy Angels Girls Hockey
recommendation for improvements to locker rooms has emerged. This recommendation is an
toileting areas, and expansion of changing spaces to provide a total of four locker rooms of
adequate size, each with independent shower and toileting facilities. Construction is planned for
the middle west side of the existing arena, after considering three alternative plan locations.
directly through player's boxes. The project costs are estimated at $226,000, which includes a
$10,000 contingency and basic services for design. This base project cost includes a brick
exterior, but an alternate of a "stucco-like "exterior finish insulating system could be considered
for exterior walls at a $18,000 projected savings.
programs.
It became clear that the lack of adequate space in existing lockers and lack of privacy, particularly
in toilet and showering facilities, were of major concern at the arena. These problems were
becoming much more critical by gender privacy issues around the emergence of girl's hockey
Access to locker rooms was also considered problematic, with the routes being either an
unobserved exterior door on the west side, or passing through the length of the player's boxes.
Please refer to attached notes from August 21, 1995 meeting with study participants.
r
/3rd
It was determined that a possible separate player's entrance could be created at exit doors in the
southwest corner, with the potential of having an attendant available to open doors for teams. If
it was determined that this team access door could be left unlocked, it was felt that the visible
nature of this entry from the east side office area could satisfactorily monitor teams as they move
to the north towards locker room access. The new common locker room corridor would have
access at the south edge of the player's box, with new wall opening and stair to corridor, which
would eliminate traffic through player's box areas.
The following criteria were established to evaluate optional designs for locker room areas:
1. Players access and bench improvement.
2. Control and security.
3. Public access to locker rooms.
4. Wheelchair access to locker rooms.
5. Balance with building design.
With the proposed plan, all criteria areas have been met, with the exception of wheelchair access
to ice surface. It was determined that this improvement could be part of a second phase which
involves reconfiguration of dashers boards and minor changes in player's boxes and scorer/penalty
box area.
I OPTIONS CONSIDERED
Four separate ideas for locker room expansion were developed and evaluated in a second meeting
by the Planning Committee. These options are:
A. West Addition - this involved leaving existing west locker rooms as is, which would mean
two separate changing areas for one team, separated by an existing shower and involved
two new adequate sized locker rooms built west of existing wall. Major dissatisfaction
with this alternative related to the existing locker rooms being separated in non-upgraded
spaces, and the lack of ability for a more direct player's access to locker room corridor.
' B. East Addition - this would utilize existing west locker rooms as only two team areas and
two additional teams accommodated in sizeable locker rooms north of Recreation Skating
Lounge. Major difficulties with this idea related to separation of teams, disruption in main
lobby space with movement of teams through spectators, and disruption of Recreation
Skating Lounge.
I / 3- (A0
16 C. Corner Addition - this alternative created two new locker room spaces near southwest
exit, utilized as new team entrance. Access for team members was direct, but somewhat
unsupervised, remote from existing lockers. The plan also had lack of improvement in
access to existing lockers.
D. Integrated - this option was found to be by far the preferred option by those participating,
since teams were all located together behind the players bench, with improved access to
common locker room corridor (without passing through player's bench). This plan may
require the addition of an exit corridor between locker areas to the west, similar to
existing condition. It was also preferred because it created independent toilet and shower
areas for all four locker rooms, plus changing spaces of adequate size and shape. Existing
building spaces could be utilized, with only minor modifications, and the potential for
extending high school team rooms along the west elevation to the north and south is also
present.
NEW CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE
Construction costs have been itemized to include minor demolition as shown on plan, excavation
and soil exchange improvements. A $9,000 cost to replace poor soils below new addition is
included. Materials would consist of exterior brick walls with insulated cavities and painted block
interior partitions. Roof structure would be steel deck structure on steel joist, with rooftop
mechanical ventilating units. Heating elements would be cast iron radiation extending from
existing heating lines. Work would include general conditions and building permit, but would be
limited to concrete slab floor throughout (skate tile not in contract). SAGWAC charges,
temporary electrical, water and telephone are to be provided by owner.
ATTACHMENTS
Meeting notes of August 21, 1995 Committee meeting.
Reduced building floor plan diagraming location of four plan options.
Four plan options.
Floor plan of recommended expansion at scale of 1" = 8'-0", showing addition and minor
renovations.
DLS571M.WP6;mm
r
' Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
Architecture • Engineering - Interior Design t
1201 Harmon Place
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403-1985
Telephone 612.337.4100
Telefax 612.332.9013
' 0 aA"% w
?":
WRMZRSDIRECT DLILM71aM
TO: Richfield Ice Arena Locker Room Study 612/337-4123
HGA Commission Number 969.002.00
FROM: Dan Swedberg qt,G
DATE: 18 September 1995
SUBJECT: Data Gathering and Definition of Need
The material for Phase I of this study was gathered b visi
Y P is to the site, review of existing building
drawings and a locker room needs assessment meeting held with high school and youth hockey leaders. This
' meeting was held on August 21, 1995, and contained the following participants:
Darrell Esala, RHA
' Brad Mitchell RHA
Steve Carroll, RYH
Al Payne, RA
' Willie Spelts, RHS
Lynn Olson, HAGH
Dan Swedberg, HGA
From these investigations, issues appear to be as follows:
1. Adequacy of size of existing locker rooms.
2. Use of toilet and shower facilities with existing locker rooms.
1 3. Gender issues.
I 4 Access to existing locker rooms.
5. Accessibility for the differently abled.
A detailed review of the issues is as follows:
1. Size of locker rooms. Approximate changing space needed per person in a locker room is 2-1/2'
wide by 4' deep. The four existing fenced in areas at current facility are 10' wide by 12-1/2' deep,
yielding space for ten or eleven users. A standard within facilities would be to provide a changing
area of 2 to 2-1/2 times the size of existing room. Due to this diminished space, makeshift
arrangements such as the following logistics for junior varsity and varsity high school games must
occur: Junior varsities change into playing uniform and equipment, utilizing two changing spaces per
team. Varsity team occupies same locker room space, working on top of junior varsity belongings at
third period of junior varsity game. At conclusion of junior varsity game, junior varsity team retires
to locker room to remove skates only, and for this time period, both teams occupy the area.. Junior
varsity players then retire to spectator seating area to wait beginning of varsity game at which time
they move back through bench area into locker room to shower and change clothes and then move
back through bench area once again to move from locker room to spectator area.
Page 2
The need for additional changing space with security does not relate to only the high school teams,
but all facility users. During practice and game conditions, two teams are often on the ice at once,
with two teams changing, ready to move onto the ice as the other teams leave. Adequately sized
changing areas for each of the four teams that are secure are needed. Even during summer hockey
' operations, up to 30 persons are on the ice at one time, with an additional 30 in dressing areas getting
ready.
' It is clear that the adequacy of space size or inadequacy of building planning can have a significant
affect on mood and performance of building users. The described locker room use does not meet
standards for operation.
t 2. Toilets and showers. Each pair of changing spaces contains one toilet room area of two urinals, one
water closet and two lavs, an d a shower space of 8' square. It became clear from discussions with
high school and youth hockey leaders that interchangeable use of the toilet room areas by boys and
girls occurring and was found to be acceptable, but that each changing space needed its own
dedicated toilet and shower area. Four adequately sized changing spaces each with their own toilet
and shower area and ability to secure could then adequately serve the arena for the interchangeability
needed with use by males and females. Several stories were given demonstrating the loss of privacy
by locker room users with current plan.
3. Gender Issues. Last season, female hockey teams utilized the curvelinear south lobby lounge space
for changing area on a temporary basis. Due to office and conference room expansion into this area,
it is not available for the coming season. Temporary spaces to create two additional changing spaces
' will be needed for the coming year. Use of public skating lounge on north side of lobby and upper
four corners of arena concourse areas were discussed as possibilities. It is uncertain that upper
concourse area above locker rooms could be utilized due to need for continuous exiting in concourse
space to either end and exit doors.
It is clear that in the future more female teams will be practicing and having games within the arena.
' The need for privacy and security in changing areas becomes increasingly important. The ability to
isolate male teams from female teams, which may practice before or after the male teams, will
become an increasing need. Several experiences were related by the group where awkward
conditions were created from lack of separation of changing areas.
4. Access to locker rooms. Routes to existing locker rooms by players seem problematic for a number
of reasons:
A. Players entering the main east entry will circulate halfway around arena in front of fast row
disrupting spectators. Also, the route involves walking through the player's box, disrupting
teams on benches.
' B. Access to the west door near locker area may be possible if a staff person is added for this
function for keys to the facility are only held by staff personnel. Leaving the west door
unlocked could create security concerns.
C. Access of each team through single door opening at back of penalty box scorer area currently
creates congestion and may invite conflict.
5. Accessibility for the differently abled. Existing locker rooms must utilize stairs to access new
additions or major renovations would required an accessible route from new or major renovated
locker rooms to arena surface. New or major renovated locker rooms would require accessibility
throughout.
' DLS512M.WP6;mm
cc: Those Present
, y I
I ; ' ----- ---- 51
i. I
•, q
Ilk,
7WI
3 t
.C ?
t N
a?
e<
t
I
r
I
, t
? t
0 -? ? ??I s ? ? I I a(
lilt
? y
4
? I 1¢3t
G/C/ T' _ Lit FL QPJ 1 ? I
/3-/j
T
z
d
0
0
i
C
T
?rn
s
?rn
?y
m P
8
N
s3
?n
c
? O
ICI ?
J
B 10
r
m
46.
8 S
L111?
\W`\
/0-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 92
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Recommendation to award landscape and irrigation system contract for the 77th Street
improvement project.
Background:
Bids were opened Thursday, March 14, 1996 under direction of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), for landscape and irrigation system work for
Phase II, Portland Avenue and east, and for the Humboldt Avenue storm sewer
segment of the 77th Street Project.
Although the contract is with MnDOT and not the City, it is necessary for the City of
Richfield to make a recommendation for action on the award of contract(s); i.e., reject
bids or favor award to apparent low bidder. The attached bid tabulation summary
indicates Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. of Shakopee, MN submitted the lowest
responsible bid. The Fair's Garden Center of Maple Grove, MN submitted an
incomplete bid package and the bid was rejected by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. MnDOT officials have reviewed all bids and confirm the lowest
• responsible bid in keeping with state specifications is $468,397.50. All the bids were
below the engineer's cost estimate of $525,469.30 for the contract. The contractor
must comply with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise requirement.
The contract completion date for the segment of 77th Street east of Portland Avenue is
June 30, 1996. The completion date for the landscaping near the Humboldt Avenue
project is September 15,1996. The completion date for the special landscaping around
the apartments on the south side of 77th Street and east of Portland Avenue is May
31,1996.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend an award of contract for Phase II 77th Street improvement project
landscape and irrigation system work to Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. of
Shakopee, MN for $468,397.50 and direct the City Clerk to complete and submit the
required certificate of award recommendation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City must make a recommendation for action on the award of contract as part of
the MnDOT process.
2. Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. of Shakopee, MN has submitted the lowest
responsible bid and review by MnDOT and City staffs of their bid gives no cause to
10 reject it.
/a-1
0 3. The total amount specified by Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. of Shakopee, MN
to complete the work is well in keeping with the engineer's estimate of $525,469.30.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is asked to make a recommendation at the March 25, 1996 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Man ger
JDP:cak
•
U
/a-D.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
C,
Bid Opening
March 14, 1996
11:00 a.m.
77th Street Phase II Landscape and Irrigation System
State Project No. 157-108-16 (MSAS 108-77th Street)
Minn. Project No. DPR 0023(005)
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 77th Street Phase 11 Landscape
and Irrigation System, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 28, 1996.
Present: Cheryl Krumholz, City Clerk Representative
Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Mike Eastling, City Engineer
Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer
Robb Urquhart, MnDOT Representative
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bond Amendment Total Bid Amount
Woyda Mortell, Inc.
Rosemount 5% yes $497,812.75
North Metro
Landscaping, Inc. 5% yes $479,608.75
Hanover
Fair's Garden Center
Maple Grove 5% incomplete $449,177.00
Arteka Corporation
Eden Prairie 5% yes $486,383.96
MN Valley Landscape,
Inc. Shakopee 5% yes $468,397.50
Hoffman & McNamara
Hastings 5% yes $493,501.10
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
March 25, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
I ;? -3
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD
77th STREET PHASE II LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM
STATE PROJECT SP-157-108-16 (MSAS 108 - 77th Street)
MINN. PROJECT NO. DPR 0023(005)
BID TABULATION SUMMARY
MARCH 14, 1996
Name of Bidder Bid Amount
Fair's Garden Center $449,177.00
MN Valley Landscape Inc. $468,397.50
North Metro Landscaping Inc. $479,608.75
Arteka Corp. $486,383.96
Hoffman.& McNamara $493,501.10
Woyda & Mortel Inc. $497,812.75
Engineer's Estimate $525,469.30
40
la-?
• Mn/DOT TP-30308-01 (3/80)
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR'S CERTIFICATE
FEDERAL AID PROJECT
STATE OF MINNESOTA) REFERENCE (S.P. 157-108-16
)ss
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, Thomas P. Ferber, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk/Administrator of the City of
Richfield, and State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Richfield held on the 25th day of March, 1996 the following named contractors:
Fair's Garden Center, MN Valley Landscape Inc., North Metro Landscaping Inc.,
Arteka Corp., Hoffman & McNamara and Woyda & Mortel Inc.
submitted bids for the furnishing of all labor, tools, materials and equipment necessary for the construction
of the work provided under plans and specifications for that improvement on 77th Street; otherwise known
as S. P. No. 157-108-16 (MSAS 108 - 77th Street), Minnesota Project DPR 0023(005), located between
Portland Avenue and Cedar Avenue and between 76th Street and 1-35W being approximately 1.11 miles
in length.
The bid of MN Valley Landscape Inc. in the amount of $468.397.50 appeared to be the lowest bid
received, subject to final audit, and on motion by Councilperson - and seconded by
Councilperson , it was voted by said City Council to recommend to the Commissioner
of Transportation, as Agent for said City, that said contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
Attest:
City Clerk Mayor, City Council
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 25th day of
March, 1996.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Recommendation:
District State Aid Engineer
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 91
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of a Richfield City Charter amendment regarding Council
attendance.
Background:
The Charter Commission has previously submitted to the City Council an amendment to
the Charter regarding Council Member attendance. The City Council on February 12
referred the matter back to the Charter Commission. The reason for the referral was
that the Richfield City Attorney recommended changes to avoid any potential
constitutional challenges. The Charter Commission met on February 29 with the City
Attorney and approved changes included in Draft A. The City Attorney has reviewed
these changes and recommended additional clarification shown in Draft B.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends:
• Council adopt Draft Ordinance A; and
• Request the Charter Commission to approve Draft Ordinance B for second reading
consideration by the City Council on April 22, 1996.
Basis of Recommendation:
Draft Ordinance A submitted by the Charter Commission is open to two different
interpretations as follows:
Failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council meetings during a six
month period would automatically constitute nonfeasance. The City Attorney
believes that the "automatic" finding would not be upheld in court.
Failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council meetings during a six
month period and a separate finding by the City Council that the nonattendance
constitutes nonfeasance. This interpretation is clearly more responsive to court
rulings and is likely to be upheld if the finding of nonfeasance is appropriate.
Draft Ordinance B includes minor revisions that would incorporate the latter
interpretation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may adopt Draft A of the Charter Commission recommendation,
• however, it is more likely that this version would be challenged and that challenge
upheld in court.
2. The Council may decide not to adopt either version.
3. The Council may direct staff to adopt a version as drafted by the Council.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion for consideration by the City Council at the
meeting of March 25, 1996.
RespAtfully submitted,
Vs D. Prosser
Manager
JDP:cak
Copy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President
•
of
/1-J,
0 BILL NO. A
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT;
AMENDING SECTION 2.05 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings; authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant
to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 2 of the charter and recommended to the City
Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of
the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date; filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 2.05. Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence.
(1) A vacancy shall exist as of the date of death or resignation of a
Council Member.
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible
because of any of the following reasons: (i) the failure of any person elected to the
Council to qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the Council in
the year following the year of election; (ii) the Council Member ceasing to be a resident
IS of the City; (iii) a district Council Member ceasing to be resident of the district which the
member represents; (iv) continuous absence of the Council Member from the City for
more than 90 days; (v) conviction of a Council Member of a felony whether before or
Iafter qualification; (vi) any other reason specified by law except those reasons specified
in paragraph (1) of this subdivision; GF (vii) by reason of the failure of the Council
Member without good cause to perform any of the duties of a Council Member for a
period of 90 days: or (viii) failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council
meetings during a six-month period which would constitute non-feasance in office, the
Council shall, by resolution at a regular or special Council meeting, declare a vacancy
on the Council to exist.
2.03 This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except
that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51% of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
2.04 On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
)1-,4
0 BILL NO. B
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT;
AMENDING SECTION 2.05 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings: authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant
to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 2 of the charter and recommended to the City
Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
• required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of
the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date: filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 2.05. Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence.
(1) A vacancy shall exist as of the date of death or resignation of a
Council Member.
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible
because of any of the following reasons: (i) the failure of any person elected to the
Council to qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the Council in
the year following the year of election; (ii) the Council Member ceasing to be a resident
of the City; (iii) a district Council Member ceasing to be resident of the district which the
is member represents; (iv) continuous absence of the Council Member from the City for
more than 90 days; (v) conviction of a Council Member of a felony whether before or
1after qualification; (vi) any other reason specified by law except those reasons specified
in paragraph (1) of this subdivision; er (vii) by reason of the failure of the Council
Member without good cause to perform any of the duties of a Council Member for a
period of 90 days; or (viii) failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council
meetings during a six-month period under circumstances that constitute non-feasance
in office, the Council shall, by resolution at a regular or special Council meeting, declare
a vacancy on the Council to exist.
2.03 This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except
that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
2.04 On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
March 15, 1996
James D. Prosser, City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield MN 55423-2599
Re: Amendment of Section 2.05 to Richfield City Charter
Dear Mr. Prosser:
On February 29, 1996, the Richfield City Charter Commission met with City Attorney
Corrine Thomson and discussed the previously proposed change to Section 2.05 of the
Richfield Charter. After discussions with Ms. Thomson, the Charter Commission voted
on a revised amendment to Section 2.05 which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". There
were 11 members present and the Charter Commission voted to adopt the attached
changes 10-1.
The Charter Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed changes to
Section 2.05 of the Richfield City Charter as described in Exhibit "A".
Very truly yours,
Shirley Q?on
Richfield Charter Commission
0
I/- 7
0 EXHIBIT "A"
Section 2.05. Vacancies. Subdivision 1. Existence.
(2) As soon as it is determined that a Council Member is ineligible because of
any of the following reasons: (i) the failure of any person elected to the Council to
qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the Council in the year
following the year of election; (ii) the Council Member ceasing to be a resident of the
City; (iii) a district Council Member ceasing to be a resident of the district which the
member represents; (iv) continuous absence of the Council Member from the City for
more than 90 days; (v) conviction of a Council Member of a felony whether before or
after qualification; (vi) any other reason specified by law except those reasons specified
in paragraph (1) of this subdivision; 4* (vii) by reason of the failure of the Council
Member without good cause to perform any of the duties of a Council Member for a
period of 90 days; or (viii) failure of a Council Member to attend six regular Council
meetings during a six-month period which would constitute non-feasance in office, the
Council shall, by resolution at a regular or special Council meeting, declare vacancy on
the Council to exist.
E
0
1?
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. go
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Adoption of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of
7700 Lyndale Avenue, Conoco Petroleum; 77th Street Project.
Background:
The attached resolution sets just compensation for the Conoco property at $544,182.
This includes $465,000 for real estate and $79,182 for fixtures. A Phase II
environmental evaluation must be completed so just compensation is subject to an
adjustment pending study completion. The property is being acquired to permit
construction of a right turn lane from eastbound 77th to southbound Lyndale.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which sets just compensation, authorizes staff to
negotiate and purchase this property at $544,182 and the City Manager and Mayor to
execute a purchase agreement at this value or less depending on outcome of the
environmental study.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The appraisal process has been completed according to MnDOT and FHWA
standards.
2. Funds are available from MnDOT and FHWA.
3. The property is necessary for the construction of a 77th Street right turn lane for
east bound 77th Street traffic making a right turn onto Lyndale Avenue.
Alternative Recommendation:
Delay action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Adoption of the resolution is critical to the timing of the initiation and completion of
construction during 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame 4. Prosser
City M nager
40 JDP:ds
/D--1
• RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION,
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real
property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore
adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described as follows:
Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Strand's Second Addition, Hennepin County, aka 7700
Lyndale Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the purchase of real
property; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property
within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject property to be made
by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market
value; and
WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as to
conformity with appraisal standards and has certified same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That just compensation including fixtures is set at $544,182 subject to a
negative finding with regards to soil contaminates and cancellation of any
existing leases.
2. That the City Manger is authorized and directed to commence negotiations
for the purchase of said real property.
3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute a purchase
agreement for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution.
4. That the City Manager is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of
subject property as soon as possible that the City intends to acquire this
property and establish eligibility for relocation benefits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
March, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
40
q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 89
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending the Richfield City
Charter. (Deferred from February 26, 1996).
Background:
The Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to the City Charter. The
amendment would provide the following changes in the City Charter:
• Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before entering upon
the duties of 144 office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the
following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution and laws
of the United States and of *"te the State of Minnesota and the Charter and
ordinances of the City of Richfield and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving
upon me as (Mayor, Council Member, City Manager, etc.) of the City of Richfield to
the best of my judgment and ability."
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amending
Section 13.02, Oath of Office, of the Richfield City Charter.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Charter Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance to amend the Charter.
2. The adoption of the ordinance amendment requires the affirmative vote of all the
Council in order to pass.
3. First reading was held on January 8, 1996 and the public hearing and second
reading were scheduled for February 26, 1996. All Council Members were not in
attendance so the public hearing and second reading were deferred to the March
25, 1996 Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide to request that the Charter amendment be submitted to
voters for approval.
2. The Council may decide to recommend modifications to the Charter and send the
question back to the Charter Commission.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Conduct the public hearing and second reading on March 25, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
JaJProsser
City ger
JDP:cak
Copy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President
BILL NO. 1996-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT:
AMENDING SECTION 13.02 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findinas: authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to ,
the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 13 of the charter and recommended to the City
Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on February 26, 1996 by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of
the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date: filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 13.02 of the City Charter is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before
entering upon the duties of W& office, take and subscribe an oath of office in
substantially the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the
Constitution and laws of the United States and of4h!& Late the State of
Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the Citv of Richfield and to
discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor, Council Member,
City Manager, etc.) of the City of Richfield to the best of my judgment and
ability."
2.03. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that
if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
q- /
i
2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
• certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
0
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 88
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to change the City
Charter to reflect current state law with respect to the Contract Bid Law. (Deferred from
February 26, 1996).
Background:
For several years the City Charter followed the State Statutes regarding the Contract
Bid Law. During that period of time, both the City Charter and the State Statutes
required that a formal sealed bidding process be used for all municipal contracts in
excess of $15,000.
The statutory sealed bidding threshold has been periodically increased to reflect
inflation. The City Charter has also been changed periodically to match increases in
the state law. However, the Charter provisions pertaining to the sealed bidding
threshold have not been amended since 1983 and have fallen far below the current
statutory threshold for competitive sealed bids. While the Charter still requires sealed
bidding at the $15,000 threshold, the statutory threshold was increased to $25,000 in
the early 1990s.
In order to amend the Charter, the City Council must first review a proposed ordinance
to amend the Charter, then forward it to the Charter Commission with a request that
they make a recommendation on the matter. The Charter Commission then reviews
the proposed ordinance and sends it back to the City Council with their
recommendation. The City Council then gives the ordinance a first reading and sets a
public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance. At the second reading,
the proposed ordinance must pass by unanimous vote of the entire City Council in
order to accomplish the change in the City Charter.
In addition, the present language provides that the City Manager may make or let
contracts or sales for under $10,000 and may make contracts and/or sales for in excess
of $10,000 but less than $15,000 provided the City Manager first secures City Council
approval.
Further complicating this issue is Resolution 6847 from December 1983 which states
that all purchases in excess of $5,000 but below $10,000 shall be made only after the
City Manager notifies the City Council on a City Council agenda. In practice, this
becomes another level of approval as a consent calendar item.
At the November 27, 1995 City Council meeting, the City Council first considered this
41 issue and forwarded the following to the Charter Commission for their review:
S,I
1. A proposed charter amendment which would adopt Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.345, Subd. 3 by reference. This statute provision sets forth the Uniform
Municipal Contracting Law.
The Charter Commission has completed its review of the proposed ordinance
amendment to the City Charter and has forwarded a letter to the City Council
recommending that the ordinance change be implemented. A copy of the letter is
attached to this Council Letter.
The affect of the Charter amendment, as proposed, would establish the State Statute
as a basis for making contract purchases and remove the Charter requirement for pre-
approval authority of the City Council for amounts between $10,000 and $15,000.
However, the City Council could establish any pre-approval process or dollar threshold
desired through a resolution relating to purchasing practices.
A draft resolution also accompanies the Charter amendment. The draft resolution
would not reinstate pre-approval authority, but would instead establish a formal
notification process for purchases between $10,000 and $25,000. Action on the
resolution is recommended at this time. However, the resolution would not become
effective until after the Charter amendment takes effect.
Recommended Motion:
1. Conduct a public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance
amendment.
2. Adopt the proposed ordinance amendment to change the City Charter regarding
competitive bidding.
3. Adopt the resolution relating to purchasing practices.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The State Statutes were amended to increase the threshold for sealed competitive
bidding of municipal contracts from $15,000 to $25,000. Prior to that increase the
City Charter had mirrored the State Statutes with respect to the sealed bidding
threshold.
2. Both the City Attorney and the City's auditors, Deloitte & Touche, have
recommended that the City change the current City Charter provision to increase
the competitive sealed bidding threshold from $15,000 to $25,000 to match the
statute.
3. Preparing specifications and bidding contracts is a time consuming and costly
process. Contracts under $25,000 would be more efficiently handled through a
process of obtaining competitive quotations as is now the case for City projects
under $15,000.
S-0-
4. For ease of administration and clarity, it is desirable to have a competitive sealed
bidding threshold which is equal to that of the State Statute.. To that end, both the
current Charter provision and related resolution should be reviewed.
5. The City Charter Commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment
to the City Charter and has recommended its adoption.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may decide not to further consider this proposed change to the
City Charter.
2. The City Council may decide to consider increasing the sealed bidding threshold
to an amount different than the one suggested in the proposed ordinance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion of this item is suggested at the City Council meeting of March 25. The
process to change the City Charter would require several months to complete. The
ordinance becomes effective 90 days after publication.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Copy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President
1]
$-3
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES
IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6847
WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority
pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be made aware of certain purchases in
addition to inclusion in the Claims and Payroll process; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
• All purchases of the City of Richfield which are in excess of $10,000 but
below $25,000 shall be forwarded to the City Council in a memorandum to be
included with City Council agenda materials.
• The resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance
No. 1996-.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
March, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
?J
?-q
0 BILL NO. 1996-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT:
AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings: authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant
to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 6 of the charter and recommended to the City
Council that the Amendment be adopted by the City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on February 26, 1996 by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of
the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2. Adoption: effective date: filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Chapter 6 of the City Charter is amended in the following respects:
1) by amending Section 6.05 to read:
• . Every
contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the
alteration thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real
or personal property, where the amount involved is more than $1 6;009 the dollar
amount contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345. Subd. 3. shall be let
only by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the
lower responsible bidder,
legal RewspapeF of . The Council may, however, reject any and all bids.
Subject to the provisions of the Charter, and other applicable law, the Council
may by ordinance or by resolution adopt further regulations for making of bids
and letting of contracts. All GtheF GeAtFaets shal! be let by the .
2) By repealing Section 6.06 thereof in its entirety.
2.03. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that
if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
i 2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 87
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
of a decision made by the Community Development Director requiring Petsmart to
amend the planned unit development/final development plan and conditional use permit
of Phase I of the Shops at Lyndale in order to include a veterinary clinic in the
development.
Background:
The applicant, Petsmart, is seeking to include a veterinary clinic in Phase I of the Shops
at Lyndale development. The Community Development Director determined that the
vet clinic was not a part of the amended planned unit development/final development
plan and conditional use permit that was approved by the Council on December 12,
1994.
The amended PUD plan that was approved by the Council increased the total building
square footage for Phase I from 116,605 square feet to 127,366 square feet. At that
time, staff recommended that the amendment only be approved with the stipulation that
a vet clinic not be a part of the project. The Council decided to neither allow nor
disallow a vet clinic as an allowable use in the development at that time.
Vet clinics are allowable uses in the C-2 district (general commercial). The C-2 district
provides a guideline for the PC-2 district (planned general commercial), which this use
is zoned. All uses in a PUD district are conditional and must obtain a conditional use
permit to be permitted. The PUD/final development plan and conditional use permit for
Phase I of the Shops at Lyndale is for retail uses. It is the determination of the
Community Development Director that a vet clinic is not a retail use and therefore
needs to be specified in the final development plan and conditional use permit to be
permitted in the Shops at Lyndale PUD.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the request for an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision that
a veterinary clinic is not a retail use.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Retail businesses are an allowable use in Phase I of the Shops at Lyndale. Vet
clinics are not retail businesses.
2. No use is permitted as of right in a PUD district. All uses are subject to a conditional
use permit. The final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase I
specifies retail uses only.
1,1?
A Alternative Recommendation:
Approve the request for an appeal and reverse the decision of the Community
Development Director.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00. p.m. on Monday, March 25, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
•
0
o
Community Development"?-
CITY OF 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
February 9, 1996
Peter K. Beck
David C. Sellergren
3500 Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4235
RE: PETsMART Zoning Issues
Dear Messrs. Beck and Sellergren:
This letter is in response to yours of January 26, 1996. You requested that I make a
determination as to whether the proposed veterinarian clinic is a permitted use in The Shops at
Lyndale planned unit development and what further City Council approvals are required.
As you know, The Shops at Lyndale is located within a planned unit development district
designated as PC-2 "Planned General Commercial." A veterinary clinic with less than 50,000
square feet is a permitted use in a C-2 zoning district and is therefore an "allowable use" in a
PC-2 planned unit development district. Richfield City Code, Subsec. 526.21 subd. 3(y) and
Subsec. 536.11, subd. 1. However, C-2 zoning regulations are guidelines and do not govern
development of property in a PC-2 planned unit development district. Subsec. 536.01, subd. 6.
There are no uses that are permitted as of right in a PUD district; all uses are approved by
conditional use permit. Subsec. 536.19.
In a PUD district, the approved PUD plan, the final development plan ("FDP") and the
conditional use permit ("CUP") govern the development of property in the district. Properties
must be developed insubstantial compliance with those plans and permit. Subsec. 536.21, subd.
1. No building permit may issue until the Director of Community Development certifies that the
structure conforms to the provisions and conditions of the PUD plan, FDP and CUP. Subsec.
536.21, subd. 2. The FDP consists of various items, including a final plan showing the land uses
for each parcel and building and the amount of floor area devoted to each use. Subsec. 536.19,
subd. 2 and Subsec. 536.15, subd. 6.
•
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (6e12) 861-9760 • Fax (612) 861-8974
An EGual ?I City Matters: 861-9700
q pportunity Employer
/,3
Peter K. Beck
February 9, 1996
Page 2
The FDP for The Shops at Lyndale-Phase One, as amended in December 1994, shows two
buildings -- one occupied by a restaurant use of 6, 000 square feet, and a second building
occupied by three retail uses consisting of, repsectively, 44,328, 25,962, and 57,076 square feet.
(See enclosed FDP.) The approved FDP does not show a veterinary clinic of any size. In fact at
the December 12, 1994 public hearing to consider the last amendment to The Shops at Lyndale
FDP and CUP, the developer expressly withdrew from consideration the proposal to put a
veterinary clinic on the site. (See enclosed transcript, p.4.) The City Council approved the
amendment but expressly stated that a specific application would be required for any veterinary
clinic use. (See enclosed transcript.)
Based upon my review of the approved FDP, I cannot certify that the proposed veterinary clinic
use conforms to the approved plan. Before any building permit will be issued and before any
clinic use is made of the property, your client will be required to apply for an amended FDP,
PUD plan and CUP. If your applications is submitted by March 5, 1996, it can be scheduled for
consideration at the planning commission meeting of March 26, 1996 and for City Council
consideration on April 8, 1996.
If you disagree with this decision, you may appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Subsec. 546.03, subd. 4(a). The City Council services as the Board. An appeal filed by February
20, 1996 may be scheduled for public hearing as early as March 11, 1996.
Sincerely,
/- 04
Palmborg
cting Director of Community Development
Enclosures
cc: Jim Prosser
John Dean
Corrine Thomson
BP:bls
H:cdamin:Housingteck
E
i?
- - - ' ! I ?4p11111?W
I, 1
I i
J
i
' l
L
p id ot
2
U a
r
t
1 Y I
t 1 "?
I 1
t ? •??ii ..? Y I
1 i }ttii i:. t:l
I y 1 t
1 i 1 St .?
Fit ?: Y
f= ?
I
1
1 °E
........... sl
...
, N
1 1 i'
1 1
? f
?S?. ?f yaj
1 1 I 'b' ?3+=? I
t t
1 t
? 1 1
I 1
?
1 1 I
I t
1 '1
1 I t
1 I
1 t 1 W
?
•
1
1 , 1 LV
I? 1 ,
I ¦
,
1
1 ?.
1
i
i
z,m
b
' A
.? L
Y
W'
1
7-
M c?
V
z
J
a
W
11-
N
W
Q
CL
CL
Q
0
Z
W
O ?
W
2 o
Q r
O
W W
N co
O
CL w
O W
a o
1'5?
CITY OF RICHFIELD
• City Council Meeting December 12, 1994
Transcript
Item #6
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST FOR AMENDED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WITH RESPECT TO PHASE I OF CSM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. C.L. NO. 333
Prosser: This is a request for amended planned unit development plan and final
development plan and conditional use permit with respect to Phase I of CSM
Redevelopment Project. The current final development for Phase I was approved on August
• 1 of 1994 and consisted of 116,605 square feet of retail space divided into three basic uses.
The first anchor was Sportmart of about 44,000 square feet; anchor B in the middle of
15,500; and anchor C, Best Buy, 57,000 square feet. CSM is proposing to increase Phase I
building area to 127,000-about 10,500 square foot increase for the middle tenant. The
parking ratio for the proposed planned amendment will be 4.55 spaces per thousand square
feet of gross building area for a total of 579 spaces. The City requires a minimum of 4.0 of
spaces per thousand square feet. The proposed amendment is similar to the Phase I Plan
which was later scaled back-provides for more favorable parking for Phase I. Due to the
uncertainty of who was going to develop Phase 11--how the relationship would work for
parking related to that--since the HRA has selected CSM as to develop Phase II, the parking
issues will be coordinated between the Phases. The Planning Commission has
• recommended the approval of this. At their December 6th meeting, it is also noted that part
of the discussion related to this use was the proposal that a veterinary clinic be included in
Transcript 12/12/94 Council Meeting Item #6 -3- City of Richfi Id
-7
Tushie: As you remember, the original plan had anticipated adding these spaces in here
once we were designated the developer for Phase 11. In that, those additional spaces allow
us to increase the square footage of that middle tenant.
Susag: That isn't my question. My question is, how do you increase the size from 15,000 to
25,000 if you don't change elevation?
Tushie: What we did is we simply moved back this wall. The 15,000 square feet had put the
wall of the tenant there, and we simply moved it back.
Susag: OK. So that reduced the unloading area.
•
Tushie: Yes.
Susag: But that doesn't place any burden?
Tushie: No, it was anticipated that this configuration for the loading docks would occur once
that wall did move back. We did take that into consideration when we built the Sportmart.
David Carland: David Carland, CSM Corporation, make a couple brief comments with
regards to the veterinary clinic. Our lease with Petsmart is not contingent there be it awarded
or not be awarded the license for a pet clinic, so we are somewhat a disinterested party in
4 this; although we have a good faith obligation because we have agreed not to interfere with
the ability to acquire, if they so desire to do so, license for a pet clinic. Somehow or another
Transcript 12/12/94 Council Meeting Item #6 -5- City of Richfield
-7-l®
Carland: That's a good observation, of course, with the vacation now of Colfax will provide
0 another 66 parking stalls. We've kept a close eye on it. It's our opinion and Best Buy's
opinion that just the phenomenal traffic that you saw go through there during the first couple
weeks is more of an aberration. I think you saw that the PR people were very effective in
publicizing, and the Concept 3 story managed to get that front page news article in the
Thanksgiving addition paper, which just happens to be the paper which is delivered to every
household free, whether or not you subscribe. That's what they're really crediting the
incredible traffic. I think if you have watched it...I've kept a close eye on it even as the
Christmas season has waned on a little--bit the amount of parking there that is utilized is
decreased. And again, of the three tenants, Best Buy is clearly the highest parking generator
of the three in terms of how much parking anticipate to be utilized.
•
Priebe: But you don't know that until Sportsmart will be built. They are kind of a seasonal
Christmas related retail business also. I would think that they do most of their business
during the holiday season.
Carland: That's correct. Sportsmart is skewed towards the holidays. They don't do the
absolute number of customer trips. We know that from experience. We own the Burnsville
Sportsmart Store and Ridgedale Sportsmart Store and those kinds of parking utilizations for
different kinds--be it sporting goods, electronics--are very well known within the industry, so
its fairly predictable what kind of a demand they are going to require.
is Kirsch: Further questions? This is a public hearing; do we have anyone in the audience
that would like to address us on this item?
Transcript 12/12/94 Council Meeting Item #6 -7- City of Richfield
7-/a
Kirsch: Unless someone on the Council objects, we can close the hearing and we can ask
is someone from the Planning Commission. So you will second it under those? We have a
motion a second to close the hearing with the understanding that we can call on somebody
from the Planning Commission. All those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by
saying Aye.
Kirsch, Rosenberg, Sandahl, Priebe, Susag: Aye.
Kirsch: All those opposed same sign. [Pause] Hearing is closed.
Susag: Is there someone from the Planning Commission here? What I need ...my
understanding was that the Planning Commission held a hearing on this. Byron could you
• comment? Is the recommended motion recommended from the Planning Commission with
the stipulation? Was that part of the hearing?
Byron Wallace: It was, but there wasn't any evidence taken with respect to that at the
Planning Commission. It was only based on the decision-that it was an issue it was
presented to them, that this was an issue that would have to be determined by the City
Council because it had been raised at Pet Food Warehouse. But there were no
representatives from Petsmart nor the veterinary at the Planning Commission meeting. So
therefore there wasn't any argument with respect to that at the meeting.
0 Susag: Did the Planning Commission then recommend as the wording is, with the following
stipulation?
Transcript 12/12/94 Council Meeting Item #6 -9- City of Richfiel
to add that stipulation, handle it as an addendum, amended item as opposed to having that
be the primary motion.
Sandahl: The plan process here, and I'm not sure if it's relevant to this particular issue ...In
the first place, we are not denying the license for veterinary clinic in this building or approving
the license. The staff has asked us to speak directly to that issue; whether or not we should
have, it needs to be part of the motion, whether we want to make an amendment or part of
the main motion is kind of process stuff. I don't think we are saying that we will never allow a
veterinary clinic. There is still an open legal issue that has not been resolved vis a' vis the
clinic at Pet Food Warehouse on Lyndale and 66th, I can't see us going ahead and issuing a
license or dealing with this clinic in any manner until that issue has been resolved. We are
not going to do something here that we are not going to do up there. The two are in my view
at least partially tied together. They're not alot different and I think we need to deal with
them; but if you want to do it as an amendment, I'll go along.
Susag: Well, I'd like to move the approval of the amendment planned unit development
plan/final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase I of the CSM
Redevelopment Project.
Kirsch: Do we have a second?
Priebe: Second.
to
Rosenberg: That's without clinic there. No mention of it?
Transcript 12/12/94 Council Meeting Item #6
0 Rosenberg and Sandahl: Aye.
Kirsch: Opposed, same sign.
Kirsch, Susag, Priebe: Aye.
-11-
Kirsch: Loses 3-2. OK, now we're back to the main motion.
Priebe: How did that come out? That vote?
Kirsch: 3-2.
Priebe: The amendment was defeated?
Sandahl, Kirsch: Correct, yep.
Priebe: So the original motion is what we will be voting?
Kirsch: Yep, correct.
Priebe: I and the Mayor and Mr. Susag voted against the amendment.
•
City of Richfield
-/,I
Kirsch: Yep, correct, and that leaves the door open for further discussion.
Transcript 12/12/94 Council Meeting Item #6
0 Kirsch: Yes.
Sandahl: We have to approve a license anyway.
-13-
City-offRichfiQelld
-7-/9
Priebe: I think it would require... wouldn't the addition of a veterinary clinic require some
further action in the form of a license as Mr. Sandahl says?
Attorney Heine: It would require a license, but what Mr. Prosser is asking for clarification on
is whether or not the Council has approved a veterinary clinic to be located there from a
zoning standpoint, and I believe that ...my sense of what the council said was that no zoning
approval has been granted for the location of a veterinary clinic, and they will have to come
back with a specific application for this.
Priebe: But no zoning prohibition has been voted by that question, so it is still an open
question?
Prosser: It's an open question but again, our staff ...because there is a problem with being in
limbo on this issue ...what we want to make sure is that the Council is essentially saying we
are going to wait until we hear and get/receive a specific application on this issue.
Priebe: That's my view.
•
Prosser: That was our understanding.
•
•
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
3500 Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4235
Telephone (612) 340-5555
FAX (612) 340-5584
2800 Minnesota World Trade Center 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 2370 One Tabor Center
30 East Seventh Street Suite 1100 1200 Seventeenth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 551014999 Washington, D.C. 20005 Denver, Colorado 80202-5823
Telephone (612) 291-9333 Telephone (202) 393-2554 Telephone (303) 572-6200
FAX (612) 291-9313 FAX (202) 393-3131 FAX (303) 572-6203
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Attorneys at Law Writer's direct dial number: 340-5588 Reply to Minneapolis office
January 26, 1996
Ms. Corrine Thompson
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Mr. Bruce Palmborg
Acting Director of Community Development
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: PETsMART Zoning Issues
Dear Corrine and Bruce:
This letter is to follow up on our recent conversations and meetings with Corrine and Jack Erskine
regarding the PETsMART Store in The Shops at Lyndale redevelopment project (the Project). This
firm has been retained by PETsMART to represent it regarding the zoning issues which have been
raised with respect to the PETsMART Store. This letter will be addressed exclusively to the zoning
status of the Project and the PETsMART Store under the Richfield Zoning Ordinance.
It is our understanding, based upon representations made by the developer of the Project, upon a
review of the Zoning Ordinances, and upon letters from the City dated November 14, 1994 and
March 3, 1995 (copies attached), that the Project is a planned unit development located on land
zoned PC-2 (planned general commercial), "pursuant to which the Project may be used as a multi-
tenant retail shopping center without the need for variance or exception", and that "pet food sales
and veterinarian clinics are "permitted" uses in the PC-2 zoning district". The purpose of this letter
is to confirm that veterinarian clinics are permitted in the PC-2 District, and therefore within the
Project, without the need for further discretionary approvals by the City.
The Richfield Planned Unit Development Ordinance (the PUD Ordinance) sets forth the procedures
and standards for the establishment and amendment of planned unit development zoning districts.
Section 536.11 of the PUD Ordinance establishes six types of PUD districts and specifically
identifies, "the allowable uses within each PUD district". The "allowable uses" identified for the
PC-2 District are those uses allowed in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. The C-2 zoning district
is the City's general commercial district, and the C-3 zoning district is the City's high density
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER Ms. Corrine Thompson
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Bruce Palmborg
?,a? January 26, 1996
Page 2
commercial district. Both districts allow a wide variety of permitted retail uses including,
specifically, "veterinarian clinics".
Subdivision 3 of Section 536.11 provides that uses other than the allowable uses listed in
Subdivision 1, "are permitted in a PUD district", provided that certain conditions are met. The only
restriction on uses contained in Section 536. 11, or any place else in the PUD Ordinance, is contained
in Subdivision 3(c), which provides that an adult establishment is not permitted in any PUD district
other than a PC-2 District.
Section 536.11 is the only point at which the PUD Ordinance identifies or discusses the permitted
uses in a planned unit development. Section 536.11 specifically states that the uses identified in that
section are "allowable" and "permitted" in a PUD district. Section 536.11 does not say that the
identified uses are to be used as a guideline for determining the appropriate uses in a specific PUD;
it says that these uses are "allowable" and "permitted". Section 536.11 sets forth one, and only one,
exception to these "allowable" and "permitted" uses (in Subdivision 3(c)). Section 536.11 does not
authorize the City or the City Council to restrict in any way the allowable uses within each type of
PUD district, nor is there any authority for the City Council to deny a specific permitted use in any
individual planned unit development by this Section of the PUD Ordinance. The City is without
authority to deny a building permit for a use specifically permitted in the PC-2 Zoning District.
It is our understanding that City staff's current position is that the PUD approval for the Project must
be amended before a veterinarian clinic can be allowed within the Project. We see no authority in
the PUD Ordinance or in the balance of the City Zoning Ordinance for requiring such a discretionary
approval of a permitted use. Furthermore, this position is directly contrary to the PUD Ordinance
and the attached November 14, 1994, determination by the City Zoning Administrator.
Section 536.21 of the PUD Ordinance requires that the development of a PUD be in substantial
compliance with the approved PUD Plan, and sets forth the conditions under which compliance shall
not be considered substantial. This Section establishes the conditions under which a PUD must be
amended, and Section 536.25 establishes the procedure for processing the amendment.
Section 536.21 does not identify a change in use, or the establishment of a permitted use, as a
circumstance in which compliance shall not be considered substantial. There is no evidence of any
intent in Section 536.21, or elsewhere in the PUD Ordinance, for requiring a PUD amendment to
establish a permitted use in a PUD or to change from one permitted use to another permitted use.
There are a number of very good reasons why the PUD Ordinance does not so provide.
First, one of the purposes of the PUD Ordinance is to "provide a means of flexibility to the strict
application of the land use regulations in this Code." Requiring a PUD amendment, including a
public hearing and two-thirds affirmative vote of the City Council, to establish any permitted use,
or change from one permitted use to another permitted use, in a several hundred thousand square foot
shopping center is the antithesis of providing flexibility. Furthermore, no developer would proceed
PXB 106983
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
• PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
7-aa
Ms. Corrine Thompson
Mr. Bruce Palmborg
January 26, 1996
Page 3
to develop a planned unit development, and no lender would finance a planned unit development, if
every change from one permitted use to another permitted use required such a cumbersome and
uncertain discretionary approval process. The Shops At Lyndale PUD has been developed, and our
client has invested in a substantial building within the Project, in reliance on the attached letters from
the City and the premise that the uses identified as "allowable" and "permitted" uses in the PC-2
Zoning District pursuant to those letters and Section 536.11 can be established without the need for
discretionary approvals from the City. The PUD Ordinance simply cannot be read to require a PUD
amendment to establish a permitted use, nor to allow the City Council to restrict the establishment
of permitted uses, within an approved planned unit development. Even if the PUD Ordinance could
be said to be ambiguous on this point, as you know under Minnesota law any ambiguity must be read
and interpreted in favor of the property owner. Frank's Nursery Sales. Inc. v. City of Roseville,
295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980).
Therefore, this letter is to request a specific determination from the Acting Director of Community
Development that the proposed veterinarian clinic.is a permitted use in the C-2 Zoning District, the
PC-2 Zoning District and The Shops At Lyndale planned unit development; and that no City Council
approval is required for the establishment of the veterinarian clinic, other than the commercial kennel
• license which has been applied for separately under Section 905.31 of the City Code of Ordinances.
If the decision of the Acting Director is in the negative, this letter will constitute the written notice,
required by Section 546.03, Subd. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, of an appeal of the decision of the
Director to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals pursuant to Section 546.01 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
We appreciate your prompt consideration of the request set forth in this letter, so that, if necessary,
this issue may be resolved by the City Council at its meeting on February 12, 1996. Please contact
Peter if you require any additional information or background materials.
Sincerely,
Peter K. Beck and David C. Sellergren
PCB/eka
Enclosures
cc: Jim Prosser (City Manager)
• Jack Erskine (Director of Public Safety)
Dr. Larry Hawk (PETWART)
Rob Wilson
PXB 106983
-703
i
. -r-orl?n??d Iwe??u?r• 1ViohN?
16 +- r
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahi
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
November 14, 1994
Gary Tushie
Tushie Montgomery Associates
3300 Edinborough Way, #601
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Subject: Proposed "PETsMART" in CSM Phase I Development
Dear Mr. Tushie:
Following up on our November 10, 1994 telephone conversation, pet food sales and
veterinary offices are "permitted" uses in the PC-2 (planned general commercial)
zoning district. Veterinary uses are, however, subject to a Council approved Kennel
License. Please contact Debbie Guiher, Licensing Clerk at 861-9870, regarding the
application process for kennel license.
Sincerely,
CITY OF RICHFIELD
r-,
S awn B. Drill, Zoning Administrator
Planning and Zoning Division
SD:ttf
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9700
Fax 861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Ul%16%b6 TUh 14.35 FAX 612 K46 2404
March 3, 1995
CShl cunruxATioo
-7 -J
Planning & Zoning 5423-2599
67oo Portland Avenue - Richfield, Minnesota 5
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
Allstate Life Insurance Company
Allstate Plaza West J2A
3100 Sanders Road
Northbrook, IL 60052
Subject: CSM Investors, Inc. Retail Development (Phase 1) at NW Quadrant of 1494
and Lyndale Avenue South
To Whore, It May Concern:
We hereby certify to you as follows;
(a) The approximately 127,365 square-foot multi-tenant retail shopping center
to be constructed (the -Project-) in accordance with the site plan attached as Exhibit A
complies with all local ordinances and regulation regarding (1) the area, width or depth of
the real estate on which the Project is to be located; (ii) the floor space area of the Project;
(iii) the setback of the Project for the property lines of the real estate on which the Project
is to be located; (iv) the parking requirements for the Project: and (v) the height of the
Project.
(b) The real estate on which the Project is to be located is classified zone PC-2
(Planned General Commercial), pursuant to which the Project may be used as a multi-
tenant retail shopping center without the need for variance or'exception.
(c) The real estate on which the Project Is to be located complies with all
applicable subdivision and platting requirements and may be sold as .a separate parcel.
(d)
real estate is not located within an established flood plain.
William Weaver,. City Planner
Planning and Zoning Division
WW:js
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9764 -Fax (612) 861-9749
npnaral City Mattars- RSI-4700
A- C......1 /1.c.......n:.. Cr.nl n.in?
LVJUVG
!,I a EIVED MR 2 1 1996
DOHERTY 3500 Fifth Street Towers 2800 Minnesota World Trade Center
tai South Fifth Street 30 East Seventh Street
RILE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4235 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-+999
telephone (612) 340-5555 Telephone (612) 291-9333
& BUTLER FAX (612) 340-5584 FAX (612) 29t-9313
PROFESSIONM ASSOCIATION
Attorneys at Law
Writer's direct dial number: pp
340-5588
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone (202) 393-2554
FAX (202) 393-3131
2370 One Tabor Center
1200 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-5823
Telephone (303) 572-6200
FAX (303) 572-6203
-7-aS
Reply to Minneapolis office
March 20, 1996
Mayor Martin Kirsch
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
Re: PETsMART
Proposed Veterinary Clinic
Dear Mayor Kirsch and Council Members:
On behalf of PETsMART, and myself, thank you for approving the kennel license for pet
• grooming at the new PETsMART Store. The store had its "soft opening" as scheduled on the
19th, and will be fully open this weekend (with the exception of the veterinary clinic). This
letter is to discuss the issues related to the veterinary clinic, and to request that the City Council
approve the zoning and license for the clinic so that construction can begin on the clinic space.
There will be two issues before the City Council at its March 25, 1996 meeting regarding the
clinic:
1. Whether a PUD Amendment is required for the clinic; and
2. Whether a kennel license should be approved for the clinic.
We believe the zoning of The Shops at Lyndale project allows a veterinary clinic as a matter of
right, that all of the requirements and standards for issuance of a kennel license have been met,
and that the City Council should allow build-out of the clinic space to proceed without further
delay.
Zoning
City staff has declared that The Shops at Lyndale PUD must be amended before a veterinary
clinic can be opened in the Center. We strongly disagree with this position, and have appealed
this decision to the City Council. We ask that you find in our favor.
The Shops at Lyndale is zoned Planned General Commercial (PC-2). The PUD Ordinance
identifies the "allowable uses" in the PC-2 District as the "allowable uses" in the C-2 and C-3
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
40& ESBUTLER
PROL ASSOCIATION
-7 10q
Mayor Martin Kirsch
Members of the City Council
March 20, 1996
Page 2
Districts. The Zoning Ordinance identifies "veterinary clinics" as one of 26 specifically
identified permitted retail uses in the C-2 District, along with "antique stores", "clothing or shoe
stores", "hardware stores", "music stores", etc.
Notwithstanding the specific incorporation of these "permitted" uses in the PC-2 District, staff
has said, "There are no uses that are permitted as of right in a PUD district; all uses are
approved by conditional use permit." This is absurd. This would require The HUB Shopping
Center, for instance, to process a PUD amendment every time a tenant changed from a shoe
store to a music store. This is not what the PUD Ordinance says. This is not what the City's
past administration and interpretation of the PUD Ordinance has been.
On behalf of my client, I have had the dubious pleasure of going through all of the City's files
for every commercial PUD in the City. As best I can tell (and I may be off by a few years),
the PUD Ordinance has been on the books in more or less its present form for about 20 years.
It has apparently served the City well. Over that period of time, the City has never required
a PUD amendment to establish a permitted use where no changes to the site plan were proposed.
The City has required PUD amendments to establish a conditional use (a restaurant, for
• instance), or to change the number of parking spaces, the site plan or landscaping. I have no
problem with this. But the City has never required a PUD amendment simply to establish a
permitted use.
The reason for this, is that the PUD Ordinance does not require a PUD amendment to establish
a permitted use, or to change from one permitted use to another. The PUD Ordinance could
require this, but it does not. The Ordinance only requires a PUD amendment where there is
more than a ten percent change in floor area; more than a ten percent change in separation
between buildings; a change in setbacks from property lines; more than a five percent change
in ground area covered by a building; or any change in the ratio of off-street parking and loading
space to gross floor area. (See Section 536.21.) Establishing a permitted use in 1,850 square
feet of a 26,000 square foot building in a 125,000 square foot shopping center does not meet any
of the standards for a PUD Amendment. (If you are interested in a more complete technical
analysis of the PUD Ordinance, please see the attached letter of January 26, 1996 to Corrine and
Bruce.)
The PUD Ordinance simply does not require a PUD amendment. The best evidence of this,
aside from the language of the Ordinance itself, is the City staff's prior interpretations of the
Ordinance. Attached to my January 26th letter you will find a letter from Shawn Drill, then the
City zoning administrator, specifically stating that "veterinary offices are "permitted" uses in the
PC-2 (planned general commercial) zoning district".
PXB 113486
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
! PROFSSIONAL ASSOCIATION
7-a 7
Mayor Martin Kirsch
Members of the City Council
March 20, 1996
Page 3
As I mentioned to the Council last week, a key to PETsMART's success is the concept of a full
service facility -- providing all of the goods and services a pet owner needs, including veterinary
services, at one location. PETsMART has over 200 stores throughout the country with built-in
veterinary clinics, and has not opened a store without a clinic in over four years. It was based
on this letter from Mr. Drill to their architect that PETsMART proceeded with a store in
Richfield.
In addition to Mr. Drill's letter regarding PETsMART, when the City Council had before it the
issue of whether to approve a kennel license for veterinary services at Pet Food Warehouse, City
staff advised the City Council, in Council Letter No. 132 (Agenda April 25, 1994) that,
"Community Development has reviewed the application and it is in compliance with zoning
requirements. " Pet Food Warehouse is in Market Plaza, which is zoned Planned Multi-Family
Residential (PMR). How can a veterinary clinic be permitted in a residential PUD, and not in
a "general commercial" PUD?
The veterinary clinic is a permitted use in the PC-2 District. The City Council can consider
whether to approve a kennel license in this location, but must reestablish that the uses identified
as permitted in the PC-2 zoning district are in fact permitted. For the protection of all existing
planned unit developments in the City, we request that you find a PUD amendment not required
to establish this permitted use.
Kennel License
With respect to the kennel license, I speak not as a representative of the applicant, but as a
representative of the applicant's landlord. The kennel license will be held by A Caring Doctor
(Minnesota) P.A. which, through VetSmart, will lease the clinic space from PETsMART. A
Caring Doctor's representative in this matter is John Knapp, who has submitted the application
for a kennel license and can address issues specifically related to the corporate organization of
A Caring Doctor and its compliance with the Minnesota Rules for Veterinary Clinics. My
understanding is that the corporate organization of the applicant complies in all respects with
state law, and that the City Department of Public Safety has confirmed this.
What I will do is address the issue of the appropriateness of a veterinary clinic at this location,
responding to the concerns expressed by several council members at the time of City Council
consideration of veterinary services at Pet Food Warehouse.
First, the proposed full service VetSmart veterinary clinic will be different than the intermittent
"wellness clinic" proposed for Pet Food Warehouse. The VetSmart clinic will offer high quality
full service veterinary medicine on an appointment basis (over night boarding will not be
is offered). There will not be dozens of pets lining up for vaccinations on Saturday morning.
PXB 113486
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
-7-as
Mayor Martin Kirsch
Members of the City Council
March 20, 1996
Page 4
Vaccinations, and all other veterinary services, will be by appointment. VetSmart expects to
have two veterinarians on site initially. These veterinarians will see a maximum of 28
appointments on a busy day.
Some Council members have expressed concern about mixing retail sales and veterinary services
in the same building. In fact, all three existing Richfield veterinary clinics also sell pet food,
toys, etc. Furthermore, as the Council will recall, the entrance to the veterinary clinic is
separate from the main entrance to PETsMART, and the clinic space is separated from the retail
areas of the PETsMART. Although clinic customers who inadvertently go in the main entrance
can cross the front of the store to the clinic desk, it is expected that virtually all clinic visits will
come in the clinic entrance. From the front desk back, the clinic is entirely separate from the
store. I will have a larger scale drawing of the floor plan at the City Council meeting so
Council can see more clearly where the clinic space is and the location of the separate entrances.
There have also been concerns about locating a veterinary clinic in a shopping center. In fact,
veterinary clinics are very common tenants in strip shopping centers. There are dozens of
examples of veterinary clinics in strip shopping centers throughout the Twin Cities area,
including Richfield (Woodlake Veterinary Hospital is located in a small strip center at 65th
Street and Lyndale Avenue). As I mentioned to the City Council last week, virtually all of
PETsMART's 270 locations across the country, including the five new locations in the Twin
Cities, are in large "power center" strip shopping centers. Over 200 of these 270 stores,
including the other four in the Twin Cities, include veterinary clinics.
Shopping center locations for veterinary clinics are so numerous and so successful for the same
reason other businesses are successful in shopping centers, convenience for the customer. To
ensure that the customer has a good experience, PETsMART and its landlords around the
country have strict requirements for policing parking areas for animal waste. The experience
around the country is that this potential problem has been addressed, because it is in the best
interest of the shopping center and PETsMART to do so.
Finally, there have been concerns about safety within the store when customers shop with their
pets. Although a legitimate concern, this issue is not related to the clinic. As noted above, the
clinic will have a separate entrance at the front of the store. Clinic clients will not have to enter
the shopping areas of the store. Pets will be allowed in the store (and virtually every other retail
store in the City) whether or not there is a veterinary clinic next door.
As I mentioned last week, PETsMART trains its employees and provides equipment, including
water bottles and blankets, to deal with incidents between pets. PETsMART's experience,
however, has been that this training and equipment is seldom required. In the past six years,
,s PETsMART has averaged fewer than 30 incidents per year reported to its insurance company.
PXB 113486
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
'-7-dg
Mayor Martin Kirsch
Members of the City Council
March 20, 1996
Page 5
This is the total for all stores, which presently number over 270. None of these incidents
occurred in a veterinary clinic. The clinic and the store will be a safe place for PETsMART's
customers.
At the time the City Council considered the Pet Food Warehouse request, there were four
veterinary clinics in the City of Richfield. Since then, one of these four has relocated out of the
City. The clinic that relocated was located on The Shops at Lyndale site, prior to the
redevelopment. The VetSmart clinic will replace that clinic and provide continuing veterinary
services in this location to the citizens of Richfield.
More importantly, the proposed clinic meets the standards for issuance of a kennel license. We
respectfully request that the City Council approve the kennel license so that construction can
begin and this facility can open as soon as possible.
I will be at the Council meeting on March 25th, along with representatives of PETsMART, to
present these requests and to answer any questions. In the meantime, please call if you have any
questions you would like answered prior to the meeting, or need additional information.
Si rely,
Peter K. Beck
PKB/eka
Enclosures
cc: Larry Hawk, PETsMART
Jim Prosser, City Manager
Bruce Palmborg, Director of Community Development
Corrine Thompson, City Attorney
0
PXB 113486
I rlC JI7Vro fid LTINUHLC PREPARED
jSS ' q ii.3 Ef .; '? RICMFIE D.,Y/NNE CrA !QW
9i i 7e I !] a ?+ 7{??tt S _t` ^'? _( csM Corp•r?tire
---------------------
65-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 86
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for global positioning system.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of
merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000,
authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City County for consideration.
A global positioning system (GPS) is a system of hardware and software that allows the
operator to know the exact location, anywhere on earth by reading transmissions from
several earth orbit satellites. GPS is being widely used for locating and recording
underground utilities and other municipal physical elements.
Richfield staff intends to use GPS to locate manholes, catch basins, gate valves, street
lights, etc. This information will then be used by the new geographic information
system (GIS) computer to record when one of the above is serviced. For instance,
there may be several manholes in one intersection, so when a sewer jet arrives at the
• intersection to jet a line the operator need only set the GPS field unit on the manhole
cover and the GPS unit will locate the manhole based on a coordinate system to within
less than one meter. The operator will then enter into the field unit what activity is being
performed.
When the data collector is connected to the GIS computer, the date, time, exact
location and type of maintenance operation is recorded. The GPS can also help to
locate a manhole, catch basin or anything else that is hidden from plain view, such as a
gate valve under a blacktop overlay.
Sokkia Measuring Systems and Precision Measuring Systems are the only venders
who have local representatives. They are also the only vendors whose products are
considered to be state-of-the-art. The consultant hired by the City to assist in selecting
GIS hardware and software has advised the City that both are responsible vendors.
Therefore staff has interviewed and evaluated only these two systems. The systems
are very comparable and both will work with our GIS and other computer systems.
Quotations were requested and received with the following results:
V n or Total Bid
Sokkia Measuring $10,595
is Precision Measuring $13,995
?&;- I
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase of a global positioning system from Sokkia Measuring System in
the amount of $10,595.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This system will be incorporated with our ArcView GIS for locating utilities and for
mapping the City of Richfield.
2. Sokkia's Measuring System has a very reputable local vendor.
3. The 1996 revised storm water budget will be adjusted to reflect this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could reject the Sokkia Measuring System proposal and instruct the staff to
re-evaluate the selection of the global positioning system.
2. Council could deny purchase of any GPS.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the March 25, 1996 City Council meeting. Staff is requesting
approval at this time in order to facilitate timely completion of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:cak
r?
(?F
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 85
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for Braun Intertec's pavement management system
software, setup and support.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of
merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000,
authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The company that developed Richfield's current pavement management system
software, Carter and Associates, has gone out of business. As a result, the City is
unable to receive upgrades or system support for the pavement management system.
,It is desirable that Richfield have an ongoing method of rating the condition of City
streets and to determine the rate of deterioration of those streets. A pavement
management system is the best way to satisfy those needs. Staff has met with
representatives of pavement management system companies and have witnessed
demonstrations of their software.
Quotations were requested and received with the following results:
Ven r Quotation
Braun Intertec $14,700
Super PMS $28,100
Recommended Motion:
Authorize purchase of one copy of the Braun Intertec pavement management system at
a cost of $14,700.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The current system is outdated.
2. Braun Intertec is a very reputable local vendor.
3. The 1996 revised street maintenance budget will be adjusted accordingly for the
purchase.
4. The ratings from previous surveys of the City's streets, done with the Carter
pavement management system, are transferrable to the Braun Intertec system. This
is an important factor in determining the rate of deterioration of our streets. The
Braun Intertec software is also compatible with Windows which is used by the City's
computers.
v-1
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could reject the Braun Intertec software proposed and instruct the staff to re-
evaluate the Super Pavement Management proposal.
2. Council could deny purchase of pavement management system software.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at March 25, 1996 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
0
6r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 84
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000, to repair damaged squad car.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of
merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000,
authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Unit #9570, a 1995 Ford Crown Victoria squad car, was involved in an accident on
February 16, 1996. Damage to the vehicle was extensive, but the City's insurance
company determined the damage was repairable. It was imperative staff move quickly
on the repair, as two other squads were out of service at the same time, so the car was
sent to B&U Auto Body. Total cost came to $8,122.42 (tax included). The squad has
been repaired and is back in service.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to B&U Auto Body in the amount of $8,122.42 for repair to
Unit #9570, a 1995 Ford Crown Victoria squad car.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The vehicle sustained extensive damage and needed to be repaired.
2. The work is completed.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the March 25, 1996 Council meeting.
submitted,
RespeWDrosser
James City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 83
Agenda March 25, 1996
to Issue Statement:
Consideration of purchase in excess of $5,000 to lease a utility vehicle for the arena,
pool and mini golf facilities.
Background:
The Ice Arena staff is responsible for the arena, pool, picnic shelter and miniature golf
operations at Veterans Memorial Park. Maintenance staff works at all locations,
including the transporting of supplies, garbage removal and landscaping. The outdoor
work begins in April with the miniature golf and continues through October. The past
few years arena staff has had the use of a City pickup truck for the summer months
prior to it going to auction.
Since having the miniature golf course and picnic shelter assigned to Ice Arena/Pool
division in 1994, it has become apparent that a vehicle is needed at least April through
October to perform the tasks needed to maintain the facilities. A utility vehicle is less
expensive than a truck, will give staff the ability to drive onto the miniature golf course
and meet most of the vehicle needs on the complex.
The 1995-96 budget provides for the purchase of a used Cushman from the Rich Acres
Golf Course and then having $2,400/year put into the central garage fund to eventually
purchase a new Cushman.
Upon further investigations this winter, it was determined that the EZ-60 utility vehicle
would be more practical and cost less than the Cushman or Toro, which are more
heavy duty, higher horsepower and have features not needed for daily operations.
Also, that the lease-to-own agreement would cost $1,788.72/year for three years. This
is an annual savings of over $600 than the proposed budget plus no initial investment
of purchasing a used vehicle.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the three year lease-to-own agreement for one EZ-60 utility vehicle at a total
cost of $5,366.16.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This vehicle is recommended by Rich Acres Golf Course maintenance staff.
2. The lease to buy agreement with EZ-60 is least expensive utility vehicle.
Alternative Recommendation:
Direct staff to seek additional bids.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled on the consent calendar for the Council meeting on March 25,
1996. Action is requested at this time to assure that the vehicle can be delivered this
spring.
Respectf I submitted,
Jams Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
6(il
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 82
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for 1996 removal of diseased trees from private property.
Background:
In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist
homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property. When
the City's Tree Inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the
homeowner has three options:
• Removal of the tree by the homeowner;
• Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work;
• Homeowner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work.
If the City's contractor performs the tree removal, the homeowner has the option to pay
the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property taxes over a
three-year period.
In an effort to attract more bidders in 1994 and 1995, and again this year, staff divided
the City into two districts. Staff also allowed bidders to give separate prices for front
yard and back yard trees, realizing accessibility is a primary factor in cost.
At the first bid opening on February 14, 1996, one qualified bid was submitted for this
work for a total of $92,134.80 which was a 20% increase over the 1995 price. Staff
believed the work should be re-bid in an effort to obtain better prices for Richfield
residents, and Council rejected the bid at their February 26, 1996 meeting.
The second bid opening for this work was held on March 11, 1996 and three bids were
submitted. The companies were asked to bid a per-inch cost based on the average
number and size of trees removed in the past three years. Bids were as follows:
East District West District Total
Arps Tree Service $36,176.00 $40,502.00 $76,678.00
Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. $42,518.00 $46,942.00 $89,460.00
Asplundh Tree Expert Company $47,063.96 $49,875.44 $96,939.40
Contract amounts for the past three years are listed below:
1993 $123,553.00
1994 $108,764.00
1995 $ 80,188.00
(oa--I
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for 1996 removal of diseased
trees on private property to Arps Tree Service in the total estimated amount of
$76,678.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Arps Tree Service submitted the low bid for this work.
2. Past experience with this company has proven them to be a responsible contractor.
3. Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield homeowners
with a reasonable removal cost should they decide to have the City coordinate the
removal of their diseased tree(s).
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to
receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices could be obtained
from a responsible contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the March 25, 1996 Council meeting in order to assure
sufficient time to process necessary paperwork before the first trees are marked for
removal.
Respectf y submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
LI
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
March 11, 1996
11:00 a.m.
Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property
East District and/or West District
Bid No. 96-1
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of
diseased trees on private property, bid no. 96-1, as advertised in the official newspaper
on February 28, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Jack Erskine, Public Safety Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount Bid Amount
EAST WEST
Ceres 5% Bid Bond $42,518.00 $46,942.00
Brooklyn Park
Asplundh Tree 5% Bid Bond $47,063.96 $49,875.44
Spring Lake Park
Arp's Tree Service 5% Bid Bond $36,176.00 $40,502.00
Anoka
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
March 25, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
r
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 81
Agenda March 25, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a cooperative agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the state share of the costs of construction engineering services for
the Phase II Landscape Project on 77th Street.
Background:
A cooperative agreement describes the State of Minnesota's funding contribution
towards the reconstruction of 77th Street. This agreement provides the 15% state
share of the construction engineering costs for the Phase II Landscape Construction
Project. It also provides for the 5% reimbursement of costs previously incurred by the
City prior to receiving federal funds for the 77th Street Project. Costs covered in the
agreement include construction engineering.
The Phase II Landscape Construction Project for 77th Street will cost $468,397.50 and
construction engineering services for inspecting the landscape construction will cost
$61,447. Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. of Shakopee, MN is the apparent low
bidder for the landscape work and BRW, Inc. is the consultant engineering firm that will
perform the inspection of the landscape work. Based on these figures the Minnesota
Department of Transportation will allow eight percent of the construction cost to be paid
up front, or $37,500 for construction engineering work. Of this amount 20% will be
financed using Minnesota State Trunk Highway funds.
The balance of funds for construction engineering on the Phase II Landscape Project
for 77th Street will come from federal highway funds (80%.) The City will be
responsible for any cost in excess of these estimates. The City will have an opportunity
to request an increase in state and federal funding if the actual construction engineering
costs exceed $37,500. Funding for any ineligible engineering costs will come from the
City's Municipal State Aid Streets fund.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution on the cooperative agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to receive state funds to finance construction engineering
on the Phase II Landscape Construction Project of the 77th Street Reconstruction
Project.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. City staff has reviewed the proposed cooperative agreement and found it consistent
with the terms of previous agreements with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation on the 77th Street Project.
? 61 1
2. Approval of the cooperative agreement is needed before the City can be reimbursed
by the State of Minnesota for 20%0 of the costs for construction engineering on the
Phase II Landscape Construction Project for 77th Street.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A decision is needed at the March 25, 1996 Council meeting to allow the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to reimburse the City of Richfield for construction
engineering costs incurred by the City on the Phase II Landscape Construction Project
for 77th Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
V, P-?,
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
NO. 74668 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGARDING THE 77th STREET PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of
Richfield (City) negotiated Cooperative Agreement No. 74668 on the 77th Street
Reconstruction Project; and
WHEREAS, the Cooperative Agreement No. 74668 provides State funds for the
City to pay for the construction engineering services on the Phase II Landscape
Construction Project of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield enter into
Cooperative Agreement No. 74668 with the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation for the following purposes, to wit:
to provide for payment by the State to the City of Richfield of the State's share of
the construction engineering and inspection costs incurred by the City for
landscaping and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and
adjacent to Municipal State Aid Street No. 108 (77th Street) from Engineer Station
1+63.00 (Trunk Highway no. 35" to Engineer Station 9+35.00 (76th Street)and
from Engineer Station 82+87.91 (Portland Avenue) to Engineer Station 133+69.19
(Cedar Avenue) within the City of Richfield under State Projects No. 2785-303 (T. H.
494=393), No. 157-108-16 and 157-108-20.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby
authorized and directed to execute such agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
March, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. so
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Approval of agreement with the State of Minnesota for $50,000 Mighty Ducks grant.
Background:
The 1994-95 Legislature authorized funding throughout Minnesota for enhancing
hockey play. The funding which is distributed through the Minnesota Amateur Sports
Commission to selected recipients based on a formal application process has been
called the Mighty Ducks Grant Program.
Richfield applied for and was awarded a Mighty Ducks matching grant of $50,000. The
funds must be spent by the summer of 1997. Currently, it is the City's intention to use
the grant to make needed locker room improvements in the Richfield Ice Arena. The
locker rooms were originally designed for use by boys' and men's hockey. The
establishment of girls' and women's hockey requires locker room modification to assure
privacy.
The formal grant process requires each grant recipient to execute a "boiler-plate" type
of agreement with the State of Minnesota before the grant would become available.
Therefore, staff is now seeking the formal approval to execute the agreement to receive
the grant funds pending future approval of a qualifying project.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Mighty Ducks grant agreement with the
State of Minnesota.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City must execute the agreement in order to receive the $50,000 matching
grant funding.
2. The agreement is a standard format used by the state for similar grant awards.
3. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and can find no significant reason
to recommend that the City not execute the agreement.
4. The City Council would have to formally approve a qualifying project at a future
date, including the authorization of matching funds.
5. The grant will help defray the cost of necessary improvements.
•
10
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could withhold authority to execute the grant agreement.
However, the City would not be eligible for the $50,000 grant until the agreement
has been executed.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is being placed on the March 25, 1996 agenda in order to process this
application and return it to the State of Minnesota as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
9
E
a
• CITY OF .RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 79
Agenda March 25, 1996
Issue Statement:
Recognition of student participation in the Richfield Coalition Against Family Violence
Poster Contest and awarding of U.S.Savings Bond to winners, Susan Anderson and
Marshall Pearson.
Background:
The Richfield Coalition Against Family Violence members decided to sponsor a poster
contest on the subject of domestic violence prevention at the junior and senior high
school level. Two winners would be determined and each awarded a $50 U.S. Savings
Bond.
Susan Anderson and Marshall Pearson of Richfield Senior High School have been
selected as the winners of the poster contest and will receive a $50 U.S. Savings Bond
and recognition from the City Council for their participation, talent and creativity.
Recommended Motion:
Recognize students, Susan Anderson and Marshall Pearson of Richfield Senior High
. School for their participation, talent and creativity in the poster contest sponsored by the
Richfield Coalition Against Family Violence.
Basis of Recommendation:
Students should be commended for their time, talent and involvement at the community
level on the subject of domestic abuse prevention.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recognition and presentation of bonds to Susan Anderson and Marshall Pearson as
the student winners of the Richfield Coalition of Family Violence poster contest.
Respe ully submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0