10-09-1989CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 9, 1989
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Quam, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Ivan
Ludeman; Martin Kirsch; and Michael Sandahl.
STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; Steven Devich,
Administrative Services Director; Thomas P.
Ferber, City Clerk; Donald Fondrick,
Community Services Director; Byron Wallace,
Community Development Director; Jack Erskine,
Public Safety Director; William Fillmore,
Liquor Operations Director; Melanie Ault,
Administrative Aide; and John Dean, City
Attorney.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Quam at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Quam led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Kirsch, S/Sandahl to agvrove the minutes of the regular
City Council Meeting of September 25, 1989: and the minutes of
the Citv Council Study Session of October 2, 1989.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1 OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
ON ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
Dave Vogel, 1614 E. 66th Street, stated that he felt the
golf course fees were too high for seniors and juniors.
City Manager Prosser indicated that recreation fees are
reviewed by the Community Services Commission for recommendation
to the City Council. The City Council then considers fee
schedules during the Budget Hearing process.
Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 9, 1989
Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/Garcia, S/Ludeman to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. APPROVED RESOLUTION TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL REFUSE
HAULER LICENSE FEES AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH RESIDENTIAL
WASTE/RECYCLABLES COLLECTORS.
RESOLUTION NO. 7554
RESOLUTION INCREASING LICENSE FEES
FOR RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
This Resolution appears as Resolution No. 7554 in Resolution
Book No. 58.
B. APPROVED PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 TO LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST ADMINISTRATOR IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,546.00. C.L. 226
C. APPROVED AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO THIRD PARTY
AGREEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FOR H.O.M.E. AND GMDCA CHILD DAYCARE PROGRAMS.
C.L. 227
D. APPROVED RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE HEARING EXAMINER
PROCESS FOR REVIEWING VARIANCES. C.L. 228
RESOLUTION NO. 7555
RESOLUTION EXTENDING-HEARING EXAMINER
PROCESS FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE REVIEW
This Resolution appears as Resolution No. 7555 in Resolution
Book No. 58.
E. APPROVED AWARD OF CONTRACT TO S.M. HENTGES & SONS, INC.
FOR 1989 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT 66TH STREET
FOURTH AND FIFTH AVENUES. C.L. 229
F. APPROVED FEE WAIVER OF ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE AND
TRANSIENT BUSINESS/MERCHANT PERMIT FEES FOR HOUSING NOW
MINNESOTA FALL FESTIVAL ON OCTOBER 14 AND 15, 1989.
M/Ludeman, S/Sandahl to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Meeting Minutes -3- October 9, 1989
Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO
REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2232-2236 EAST 66TH STREET
TO "C-2", GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. C.L. NO. 230
City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 230
recommending that the City Council adopt the opinion of the City
Attorney that "the Credit Union petition, which does not contain
the requisite number of signatures is defective as an owner
initiated petition for rezoning."
Peter Orlins, Attorney for the applicant Richfield Credit
Union, stated disagreement with how the City Attorney interpreted
the ordinance as to how the signature percentage is determined on
the petition. He indicated that 13 of 22 property owners within
300 feet of the property to be rezoned had signed the petition.
He asked that the City Council table consideration of this item
until he could respond in more detail to the City Attorney's
opinion.
City Attorney Dean reviewed his memorandum of September 27,
1989 regarding the Richfield Credit Union petition to rezone the
property located at 2232-2236 East 66th Street. He reviewed the
provisions contained in subsection 545.11 subdivision 4 of the
Code which requires signatures from owners of 50$ of the land
within 300 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. He stated
that the petitions submitted by the applicant represents less
than the required 50$; consequently, the City Council lacks the
authority to give second reading to the proposed ordinance.
M/Kirsch, S/Garcia to sustain and adopt the opinion of the
City Attorney as contained in his memorandum titled "Richfield
Credit Union Petition to Rezone Property" dated September 27,
1989 that the credit Union petition, which does not contain the
requisite number of signatures is defective as an owner initiated
petition for rezoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Member Ludeman suggested that the City Attorney
review the ordinance to possibly clarify the requirements
regarding the petition.
Council Member Sandahl indicated that there now may exist an
opportunity for honest disagreement about the ordinance.
City Attorney Dean indicated that it was his opinion that
the ordinance was very clear in it's statement about how the
petition is to be determined. He stated that rezoning can be
initiated by three methods: the City Council, the Planning
Commission, and by the petition process. He indicated that his
opinion regarding this petition does not touch on the merits of a
rezoning of the land, nor should it be construed to preclude
consideration of rezoning following a proper initiation in
accordance with the provisions of subsection 545.11 subdivision
4.
Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 9, 1989
Council Member Garcia indicated that she had reviewed the
New Fordtown surveys that had been submitted so far. She urged
whose who had not mailed them back to the City to do so. She
stated that this was only the first step in the dialogue with the
residents of the New Fordtown area. She asked for the residents
help and input in pursuing options and opportunities to address
the needs of the area.
Council Member Ludeman indicated that the results of the
survey would be significant and that the City Council should
thoroughly analyze the results at a Study Session.
Mayor Quam stated that during his visit to this neighborhood
on the weekend that the mayor issue expressed was uncertainty
about the future of the area. He stated some people wanted no
change, others wanted the whole area bought out and redeveloped.
He said that it is evident that they do not want piecemeal
development. He stated the need for a comprehensive proposal for
New Fordtown.
Mayor Quam recessed the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Mayor Quam called the meeting back to order at 7:52 p.m.
Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PERMIT TRANSITIONAL ACTIVITIES
IN THE C-3 DISTRICT. C.L. NO. 231
City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 231 '
regarding a proposed ordinance amendment to permit transitional
activities in the C-3 high density commercial zoning district.
M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch that this constitute the First Reading
of this ordinance "Transitional Activity Permits - C-3 District";
and that the Public Hearing and Second Reading of the ordinance
be scheduled for the November 13, 1989 City Council Meeting.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO PERIODIC PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS
OF RENTAL PROPERTIES AND POINT OF SALE INSPECTIONS FOR
OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES. C.L. NO. 232
City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 232
regarding a proposed ordinance which would license rental
properties, require periodic inspections of rental housing, and
point of sale inspections of owner occupied homes.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 9, 1989
Pat Rickert, 6710 Garfield Avenue, reviewed the process and -,-
activities of the Citizens Committee which had been appointed by
the City Council to review the ordinance. He indicated the
Committee developed the revised ordinance which is being
considered tonight.
Sister Charlotte Ann LeClair, 6600 Nicollet Avenue,
representative of the League of Women Voters (LMV), stated that
after review of this ordinance the LMV unanimously voted in
support of rental licensing and point of sale inspections.
1
r~
Doris Lattery, 6601 5th Avenue, indicated she was a member
of the Tenants Union and stated concern about the
constitutionality of the inspections. She requested that written
notice be given to the tenant 7 days prior to the inspection.
Debra Colmark, 6512 21st Street, stated concerns about the
occupancy and parking situations of rental properties near her
property. She stated support for the proposed ordinance.
Dick Ziemer, 6229 Xerxes Avenue, expressed opposition to the
proposed ordinance because he felt it was discriminatory and
placed the burden in the wrong place. He expressed concern about
harassment from the inspectors. He stated he would like to see
the City tighten current enforcement without putting additional
burden on property owners.
Fred Habegger, 6740 Blaisdell Avenue, asked that the council
table the ordinance and appoint a panel to draw up a
questionnaire to go to all residents explaining the ordinance and
it's ramifications prior to considering it.
Nancy Jore, 6432 19th Avenue, stated that she felt city
inspections were unnecessary and that F.H.A., G.I. inspections
were already thorough enough.
Gary Hartman, 5753 Pillsbury Avenue, stated he was a private
home inspector and suggested that the code be specific and
enforcement uniform.
Fred Moore, 6615 Lakeshore Drive, stated concern about the
impact of this ordinance on owner occupied and rental condominium
units.
Dean Akins, 603 Lake Street, owner of several rental
buildings in Richfield, stated that one more inspection was not
necessary. He suggested that the City identify the money spent
on other inspections, reduce the City budget by this amount and
replace with a user fee.
Council Meeting Minutes -6- October 9, 1989
Constance Sanders, 2000 East 66th Street, stated concern
that this ordinance will result in increased rents for tenants.
Ed Gerszewski, 7426 12th Avenue, expressed concerns about
the costs of the inspections. He suggested that the cost of the
point of sale inspections be increased and the cost for rental
inspections be decreased.
Don Cederholm, 6214 5th Avenue, spoke in opposition to the
proposed ordinance and expressed concern about inspectors.
Deborah Olsen, 4220 Valley View Road, owner of 6901 Penn
Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Lawrence Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, asked what the
fees would be and spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Frank Riley, 6915 Portland Avenue, spoke in opposition to
the proposed ordinance.
Mary Kay Erickson, 13660 Pennock Avenue, owner of 7413 Penn
Avenue and 7116 Cedar Avenue, stated that she favored stronger
enforcement of the existing ordinance and saw no need for the
proposed ordinance. She expressed concerns about the costs to
landlords.
Ernie Lindstrom, 7406 Fremont Avenue, member of the Citizens
for a Quality Community and the ordinance committee, stated that
although he had some reservations about the ordinance he would
support it because it can be a positive step for a better
community. He suggested two amendments to the proposed
ordinance: 1) On page 4, subdivision 4, add the words, "the
applicant" in the first line; and 2) On page 3, Subdivision 4,
add language: "The City Manager shall have 14 days to sustain or
overrule the Public Safety Director."
M/Ludeman, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
City Manager Prosser summarized the proactive philosophy of
the proposed ordinance. He indicated quality inspection services
would be an important factor in implementation of the ordinance.
He stated that this ordinance would .provide for a method to
proactively enforce existing code ordinances.
1
0
Council Meeting Minutes -7- October 9, 1989
City Manager Prosser provided the following information in
response to questions asked during the public hearing:
- Call the City if you are aware of existing code violation
that need our action.
- An owner occupied duplex would be treated as an owner
occupied unit on that side and a rental unit on the
rented side.
- The ordinance is constitutional.
- The purchaser will be permitted to make repairs prior to
occupancy.
- The Inspection Fee Schedule is as follows:
Tune Fee
Apartment Buildings $50.00
(the building itself,
laundry, storage, furnace
rooms, corridors, stairs)
Apartment Units $ 7.50
Duplexes $50.00
1-Family $50.00
1-Family (Point of sale) $50.00
- Existing inspections by the City are Fire inspections
(this is of interior common areas and not interior of
apartments) and HRA inspections (approximately 350
units). The proposed inspections are not duplicative.
- Condominium units which are owner occupied are subject to
the point of sale inspections; rental units are subject
to the rental inspections; and the common areas are the
responsibility of the condominium association.
- The 1968 Building Code is the current code being
enforced.
- Rental rooms are subject to the rental inspection.
- Family is defined in the definition portion of the
ordinance.
- The Housing and Redevelopment Authority initiated the
reconsideration of the proposed ordinance.
Council Meeting Minutes -8- October 9, 1989
The City Council discussed .and the City Attorney drafted the
following amendments to the proposed ordinance:
1) Addition on page 4, Subdivision 8 after the licensee:
or the applicant if the aRplication is pending.
2) Addition on page 3, Subdivision 3, number (4):
The City Manager shall have ten (10) days from receipt
of the applicant's notice of appeal to sustain or
rescind the action of the director of public safety.
3) Addition on page 4, Subdivision 8: following
reasonable advance notice.
Council Member Ludeman commended the committee for its work
in revising the ordinance. He reviewed his concerns about the
ordinance including the maintenance of the tenant list. He
stated his support for adoption of the ordinance.
Council Member Garcia stated that it would be detrimental in
the long run not to act now to address the problems.
Council Member Kirsch stated that in his judgement this
ordinance may create another layer of bureaucracy and added
burden for landlords. Therefore, he stated he does not support
adoption of the ordinance.
.Council Member Sandahl stated that although not perfect,
this ordinance is the best method to address the problems, now
and in the future.
Mayor Quam noted the broad public input and work of many in
the review of this proposed ordinance. He stated that it will
have a positive impact on the community.
M/Ludeman, S/Kirsch that this constitute Second Reading of
Bill No. 1989-9, Amendment to Chapter IV, Part III, Subsection
405.25. INSPECTION AND LICENSING OF APARTMENT HOUSES AND RENTAL
HOMES. and 405.26 CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE
FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY HOMES, of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield; with the amendments as proposed and stated by
the City Attorney; that it be published in the official newspaper
and that it be made part of these minutes;
And that staff is _not_authorized_to hire additional staff in
the Fire Division for this ordinance until the City Council
discusses at Study Session the issue of the conduct of
inspections and how those might be incorporated into our present
staff .
Discussion was held regarding the wording and impact of
Council Member Ludeman's motion on the Fire Division staffing.
Motion carried 4-1. (Kirsch opposed)
Council Meeting Minutes -9- October 9, 1989
Item #7
None
n
i
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Council Member Sandahl reviewed the discussion at a recent
MSAC hearing regarding the Runway Use System (RUS).
City Manager Prosser indicated that the office of Senator
Boschwitz had responded to the City's letter regarding concern
about the runway 4-22 E.I.S.
Item #8 COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item #9 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch that the following claims and payrolls
be approved
RICHFIELD STATE BANK
Checks 11976-12036; 106218-106501 $1,445,650.86
FIRST MINNESOTA
Check 1096 $ 15,000.00
FIRST WESTERN BANK
Checks 5178-5196 $ 553,361.65
Checks 30195-30225; 30305-30668 Payroll $ 323,668.94
30669-30672; 30676-30693 Fire Retro $ 26,135.92
Motion carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous
Date Approved: 10/23/89 ~L
O'
~~~'I'~~i~yLG64
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
at/~O~t5 p . m .
jv ~ ' -^'P^~.
Q,~ t[,{ , Mayor
~~ 1 ~ °-'
D. Prosser
Manager