The URL can be used to link to this page

042214CompleteAgenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2014 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE ******************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW ROOM 5:45 P.M. AGENDA Call to order (Worksession discussion times are approximate) 5:45 - 5:55 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding Crosstown Gateways Text (Council Memo No. 43) Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 5:55 - 6:25 p.m. 2. Discussion regarding I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision Layout Development (Council Memo No. 44) Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Adjournment ********************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW ROOM 6:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order (Worksession discussion times are approximate) 6:30 - 7:00 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding Lyndale Gardens Project Update (Council Memo No. 45/HRA Memo No. 19) Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Adjournment ********************************************************************************************************* REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Meeting of April 8, 2014; (2) Special Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission Worksession of April 8, 2014; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of April 8, 2014 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentations from various non-profit organizations that provide social services to the City of Richfield:  MIRA – Jackie Farrell and Rosa Rubio  The Family Partnership – Maria Zavala  TRAIL – Michelle Veith  Cornerstone – Susan Neis 2. Presentation of the 2013 Food Safety Awards by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health (Council Memo No. 46) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion  Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of the agenda OTHER BUSINESS 5. Consideration of the Preliminary Layout (Concept 2 Alternative) for the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project as recommended by the Transportation Commission Staff Report No. 79 Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 6. City Manager’s Report Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager April 17, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 43 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Crosstown Gateways Text (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: The purpose of the upcoming worksession is to receive feedback from the Council on the proposed language on the Crosstown Gateways (MnDOT). At the February 25 Council worksession, City and MnDOT staff presented proposed locations and designs for the Crosstown Gateways to be constructed entrances to the City on Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, and Portland Avenue. As a result of that worksession, MnDOT received some direction for the design and language to be included on the gateway monuments. MnDOT is currently finalizing plans for the project that will be used for construction. Because of some uncertain direction on the language to include on the monument, they have asked City staff to confirm the design. The conflicting language direction is between the following taglines: • "Minnesota's First Suburb" • "The Urban Hometown" The two options are shown graphically on the attached document. Pl:„se contact Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9792 with questions. esooectfIllly submitto j / / teve . Dev >, City Manager SLD: jp Attachment: Gateway Monument Design Options Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager ' t :. Cam• z ( a3. 1. �r **1:"".. I dear}if x.. if y r . p} f a,6 z te,, 4 try,4 - - ____„,.---r ,„)\-..---1) \, ,--' " 4F i i • ; f I A ? t y fY' e tax ° CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager April 17, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 44 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: I-494/1-35W Interchange Vision Layout Development Worksession (Worksession Agenda Item No. 2) Council Members: At the upcoming City Council worksession, MnDOT will present on the progress of the 1-494/I- 35W Interchange Layout Development Project. The purpose of the development project is to develop a recommended concept for the I-494/1-35W interchange in order to address safety, congestion, and drainage improvements. In conjunction with the interchange development, Metro Transit has identified Knox Avenue as the favored route for the Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit using a new underpass below 1-494 to travel between Richfield and Bloomington. The goal for this worksession is to present developed design concepts for the interchange and transitway for review and comment ahead of the scheduled April 28, 2014 project open house. A notification of that open house was sent to residents and businesses in the area around the interchange and a copy of that mailing is attached. Please contact Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9792 with questions. ---)/ R--.ctikilly submitt , 1 i ;14 t S -. . Devi City anager SLD: jp Attachment: I-494/1-35W Interchange Vision Layout Development Project Open House Mailer Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager We all have a stake in 1-494/1-35W Interchange Layout Development Study Public Open House .fit This study will identify a design concept to improve the Monday,April 28,2014 I-494/1-35W interchange in order to address safety and 4:30 p.m.to 6:30 p.m. congestion issues.As part of the study,options for the METRO Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)Route and St.Richard's Catholic station near American Boulevard are also being studied. Church—Community Room Join your neighbors 7540 Penn Avenue South Hear more about the study Richfield See maps of the interchange options • Learn about potential traffic impacts • Learn about METRO Orange Line BRT • Talk with staff from the Minnesota Department of Contact Transportation,Metro Transit,and the Cities of April:Crockett, Bloomington and Richfield Project:[Manager Provide feedback and ideas MnD.OT Metro District 651-234-7727 For more information about the project: April.Crockett@state.mn.us mndot.gov/metro/projects/i494and35winterchange/ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager April 17, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 45 HRA Memorandum No. 19 Housing & Redevelopment The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners And City of Richfield Members of the City Council Subject: Lyndale Gardens Project Update (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members and Commissioners: In March, Colleen Carey, President of The Cornerstone Group provided a written update regarding the Lyndale Gardens project to the City Council. In follow-up to that written update, Ms. Carey will be attending the April 22nd City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Worksession to elaborate on that update and answer any project-related questions the City Council and HRA may have. R:c 0 ly submit, „ tev . Devi _ y Manager SLD:kcb Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager April 17, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 46 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: 2013 Food Safety Awards (Agenda Item No. 2) Council Members: Attached is a bullet summary of the steps and process that was used in determining the 2013 Richfield Food Safety Award nominees and winners. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health will be involved in this effort on an annual basis and believes it is important to place a priority on recognizing Richfield restaurants that are doing an excellent job of maintaining a food safety establishment. It is important for these successful establishments to be recognized, but also is a way to encourage other establishments to strive for the same outcome. The awards will be presented to the winners at the City Council meeting of April 22, 2014 by Erin Rykken and Kirsten Johnson who are Co-Chairs of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health. Rf.sp=+tfully sub ,'tted err .4 f 4i , kt, 4 L. D-vice City Manager SLD:bao Attachment Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager Richfield Food Safety Awards - 2013 • Annual awards to acknowledge excellence in food safety and service — Focus on the good work that restaurants do rather than the bad. • Richfield Advisory Board of Health recommended starting a program in Richfield, similar to the existing award program in Bloomington — Began in 2006. • The health inspector nominates 3 to 4 candidates in 3 risk categories based on: • Food Collaborative Interviews • Inspection results • Those categories are: full service (or large) restaurant, and fast food/pizza carry out/cafeteria service and retail grocery. • A team of interviewers visited each site together to conduct the interviews. These folks are members of the Richfield/Bloomington Food Collaborative and meet regularly with inspection staff and one another to discuss common interest areas. • Nominees were judged on how they manage risk factors on a daily basis, how the establishment encourages workers to be continually motivated about serving safe food, whether they can list five critical factors that affect food safety, have procedures in place when they receive customer complaints about customers feeling ill after having eaten there, what is the establishment's policy when an employee shows up for work with obvious symptoms of illness, a description of food safety training programs and policies, management's overall commitment to food safety and rating of the physical appearance of the establishment at the time of the interview • The results are provided to the Richfield Advisory Board of Health and they present the awards to the winners at a City Council meeting. Nominees will receive certificates via the mail. Photos of the presentation and a short article will be given to the Richfield Sun Current for publicity and positive exposure for the establishments. • 2013 Winners are: Full Service Restaurants: Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies (Winner) — 6345 Penn Avenue South — Manager: Melissa Morrissette Broadway Pizza (Nominee) — 7514 Lyndale Avenue South - Food Manager— John Sterbuck Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant (Nominee) — 2910 W. 66th Street— Food Manager— Sue Kiang Don Pablos (Nominee) — 980 West 78th St. - Manager: Kim Elicerio Fast Food/Pizza Carry Out/Cafeteria: Arby's Restaurant (Winner) — 7744 5th Avenue South, - Manager: Sean Boyer DQ Grill and Chill (Nominee) —2800 W. 66th Street— Manager: Jeremy Mohs McDonald's (Nominee) — 6645 Lyndale Avenue South - Manager: Eduin Espinoza Retail Grocery Target Store T-2300 (Winner) — 6445 Richfield Parkway - Senior Food Executive Team Lead — Ben Siedel Lunds, Inc. — (Nominee) — 6228 Penn Avenue South — Food Manager: Al Gartner CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting Advisory Board/Commission Applicant Interviews April 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:40 p.m. in the Babcock Room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Suzanne Sandahl; Edwina Garcia; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS The City Council conducted an interview of the following applicants for appointment to a City Advisory Board and Commission: Joannette Cintron de Nunez Christina Meyer ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:55 p.m. Date Approved: April 22, 2014. ____________________________ Debbie Goettel Mayor ______________________________ ____________________________ Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich City Manager Executive Coordinator CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission Worksession April 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:07 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry. Planning Commission Rick Jabs, Chair; Daniel Kitzenberger; Susan Rosenberg; Gordon Vizecky; Members Present: and Tom Rublein. Planning Commission Josh Root and Charles Standfuss. Members Absent: Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING AN EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AT 6725 YORK AVENUE (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 40) Community Development Director Stark explained the redevelopment proposed by Lennar Corporation. The residential portion of this proposed development would abut Xerxes Avenue and be immediately adjacent to seven single-family homes in Richfield. Mr. Stark reviewed the approvals needed by the Edina Planning Commission and Edina City Council, including Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezoning. He also reviewed the Metropolitan Council approval process for the Comprehensive Plan amendments. City Planner Poehlman reviewed the issues related to the proposed redevelopment which are either inconsistent with Richfield’s Comprehensive Plan, adversely affect Richfield homes and/or are in conflict with Edina’s own requirements. These include:  A height in excess of five stories.  A building setback of less than 132 feet from existing single-family lot lines.  Excessive shadow impacts result from both the building height and its minimal setback. Community Development Director Stark stated the actionable issues related to the proposed redevelopment that the City of Richfield could address includes the building height, building setback and shadow impact. Mayor Goettel suggested there be a transition in height because six-stories is overbearing. Special Worksession Minutes -2- April 8, 2014 Council Member Elliott stated that he found the proposed building to be not aesthetically pleasing and was disappointed in the lack of regard for residents on Xerxes Avenue. He stated he desired a joint cooperative effort. Planning Commission Chair Jabs stated he found the proposed redevelopment hideous for the neighbors and suggested the dog park be removed due to noise concerns and the building height be reduced. Council Member Sandahl stated that Richfield should be treated the same as Edina for meeting their redevelopment requirements. The City Council and Planning Commission consensus was for staff to prepare a letter addressed to the City of Edina expressing concerns and suggestions for the proposed redevelopment at 6725 York Avenue, including building height, setback, shadow impacts, elimination of the dog park and concessions for architectural content. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:45 p.m. Date Approved: April 22, 2014. Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting April 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Karen Barton, Assistant Community Development Manager; Karen Shragg, Wood Lake Nature Center Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Garcia to approve the minutes of the (1) Special Concurrent City Council, HRA and Planning Commission Worksession of March 17, 2014; (2) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of March 17, 2014; (3) Special City Council Meeting of March 25, 2014; (4) Special City Council Worksession of March 25, 2014; and (5) Regular City Council Meeting of March 25, 2014. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 CHOIR CONCERT PRESENTED BY THE COMBINED STEM/RDLS FIFTH GRADERS The concert was presented. Council Meeting Minutes -2- April 8, 2014 Item #2 PRESENTATIONS FROM VARIOUS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE SOCIAL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:  HEADWAY EMOTIONAL HEALTH – PAT DALE  LOAVES AND FISHES – EMILY SCHMITZ  COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM – JOLENE THIBEDEAU BOYD  VEAP – SCOTT HVIZDOS The presentations were made. Item #3 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING EARTH DAY/ARBOR MONTH Mayor Goettel presented the proclamation to Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer. Wood Lake Nature Center Manager Shragg made a presentation regarding the nature center. Item #4 COUNCIL DISCUSSION  Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Member Garcia announced the April 25 Friends of Wood Lake dinner and silent auction. Council Member Sandahl announced the April 12 Egg Scramble event at Augsburg Park. Council Member Sandahl requested the status of organized garbage pickup be provided in the future. Council Member Sandahl requested the Transportation Commission review the residents’ th concerns regarding the crosswalk at Lakeshore Drive and 66 Street. Council Member Fitzhenry reported on the Portland Avenue reconstruction open house. Council Member Fitzhenry provided a Noise Oversight Committee report. Item #5 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Fitzhenry, S/Elliott to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #6 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of the approval of a resolution authorizing the reprogramming of funds from the 2013 Community Development Block Grant allocation S.R. No. 74 RESOLUTION NO. 10926 Council Meeting Minutes -3- April 8, 2014 RESOLUTION APPROVING REPROGRAMMING 2013 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ANY REQUIRED AGREEMENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10926. th B. Consideration of the approval of the rejection of all bids submitted for the 69 Street Storm Sewer Project S.R. No. 75 C. Consideration of the approval of hiring Evergreen Land Services Company to provide right- of-way acquisition services for the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project at a cost not to exceed $149,400 S.R. No. 76 M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DNR TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE TAFT LAKE FISHERY PROJECT S.R. NO. 77 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 77. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer reviewed the proposed improvements. M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10927 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DNR TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE TAFT LAKE FISHERY PROJECT Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10927. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO A CITY ADVISORY COMMISSION Item #9 S.R. NO. 78 M/Sandahl, S/ Goettel to appoint the following persons to a City Advisory Commission: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Name Term Expires Joannette Cintron de Nunez January 31, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes -4- April 8, 2014 ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH Name Term Expires Christina Meyer (youth) August 31,2015 Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT th City Manager Devich provided an update on the 77 Street tunnel project. Item #11 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 04/08/14 A/P Checks: 229968-230329 $ 1,431,956.29 Payroll: 100166-100482 $ 553,612.03 TOTAL $ 1,985,568.32 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:00 p.m. Date Approved: April 22, 2014 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS. AGENDA ITEM# 5 REPORT# 79 STAFF REPORT gechl''c CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Er 97) SIGNATURE OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: ❑ ' "' SI NATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: +� f/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval for the preliminary Portland Avenue Reconstruction Plan. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Preliminary Layout (Concept 2 Alternative) for the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project as recommended by the Transportation Commission. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Transportation Commission recommended the "Concept 2" design for the Portland Avenue at their April 9, 2014 meeting. The Concept 2 Alternative includes the following design elements: • A single 11-foot vehicle travel lane in each direction with a dual direction 11- foot center left-turn lane. • Two 6-foot on-street bike lanes using the same concrete gutter pan design as 76th Street. • A 6-foot vegetated boulevard behind the curb on both sides of the street. • A 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the west side of the street. • An 8-foot bituminous multi-use trail on the east side of the street. 04222014PortlandPrelimDesign By adding boulevards, the extents of the proposed sidewalk and trail will be approximately 5-1/2 feet wider on both sides of Portland Avenue than the extents of the existing sidewalk. The boulevard space will provide the following benefits:  Allow for snow storage  Provide additional pedestrian buffer  Create aesthetic green space along the corridor, including trees. In areas where the existing right-of-way is 33-feet, this added width will require the purchase of a 4-foot permanent easement from a total of 83 residential properties. An additional design element recommended by the Commission was the placement rd of full-access center median islands at the minor intersections, including 73 Street. The goal of providing these medians is to slow speeds and improve pedestrian/bicycle safety by providing a refuge island for those crossing Portland Avenue. The detailed design of these medians will be included in the final design phase of the project. III. BR ASIS OF ECOMMENDATION A. B ACKGROUND Layout Options  The Transportation Commission prepared for the preliminary design process in January 2013 by creating a community based Guiding Principles document that is to be used for all upcoming street reconstruction projects.  Based on comments and feedback from the first public open house as well as existing approved planning documents such as the Richfield Complete Streets Policy and the Arterial Road Study, the following four cross-section concepts were developed for consideration (graphics attached): 1. Three-lane road, on-street bike lanes, boulevards, sidewalks 2. Three-lane road, on-street bike lanes, boulevards, one sidewalk, one multi- use trail 3. Three-lane road,, boulevards, one sidewalk, one multi-use trail 4. Three-lane road, cycle tracks, boulevards, sidewalks  These four options were presented to the public at the second project open house and based on feedback received; the Commission narrowed the preferred concepts to #2 & #4.  The Commission determined that both options met the goals of the Guiding Principles document but there were significant concerns with the amount of impact that Concept #4 would have on adjacent properties along the corridor compared to Concept #2.  The Commission recommended the addition of center median islands at the minor intersections to provide the following benefit: Reduce vehicular speeds o Increase Pedestrian Safety o  The Commission examined several possible treatments for the intersection at rd 73 Street to improve crossing safety. Signal – Eliminated because the traffic analysis determined that o the warrants for a signal are not met. Traditional Roundabout – Eliminated based on lower traffic o volumes and significant property impacts. Mini-roundabout – Not the preferred alternative due to property o impacts and bicycle route impacts but has not been officially eliminated pending completion of traffic analysis. Flashing Pedestrian Activated Warning Signal – Compatible with o full access median design and will be evaluated further after completion of traffic analysis. Property Impacts  All Portland Avenue reconstruction options considered by the Commission had property impacts in areas where the right-of-way is only 33’ from the centerline of the road. The Commission ultimately concluded that the Concept #2 design provided the best balance between including amenities that the community desires while limiting property impacts  As it is currently proposed, the Concept #2 design extends the edge of sidewalk by approximately 5.5’ due to the inclusion of a green boulevard. In areas where the right-of-way is 33’ from centerline, this will require a 4’ permanent easement. There are 83 properties in these areas. Public Input  Three public open houses were held to present information and gather feedback on the following dates: 10/10/2013 o 01/22/2014 o 04/03/2014 o  The first two open houses included both Portland Avenue and some portions th of 66 Street. Summaries of all three open houses including feedback received are attached. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)  In an effort to engage the various stakeholders involved in the Portland Avenue reconstruction project as well as to gather the technical advice desired by the Transportation Commission, a Technical Advisory Committee was established during the preliminary design process. Staff representatives from Metro Transit, Hennepin County, and Richfield took part in monthly meetings to review layout alternatives and provide input. B. P OLICY  The reconstruction project is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 – Transportation)  The Concept #2 Design is consistent with multiple City planning documents including: - Bicycle Master Plan - Street Reconstruction Guiding Principles Document - Complete Streets Policy - Arterial Roads Study - Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 – Transportation) C. CTI RITICAL IMING SSUES  The federal funding requires the project be programmed for 2015 construction. D. F INANCIAL  Total estimated project cost is $8,450,000 with the following contributions: $3,750,000 Federal o $475,000 County o $4,225,000 City (includes reconstruction of city utilities and o undergrounding of overhead utilities)  The following sources are proposed for the City contribution: Municipal State Aid (gas tax) o Street Reconstruction Bonds o Utilities Fund o Xcel Rate Payers Fee o E. EC NVIRONMENTAL ONSIDERATIONS  The project includes stormwater improvements and additional landscaping. IV. AR() LTERNATIVE ECOMMENDATIONS  Council may choose to reject the Concept #2 preliminary design and direct staff on how to proceed. V. A TTACHMENTS  Concept #2 Layout  Summary of Open House and Submitted Comments  Layout Goals/Criteria List  Concept Layout Alternative Analysis  Preliminary Design Schedule VI. PPEM RINCIPAL ARTIES XPECTED AT EETING  Area residents II >+ ai cll C TO U 4-CO CU Q.■ >_ a E m Q o CU C cB =C ai O .N O 't ca• U L i U G V '~ W > o >, -- > (a a V W > - c U U w�m m >th H 02 a co g g d d cu d D 2 � Sh r: `a -, Q C 0 r ,e. U *,, i tF o CA 0 3= x > 4 CC �_ S. '- 0 '''...4,t,*-' per' CZ W _ J R may{ CL I. 0 Q Z v O V 0) E Ri •3 (, 5 J o >, W a z N 0 X CC ♦� 0 W W if;a a) co d ¢ 7 CO LL C•� : . � L .� _ ? o L1.1 �, J CEcd E 2 0) (0 - w 0) C ° = m CL i °';a = c� oc�n = h: (D v co 4.' 0 `' 0 NII II �� '7 w wsqQ 'la Y �) l' ' CT a Y q Z "tt ` aFJ _% C ? qy f z�� fit; 'tr-. '" 1/ y.+ , s o V i '`":MtJ Ah -I, County Road Reconstruction Projects - Portland Avenue and 66th Street OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY Quick Summary Meeting Date October 10, 2013 Location Wood Lake Nature Center People Signed In 96 Surveys Completed 48 Comment Sheets Completed 21 Meeting Purpose The purpose of the open house was to hear from the users of 66th Street and Portland Avenue to gain perspective on what's working and what's not working for them today. The feedback will be used to develop a problem statement that will help to guide the design process. Materials Available • Project Handout with process, purpose,timeline, schedule, map, and funding information • Overview/Background—Guiding Principles and various applicable city plans • Metro Transit information including Orange Line (I-35W with station at 66th) and Arterial BRT (Portland) • "Activities and Values" exercise surveying how people use the corridors now, and how they would like to use them (focusing on mode choices)to guide design • "Post-it" Aerials of Portland Avenue and 66th Street, with opportunities to make comments using post-it notes • Examples of design elements which may be considered (different lane widths, landscaping treatments, sidewalks/trails, etc) Activities and Values Exercise Results Participants were asked to identify the area of the corridor(s)they use, and indicate their activities and current travel mode. They were then asked to select their desired travel mode for each activity and assign a high, medium, or low value along with commenting on any existing barriers preventing them from using their desired travel mode. Generally,this exercise revealed a gap between current modes people are using, and their preference of desired mode. Many people who drive today placed a higher priority on walking and bicycling in the future. Others wish to maintain their current modes,which consist mostly of walking and driving. In the specific comments captured below and attached, it is clear that the ability to safely move along and across the corridor on foot and by bike is desired and that the speed and proximity of vehicles are the biggest concern to those currently using these modes. The creation of a safe multimodal environment was an overriding desire. Public Comments—Common Themes The summary below includes all comments received at the open house and comments relayed by Metro Transit staff. A log of all comments received is also attached. Page 1 of 2 Portland Avenue Comments • Traffic delays should be addressed • Too many signals/too close together • Sidewalks are too close to the roadway and not well maintained • Parking and bicycle lanes are desired • Snow storage is a problem • Neutral to positive sentiments about BRT on Portland—i.e. those who don't use transit think it seems like a good idea;those who do ride transit are excited about it • Concerns about noise/people impacts immediately adjacent to transit stations • 3-lane configuration favored 66th Street Comments • Crossing or using 66th as a pedestrian or bicyclist is unsafe • Most comments were in favor of bike lanes/bike facilities; a few did not see the need • Traffic is too fast and speed limits need to be enforced • Sidewalks are not well maintained • Keep lanes to accommodate traffic • Desire for more attractive and community-friendly road design, including traffic calming • Some like roundabouts; some do not • Keep/provide parking in front of businesses • Traffic is noisy and causes vibrations in some areas • High levels of traffic make turning and crossing difficult • Snow storage/maintenance in winter is prohibitive to pedestrians • Road is in poor condition General Comments • Lack of pedestrian facilities/design of streets is a barrier to health of the community • Distance, traffic volume &speed discourages bicycling • Traffic is too fast and speed limits need to be enforced • Sidewalks are not well maintained Page 2 of 2 County Road Reconstruction Projects - Portland Avenue and 66th Street OPEN HOUSE #2 SUMMARY Quick Summary Meeting Purpose Meeting Date January 22, 2014 The goal of the open house was to reinforce what was Location Richfield City Hall heard at the first open house, share project People Signed In 92 developments,solicit input on design alternatives, and Surveys Completed 43 provide an updated schedule and next steps for the Comment Sheets 4 project. Completed Materials Available • Context Boards explaining guiding principles,what we've learned, and problem statement • Safety Toolbox Boards showing speed studies, conflict points, and the benefits/tradeoffs of potential design elements (3-lane section, roundabouts, medians)to improve safety • Design Concept Boards showing options for different roadway cross sections • Corridor Plots with an opportunity to provide post-it comments • Transition Boards showing bicycle transitions from the project to the regional system,and vehicle roadway transitions • Survey to collect feedback on direction and preference of design alternatives • Comment Cards to provide general feedback on the project • Streetscape Working Group Sign-Up for interested members of the community to provide on- going input on corridor streetscaping • Metro Transit information including Orange Line (I-35W with station at 66th) and Arterial BRT (Portland) • Sweet Streets information booth and representative available to provide information on the City of Richfield's greater mill and overlay initiative Survey Results Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the project process and proposed design concepts: • 71%thought common themes from Open House#1 were accurately captured (others indicated they didn't know because they weren't at the first open house). • 84% agreed the written problem statement captures the overall concerns of the community. • 93% agreed that reducing speed and conflict points would improve safety. Attendees were also asked to rank four design concepts, from most to least likely to foster the vision of the community as reflected in the Guiding Principles: • No single concept emerged as a unanimously preferred option for either corridor. • Design concept#4 performed best in this exercise by receiving the most first-choice rankings for both Portland Ave (18) and 66th St (16). • Concepts#1 and#2 were closely regarded as second-or third-choice for both roadways,with a slight preference for Concept#2 on Portland Avenue. • Concept#3 logged the highest number of fourth-choice rankings for both roadways. Ranking of Design Concepts COUNT-1st 7 3 9 18 8 5 11 16 COUNT-2nd 9 12 8 8 11 11 5 9 COUNT-3rd 13 11 8 3 10 12 9 3 COUNT-4th 7 9 12 7 8 7 13 8 Page 1 of 2 Two-thirds of survey respondents indicated that they would support an alternative that impacts property if it was necessary to successfully address the existing problems within the corridors.The remaining respondents were unsure (one person said no). When asked about design tools, people generally agreed that roundabouts would improve safety for both Portland Avenue and 66th Street. Raised medians were also viewed positively for both roadways.A tool combining both roundabouts and raised medians had a more negative response, without about half of respondents indicating they did not think it would improve safety. In general, improvements to crossings/intersections were well-received, but improvements that would have a more linear impact along the corridor were met with some concerns. Safety Tools (Would these tools improve safety?) Roundabout 20 6 4 19 8 4 Raised Medians 18 10 3 19 10 3 Roundabout+ Raised Median 11 15 3 11 15 4 Public Comments—Common Themes Summary below includes comment sheets, post-it notes on layouts, and written comments on surveys. Specific comments are available in the detailed comment log. Portland Avenue Comments • A design speed of 30 MPH is plenty • Three lanes are better than four • Bicycle lanes—including a connection to Minneapolis—are needed • A vegetated median and/or on-street parking is desired • Roundabout improvements (lighting, education) are needed for pedestrian and bicyclist safety • A traffic signal at 73rd is needed 66th Street Comments • There is a need for improved pedestrian crossings • On-street parking is important to community development along 66th St General Comments • Slower design speeds are desired • Use raised medians in moderation • Consider options that do not require substantial ROW impacts Page 2 of 2 County Road Reconstruction Projects - Portland Avenue and 66th Street OPEN HOUSE #3- PORTLAND AVENUE SUMMARY Quick Summary Meeting Date April 3, 2014 Location Richfield City Hall Meeting Purpose This meeting focused on the Portland Avenue People Signed In 30 Reconstruction Project. The goal of the open house Comment Sheets 6 was to reinforce what was heard at the first two open Completed houses,share project developments, solicit input on preferred alternatives, and provide an updated schedule and next steps for the project. Materials Available • Context Boards explaining schedule, guiding principles, what we've learned,what we've done, and problem statement • Process Board showing how concepts were evaluated with project goals through coordinating with stakeholders • Concept Boards showing preferred concept (on-street bicycle lanes with sidewalks and multiuse trail) and concepts not advanced with primary reason not advanced • Intersection Concept Boards showing preferred intersection concepts with safety benefits and tradeoffs, intersection concepts not advanced with primary reason not advanced, and concepts under consideration at 73`d and Portland • Corridor Plots with an opportunity to provide post-it comments • Comment Cards to provide design, construction, and general feedback on the project • Metro Transit information including Arterial BRT(Portland) and Orange Line (I-35W with station at 66th) Public Comments—Common Themes Summary below includes comment sheets and post-it notes on layouts.Specific comments are available in the detailed comment log. Portland Avenue Comments • Desire for full driveway access on both sides of roadway—median at 69th blocks driveways • Desire for crosswalk at 67th to improve safety for transit users and bicyclists • Identified need to provide access during construction for daycare near 74th • Concern for power access for residence across from City Hall with undergrounding • Support for medians to slow traffic • Dislike of two-lane, landscaped roundabouts • Support for any design of the street • Positive feedback on open house visuals 66th Street Comments • Marked and lit pedestrian crossing near Pizza Luce desired • Construction preference to phase in a way that avoids significant travel impacts to seniors living at 66th and Lyndale General Comments • Prefer one-lane roundabouts over two-lane • Desire to avoid landscaping that grows over signage Page 1 of 1 >% C%• CU Ca i (Uj ci2 fo 'IP c 'a co 0 -c O U O (`• c o (n � = gtsa Q) co cu To 04 U B a .Q _ W N C O .. -a 1 Lu 011111 :1._ r y CL 'i"' Ca N .� .0 ate-+ o = i co (� -�--� c., W �' QJ = 4) N CL 2 c I N 13 -c .1_, N C •_ U o U � , teC ..- +-, .1-,., Z N a- ' an Z. Z CU ,_ N � U c o y Cn v C 4:2�- _c O_ 2 cn y-- O co CM G. 0. 0E 2 i � E -p •.—, v 2 ci cm as -- 1 I■1 e ›N 0 ••■••• Ift■ a)(1) En ‘IE a as° >%() c4- > CD 6/3 U) F- O O V) _U � C c kA ■E 0 2..) Z 0 II 3 • = Us 1a1 _1, as d 0 Cl) Co .~ co a) C 1: 1:3 CU i>,+ •N 'Q to cu to O A O o '4= C L a1 C C la c� CO CO 0La a '5 0 °O O N O ca a• cp Q. a o . I cu cu o U CO C O 0 = ;,�, •o 0 ca cn '2 E a ■ ■ a o 0- v c L E O ,- O •a1 -- i N 0 O Ca 5 N .N 2 ,� Cl) = .� p O L N ,� c' 0 �+ E ca cc cv W co w w E - o O a, o � G o O O N o_ 00 "0 a) a) LE CU a .c ,,� an •L X N U o -2 o a 4-• ca co O- v o° v V X c Q i to �. 0 4-7-, a) 2 ca CU 4E' kg ...„, > -� �- N co 0 I u. •i > . L Ua. Li- CL +-0 L (-)5 7 " O CD i • 1:3 a W cu _ �- Q Q o> v v 1 o V 0' co I m v q g O O Q I - 7:3 al o m a cu CO O ctt 0 �� ►I CD a .' I °P = W a) = GOi o o ` a co LJ.I = v _ .. c U ) O to 'a t6 ° 0. N CC 0 > ,_ W az c U w3 D. h12E112 i EIN ° • '' 1 .. I IT- a 1 v �c' cn -ass Q C3 . o -1-0 v) a. z° � U � V U •— E L o U .Q t].. U — t� C13 '_ 0 GC 0 'O O D U ,a +r L N �asl o U 0 QS W G1 L� c) V) o +� rw L ' T V C- 11 n cc z J 1 o Ilmi d 1 i (1 Z H 1 .'. U) , , r E- . Om ' Z �• l, C...) c 0 � _ v a c2 co 0 co 0 1"."."1"."."N . , CO E Y.:3 C al (7) U LA � � ( Cr) CD �' UU) C. 2 o cn C. CI C UHF— -- ,= ( — U0 , t 0�� 11k 1 y IiIJii N v N °•` N N W • ilfl1N. WM y• R <C ,= d = c CO° m° CU aJ y O 11EV _ e ID ili R CO y 'y w Nz 'o a=O III w E y I _O w CC UO.C 5 - C o d -- - . ° - FU2 C 2 CC Z 5 �p2 0aa An A W u u 0 i•_,,,C n p v W 111 — C ' V �•� U V oE O•E ao O` ' au U D 2 2 O C G Z o e , Z ■ o V Q e J W , 1- . 8 Z } t' `o a,E OTA�LL ` I 11 . Na ec G a N O U N 7 f a° 1-x cE a _ �'t P C9 N a i¢ Om A , , OO U C� \ W / l q N m -09,r 8 e N« avy. .r9 0 ex b.3 O u ■ 58 `o) O O G • a= Tw >,N rn« R\ UUOa 11I _ U