The URL can be used to link to this page

02-22-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS RICHFIELD CITY HALL AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1999 PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF ASSOCIATION OF MARKETING STUDENTS DECA -FREE ENTERPRISE MONTH INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 4. 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 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FRANK J. ZAMBONI & COMPANY, INC. FOR NEW ICE RESURFACER FOR SECOND ICE SHEET AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA IN AMOUNT OF $79,950 C.L. 44 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC INC. FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM AT 64TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE IN AMOUNT OF $121,626 C.L. 45 PUBLIC HEARING 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTIONS 506, 511, 521 AND 546 OF ZONING ORDINANCE MAKING ADMINISTRATIVE AND DEFINITION-RELATED CHANGES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 46 RESOLUTIONS • 6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR URBAN VILLAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO.47 7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING ALLOCATION OF 1998 GENERAL FUND BUDGET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 48 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SALE OF AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,000 GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 49 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 9. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 840.11 OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATING TO SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CITY PARKS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 50 ADMINISTRATIVE. REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 10. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PROPOSED AREA CODE CHANGE FOR RICHFIELD AIRPORT BUSINESS 11. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING RICHFIELD-MAC AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE METROPOLITAN AIRPORT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL AS TECHNICAL ADVISOR COUNCIL LETTER NO. 51 12. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 16. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary: aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. r~ ~J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No.51 Agenda February 18, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration to amend the Richfield-MAC Agreement (EXHIBIT B, Study to be Undertaken) to include Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) as a technical advisor. Background: On December 17, Richfield's City Council approved an agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission in relation to problems the City would be experiencing as a result of the new North-South Runway. As stipulated by the agreement, a Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC) was created to conduct a comprehensive study of low frequency aircraft noise. Also at the table are the Federal Aviation Administration, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Metropolitan Council to provide technical assistance to the LFNPC. At the first meeting of the LFNPC, MAC member John Himle stated that MASAC requested representation on the committee. It was determined by the. committee members that MASAC should serve in the. same capacity as the FAA, Met Council and MPCA. A motion was then made and seconded in this respect. Richfield City Attorney, John Dean, then addressed the LFNPC and stated that any motion passed regarding representation on the LFNPC must refer the matter back to the parties who signed the original agreement for their approval. He further clarified by stating any changes to the Richfield-MAC Agreement can only be made in coordination with Richfield's City Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission. Recommended Motion: Consider the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee's recommendation to amend the Richfield-MAC Agreement to include MASAC as a member of the technical advisory group. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Mike Sandahl, Richfield's representative on the LFNPC, indicated to the committee that he would recommend that City Council include MASAC at the table as a non- voting technical advisor. 2. Any amendments to the agreement, should be considered by the City Council. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer the appointment to a later Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the February 22, 1999 agenda for Council consideration. Respectfully submitted, • J mes D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak Richfield-MAC Noise Mitigation Agroanent December 1?. I998 EXHIBIT B STUDY TO BE UNDERTAKEN P~ ? lI-I Not later than twenty (20) days following the date of this Agreement, MAC will establish a Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee to conduct a comprehensive study of low frequency aircraft noise. 2. The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee shall consist of the following members: Richfield, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Bloomington, and Minneapolis, with members appointed by the body they represent. The Federal Aviation Administration, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Metropolitan Council .will provide technical. assistance to the Policy Committee. 3. The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee will be charged with the following tasks: a. Review all existing information pertaining to SFO, BOS, BWI and LAX and any other published studies of the audibility and impact of low frequency noise, not exGuding impacts outside of residential settings. b. Conduct such studies as, in the opinion of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, are necessary to address issues related to low frequency noise. c. Convene an Expert Panel consisting of Sanford Fidell, Andrew Hams, and a third member to be named by these two, to provide technical input and information to the Policy Committee for consideration. d. Present recommendations regarding the appropriate noise metric, compatibility standards, and recommended mitigation programs, measures or techniques. e. Prepare a report or reports documenting the Policy Committee's deliberations and conclusions. 4. The work of the panel shall be completed within 100 days from the date of this Agreement, unless a majority of the Policy Committee deem it necessary to extend the time period in order to complete the tasks outlined above. In the event the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee is unable to reach meaningful recommendations, the issues will be submitted to mediation, to be conducted by a certified mediator. • ~' ~, R Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Thursday, February 11,1999 MASAC Room MAC General Offices MINUTES The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting. was called to order at 11:15 a.m. The following were in attendance: Members: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; Mark Bernhardson, Bloomington; Jan Del Calzo, Minneapolis Technical Support: Nacho Diaz, Metropolitan Council; Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration Expert PaneL• Others: Andrew Harris, HMMH N. Finney, T.W. Anderson; J. Unruh, R. Fuhrmann, MAC;: C. Lane, Bloomington; M. Salmen, B. Johnson, MASAC; E.. Groschen, Met. Council; S. Dibble,. Minneapolis; D: Brauer, D. Weitze,I, J: Dean; Richfield; B: Williams, ,R. Williams, D. Pemberton, A, Duffe W. Duffeey J. Eager, Richfield CARE; D. Saunders, SMAAC 1. ORGANIZATLONAL 1SSUE8 John Himle welcomed members to. the initial::.meeting of.,the Low Frequency... Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC). Following introductions, : Mc Himle and Mike Sandahl provided , background information. on the agreement between .the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Richfield and the role of the LFNPC. Mr. Sandahl indicated that the role of .the LFNPC is to provide a better definition of low frequency noise impacts and where they occur and what should be done with individual impacts. He stated that the Committee should identify a range of mitigation measures with the individual communities determining what should be done in their respective communities. a. Determination of Chair The Committee agreed that Mr. Sandahl and Mr. Himle alternate as Chair of the Committee. b. Establish Meeting Dates and Times The Committee agreed to meet twice a month on Wednesdays at 3:00 p.m.; the next meeting will be held on February 17. The Committee also discussed allowing alternates to serve on the Committee. Mr. Himle suggested that either the representative or the altemate have the authority to make decisions on behalf of whomever they are representing if the Committee is voting on any issue. Mr. Sandahl also discussed a final report by the Committee indicating that it should include a map of the impacted area and a list of alternative mitigation methods. Il-3 c. MASAC Participation Reauest Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee February 11, 1999 Page 2 The Committee discussed a request from MASAC regarding representation on the LFNPC. Mr. Himle suggested that it would be more appropriate for them to serve as a technical representative. Mr. Sandahl stated that he agrees with Mr. Himle and the intent was not to exclude anyone from participating in this process and that MASAC should serve in the same capacity as FAA, Met Council and MPCA. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON THAT MASAC BE ADDED TO THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE AS TECHNICAL SUPPORT. DEL CALZO SECONDED THE MOTION. John Dean, Attorney for Richfield, addressed the Committee and stated that any motion passed regarding representation on the LFNPC must refer the matter back to the parties who signed the original agreement for their approval. Mr. Sandahl suggested that these are open meetings and there is nothing preventing MASAC from sitting at the table and participating in ,the meetings.... He suggested that the Committee proceed in that. way until -the matter- can be discussed by . MAC and the City of Richfield. ` . - - Jan Del Calzo indicated agreement with Mr. Himle and stated that the responsibility-has; been passed'to this body to make recommendations. with. a final reportLrecommenelation taken o ahe respective bodies -for 'final approval:- ; Sher indicated su.ppork for MASAC participation as Technical Support to the Committee. Mr. Bernhardson stated that since this Committee: was- derived out of the agreement between he two parties, he made the motion under the premise -that both ahe designated representatives. were in agreement; therefore` he'matter did not need to be referred back to the City or MAC. He indicated that if there is concern he would make the motion contingent on either party having thirty days to object. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON, SECONDED BY DEL CALZO, TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION THAT MASAC BE ADDED AS TECHNICAL SUPPORT, SIMILAR TO MET COUNCIL, FAA, AND MPCA, AND CONSIDER FORMALIZING THIS ACTION AT A FUTURE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. d. Expert Panel Mr. Himle indicated that there has been some disagreement regarding the role of the Expert Panel and requested that Andrew Harris, HMMH, provide the Committee with an update on this issue. ~- T ~ Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee February 11, 1999 " Page 3 Mr. Hams stated that there.. have been ongoing discussions with Mr. Fidel) regarding the role of the Expert Panel and they are seeking clarification regarding the role of the panel. He indicated that the agreement between MAC and Richfield is not explicit regarding the scope and nature of the expert panel's work. One interpretation of the agreement is that the scope and nature of the panel's work is to be determined solely by discussions with the expert panel and the LFNPC. Another interpretation of the agreement is that the expert panel may exercise independent technical judgment about the scope and nature of information that it believes the Policy Committee should consider. Mr. Sandahl stated that he feels that the Policy Committee is charged with scoping the project for the expert panel and the panel could then determine how to proceed with the project. Mr. Himle indicated agreement that the Policy Committee define the work parameters for the expert panel. Mr. Dean stated that the expert panel has more expertise than the Policy..:Committee .regarding what issues should be looked at and Richfield is concerned that their,:ability .to properly inform the Committee on those issues could be precluded if the expert paneF does not set the agenda. Mr. Bemhardson stated that the expert panel is providing assistance: to the Policy Committee and suggested ;that the Policy .Committee -pravide> the. expert panel -:with a broad..: scope: and `"~ direction~with the~expert panel defining.the work program end,retu:rning to the.PolicyCommittee for-approval to proceed. , Mr. Himle suggested a motion clarifying the roFe. of the Policy Committee, to define.the scope of the study and requested that a proposal outliningwhatthe expert panel feels should be;defined. in°the scope of work:be presented at the next meeting.. . Mr. Himle suggested the following process: 1. The expert .panel make a proposal to the Policy Committee related to what should be studied and how to implement the study 2. The Policy Committee would define a scope of the study 3. The expert panel would conduct the studies, develop findings and recommendations and, 4. Report back to the Policy Committee to consider the findings, conclusions and recommendations; what the Policy Committee decides in the end will be the final report of the LFNPC. Mr. Sandahl added the following: 5. .The expert panel report back to the Policy Committee frequently 6. The expert panel give a briefing on low frequency noise at the next meeting 7. Incorporate the process that was discussed into the charge to the expert panel. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON, SECONDED BY SANDAHL, THAT THE POLICY COMMITTEE DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A FORMAL CHARGE TO THE EXPERT PANEL FOR APPROVAL AT THE NEXT MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. • 1 ~-~ Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee .. J February 11, 1999 Page 4 Discussion followed regarding completion of work of the LFNPC within 100 days of the approval of the Richfield-MAC agreement. IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, SECONDED BY BERNHARDSON, THAT THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE BE CHANGED TO 100 DAYS FROM FEBRUARY 11, 1999, RATHER THAN FROM THE DAY THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED. THE MOTION CARRIED. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON, SECONDED BY DEL CALZO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. // LOW FREQUENCY N01SE POLICY COMMITTEE M EETING DATES February 17 3:30. p.m. Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal March 3 4:00 p.m. Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal March 17 3:00-p.m. MASAC Room,- MAC General Offices :March 31 3:00 p.m. Room 3040, Lindbergh: Terminal - -~ April 14: 4:Q0 p.m. '~ Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal ~tlpri128 3:00 p.m. MASAC Roorn, MAC General Offices . May 1.2 _; , ~ ° ~ ;3:00 p.m. ;; ~ . Room _3Q40; `Lindbergh "i'crminal .; s r :~.. ~ May 26 : . .:. ,3:00 p.m.. ; ., .Room 3040,,Lindbergh-Terrniraal. ~ , - , .,. :'Parking::~nrill be ~alidated'for those meetings heid,at_the airpoi#.; Please bring your ,. ,, . ticket to the meeting. Please contact Jenn Unruh at 612-726-8189if you should have any questions. //-7 DRAFT PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL • MSP LOW FREQUENCY AIRCRAFT NOISE PURPOSE: A Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (the "Policy Committee") was established by an agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Richfield., The agreement charged the Policy Committee to conduct a comprehensive study of low frequency aircraft noise. The agreement charged the Policy Committee to convene an Expert Panel to provide technical input and information to the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee requested that the Expert Panel draft a Plan of Work containing those tasks required to provide the Policy Committee with the technical information that it needs to fulfill its responsibilities under the agreement. PREAMBLE: This Draft Work Plan was prepared by the Expert Panel as the basis for discussions with the Policy Committee on 17 February 1999. The Expert Panel anticipates that the Draft Work Plan will be revised based on those discussions. The Final Work Plan will form the basis for the work undertaken by the Expert Panel. The Expert Panel anticipates that additional efforts by the Expert Panel may be required as the result of requests by the Policy Committee or as a result the work of S the Policy Committee and the Expert Panel. The Final Work Plan would be modified to incorporate such additional efforts. TASKS IN WORK PLAN The Work Plan proposed by the Expert Panel consists of the following nine tasks: Task 1. Review literature on audibility, noticeability, and effects of low frequency noise on individuals and communities The documents to be reviewed include those listed below. (Additional documents from the files of the 3rd member of the Expert Panel, Lou Sutherland, or other sources may also be reviewed.) Berglund, B., Hassmen, P., and Job, R.F.S. (1996). "Sources and effects of low-frequency noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 99(5), 2985-3002. Blazier, W. (1991) "Noise Control Criteria for Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems," Chapter 43 of Harris, C. (ed.), Third Edition, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. • DRAFT PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL (continued) Broner, N. (1978). "The effects of low-frequency noise on people - a review," J. Sound and Vib., 58(4), 483-500. FAA Engineer's Report {1998) "Residential Sound Insulation at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, AIP 3-24-0005-39" Fidell, S., Silvati, L., Pearsons, K., Lind, S., and Howe, R. (1999). "Field study of the annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., in press. HMMH Report 294090, (1996) "Development of Single Event Noise Metrics for Use in Identifying Aircraft Operations for Possible Mitigation." HMMH Report 294730.300/293100.09, (1998) "Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise atBaltimore-Washington International Airport." Hubbard, H., (1982) "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception," Noise Control Engineering Journal, Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 49-55. Lind, S., Pearsons, K. and Fidell, S. (1997). "An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft Noise in Richfield Due to Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP," BBN Report 8196. Task 2. Identify Relevant Noise Effects and Descriptors The Expert Panel shall describe the purposes for which low frequency noise descriptors are needed and compare the utility of C-weighted and other measures of low frequency aircraft noise for these purposes. The Panel shall also identify means for converting disparate low frequency noise descriptors into comparable units, and if possible, reach agreement on a single preferred noise descriptor for present purposes. Task 3. Determine existing and predicted low frequency noise levels in the vicinity of MSP runways BBN and HMMH have both estimated low frequency noise levels due to future operation of runway 17/35, although the two studies used different descriptors to describe the noise environments. In this task, the Expert Panel will undertake two sub-tasks: (1) determine current ambient and aircraft-related low frequency noise levels; and (2) resolve any differences between BBN and HMMH estimates of future noise levels. In the first sub-task the Expert Panel will measure and map existing low frequency noise levels in Richfield and in other areas in the vicinity of MSP selected for comparison with areas in Richfield. These would include areas in Minneapolis and Bloomington as appropriate. In the second sub-task the Expert Panel will map predicted noise levels based on existing data using the descriptor selected in Task 2. 2 /i-`~ DRAFT PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL (continued) Task 4. Identify criteria for acceptability of low frequency noise in residences The Expert Panel shall identify a rationale for assessing the acceptability of low frequency aircraft noise intrusions. (This effort may require conduct of listening tests under controlled conditions.) The rationale shall take into consideration the relative annoyance of overflight and ground noise of aircraft operations, the prevalence of annoyance due to aircraft ground operations, and such other factors as agreed by the Expert Panel. The rationale shall permit inferences about the efficacy of alternate treatments for increasing low frequency noise isolation in residences, and to the extent feasible, generally resemble the rationale for mitigation of the effects of overflight noise. Task 5. Determine low frequency noise reduction provided by typical residential construction in the vicinity of MSP Little objective information is available about low frequency noise reduction of typical residences in the vicinity of MSP. The Expert Panel will staff define a program of measurements to document the low frequency noise reduction of such residences. The measurements will be undertaken by the Expert Panel or with the assistance of personnel of MAC and the City of Richfield. Task 6. Determine low frequency noise reduction provided by residences subsequent to treatment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program This task is similar to Task 5, but is for residences that have been treated in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program. The Expert Panel will define a program of measurements to document the low frequency noise reduction of such residences. The measurements will be undertaken by the Expert Panel or with the assistance of personnel of MAC and the City of Richfield. Task 7. Evaluate the acceptability of low frequency noise environments in residences without and with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program Based on the noise reduction information from Tasks 6 and 7 and future low frequency noise levels from Task 3, the Expert Panel will estimate interior levels of low frequency noise in residences without and with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program. Then, the Expert Panel will compare the estimated levels with acceptability criteria identified in Task 3. If this task identifies the need to improve the noise reduction of residences with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program to achieve compatibility, Task 8 will be undertaken to determine the types of treatment required to improve the noise reduction and achieve acceptability of the low frequency noise environment. LJ (~l~ DRAFT PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL (continued) Task 8. Determine the types of treatment required to improve the noise reduction and achieve compatibility of the low frequency noise environment This task will be undertaken only if Task 7 identifies the need to improve the noise reduction of residences with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program to achieve acceptability of the low frequency noise envrionment. In the task, the Expert Panel will identify construction techniques appropriate to achieve the noise reduction required to achieve acceptability. The techniques will be analyzed using the following methods: (1) application to one or more residences in the vicinity of MSP and (2) testing in a laboratory environment. Task 9. Prepare reports to the Policy Committee documenting the work of the Expert Panel The Expert Panel will undertake all tasks in this Work Plan in a manner to facilitate regular progress reports to the Policy Committee. To achieve this goal, the Expert Panel will prepare interim and final reports documenting each task. D:~PROJECTS~NISP_LF~MSP_LF_SOW_2.wpd 4 .c a ~ NEW AREA CODE COUNCIL OPTIONS: • Do nothing • Support. PUC proposal: New Area Code (952) for Minneapolis /Richfield /Fort Snelling; remainder of existing 612 area .code remain 612 • Support new 'overlay' area code • Request that Richfield be separated from Minneapolis to retain 612 area code along with other Minneapolis suburbs • Request that Minneapolis /Richfield /Fort .Snelling retain .612 area code with remainder of existing 612 area code given the new area code • Request that Minneapolis /Richfield /Fort Snelling retain 612 area code with remaining of existing 612 area code split and given two new area codes • -- ~ ~ - 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Council Letter No.So Agenda February 22, 1999 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of an ordinance amending subsection 840.11 of the Richfield City Code relating to sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in City parks. Background: As part of the Fourth of July celebration, the July 3 street dance has. been held in the VFW parking lot with the VFW obtaining the license to sell and dispense beer outdoors. With the vacation of the VFW building, the Fourth of July Committee has proposed and has received City Council approval in concept to move the street dance to Veterans Park and handle the sale and dispensation of beer and malt wine coolers. An amendment to City ordinances is required in order to permit the sale of beer and malt wine coolers in Veterans Park. The. City Council directed. the City Attorney to prepare such an ordinance at its February 8, 1999 regular meeting. The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance that`prohibits sale or consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a City park, with the exception of sales made in Veterans Memorial Park by an organization that holds both a community celebration license and a temporary on-sale license for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor. The sale, possession and consumption of 3.2 percent malt liquor is restricted to the portion of Veterans Memorial Park that is designated in the community celebration and temporary on-sale licenses. For purposes of clarification, the wine coolers that can be sold under a 3.2 percent malt liquor license are limited to certain malt wine coolers. Most wine coolers have an alcoholic content of four or five percent and would be considered intoxicating liquors. The ordinance as drafted would not permit the sale of those wine coolers. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance amending subsection 840.11 of the Richfield. City Code, relating to sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in City parks, and set a public hearing and second reading .for March 22, 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A public hearing will provide the City Council the opportunity to obtain public comment on the proposed ordinance amendment. 2. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, would enable the Fourth of July Committee to operate the beer garden that has traditionally been available at the VFW. ~' Altern tive Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approve first reading of an ordinance amending subsection 840.11 of the Richfield City Code. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • BILL NO. ~~~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 840.11 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CITY PARKS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 840.11, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Sale and consumption prohibited. The sale, possession with intent to consume, or consumption of beer alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the public parks of the city, except as expresslypermitted by subdivision 3 of this subsection. Section 2. Subsection 840.11 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read as follows: Subd. 3. Community Celebration. A nonprofit corporation that has.; obtained a communitycelebration license in accordance with subsection 850.09 of this code may sell 3.2 percent malt liquor in Veteran's. Memorial,:... Park in connection with the licensed. community celebration, provided that the corporation also obtains a license under subsection 1210.07.: subdivision 3 of this code and applicable state law. The community celebration license and tem~orary on-sale license must designate the area(s~ of Veteran's Memorial Park where sales may be made. A person of legal ale maypossess with intent to consume or consume alcohol purchased pursuant to this subdivision within the areas designated in those licenses. Adopted this day of , 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Council Letter No. 49 Agenda February 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution providing for the sale of an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. Background: On February 8, the City Council awarded bids on 27 bid packages included in the construction of a second ice sheet to be located at the Richfield Ice Arena. Based upon the total of the bids received, it is now known that the project total cost will be roughly $2,885.000. The revenues needed to cover the cost of this construction include the issuance of Gross Revenue Recreation facility bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. Gross Revenue Recreation Facility Bonds do not require referendum approval. The debt service on the bond is pledged from the gross revenues of the recreation facility being financed. If revenues fall short, the City would have to make up for the shortfall from other revenue sources. With the project under consideration., the debt service would almost certainly be covered by Ice Arena facility revenues. However, remaining revenues would most likely fall considerably short each year of covering operating costs. This shortfall could. range between $150,000 and $196,000 annually. The proceeds from the sale of these bonds must be available by late spring/early summer to provide a monetary source to pay contractors for their work on this project. In consideration of this need and the relatively tight construction schedule, this process should be authorized and initiated as soon as possible so as to provide adequate time to complete the sale and receipt of funds as required. The action now before the City Council would authorize the bond sale process to commence. Staff and Ehlers and Associates, Inc. would come back to the City Council at a future date to award the sale of these bonds. Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution providing for the sale of Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The total cost of the project and revenues needed are now known. 2. Revenue sources for the project include a significant amount, in the form of revenue bonds proceeds. ~'~ 3. The timing of the project will require significant funds on hand to pay for construction components by late spring. 4. Bond authority is needed now to secure bond proceeds on a timely basis. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could delay authorization to proceed with a bond sale to a future date. However, such a delay could delay the construction of the project. 2. The City Council could withhold approval to proceed with these revenue bonds. However, that would leave a $2.3 million funding gap for the project authorized on February 8, 1999. Discussion/Decision Mode: The timing of the project would suggest that bond authority for the revenue bonds is needed at the February 22, 1999 meeting. Respectfully submitted, J mes D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • ~J~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,000 GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "City") has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of an indoor ice arena in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of February, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 4s Agenda February 22,1999 Issue Statement: Approval of a resolution amending the allocation of the 1998 General Fund budget. "~ Background: The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the City on a departmental level basis. During the course of the year, the City Council amends the operating budget and it is referred to as the Revised Budget. After the compilation of the 1998 Revised Budget, the expenditures of the Public Works and Recreation Services Departments have exceeded the appropriation contained in the 1998 Revised Budget, resulting in the department's total 1998 expenditures to exceed appropriations. The net cumulative amount exceeding budget is listed below: Public Works Recreation Services $110,000 $ 5,000 The damage incurred by the City as a result of the spring storms of 1998 is the reason the Public Works Department is showing a budget over expenditure for 1998. The City's General Fund did receive a $255,800 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursement for the storm damage incurred. However, the FEMA reimbursement only covers approximately 80% of the costs incurred. Therefore, the result was the budget over expenditure. The City has been functioning without a Recreation Services Director since May 1998. There are several important park and recreation projects on-going within the City. Therefore, the budget over expenditure in the Recreation Services Department is the result of using the firm of Brauer and Associates, Ltd. To manage the projects in lieu of a Recreation Services Director. City staff is recommending that the 1998 Revised Budget be allocated between the following departments and divisions in order to balance all City departments: INCREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Works: Forestry Division $110,000 Recreation Services Recreation Division $ 5,000 Total $115,000 ., DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Safety: Police Services Division $100,000 Community Development: Administrative Division 15,000 Total $115,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget -0- ~~ Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council approve the resolution amending the 1998 General fund Budget by authorization of a transfer of appropriations from the Administrative Services Department, Public Safety Department and the Community Development Department. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate funds at the department level of spending. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The transfer does not affect the annual General Fund Budget; instead it provides that no department end the fiscal year overspent. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to allow the City's Finance Division to finalize the 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, it is recommended that the City Council act on February 22, 1999, to adopt the attached resolution authorizing revision of the 1998 General Fund Budget. Respectfully submitted, Ja es D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1998 BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8649 appropriated funds for personal services, other services and charges, supplies and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year 1998; .and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8651 authorized revision of the 1998 budget various departments; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 1998 budget appropriations in accordance with charter provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN as follows: SUMMARY INCREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Works: Forestry Division $1.10,000 Recreation Services Recreation Services $ 5,000 Total $115,000 DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Safety: Police Services Division $100,000 Community Development: Administrative Division 15,000 Total $115,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget -0- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN. this 22nd day of February, 1999.. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA • Council Letter No.4~ Agenda February 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Urban Village mixed use development project. Background: An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the Urban Village project. The EAW was not required by statute, but the developer agreed to prepare one voluntarily. Based on the review of the EAW, the City Council must determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the project. Staff prepared the EAW with the assistance of Richfield State Agency, the project developer. The EAW assesses the impact of the project in regard to the following factors: fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources; soils, erosion and sedimentation; water resources, use and quality; surface runoff; wastewater; ground water; hazardous wastes; traffic; air and noise pollution; infrastructure and public services; .and land use plans. The EAW was made available to the public from December 14, 1998 to February 6, 1999. Comments received are responded to in the Record of Decision (Exhibit A). . Page two of the Record of Decision lists the locations at which the EAW was available and those who submitted comments. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving negative declaration and record of decision and make the findings of fact and conclusions contained in Exhibit A in regard to the Urban Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects that would warrant preparation of an EIS. 2. Staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and found it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations. 3. The City Council, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU), is required to make a finding on the EAW between three and 30 days following the end of the comment period. The comment period closed on February 6, 1999. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the request for a negative declaration and determine that an Environmental Impact Statement is required for the proposed project. • lY ~~ Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled for the City Council meeting on February 22, 1999. A public hearing is not required on this item. Respectfully submitted, J ' es D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak RESOLUTION NO. ~~"~ THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECORD OF DECISION WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency, a Minnesota corporation ("RSA"), is the Proposer of a 14.4 acre mixed use development located between 66th Street and 67th Street and between Lyndale Avenue and Pleasant Avenue in the City of Richfield ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 207,000 gross square feet of retail and office space, 216 housing units, and total parking of 1,065 spaces; and WHEREAS, the City requested that the Proposer voluntarily prepare an environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW'); and WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit.("RGU") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14 (1995); and WHEREAS, an EAW was prepared by the City with assistance from the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City consistent with i Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400 (1995); and WHEREAS,. the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("MEQB") for EAWs in accordance with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300 (1995); and WHEREAS, the City issued the EAW on December 8, 1998, and provided a copy to the MEQB on the same day; and WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a proposed Record of Decision on the EAW for the Project for consideration by the City Council ("Record of Decision"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and has found the Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council approve the Record of Decision and determine that no environmental impact statement ("EIS") is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that no EIS is required with respect to the Project ("Negative Declaration"). (v 3 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does .hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Urban Village EAW in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based.. upon the Record of Decision, no environmental impact statement is .required. for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.06500 (1993). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of February, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • (~~ RECORD OF DECISION ON THE URBAN VILLAGE • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Urban Village (Project) is before the City Council of the City of Richfield to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the Project. The City Council has reviewed the record in this matter, including the EAW, comments from governmental agencies and a citizen, and proposed responses to comments. Based on this review, the City Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT A. Compliance with Procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (1993) 1. The Proposer of the project is Richfield State Agency (RSA). 2. The Project is a 14.4 acre mixed use redevelopment project located at the southeast corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The Project includes a mixture of new housing choices, retail, office and public spaces. The Project area currently includes a 95,000 square foot bank building, 22,000 square foot medical clinic, and 15 single family homes. The Project maintains the two commercial structures and incorporates an additional 90,000 square feet of office/retail space, a free-standing McDonald's building, 138 townhome and flat-style apartments, 78 assisted living units, and 1,065 parking stalls both on-grade,.. below-grade and in a central parking ramp. 3. The EAW is not mandatory but is being prepared voluntarily by the developer. 4. The Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is the local governmental unit, the City of Richfield (City). 5. An EAW was prepared by the City with assistance from the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the RGU. 6. The EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) for EAWs. 7. The City issued the EAW on December 8, 1998 and provided a copy to the MEQB on the same day. 8. On December 15, 1998 the City mailed one copy of the EAW to all agencies listed on the official MEQB mailing list. 9. Notice of availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on December 14, 1998. 10. On December 30, 1998 the City provided a press release to the Sun-Current, which contained a notice of availability of the EAW for public reivew. The press release also included the name and location of the Project, a brief description of the Project, the location at which copies of the EAW were available for review, the date the comment period would expire, and the procedures for commenting. ~3' 11. The comment period on the EAW began December 14, 1998. The comment period ended at 4:30 p.m. on February 6, 1999. Minn. Rules Pt. 4410.2100, subp. 3 (1995). 12. -The Sun-Current published the notice of availability in its Wednesday, January 6, 1999 edition. 13. During the 30 day comment period, copies of the EAW were available for public review at the Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland. Avenue, and at the Augsburg Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7100 Nicollet Avenue, both in Richfield, Minnesota. 14. During the comment period, the following written comments were submitted: A. Metropolitan Council letter dated January 11, 1999. B. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources letter dated January 12, 1999. C. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency letter dated January 13, 1999. D. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District letter dated January 13, 1999. E. Larry Wozniczka letter and petition delivered to the City on February 1, 1999. F. Larry Wozniczka letter dated February 4, 1999. 15. During the comment period, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office and the Minnesota • Department of Transportation reported that they had no concerns regarding the EAW or the Project. B. Responses to Comments A. Metropolitan Council Comment: Current Council housing policy encourages the expansion of availability and quality of housing choices, regarding both type and price,. throughout the region. This proposal is for the addition of 78 assisted living units and 138 multifamily units. Richfield is a participant in the Livable Communities Act Housing Incentive Program and has negotiated housing goals related to affordability, diversity and mix. Because there are no details in the EAW submittal regarding the anticipated prices or rents for the units, it is not possible to determine if this project will assist the community in meeting its housing affordability goal. However, the addition of multifamily units will assist the community in meeting its goals to diversify its housing stock. Response: For Richfield, the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities- Program encourages more housing choices and fewer affordable choices. The stated Richfield goal is to increase the ratio of higher rent units to affordable rent units. To accomplish this goal, 250 units that provide higher rents should be added by 2001. The 138 townhome and flat-style apartments in the Urban Village development accomplish part of this objective. The rents are as follows: 2 ~1~ • Bedroom Mix, 138 units Square feet Est. Rent/Month 6 -efficiencies 750 $750 3 - 1 bedroom 800 $800 3 - 2 bedroom 1, 000 to 1,100 $1, 000 26 - 1 bedroom 771 to 895 $900 80 - 2 bedroom 972 to 1,296 $1,200 20 - 3 bedroom 1,296 to 1,450 $1,500 Some affordability, 12 units to be rented to households with incomes of less than 70 percent of the median for the metropolitan area, is being provided. However, these units provide a higher rent than existing. Richfield apartments and remain a part of the total number of units which help to achieve Richfield's Livable Communities objectives. 2. Comment: The EAW states that runoff will increase, but the increase will not be significant. However, no effort is made to quantify the change in stormwater quantity or quality. Without this information, the water quality and quantity cannot be compared before and after the project. Given the limited scope of this project and its location, the reviewer agrees that the stormwater impacts are likely to be minimal, but this statement should be supported by, at a minimum, a simple pollutant load calculation. An example of a simple pollutant load calculation is given in Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA 1989). Response: Current calculations based on mixed-use models, both before and after development indicate a 26 percent increase in phosphorous loading. This would represent a worst case scenario. Note: Design revisions as noted in item #3b (below) are underway to reduce and provide more effective filtering of stormwater runoff. More accurate modeling will be completed once these design revisions are identified, and the current .condition assumptions will be updated to more accurately reflect the residential area loading now that survey information is available. 3. Comment: Sections a and b also discuss efforts to treat runoff using stormwater detention ponds; however, no information is provided that can be used to assess the probable treatment efficiency of the proposed ponds,. If a standard pond design is being used, then the EAW should state it. For non-standard pond designs, an estimated treatment efficiency should be provided. Without this information, the net impact of the receiving water body cannot be determined. Response: According to Pete Willenbring, P.E., WSB, City of Richfield Drainage Corisultant, the specific treatment efficiency for the proposed Richfield Lake treatment ponds is not available at this time. However, it is anticipated that the regional pond system proposed for construction in the year 2000 will provide treatment for over 80 percent of the- suspended solids and over 40 percent of the phosphorus generated by this project on an annual basis, prior to discharging into the main basin of the lake. 4. Comment: The metropolitan interceptor has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flows generated by the development. MCES interceptor. I-RF-490 is located ~~~ immediately adjacent to the site (north within West 66th Street), which lends itself to • direct service connection for the site. If additional service connections to the interceptor are proposed, or if changes to existing service connections to the interceptor are necessary, then a permit application for Connection to and Use Permit to the MCES is required. Response: A permit application will be submitted to the MCES for this project. 5. Comment: The EAW should include text explaining why no background growth is assumed for traffic. Response: During the development of traffic forecasts for the Richfield Urban Village site, the growth in background traffic was considered: At that time it was determined that the effects of background traffic on the traffic forecasts were negligible. This was based on a historical review of traffic data that showed no significant increase (less than half a percent per year) in traffic volumes on either 66th Street or Lyndale Avenue in the past ten years. 6. .Comment: The Urban Village Project east property line is a regional trail. The trail is planned on the existing railroad right of way. The EAW should be revised to answer affirmatively the question under Item 26, that the regional trail is in proximity to the site. Hennepin Parks and Richfield Recreation Services should receive copies of the EAW for review and comment. Response: The regional .trail referred to is currently a proposed trail. If completed, the trail would be in direct proximity to the east edge of the proposed development. Copies of the EAW have been sent to Hennepin Parks and the City of Richfield Recreation Services Department. The Recreation Services Department has responded that they see the project as a positive enhancement to the future trail. B. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Comment: As noted in the EAW, an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) is required for this project. Included in the EAW is a detailed traffic impact study, which includes ADT, trip generation, and. level of services (LOS) capacity analysis. The LOS analysis indicates that all of the key intersections in the project area are expected to operate at LOS D or better using post-development traffic volumes and existing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control. The proposed revision to the left turn signal phasing at the 66th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection should be implemented to decrease the left turn queue lengths during peak traffic periods. Response: An Indirect Source Permit (ISP} application has been completed and was submitted to the MPCA on February 3, 1999. The ISP identified revising the left turn signal phasing to mitigate queue lengths that could potentially exceed the available left turn storage during peak period traffic periods. The need to modify the signal .phasing will be monitored by the City. 2. Comment: The EAW also addressed air quality impacts of the increased traffic. The air quality analysis conducted for the project shows that both the one-hour and eight- 4 hour maximum carbon. monoxide (CO) concentrations are below the state a bie~ air quality standards. The air quality analysis is based on the results of the traffic impact study, and the traffic analysis was performed for both the existing and post- . development conditions. However, it is not clear what year the post-development conditions and the predicted maximum CO concentrations represent. Because an ISP is needed for the project, the traffic and air quality analysis should be completed for one year after project completion. The project proposers' consultant is in communication with Mary Hoffman-Lynn of our Policy and Planning Division regarding ISP issues. Response: Post-development traffic volumes in the EAW represent the Year 2001. Predicted maximum CO concentrations were analyzed in the EAW using Year 2000 emission factors to represent the first year of operation. However, the analysis has been revised for the ISP application utilizing Year 2001 emission factors to represent the first year after expected completion of the proposed development. All of the Year 2001 worst-case predicted CO concentrations are below the state ambient air quality standards, including estimates of background CO concentrations of 3.5 ppm (one-hour average) and 2.9 ppm (eight-hour average). Year 2001 worst-case predicted CO concentrations are also below those predicted for Year 2000 in the EAW. 3. Comment: As noted in the EAW, a .general. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities is required. Should you have any questions about stormwater issues, please contact Keith L. Cherryholmes, Ph.D. at (651) 296-6945. Response: An NPDES permit will be obtained. C. Department of Natural Resources Comment: Item 14 correctly notes that the site is subject to the planned unit development (PUD) section of the Shoreland Management rules because it falls within the shoreland district of Richfield Lake (#27-21 P) and Wood Lake (#27-26P). A project plan must be submitted to the DNR Division of Waters for approval. The review process evaluates a number of project parameters, including unit densities as a function of site tiering, the amount of impervious surFace creation, and the amount of open space designation. Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist, should be copied with a project plan once it becomes available for review; she can be contacted at (651) 772- 7910. Response: The project plans will be submitted to DNR for review. Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist has been contacted regarding the upcoming project submittal. 2. Comment: Regarding the project-related increase impervious surface, we are disappointed that the project does not include impervious surface reduction as a project feature. Opportunities can be present in redevelopment projects such as this to reduce the amount of impervious surface present at a site. Increasing impervious surface creates additional storm water treatment and management requirements. This project results in a 2.2 acre increase in impervious surface, which represents approximately a 16% increase post-project. Resonse:-The ro~ect's Landsca a Architect is current) refinin the desi n to reduce p p J p Y g g the hardscape concrete impervious area. Additionally, a turf area will be considered that is planned to capture a portion of the project area's stormflow and provide infiltration into the ground instead of discharging into the public storm sewer piping system. 3. Comment: Item 18 indicates that runoff will be directed to a regional stormwater pond that will be created concurrently with this project. We strongly recommend that the regional pond be constructed prior to the start of mass grading for this project. Regardless of the erosion control methods employed, a large storm event at the wrong time could introduce a large, concentrated amount of sediment into Richfield Lake over a short period of time. Therefore, it is prudent to have the regional pond prepared to accommodate project-related flows.. off the site. Response: According to George Atkinson, City of Richfield Engineering Department, the regional stormwater treatment pond system planned to intercept the stormwater prior to discharging into Richfield Lake is scheduled to be constructed in the year 2000. The existing storm sewer currently flows through a 100 foot vegetated swale, which will continue to provide a level of treatment during the construction period. 4. Comment: Also regarding the regional storm water treatment pond, it should. be noted in Item 12 as a related project that has the potential to result in physical impacts on water resources. Response: The City of Richfield acknowledges that the regional ponds stem Y proposed for Richfield Lake will impact existing water resources, and intends to submit the project for a DNR permit this month, according to George Atkinson, City of Richfield Engineering Department. 5. Comment: During the PUD review, opportunities to reduce runoff by increasing infiltration onsite will be evaluated. Measures include infiltration trenches, bioretention areas adjacent to parking areas, or use of advanced turfs in overflow parking or similar areas. Response: The project plans will include extensive unpaved areas throughout the project area that will allow infiltration of stormwater. Additionally, as noted in ESG item number 3b above, a centralized turf area is being considered that will capture a portion of the project area stormflow and provide infiltration into the ground instead of discharging into the public storm sewer piping system. 6. Comment: We recommend use of native species where applicable in landscaping efforts. Response: The complete project will be characterized by extensive landscaping at building sites and common spaces. Where feasible and appropriate, plant species native to the Twin Cities will be incorporated into the design. 6 D. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ~.~/ 1. Comment: A major area of concern by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is erosion control. The EAW address that concern adequately in the listing of temporary erosion control measures. A regular (daily or weekly) schedule of cleaning soils tracked onto public streets from the construction site should be established before the project begins. The MCWD will require an erosion control permit for the project. Response: The Contractor will be responsible for developing and enforcing an erosion control plan for the project to include regular street cleaning. In regard to an erosion control permit, we have been informed by George Atkinson, City of Richfield Engineering Division, that the Richfield City Council is now the authority to review and approve erosion control plans instead of the MCWD, and we have been instructed to submit the project to the City for permit requirements. 2. Comment: We recommend the inclusion of best management practices (BMPs) to supplement the treatment of stormwater runoff. Such devices as sump catch basins and/or oil and grit separators will improve the efficiency of the proposed stormwater management plan. Response: Construction plans will show typical BMPs for use during construction. The Contractor and the City will be responsible for the operation of the stormwater management plan. The final design will consider permanent BMPs for construction ,~ and use during the operation of the site. 3. Comment: The. proposed .retention pond near Richfield Lake should be designed and constructed to NURP standards to ensure maximum removal efficiency. Response: According to Pete Willenbring, P.E., WSB, City of Richfield Drainage Consultant, the specific treatment efficiency for-the proposed Richfield Lake treatment ponds is not available at this time. However, it is anticipated that the regional pond system proposed for construction in the year 2000 will provide treatment for over 80 percent of the suspended solids and over 40 percent of the phosphorus generated by this project on an annual basis, prior to discharging into the main basin of the lake. 4. Comment: The MCWD may require a stormwater permit for this project. We encourage discussion with the Richfield Bloomington WMO concerning the drainage and stormwater issues. Response: According to George Atkinson, City of Richfield, as noted above, the Richfield City Council is now the authority to review and a approve stormwater permits instead of the MCWD, and we have been instructed to submit the project to the City for permit requirements. E. February 1, 1999 Letter from Larry Wozniczka and Petition 1. Comment: Provide access to McDonald's Restaurant from 66th Street. 7 ~~ Response: Additional vehicular circulation routes through the site are considered to be at odds with the developer's and the City's goals of providing additional public open space that is pedestrian-friendly. Vehicular access as proposed has been reviewed and determined to be adequate to serve the anticipated traffic. 2. Comment: Connect 66th Street to Lyndale Avenue through- the project to reduce added loading at the intersection of these two streets while serving the project's business needs. Response: The possible connection of these two streets through the project was reviewed. In consultation with the City of Richfield's Engineering department and neighborhood group planning meetings, it was agreed that a "bypass" traffic pattern was not desirable due to the potential for increasing traffic on streets immediately adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods. The traffic studies and analysis done indicated no decrease in service level at the 66th &Lyndale intersection. 3. Comment: Require that all traffic points within the project can be traversed without the need to leave and return to the project using 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Response: The project as designed allows movement throughout the site through the parking structure. This access connects all commercial aspects of the site and the majority of the housing parking. Only the 27 stalls of multifamily housing guest parking east of the multifamily building would require the use of Lyndale Avenue or 66th Street to gain access. 4. Comment: Work to achieve a business bypass south of 66th Street to reduce residential pass through traffic which occurs whenever 66th Street or Lyndale Avenue are obstructed. Response: 70th Street is the next collector street with a traffic signal. 66th Street and 70th Street provide adequate collector capacity for the area. 5. Comment: Preserve 67th Street as a state-aid street, extending it over the railroad tracks to serve Academy of the Holy Angels and St. Peter's Church and School as a means of offsetting growth in traffic on residential streets resulting from the Urban Village project. Response: 66th Street is a currently a collector street; the spacing of collector streets should not be that close. Running a collector through the Academy of the Holy Angels and St. Peter's Church and School would also be disruptive to these two properties. 6. Comment: Encourage the addition of a north access to the Academy of the Holy Angels allowing entry of traffic from the west and exit to the east and west at 66th Street and Pillsbury Avenue Response: Additional access points on 66th Street are not advisable. Good access management. attempts to limit the number of driveways on arterial streets for safety and traffic flow reasons. The Urban Village project is eliminating an access onto 66th Street. ~-~a E. February 4, 1999 letter from Larry Wozniczka 1. Comment: The operations analysis on page 12 states the traffic increase on 68th Street as 34 percent. The increase is 52 percent using the figures of 600 additional vehicles per day over existing 1150 vehicles per day. Response: The comment. is correct; an increase of 600 :vehicles per day is 52 percent over the existing daily traffic volume of 1,750. 2. Comment: The expected directional distribution of traffic shows 66th Street carrying 20 percent and 68th carrying 10 percent of the traffic to the east. On this basis the additional 3825 daily trips resulting from the project will add 382 trips on 68th Street. Additional increases result from the disconnect of Grand and Pleasant Avenues. A concern is that 68th Street will carry half as much traffic as 66th Street from the project. Response: This comment appears to be .correct. Of the new traffic generated on the site, 66th Street is being assigned twice as much traffic as is being assigned to 68th Street. 3. Comment: Locating the drive-through elements of the project at Lyndale Avenue and 67th Street creates a situation where residential 68th Street enables traffic from south Nicollet Avenue a shorter path, with two less turn lanes, and three fewer traffic lights. • A concern is the lack of access to McDonald's Restaurant and Auto Tellers from 66th Street. Response: Orienting the drive through elements. of the project to 67th Street was primarily a site layout issue that was-based on recommendations by the site planners and architects (Fred Hoisington, Art Bartels and David Graham). However this decision is also supported by the fact that 66th Street is a Hennepin County arterial roadway with access spacing guidelines that would not allow closely spaced individual commercial driveways. 67th Street is a local roadway whose function is to provide this kind of local access. Safer traffic movements also result from removing the current access to McDonald's at 66th Streef. 4. Comment: Internal streets should enable vehicular movements between any two elements within the project without the need to exit onto and reenter either 66th Street or Lyndale Avenue. Use of a major street to enable intra-project travel adds to congestion, pollution and delays which encourage traffic to cut-through nearby residential streets. A concern is that streets connecting all elements within the project are not provided. Response: Additional vehicular circulation routes through the site are considered to be at odds with the goals of providing additional public open space that is pedestrian- friendly. Vehicular access as proposed has been reviewed and determined to be • adequate to serve the anticipated traffic. The project as designed allows movement throughout the site through the parking structure. This access connects all commercial aspects of the site and the majority of the housing parking. 9 (v-- 13 • 5. Comment: Lack of a street to carry local business traffic through or around the project between Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street adds to congestion at the intersection of those streets. A concern is that the absence of such a business access street restricts business operations, jeopardizes emergency service and invites traffic to use residential 68th Street. Response: The lack of a reliever street adds to traffic, but it does not cause congestion. Emergency service will be altered but not jeopardized. The Public Safety Department has reviewed and approved the traffic circulation plan. The traffic analysis does not support the conclusion that business traffic will use 68th Street. 6. Comment: Multiple entry points to the project on 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue contribute to delays on those major streets. A concern is that a business access street with one entry on each of 66th Street and Lyndale is not planned. Response: Planning for access must balance access with the safety and mobility of the arterial streets. The Urban Village plan has been reviewed and considered acceptable from the City and County's access management guidelines. 7. Comment: Vacation of Grand and Pleasant Avenues between 66th and 67th Streets creates a span of about a half mile without public access between 66th and 67th Streets. Property owners have tolerated pedestrian trespassing of St. Peter's and Academy of Holy Angels properties in route to busses [and] shopping. The project • includes pathways that would also serve pedestrian needs. Concern about the rights of pedestrians to use these private paths raise questions such as liability, public safety access, and the possibility that at some future date pedestrians from neighborhoods south of 67th Street will have to hike to sidewalks on either Nicollet or Lyndale Avenues to go north. Response: The project is providing more pedestrian access with less vehicular conflict than presently exists. The future Soo Line regional trail further enhances north/south movements. Nothing in the plans for the project lead to a conclusion that public paths are private. 8. Comment: Worst case carbon monoxide concentrations are predicted at 8.7 ppm compared to a maximum safe standard of 9.0 for the 8-hour average in the project quadrant. The safety of locating an Assisted Living Facility in an area of marginal air quality is questioned. Response: Subsequent to the EAW, the worst-cast predicted carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations analysis has been revised for the purpose of an Indirect Source Permit application utilizing Year 2001 emission factors to represent the first year after expected completion of the proposed development. All of the Year 2001 worst-case predicted CO concentrations are below the state ambient air quality standards and are also below those predicted for the Year 2000 in the EAW. The Year 2001 predicted 8- hour average value at Receptor 3 (southeast quadrant) is 6.4 ppm, which is lower than the 8.7 ppm predicted for Year 2000. The worst-case predicted CO concentrations include estimated background CO concentrations of 3.5 ppm (one-hour average) and 10 6-i~F 2.9 ppm (eight-hour average} as recommended by the MPCA. These estimated • values were determined by using Year 1996 maximum observed CO background concentrations at a site (Heredia Park) located one mile from the proposed development and applying adjustment factors to convert 1996 concentrations to 2001 concentrations. 9. Comment: The extent of air quality degradation in the single family residential neighborhood as a result of this project is not presented. Neighbors should be informed and be given consideration in cases of medical risk. Response: The air quality analysis focused on the worst-case condition in the vicinity of the proposed project which is the intersection of 66t" Street and Lyndale Avenue. Other locations further from the major intersections would experience CO concentrations less than those predicted immediately adjacent to the intersection. The state ambient air quality standards are set at levels to protect the most sensitive portions of the population.. The air quality analysis was based on worst-case meteorological assumptions to identify the maximum potential future CO concentrations. The analysis did not indicate any potential for CO concentrations in excess of the state standards so no significant health risk is indicated.. 10. Comment: Increased traffic on residential 68th Street, in addition to air quality effects, presents a hazard to students and pedestrians who walk to Academy of Holy Angels, Blessed Trinity School and the Church of St. Peter. Response: While there may be increased traffic on 68th Street, it does not present a hazard for pedestrians. The traffic increase represents vehicular movements by the neighborhood, not due to business traffic short cuts. 11. Comment: Single family residences along 68th Street typically have side yards with reduced setback distances along 68th Street. In addition to making environments .impacts more critical, increased traffic on 68th Street presents a hazard to families with children. Response: Again, while there may be increased traffic on 68th Street, it is not at the level that would present a hazard to families with children. 12. Comment: Taking of a block of affordable single family residences which are not blighted for the purpose of adding up-scale rental requires evaluation. Concerns include: Will the present owners be given relocation costs assure them of comparable housing? Is there a public purpose to justify condemnation? Will the planned rental maintain an appeal or will it depreciate more quickly than existing residential over time? With 33 percent of Richfield's housing units now in rental, is additional rental appropriate for Richfield? Does valuation history of similar developments, such as The Colony at I-35 and 76th Street, keep up with residential standards? Response: These questions are part of the development review process rather than the EAW. As indicated on page 2, in the response to the Metropolitan Council, Richfield as a "Livable Communities" objective to provide higher value rental housing. At a November 23, 1998 public hearing, the City Council determined that there was a 11 ~-IS public purpose for redevelopment and that the single family residences were sufficiently blighted to qualify the area for redevelopment. The "Contract for Private Redevelopment" approved by the H~2A, November 16, 1998, requires relocation compensation with comparable housing. The proposed housing has a high level of low maintenance, durable finishes planned. Village Shores (1986), the newest rental housing in the area, continues to have appeal and value.. 13. Comment: The increased density of the proposed development raises the question of increased City services. City code for high density multi-residential requires a minimum of 2000 square feet of land for each unit. Within a block estimated at 600 feet by 300 feet, the project includes 138 dwelling units or only 1304 square feet per unit. It is likely that upscale clientele will require additional city recreational services. A concern is that the EAW does not consider resulting costs. Response: The City Council, Planning Commission and HRA have dealt with the issues of density in evaluating and approving the Planned Unit Development. The PUD is contingent on the EAW only because the EAW finding is sequentially the last decision to be made to ensure the public had sufficient time to review-the EAW. Findings on density are not required in the EAW.. The HRA and City Council project approvals in November, 1998 considered the cost of services to the new development. City services will stay level or decrease. 14. .Comment: The project's impact on property taxes requires special scrutiny since the project is planned as a tax increment district, not just for the redeveloped block, but including the larger commercial portion of the project which has been in a tax increment district for nearly 25 years and is planned to be decertified from the LHN Tax Increment District and brought into the Urban Village Tax Increment District. Concern is that the added costs for local services to the project will have to be covered by property tax increases outside of tax increment districts and that there is no disclosure of estimates. Response: The City Council and HRA approved the formation of the Urban Village Tax Increment district in November, 1998. The EAW does not evaluate the use of tax increment. Eligible project costs are paid for with tax increment on a pay as you go basis. Tax increment is sufficient to pay for the designated costs. Added cost of service is not. anticipated. 15. Comment: The project proposes to vacate part of 67th Street, which is not astate-aid street. The economic impact to the City for loss of state aid and maintenance of new loop streets is a concern. Response: State Aid is not evaluated in the EAW process. However, the following information may clarify the role of 67th Street in the City's system. The City may designate as much as 20 percent of its streets as MSA roads. We currently designate the limit of 20 percent. The City's annual MSA allotment is, in part, based on the condition of those streets which comprise our MSA system (20% of our streets). • Removing MSA designation from 67th Street will reduce our overall allotment by approximately $7341. Richfield's overall allotment for 1999 is $958,768 of which 25 percent or $239,692 will go toward maintenance. The staff plans to go to the Council 12 (o-/~ to request removal of designation of various streets in of our system and the designation of other streets. 16. Comment: A business access street, either through or along the south and east boundaries of the project, would serve the project needs and mitigate a number of impacts by connecting Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street to one point on 66th Street. The Urban Village project provides an opportunity to implement a business access street east of Lyndale Avenue. Response: This option was considered; however, traffic circulation studies showed there was and would be low demand for this movement. Further, retaining a full service 67th Street prevents the proposed traffic separation between the development and the south residential neighborhood; a separation desired by the neighborhood. 17. Comment: Continuation of 67th Street to the east of Pleasant Avenue enables the business access street to serve the Academy of the Holy Angels (AHA), the sports facility and the Church of St. Peter. This more direct traffic route would reduce traffic on 68th Street, thus offsetting some of the predicted increase from the project. Response: While this solution might reduce neighborhood traffic on 68th Street, it would split AHA's property and greatly diminish the value and function of both AHA's and St. Peter's properties. Since business traffic is not a significant impact on 68th Street, this proposal is not relevant to the analysis of the Urban Village project. 18. Comment: Access to AHA from 66h Street at Pleasant Avenue has been suggested. An entry from the west and exit to the east and west at the existing 66th and Pleasant traffic signal would be compatible with movements into the Hub Center. The reduced AHA traffic on neighborhood streets would offset some of the increases from the. Urban Village project. Response: Additional access points on 66th Street are not advisable. Good access management attempts to limit the number of driveways on arterial streets for safety and traffic flow reasons. The Urban Village project is eliminating an access onto 66th Street. The addition of an access at east Pleasant would also interfere with stormwater ponding and other improvements at AHA. 19. Comment: Promote pedestrian walkways around the project, especially to serve the schools to the east. A pedestrian crossing over the rail tracks at 67th Street would enable access to AHA and proposed City operation of shared ball fields. Reduction of some vehicular traffic would also offset some of the traffic increases from the project. Response: This is a good suggestion. The connection may not be possible at this time given the current railroad operation and ownership, but when the corridor is converted to a trail, the City would encourage this type of access. Pedestrian movement is enhanced if vehicular access is not provided at 67th Street and Pleasant Avenue. 20. Comment: Several comments concerning the process and the availability of the EAW are made. 13 (~ r ~ / Response: The City Council resolution and the first part of these Findings of Fact explain the process that was followed in making the EAW available for review. CONCLUSIONS The EAW was prepared voluntarily by the City and the developer. An EAW was not required for the Project by statute. 2. Substantive comments received during the comment period have been responded to by the City and Richfield State Agency. 3. The type and extent of the environmental impacts described in the EAW and in the comments are minimal ~~ • 14 DATE: February 16, .1999 • TO: Jim Prosser, City Manager Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director FROM: Bruce Nordquist, Housing and Redevelopment .Manager ' {~ SUBJECT: Urban Village Update On February 11, a letter was received from a resident questioning why construction had begun on the Urban ~Ilage in advance of EAW findings by the City Council on February 22. City permits were issued in early February for the demolition of a vacant 2,000 square foot commercial structure on the Richfield Bank and Trust property and to move the house at 6645 Harriet Avenue to the vacant lot at 6701 Lyndate. Avenue for continued use as a medical clinic. A review by the EQB and HRA legal counsel finds that these activities are demolition activities in a fully developed area and not construction activities of significant elements of the proposed project. Final plans for Urban Village are still being developed and permits are. not expected to be issued until April or May. The demolition and moving activity was hatted on February 12 pending this review. The EQB finding on February 16 allows the house moving and construction of a new foundation for the house to proceed. BN:ck C 6744 Wentworth Ave. S. ~,I ~- Richfield MN 55423 February 11, 1999 • Jim Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 Dear Jim, This letter concerns the Richfield Urban Village project and related City approvals. Demolition of one building and initiation of moving a house from 6745 Garfield Avenue have begun in advance of satisfying approval conditions and of evaluating the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). City Council letter Number 20, page 2, paragraph 3, dated January 11, 1999, states that "City Council approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit will be contingent upon a favorable finding to the EAW. (The EAW will be presented to the City Council at their February 22,.1999 meeting.)". Environmental Quality Board statute, Section 4410.3100 stipulates that construction shall not start until EAW findings are completed. The petition of residents on 68th Street, read to the City Council at the January 11, 1999, hearing, and my comments on the EAW, submitted in letter to Bruce Nordquist, dated February 4, 1999, are awaiting response. City Council approval of January 11, 1999, was premature, since it preceded the closing date for receiving EAW comments. Is the developer acting on his own or did the City issue permits to allow the project to begin? Mitigation of negative impacts depends flexibility to modify project plans. The office of the Environmental Quality Board informed me that it is illegal to begin construction before EAW evaluation. Very truly yours, Larry Wozniczka cc: Mayor Martin Kirsch Jon Larsen, Environmental Quality Board Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future January 11, 1999 Mr. Bruce Nordquist Housing and Redevelopment Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 RE: Urban Village Project -- Environmental Assessment Worksheet Metropolitan Council District 5 Referral File No. 16937-1 Dear Mr. Nordquist: Council staff has conducted a review of this environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review finds that the EAW incomplete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. However, staff provides the following comments for your consideration: . Item 6 -Description; and Appendix A -Project Summary -Current Council housing policy encourages the expansion of availability and quality of housing choices, regarding both type and price, throughout the region. This proposal is for the addition of 78 assisted living units and 138 multifamily units. Richfield is a participant in the Livable Communities Act Housing Incentive Program and has negotiated housing goals related to affordability, diversity and mix. Because there are no details in the EAW submittal regarding the anticipated prices or rents for the units, it is not possible to determine if this project will assist the community in meeting its housing affordability goal. However, the addition of multifamily units will assist the community in meeting its goals to diversify its housing stock. Item 18 -Water Quality -Surface Water Runof}' The EAW states that runoff will increase, but the increase will not be significant. However, no effort is made to quantify the change in stormwater quantity or quality. Without this information, the water quality and quantity cannot be compared before and after the project. Given the limited scope of this project and its location, the reviewer agrees that the stormwater impacts are likely to be minimal, but this statement should be supported by, at a minimum, a simple pollutant load calculation. An example of a simple pollutant load calculation is given in Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 1989). Sections a and b also discuss efforts to treat runoff using stormwater detention ponds; however, no information is provided that can be used to assess the probable treatment efficiency of the proposed ponds. If a standard pond design is being used, then the EAW should state it. For non-standard pond • designs, an estimated treatment efficiency should be provided. Without this information, the net impact on the receiving water body cannot be determined. AREA CODE CHANGES TO 651 IN JULY, 1998 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (612) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/T1Y 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 An Equal ~PPo~itJ ~+P~y~' (~ ~-~1 Bruce Nordquist January 11, 1999 Page 2 Item 19 -Water Quality -Wastewaters The metropolitan interceptor has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flows generated by the development. MCES interceptor I-RF-490 is located immediately adjacent to the site (north within West 66`'' Street), which lends itself to direct service connection for the site. If additional service connections to the interceptor are proposed, or if changes to existing service connections to the interceptor are necessary, then a permit application for Connection To and Use Permit to the MCES is required. Item 22 -Traffic The EAW should include text explaining why no background growth is assumed for traffic. Item 26 -Sensitive Resources The Urban Village Project east property line is a regional trail. The trail is planned on the existing railroad right of way. The EAW should be revised to answer affirmatively the question under Item 26, that the regional trail is in proximity to the site. Hennepin Parks and Richfield Recreation Services should receive copies of the EAW for review and comment. • This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please. contact Alex-Edmund DaHinten, principal reviewer, at (651) 602-1617, or electronically at aes.dahinten~`metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, I Helen Boyer, Direct Environmental Services Division cc: Neil Peterson, Metropolitan Council District 5 Keith Buttleman, Director, MCES Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Linda Milashius, Carl Schenk, Alex-Edmund DaHinten, OLA Kyle Colvin, Steve Kloiber, MCES; Phyllis Hanson, Parks Mark Filipi, Chauncey Case, Transportation RF169371 • 1~~~ Minnesota Pollution control Agency s January 13, 1999 Mr. Bruce Nordquist Housing and Redevelopment Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 RE: Richfield Urban Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Nordquist: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has completed a review of the above referenced document. Related to those areas for which the MPCA has jurisdiction, the staff does not believe that the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts and therefore, does not recommend the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. As noted in the EAW, an Induect Source Permit (ISP) is required for this project. Included in the EAW is a detailed traffic impact study which includes ADT, trip generation, and level of service (LOS) capacity analysis. The LOS analysis indicates that all of the key intersections in the project area are expected to operate at LOS D or better using post-development traffic volumes and existing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control. The proposed revision to the left tum signal phasing at the 66th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection should be implemented to decrease the left turn queue lengths during peak traffic periods. The EAW also addressed air quality impacts of the increased traffic. The air quality analysis conducted for the project shows that both the one-hour and eight-hour maximum carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations are below the state ambient air quality standards. The air quality analysis is based on the results of the traffic impact study, and the traffic analysis was performed for both the existing and post-development conditions. However, it is not clear what year the post-development conditions and the predicted maximum CO concentrations represent. Because an ISP is needed for the project, the traffic and air quality analysis should be completed for one year after project completion. The project proposers' consultant is in communication with Mary Hoffman-Lynn of our Policy and Planning Division regarding ISP issues. As noted in the EAW, a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities is required. Should you have any questions about stormwater issues, please contact Keith L. Cherryhohnes, Ph.D. at (6~ 1)296-694. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this review, please contact me at (651)296-8643. Sincerely, ~~ 9 Eric J. Kilberg Planner Principal Operations and Planning Section Metro District . EJK:sjs 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (Voice); (612) 282-5332-(TTY) Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. ~ a3 c: January 12, 1999 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40_ 10 Bruce Nordquist Housing and Redevelopment Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 RE: Richfield Urban Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Orange: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the American Express Client Service Center Project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 14 correctly notes that the site is subject to the planned unit development (PUD) section of the Shoreland Management rules because it falls within the shoreland district of Richfield Lake (#27-21P) and Wood Lake (#27-26P). A project plan must be submitted to the DNR Division of Waters for approval. The review process evaluates a number of project parameters, including unit densities as a function of site tiering, the amount of impervious surface creation, and the amount of open space designation. Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist, should be copied with a project plan once it becomes available for review; she can be contacted at (651) 772-7910. Regarding the project-related increase in impervious surface, we are disappointed that the project does not include impervious surface reduction as a project feature. Opportunities can be present in redevelopment projects such as this to reduce the amount of impervious surface present at a site. Increasing impervious surface creates additional storm water treatment and management requirements. This project results in a 2.2 acre increase in impervious surface, which represents approximately a 16% increase post-project. Item 18 indicates that runoff will be directed to a regional stormwater pond that will be created concurrently with this project. We strongly recommend that the regional pond be constructed prior to the start of mass grading for this project. Regardless of the erosion control methods employed, a large storm event at the wrong time could introduce a large, concentrated amount of sediment into Richfield Lake over a short period of time. Therefore, it is prudent to have the regional pond prepared to accommodate project-related flows off the site. Also regarding the regional storm water treatment pond, it should be noted in Item 12 as a related project that has the potential to result in physical impacts on water resources. • DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766000 TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer If Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity ~a Minimum of 10°/n Post-Consumer Waste :~ Bruce Nordquist, Housing & Redevelopment Manager • January 12, 1999 During the PUD review, opportunities to reduce runoff by increasing infiltration onsite will be evaluated. Measures include infiltration trenches, bioretention areas adjacent to parking areas, or use of advanced turfs in overflow parking or similar areas. We recommend use of native species where applicable in landscaping efforts. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not needed in our opinion. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Bill Johnson of my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, _ ~~~ Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmental Review and Assistance Unit Office of Management and Budget Services c: Kathleen Wallace Con Christianson Bret Anderson Ceil Strauss, Metro Area Hydrologist Lynn M. Lewis, USFWS Jon Larsen, EQB Steve Kirchner, Richfield State Agency, Inc. #990204-01 URBNVILL. WP7 2 ~linnehaha Creek - ' Watershed District ~-a~ Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life • Gray Freshwater Center Hwys.15 & 19, Navarre 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: adminC minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org n .~J Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30°k post consumer waste. January 13, 1999 Mr. Joseph Wagner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 RE: EAW Comments, Urban Village Project, City of Richfield Dear Mr. Wagner: We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Urban Village Project in the. City of Richfield and submit the following comments: • A major area of concern by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is erosion control. The EAW addresses that concern adequately in the listing of temporary erosion control measures. A regular (daily or weekly) schedule of cleaning soils tracked onto public streets from the construction site should be established before the project begins. The MCWD will require an erosion control permit for the project. • We recommend the inclusion of best management practices (BMP's) to supplement the treatment of stormwater runoff. Such devices as sump catch basins and/or oil and grit separators will improve the efficiency of the proposed stormwater management plan. • The proposed retention pond near Richfield lake should be designed and constructed to NURP standards to ensure maximum removal efficiency. • The MCWD may require a stormwater permit for this project. We encourage discussion with the Richfield Bloomington WMO concerning the drainage and stormwater issues. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me at (612) 471-0590 with any questions. Sincerely, L. Elie-E'vensl~r~~ MCWD District Administrator C:~Projects~EAV/~Urban Village_Richfield.doc ~a~ 6744 Wentworth Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 February 4, 1999 Mr. Bruce Nordquist, Housing and Redevelopment Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 Dear Bruce, Comments follow on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Richfield Urban Village (the project) dated December 4,1998, and announced for Richfield review on January 6, 1999. I have been keenly interested in changes to land use for the blocks south of 66th Street between Lyndale and Pleasant Avenues both as a resident on 68th Street, two blocks east of Pleasant Avenue, and as a long time member of commercial improvement and economic development committees in the Richfield, Minnesota. I. Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet lacks the following: 1. A breakdown of traffic generation by major elements within the project. 2. Changes in Air Quality from existing conditions in project and neighborhood. 3. Analysis of economic impact of the development, both positive in terms of jobs and negative in terms of public expenses. 4. Social impact of the high density rental housing. 5. Pedestrian access rights to 66th Street from neighborhood south of 67th Street. 6. Safety considerations associated with the parking ramp. The operations analysis on page 12 states the traffic increase on 68th Street as 34%. The increase is 52% using the figures of 600 additional vehicles per day over existing 1150 vehicles per day. II. Project Impact Concerns. Traffic, Safety and Economic impacts of the proposed redevelopment are major concerns. A. Traffic 1. The expected directional distribution of traffic (EAW, page 11) shows 66th Street carrying 20% and 68th carrying 10% of the traffic to the east. On this basis the additiona13825 daily trips resulting from the project will add 382 trips on 68th Street. ~. ~,-a~ Additional increases result from the disconnect of Grand and Pleasant Avenues. A concern is that 68th Street will carry half as much traffic as 66th Street from the project. 2. Locating the "drive-through" elements of the project at Lyndale Avenue and 67th Street creates a situation where residential 68th Street enables traffic from south Nicollet Avenue a shorter. path, with two less left turns, and three fewer traffic lights:. A concern is the lack of access to McDonald's Restaurant and Auto Tellers from 66th Street. 3. Internal streets should enable vehicular movements between any two elements within the project without the need to exit onto and reenter either 66th Street or Lyndale Avenue. Use of a major street to enable intra-project travel adds to congestion, pollution and delays which encourage traffic to cut-through nearby residential streets. A concern is that streets connecting all elements within the project are not provided. 4. Lack of a street to carry local business traffic through or around the project between Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street adds to congestion at the intersection of those streets. A concern is that the absence of such a business access street restricts business operations, jeopardizes emergency service and invites traffic to use residential 68th Street.. 5. Multiple entry points to the project on 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue contribute to delays on those major streets. A concern is that a business access street win one entry on each of 66th Street and Lyndale is not planned. 6. Vacation of Grand and Pleasant Avenues between 66th and 67th Streets creates a span of about a half mile without public access between 66th and 67th Streets. Property owners have tolerated pedestrian trespassing of St. Peter's and Academy of Holy Angels properties in route to busses of shopping. The project includes pathways which would also serve pedestrian needs. Concern about the rights of pedestrians to use these private paths raise questions such as liability, public safety access, and the possibility that at some future date pedestrians from neighborhoods south of 67th Street will have to hike to sidewalks on either Nicollet or Lyndale Avenues to go north. B. Safety 1. Worst case carbon monoxide concentrations are predicted at 8.7 ppm compared to a maximum safe standard of 9.0 for the 8-hour average in the project quadrant. The safety of locating an Assisted Living Facility in an area of marginal air quality is questioned. 2. The extent of air quality degradation in the single family residential neighborhood as a result of this project is not presented. Neighbors should be informed and be given consideration in cases of medical risk. • ~--a~ 3. Increased traffic on residential 68th Street, in addition to air quality a ects, presents a hazard to students and pedestrians who walk to Academy of Holy Angels, Blessed Trinity School and the Church of St. Peter. 4. Single family residences along 68th Street typically have side yards with reduced setback distances along 68th Street. In addition to making environments impacts more critical, increased traffic on 68th Street presents a hazard to families with children. C. Economic Concerns 1. Taking of a block of affordable single family residences which are not blighted for the purpose of adding up-scale rental requires evaluation. Concerns include: Will the present owners be given relocation costs assure them of comparable housing? Is there a public purpose to justify condemnation? Will the planned rental maintain an appeal or will it depreciate more quickly than existing residential over time? With 33% of Richfield's housing units now in rental, is additional rental appropriate for Richfield? Does valuation. history of similar developments, such as The Colony at I-35 and 76th Street, keep up with residential standards? 2. The increased density of the proposed development raises the question of increased City services. City code for high density multi-residential requires a minimum of 2000 square feet of land for each unit. Within a block estimated. at 600 feet by 300 feet, the project includes 138 dwelling units or only 1304 square feet per unit. It is likely that upscale clientele will require additional city recreational services. A concern is that the EAW does not consider resulting costs. 3. The project's impact on property taxes requires special scrutiny since the project is planned as a tax increment district, not just for the redeveloped block, but including the larger commercial portion of the project which has been in a tax increment district for nearly 25 years and is planned to be decertified from the LHN Tax Increment District and brought into the Urban Village Tax Increment District. Concern is that the added costs for local services to the project will have to be covered by property tax increases outside of tax increment districts and that there is no disclosure of estimates. 4. The project proposes to vacate part of 67th Street, which is now astate-aid street. The economic impact to the City for loss of state aid and maintenance of new loop streets is a concern. III. Mitigation Opportunities Improved traffic flow and separation of commercial from residential traffic provide an opportunity for mitigation of some adverse impacts from the project. 1. A business access street, either through or along the south and east boundaries of the project, would serve the project needs and mitigate a number of impacts by °~-I connecting Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street to one point on 66th Street. The Urban Village project provides and opportunity to implement a business access street east of Lyndale Avenue. 2. Continuation of 67th Street to the east of Pleasant Avenue enables the business access street to serve the Academy of Holy Angels {AHA}, the sports facility and the Church of St. Peter. This more direct traffic route would reduce traffic on 68th Street, thus offsetting some of the predicted increase from the project. 3. Access to AHA from 66th Street at Pleasant Avenue has been suggested. An entry from the west and exit to the east and west at the .existing 66th and Pleasant traffic signal would be compatible with movements into the Hub Center. The reduced AHA traffic on neighborhood streets would offset some of the increases from the Urban Village project. 4. Promote pedestrian walkways around the project, especially to serve the schools to the east. A pedestrian crossing over the rail tracks at 67th Street would enable access to AHA and proposed City operation of shared ball fields. Reduction of some vehicular traffic would also offset some of the traffic increases from the project. IV. The Process The procedure of issuing the EAW and reviewing it as the Local Government Unit by the same office presents a conflict of interest. The situation is reminiscent of the City of Richfield's interaction with the Metropolitan Airports Commission on environmental matters. The Housing and Redevelopment office in Richfield's Community Development Department is both the originator of the EAW and the judge of comments on its completeness. The project will vacate all remaining streets north of 68th Street between Nicollet and Lyndale Avenues. All of 68th Street will carry additional traffic. Not all property owners on 68th Street have been kept informed of the project impact. At the first reading of the proposed vacation of streets for the project on December 14, 1998, a request was made to inform residents along 68th Street. A letter was received on December 22, 1998 from Bruce Nordquist, Housing and Redevelopment, without mention of the public hearing on street vacations and stating "The (traffic) volume is well within levels acceptable for 68th Street to retain it's residential character." On December 23, in search of the traffic studies, Richfield's Traffic Engineer informed me that the Housing and Redevelopment department had custody of the project traffic reports. Responding to a telephone message, Bruce Nordquist sent me a few pages of the EAW, a clue that such a document was in development. On December 31, 1998, Bruce Nordquist gone on vacation, I again sought the help of City Traffic Engineer to review a 4 ~~~ • copy of the proposed EAW. With some effort, Joseph Wagner, CommunityDevelopment Department, provided me an unsigned copy, without figures or appendices, that day. On January 4, 1999 I called the Environmental Quality Board at the number listed in the EAW and learned from Jon Larsen that the EAW for Richfield Urban Village, had been listed. in the EQB monitor with copies to be available on December 14, 1998, and comments period ending January 13, 1999..... But a public copy was not available for review in the Richfield's Community Development Department. on December 31. On January 5, 1999, I was able to review a complete copy, with. signed approval by James Prosser, City Manager dated December 4, 1998, in Richfield's Community Development Department. A copy at the Richfield- Community Library was observed on January 28, 1999 with a cover letter from Joseph Wagner, dated December 14, 1998..... But Joe Wagner had trouble finding a copy in the Community Development Department on December 31, 1998. With approval for the project already having been granted by the City Council following the public hearings on January 11, 1999, the mechanism for accomplishing mitigation is not obvious. Conclusions Submitting these comments to the Responsible Government Unit may be an exercise in futility. However, concerns about the intense development of small parcels in Richfield without consideration of impacts to and opportunities for surrounding realities drove me to make this effort. The Richfield Urban Village project, as proposed, has significant detrimental impact to the adjoining neighborhood. Changes to design of the project would benefit the project and mitigate some serious negative impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is warranted in view the impact on traffic and air quality in residential neighborhoods, the magnitude of the project, and the number of parking spaces involved. I want to enter my citizen's petition for such. Very trunly yours, /~~ Larry Wozni zka • ~~ c.t~tnr~ ~~ , 1~~~ 6744 Wentworth Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 February 1, 1999 Julie Urban, City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 Dear Julie, ~ ~~ In response to your call on January 29 the petition I mentioned at the January 11 City Council hearing on the Urban Village project accompanies this letter. The petition was hastily circulated on a below-zero Sunday afternoon trying not to conflict with the Vikings-Cardinals playoff game. No effort: was made to call back people who were not at home. As stated to the City Council, of 20 people contacted, 17 favored the petition. Two of those not signing wanted more information. Intent of the petition was not to oppose the proposed Urban Village project, but rather to prevent negative impact on our near-by residential neighborhood. Suggestions for reducing the traffic increases on residential 68th Street were mentioned, such as: 1. Provide access to McDonald's Restaurant from 66th Street. 2. Connect 66th Street to Lyndale Avenue through the project to reduce added loading at the intersection of these two streets while serving the project's business needs. 3. Require that all traffic points within the project can be traversed without the need to leave and return to the project using 66th Street and Lyndale Ave. 4. Work to achieve a business bypass south of 66th Street to reduce residential pass through traffic which occurs whenever 66th Street or Lyndale Avenue are obstructed. 5. Preserve 67th Street as a state-aid street, extending it aver the railroad tracks to serve Academy of Holy Angels and St. Peter's Church and School as a means of offsetting growth in traffic on residential streets resulting from the Urban Village project. 6. Encourage the addition of a north access to the Academy of Holy Angels allowing entry of traffic from the west and exit to the east and west at 66th St. and Pillsbury Ave. Very~t/ru~ ly y/ours, • Larry Wozniczka ~~ PETITION CONCERNING URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT Because the Richfield Urban Village project is expected to increase traffic on 68th Street by more than 50% (From 1150 to 1750 average daily trips, pages 11 and 12 of Environmental Assessment Worksheet), and peak traffic already exceeds ideal neighborhood standards, the undersigned petition the City Council to reject any plan which increases traffic on 68th Street between Lyndale and Nicollet Avenues. Name Address ~ 7 s~~ ~~- 7~~ .~e.~~` /~c~ ~ (n 7 ~f y ~~~c~~- ~~ ~~FS ~,~r~ ~U_ ~L 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. i Z.._ 1X ,~~ ~: /~:.~3' r~ ~~~ ' ` t ,, ~, ,1rS. This petition circulated by: ,C. ~C? lc%z n ~ c z 1c ~ Address: ~ 7y~ Gc%h~/c~.o ~. ,¢-~~ 5. Phone G ~Z PL4- I23 G J~NNESpr' ,~ Minnesota Department of Transportation 9 ~ s r ~".~, a5`g Metropolitan Division /~r~~ °` T"~ Waters Edge tw . 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January 5, 1999 Joseph Wagner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Joseph Wagner: SUBJECT: Richfield Urban Village Mn/DOT Environmental Review EAW98-044 East of Trunk Highway (TH) 35W and South of TH 62 Richfield, Hennepin County C.S. 2782 The Metro Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Richfield Urban Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for impacts to the state highway system. We find the EAW acceptable. This letter represents the transportation concerns of Mn/DOT Metro Division. Other environmental concerns raised by a wider Mn/DOT review maybe forwarded to you in a separate letter. Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation. Planner/Local Government Liaison c: Gerald Larson, Mn/DOT Environmental Services • An equal opportunity employer • ~ - Community Development ~~ ~ 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch December 15, 1.998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office Twin Cities Field Office E.S. 4101 East 80~' Street Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 Council Susan Rosenberg Kristal Stokes Michael Sandahl Russ Susag Subject: .Public Comment input for the City ofRichfield's Urban Village Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear EAW Reviewer: Enclosed for your review is a copy of the EAW for the proposed Urban Village project located at the SE corner of 66`~ Street and Lyndale Avenue in Richfield. This 14-acre redevelopment project will incorporate a mixture of commercial and residential. uses. The EAW Notice for this project was published in the EQB Monitor on December 14~' and as such, the public comment period for this document will be until January 13~', 1999. If you have any questions or comments regarding the information contained in this worksheet, please contact Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator, at (612) 861-9766 or myself at (612) 861-9763. Sincerel , ,.ncn cTe~rcc nFCSV'rwRNT OF THE INTERIOR ww gISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TWIN CITIES FIEi-D OFFICE (ES )_ J seph Wagner ommunity Development Specialist This project has been reviewed under the authority of and in accordance with provisions of the Fish and. .Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy JWaf Act and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation E11C10SU2'e(S) Policy. This proposal was also examined for its conformance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. There are "No Objections" to this project as reviewed under the above Acts, Policy or Orders. This approval is given with the understanding that the applicant will comply with any recommendations made by the Minnesota Department o~,Natural Resources. NAME: ~~`''"p~~r V=•"_ -DATE: ~~` i~~ TITLE: Fish and W ldl~olo¢ist The Urbc' TELEPHONE: (612) 725-3548 Telephon 1-8974 General City Matters: 861-9700 An Equal Opportunity Employer Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ~- ~~ Note To Preparers This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB. environmental review program) or consult "EAW Guidelines," a booklet available from the EQB. Note to Reviewers Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see items 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB. to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. 1. Project Title Richfield Urban Village n 2. Proposer Richfield, State Agency, Inc. Contact Person Mr. Steve Kirchner Address 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Phone (612) 798-3342 3. RGU City of Richfield Contact Person Bruce Nordquist and Title Housing and Redevelopment Manager Address City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Phone (612) 861-9777 4. Reason for EAW Preparation [ ]EIS scoping [ ]mandatory EAW [ ]citizen petition [X] Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) \\WENCK-FSI\VOLI~`1_DRIVE\082T01\RICH-EAW.DOCILJ6-Imh Page 1 of 19 [X] RGU discretion Revised Date 12/4/98 ~` J (,P 5. Project Location SE SW Section 27 Township 28N County Hennepin City/Township Richfield EAW-Richfield Urban Village-Project Range 24W Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW.• a. a county map showing the general location of the project (Figure 1); b. copy(ies) of USGS 7..i minute, 1:24, 000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries (Figure 2); c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features (Figure 3). See Attached Figures (1, 2, and 3) • 6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The Richfield Urban Village project consists of the redevelopment of the area in Richfield bounded by Lyndale Avenue on-the west, Pleasant Avenue on the east, 66th Street on the north, and 67th Street on the south in Richfield, Minnesota. The purpose of this project is to create an integrated urban village master plan. The design is in agreement with the City of Richfield's concept of a more attractive, pedestrian friendly and economically viable Downtown Richfield at this location. The Table below is a comparison of the existing site to the future development. Proposed Existing Additional Total Office/Commercial 95,535 sf 59,820 sf 155,355 sf Medical Office 22,190 sf 30,250 sf 52,440 sf Building Existing 2 story 2,132 sf 0 2,132 sf Brick House at (Prof./Medical Office) Harriet & 67th Existing 1 Story 920 sf 558 sf 1,478 sf Brick House - 6709 (1 Dwelling Unit) (- 1 Dwelling Unit) 0 Lyndale (Prof./Medical Office) Assisted Living 0 78 Dwelling Units 78 Mufti-family 0 138 Dwelling Units 138 Single-Family 15 Dwelling Units- (- 15 Dwelling Units) 0 Fast Food Include w/office commercial 4,500 sf 4,500 sf Restaurant The proposed development will require 1,065 parking stalls (increase of 650) and will include a mixture of on-grade and parking ramp. (For a complete project summary, refer to Appendix A.) \\H•ENCK-FSI\VOLIW_DRIVE1082T.OIVtICH-EAW.DOC\LJB-Imh Page 2 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project Construction is anticipated to be phased over the schedule listed below: See Figure 4 indicating construction phasing on site. 1: Removal of houses and construction of parking ramp and Fast Food restaurant. 2. Construction of multi- family housing. 3. Construction of commercial office space, medical office, restaurant, and retail. 4. Construction of senior assisted living facility. Provide a SO or fewer word abstract for use in EOB Monitor notice: Abstract ~~ Feb. -Oct., 1999 Apr.1999 -Mar. 2000 Oct. 1999 -Sep. 2000 Oct. 1999 -Sep. 2000 The Richfield Urban Village Project involves. the redevelopment of a 14.4 acre site at the southeast corner of Lyndale Avenue South and 66th Street. The proposed mixed-use site will include office space, retail and restaurant space, an assisted living facility, and mid-density housing. It is in agreement with the City of Richfield's Comprehensive Plan (1997-2007) which has identified this area for Regional Commercial/Office use. • 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 14.4 acres or Length {miles) NA Number of Residential Units Unattached NA Attached 216 * Includes 78 Assisted Living and 138 Multifamily Units Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross jloor space) Total 211,405 square feet; Indicate area of specific uses Off ce 174,13 0 Manufacturing NA Retail 8,000 Other Industrial NA Warehouse NA Institutional NA Light Industrial NA Agricultural NA Other Commercial (specify) 29,275 (Restaurant) Building Height(s) Max. New Building = 53 ft. /Max. Existing Bank/Office Buildine = 75 ft. • \\WEVCK-FSI\\'OL11,`7_DRIVE108?TOIVLICH-EAW.DOCILJB-Imh Page 3 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 / _ EA~W-Richfield Urban Village Project ~`~ 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required.• • Unit of Government Type of Application Status MPCA Indirect Source Permit Future MN Rules (7023.9000) MPCA NPDES Stormwater Permit for Future Construction Activities DNR Shoreland Zoning/Management Future City of Richfield Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Future Control, other Rezoning Residential Area Future Misc. Building Permits Future Curb Cuts Future Minnehaha Creek Approval of Drainage Plan Future Watershed District Hennepin County Street Access Future ** Note: No permits are required from the Richfield-Bloomington WMO as all water-related management issues are referred to the member cities (Richfield). 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Ident~ any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. Currently the proposed site consists of a commercial area and a residential area. The commercial area consists of amulti-storied office building, a medical clinic, three small commercial buildings and asphalt parking azeas. The Commercial area is located on the west half of the proposed site. The residential azea is located on the eastern half of the site (see Figure 3). The multi-storied ofl•ice building is primarily occupied by a bank. The first construction of the building was in 1952. A second addition (second and third floors) was constructed in 1972. The third and most recent addition to the building (fourth, fifth, and sixth floors) occurred in 1986. In 1986, a fast food restaurant was located in the first floor of this building. A commercial building and the drive-through bank building aze located near the southwest corner of the property. A former house located along 67th Street West on the property has been converted to a commercial business providing mental health care services. The medical clinic is located near the northeast comer of the commercial area of the project at the intersection of 66th Street West and Grand Avenue South. A former clinic was demolished when the existing medical clinic was constructed in 1994. The residential azea consists of homes with the exception of one commercial property located at 6601 Grand Avenue South. This is the site of a chiropractic clinic. This area is bordered by Pleasant Avenue . South. to the east; by 66th Street West to the north; by Grand Avenue South on the west; and by 67th Street West on the south. This property also includes a small area south of 67th Street along Lyndale, which currently consists of a surface parking lot and one house (6709 Lyndale). \\WEVCK-FSI\VOLI\N_DRIVE\082TOlUt1CH-EAW.DOCIL.JB-Imh Page 4 Of 19 RBVISed Date 12~4~98 EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project ^~ A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the proposed site in accordance with the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials Phase I Environmental Site Assessment • Process. The conclusion of the ESA is that there is limited potential for contamination from past use. The potential stems from past releases .near the subject property. Specifically, leaking underground storage tanks have been reported on sites that are adjacent to the subject property. These sites have been investigated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and closed. To date, there are no known impacts to the subject site from these releases. As the uses of the site do and will continue to utilize the municipal water supply, the potential for health risk is minimal. 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): Before After Before After Types 2 to 8 0 acres 0 acres Urban/Suburban Lawn 6.0 acres 3.8 acres Wetlands Landscaping Wooded/Forest 0 acres 0 acres Impervious Surface 8.4 acres 10.6 acres Brush/Grassland 0 acres 0 acres Park Area 0 acres 0 acres Cropland 0 acres 0 acres Ponds/Wetlands 0 acres 0 acres Totals 14.4 acres 14.4 acres 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or .near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The proposed construction activities on the site would have little impact (if any) on fish and wildlife in the area. The site has been developed since the 1950's and currently does not provide significant wildlife habitat. No wetlands, wildlife areas, or undeveloped areas are located on the site. There is the possibility that construction activities on the site could temporarily disrupt the birds, squirrels, and other animals who currently occupy. the residential area of the site. However, landscaping is proposed in the new development which will provide habitat for these birds and animals and replace any existing vegetation which may be removed during grading and excavation activities. b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern species;. rare plant communities,- colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? [ J Yes [XJ No. If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Minnesota Natural Heritage database was reviewed by the DNR to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur near the project site (see resulting letter located in Appendix B). Four known occurrences of rare species or natural communities occur in • the vicinity of the project. Because of the proposed magnitude of the proposed project and the locations of these rare features, it is not anticipated that there will be any effect on these features by the project. None of the actual sitings occurred at the site itself. The location and type of rare features identified by the search are listed below: \\WENCK-FSt\VOLI\A1_DRIVE1082TOIWCH-EnW.DOC\LJB-Imh Page 5 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 F,~1 W-Richfield Urban Pillage Project lYr-lo Location (Township. Range, '/4 '/< Section) Element and Occurrence Number T028N R24W 21 OS21 Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site (Forster's Tern) T028N R24W 22 SENE22 Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site (Red-Necked Grebe) T028N R24W 23 SWNW23 Blanding's Turtle T028N R24W 33 2833 Blanding's Turtle 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? [J Yes [XJ No. If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimiae impacts. Not Applicable 13. Water Use a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? [XJ Yes [ J No. For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (f known). A search of the county well index indicated the possible presence of two wells on the site. - 206325 at 6627 Grand Avenue South - 206326 at 6623 Lyndale Avenue South There is the possibility of other wells on-site. If any wells are encountered during the course of this project, they will be abandoned and sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health regulations by a licensed water well contractor to eliminate the potential for groundwater impact. b. Will the project require an appropriation ofground water or surface water (including dewatering? [XJ Yes [ J No. If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels. Temporary dewatering of local groundwater may be required to facilitate underground utility installation work. If dewatering is required, applicable water appropriation permits will be obtained from the DNR. Temporary dewatering would have minimal impacts on groundwater levels outside the construction zone. c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? [XJ Yes [J No. If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. Commercial buildings, multi-residential housing units, and other facilities on the site will be connected to the existing municipal water system which currently serves the area. Groundwater is withdrawn from • seven wells permitted by the DNR that feed into the Richfield Water Treatment Plant located in the southeast quadrant of the Crosstown Highway/Portland Avenue interchange. Treated water is then pumped to the water distribution system serving residents and businesses located throughout the city. \\WENCK-FSI\VOLIW_DRIVE.082TOIWCH-EAW.DOCILJB-Imh Page 6 of l9 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project `' s~/ The estimated quantity of water to be used at the site, based on typical usage rates, is 190,000 gallons per day. • 14. Water-Related Land Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? [XJ Yes (J No If yes, identify the district and discztss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. The west site of the project site along Lyndale Avenue is located within the DNR's shoreland management area of Richfield Lake (21P) and Wood Lake (26P) which extends 1,000 feet out from the lake shoreline. The City of Richfield will. be developing shoreland management regulations and until such regulations are adopted, the Planned Unit Development section (6120.3800) of the local government land use controls covered under the State Shoreline. Management Program will apply. The existing statewide standards (effective July 3, 1989) allow for flexibility in special circumstances where shorelands have been developed with an assortment of urban land uses for many years and much of the development does not meet the standards, as is .the case under existing site conditions. In accordance with these provisions, site development plans will be submitted for review and approval to the DNR before final approval is granted by the City of Richfield. 15. Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ~ J Yes [XJ No. If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any. potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. 16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to: Groundwater: minimum 1 S average Not Determined Bedrock: minimum 200 ft. average _ 22S t. Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.) According to the Soil Survey of Hennepin County produced by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, the soils on the subject site have been identified as urban land and have not been characterized. A geotechnical evaluation report by Braun Intertec dated September 22, 1993, indicates silty sand topsoil generally less than six inches deep underlain by silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand. Fill materials, unusual odors or observations were not noted on the soil boring logs. Soil boring did not indicate groundwater at depths below 20 feet. The vegetation on the site consists primarily of nonnative Kentucky Bluegrass that is generally mowed. Additional vegetation includes elm, maple, spruce and oak trees as well as other shade and ornamental trees. 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved.• 12 acres; 20.000 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. \\WENCK-FSI\VOLIIN_DRIVE\082T01\RICH-EAW.DOC\IJB-imh Page 7 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban [pillage Project ~r l Approximately 12 acres of the 14.4-acre site will be regraded with roughly 20,000 cubic yards of soil excavated and removed from the site during the redevelopment process. Excavated material will be properly disposed of off-site in a designated upland area. As the existing site is relatively flat and fully developed, there aze no steep slopes or highly erodible soils. Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fence, staked straw bales, sediment filters and traps, and crushed rock pads will be used where applicable. Soils tracked from the construction sites by motor vehicles and equipment will be cleaned from paved roadway surfaces throughout the duration of the construction project. Vegetation of turfed areas will be established as soon as practicable after grading and excavation. A grading and erosion control plan will be prepared and submitted for approval. Erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented and maintained during construction in accordance with City of Richfield, MCWD, and MPCA permit requirements. 18. Water Quality -Surface Water Runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. Stormwater runoff from the I4.4-acre site currently drains to the municipal storm sewer system which outlets directly to Richfield Lake. The proposed redevelopment project will increase the amount of impervious surface area on the site from approximately 8.4 acres to 10.6 acres. The additional 2.2 acres of impervious area results mainly from the conversion of single family residential lots on the east side of the site to amulti-family residential .housing complex. The increase in impervious surface area will increase the amount of site runoff, however, since the proposed redevelopment will consist of less surface parking and street areas, a significant increase in the total pollutant loadings discharged from the site is . not anticipated. The stormwater management plan utilizes the existing storm sewer located in the northwest corner of the site which currently discharges to Richfield Lake. The majority of the site will continue to drain to existing or new catch basins that drain into the existing storm sewer line located along Grand Avenue. This pipe will be connected to the existing pipe in the northwest corner of the site redirecting flows to the west (the pipe along Grand Avenue currently discharges to the north into a separate storm sewer system that also discharges to Richfield Lake). The City will require approximately one acre-foot of temporary storage on the site to provide rate control. Drainage from a small portion of the site on the. east side of the property (less than 1 acre) will be directed easterly to a pond to be constructed in 1999 on the adjacent Holy Angels Academy school site by the City of Richfield serving as a regional stormwater treatment facility. The pond will provide rate control and water quality treatment to meet city requirements. b. Ident~ the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed). As shown on the subwatershed delineation map contained in the Richfield Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan dated May 1996, the project site is located within Subwatershed RL 2, a 154-acre drainage area which drains directly to Richfield Lake via storm sewer. Richfield Lake is a 35-acre waterbody classified as a Type 3/4 wetland (DNR Protected Water 21P) which does not currently support swimming or fishing. Approximately 506 acres of fully developed urban area drains directly to Richfield Lake which outlets to the south into Wood Lake. The project site represents less than 3% of the total drainage area to Richfield Lake. P,WENCK-FSI\VOLIUJ_DR[VE\082T°I`,RICH-EAW.DOCIW6-Imh Page 8 of 19 Revised Date 12~4~98 EAW-Richfreld Urban Pillalge~P2roject (~° !/ The project site is located within the legal watershed boundary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), however, the site is within the hydrologic boundary of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization (RBWMO). A modification of the legal watershed boundary in the area was approved by the Board of Soil and Water Resources in 1993 to reflect the new outlet constructed from Wood Lake. Subsequent to that time, an outlet was also constructed from Richfield Lake to Wood Lake. In this case, a letter of understanding between the MCWD and RBWMO would be required to address applicable watershed requirements for the proposed development. At this time, no permits are required from the RBWMO as all matters regarding stormwater management are referred to member cities (e.g., Richfield). The City of Richfield has developed a preliminary management plan for Richfield Lake that includes a perimeter stormwater treatment pond varying in width of up to 50 feet that will provide pretreatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharging into Richfield Lake. The proposed pond will intercept runoff from several storm sewer outfalls, including the outfall serving the project site, that currently discharge directly into the lake and route flows into the lake at a controlled outlet. It is anticipated that the pond will be constructed by the City concurrently with the proposed site redevelopment project and will be in place to treat stormwater runoff from the site upon completion of the project. Stormwater discharges associated with the proposed project are generally consistent with the existing development and are typical of the surrounding urban area of Richfield.. Although the amount of impervious surface area will increase, the proposed redevelopment will consist of less surface parking and street areas. No degradation in the water quality downstream in Richfield Lake is anticipated. Furthermore, implementation of the management plan for Richfield Lake as described above will help improve the quality of stormwater runoff discharging into the lake. 19. Water Quality -Wastewaters a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. The proposed site redevelopment consists of a mix of commercial businesses and multi-residential housing that. will generate normal domestic sewage to be discharged directly to the existing municipal sanitary sewer system. Based on typical occupant usage rates, the estimated wastewater volume generated is 160,000 gallons per day. b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or the project involves on-site treatment systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Ident~ receiving waters (including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge may affect a lake consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether nutrient budget analysis is needed.) Not applicable. c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, ident~ the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. The existing municipal sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity to accommodate wastewater discharges from the site and therefore, no improvements are necessary. \\t~'E`CK-FSI\VOLIIN_DRIB'E\083T01\RICH-EAW.DOCU..JB-Imh Page 9 of 19 Revised Date 12~4~98 F,AW-Richfield Urban village Project ~~~~ 20. Ground Water -Potential for Contamination a. Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater: I S minimum; Not Determined average. Construction activities on the site have little (if any) potential to contaminate groundwater. Groundwater is typically within 15-50 feet of the ground surface over much of the site. Specific groundwater elevation data for the site has not been collected. Based on the Hennepin County Geological Atlas produced by the Minnesota Geologic Survey, the depth to bedrock is approximately 200 to 250 feet below the surface. The Prairie du Chien is first underlying bedrock and is first potable water bearing aquifer. The direction of this groundwater flow is in an easterly, southeasterly direction toward the Mississippi River. b. Describe any of .the following site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high inftltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Specific hazards (geological or other) have. not been identified which could impact groundwater on the site. The proposed construction activities on .the site should not have an adverse affect on groundwater. If any wells are encountered during the course of this project, they will be abandoned and sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health regulations by a certified contractor to eliminate the potential for groundwater impact. c. Ident fy any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. Not applicable 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes. Ident fy the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. Residents and businesses located in the Richfield Urban Village will generate additional municipal solid waste. Residents and businesses must contract with one of the City's licensed solid waste haulers for off- site disposal. It is anticipated that the existing solid waste disposal system in place will be able to accommodate the slight increase. The existing medical clinic on-site is to be expanded. It is currently registered as a Very Small Quantity Generator of hazardous materials. No violation or releases have been reported. It is expected that the clinic will retain its registration as a Very Small Quantity Generator. The City of Richfield has a recycling program in place for businesses and residences. Individual businesses and residences are responsible for their own source separation plan, and recycling will be coordinated through their chosen solid waste contractor. All unrecyclabte wastes will be hauled off-site by licensed waste haulers. `,~~~'E\Cf:-FSI\VOLIU`_DRIVE\082TOIUtICH-E.4W.DOCILJB-Imh Page 10 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project b. Indicate the number, location, size and use of arty above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). Proposed site usage are not of the type that typically require above or below ground storage of petroleum products or other potentially hazardous materials in tanks. Any such tank that is necessary for a future user, would have to be approved and permitted through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and other jurisdictional agencies. 22. Traffic Parking spaces added 6~ 0; Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 41 S; Estimated Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 10.345 :Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (f known) and its timing 1.170 PM For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary. The following traffic analysis was completed by BRW, Inc. Trip Generation Summary The traffic generation associated with the combination of current land uses is estimated at 820 PM peak hour trips and 6,520 daily trips. The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate an additional 350 PM peak hour and 3,825 daily trips to the adjacent street network. Therefore, the total traffic generation from the site, based on traffic generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is estimated at 1,170 PM peak hour and 10,345 daily trips. .Existing Traffic Volumes Existing average daily traffic volumes on key roadways around the site are listed below: Location • 66th Street West of Lyndale Avenue • 66th Street East of Lyndale Avenue • Lyndale Avenue North of 66th Street • Lyndale Avenue South of 68th Street • 67th Street East of Lyndale Avenue • 68th Street East of Lyndale Avenue Existing Average Daily Traffic Volume - 28,600 vehicles per day - 19,200 vehicles per day - 18,200 vehicles per day - 12,800 vehicles per day - 1,200 vehicles per day - 1,150 vehicles per day Existing PM peak hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections around the site are listed in Table 1 (Appendix C and on Figure 5). Directional Distribution The expected directional orientation of site generated traffic was estimated based on the results of a vehicle trace survey that was conducted and an analysis of general traffic patterns in the immediate area around the site. The resulting directional distribution is listed below: • 66th Street to the west - 37% • 66th Street to the east - 20% • Lyndale Avenue to the north - 20% • Lyndale Avenue to the south - 13% • 68th Street to the east - 10% ;1WENCK-FSI\VOLI\N_DRIVE\082TOIUtICH-EAW.DOCU.JB-lmh Page 11 Of 19 Revised Date 12/4!98 / ,~ )) ~~ ( EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project ll/"`4 `~ Forecast Post-Development Traffic Volumes Forecast post-development traffic volumes were prepared by adding the expected site generated traffic to existing traffic volumes in accordance with the estimated directional distribution. The forecast daily traffic volumes are documented below and the forecast peak hour turning movement volumes in Table 2 (Appendix C and on Figure 6). Location • 66th Street West of Lyndale Avenue • 66th Street East of Lyndale Avenue • Lyndale Avenue North of 66th Street • Lyndale Avenue South of 68th Street • 67th Street East of Lyndale Avenue • 68th Street East of Lyndale Avenue Forecast Post-Development Daily Traffic - 33,500 vehicles per day (+4,900) - 22,500 vehicles per day (+ 3,300) - 20,800 vehicles per day (+ 2,600) - 14,900 vehicles per day (+ 2,100) - 5,500 vehicles per day (+ 4,300) - 1,750 vehicles per day (+ 600) Traffic Operations Analysis A traffic operations analysis of the key intersection s around the site was conducted for both the existing and post-development conditions, using the appropriate procedures as outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. It should be noted that the City of Richfield has selected the boundary between Level of Service (LOS) D and E as the index of congestion for this project. The results of this analysis are documented in Table 3 (Appendix C) and include the following: • Using existing traffic volumes, roadway geometry and intersection traffic control, all of the key intersections currently provide LOS D or better operations. • Using post-development volumes and the existing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control, all of the key intersections still provide LOS D or better operation. As a result of this analysis, it can be concluded that the proposed project should not result in any unusual levels of congestion at any of the key intersections around the site based on the overall level of intersection operation. However, .the traffic operations analysis did point out one minor issue. The expected increase in left turning traffic, particularly on the south approach to the 66th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection, may result in queue lengths that .exceed the available left turn storage during peak traffic periods. Revising the left turn signal phasing could easily mitigate this condition by decreasing the length of left turn stackage. The traffic operations analysis indicates that traffic volumes along the segment of 68th Street, east of Lyndale Avenue, are expected to increase by approximately 600 vehicles per day (34%). Three important items should be noted: 1. This increase is limited to the segment of 68th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Pleasant Avenue and is primarily due to the neighborhood's request to disconnect Grand and Pleasant Avenues from 67th Street. 2. This increase is not expected to result in any unusual levels of congestion along 68th Street and the post-development volume (1,750 vehicles per day) is still within the City of Richfield's typical range of volumes for residential streets. • 3. The increase in volume is not the result of any additional through traffic being diverted through the neighborhood. The results of a vehicle trace survey .in the area indicated that there was very little \OVENCK-F51\VOLIW_DRIVE\OSITOI\RICH-EAW.DOCILJB-Imh Page 12 of 19 ~ Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project 6 t~~ diversion of through traffic today (less-than 1% of the traffic on 68th Street) and thatthe development of the Urban Village project is not expected to change travel patterns in the area. An actual parking capacity study is in process. Any potential forecasted parking increases would be accommodated with a parking ramp structure within its current footprint. Traff c trip generation and analysis is not dependent upon pazking counts, but is determined based on building size and usage. There would not be any further environmental impact resulting from this increase. 23. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves S00 or more parking spaces, consult "EAW Guidelines "about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.) The following air quality analysis was prepared for the proposed project by BRW, Inc.: The proposed project will generate air pollution as a result of motor vehicle activity generated by the proposed land use development. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocazbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO for the following reasons: • CO is a tasteless, odorless gas that can cause health effects at relatively low. concentrations for relatively short exposure periods. • The Twin Cities metropolitan azea is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a moderate non-attainment area for CO. CO is a byproduct of the combustion process. CO is emitted at higher rates by vehicles that aze idling, accelerating or decelerating than those that are cruising at constant speeds. CO is also emitted at higher rates by vehicles traveling at lower speeds than those traveling at higher speeds. For these reasons, CO concentrations aze generally highest in the vicinity of signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and/or changing speeds, and thus emitting more CO. Higher CO concentrations generally. occur in close proximity to roadway vehicle sources. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards may be found within approximately 100 feet of a roadway source. CO is dispersed in ambient air by wind and meteorological effects such that concentrations fall off rapidly with increasing distance away from a given roadway. The state ambient air quality standards for CO are 30 PPM (parts per million) on a one-hour average, and 9 PPM on an eight-hour average. These standards are set at levels to protect the most sensitive members of the population and aze not to be exceeded more than once per yeaz. The impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality have been evaluated by computer modeling of future traffic flow and vehicle emissions at intersections in the vicinity of the project to estimate CO concentrations due to project-generated traffic. The air quality modeling methodology consists of the following steps: • Traffic analysis -the results of the traffic impact analysis (see Question #22) are used to determine traffic volumes and intersection. operational pazameters including lane geometry, signal and phase length. • Emissions estimates -The U.S. EPA MOBILE~a mobile source emissions model is used to estimate CO emission rates for vehicles traveling at various speeds. \\WEtiCK-FSl\VOU\N_DRIVE~082TOIWCH-EAW.DOCILJ6-Imh Page 13 Of 1,9 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Z/rban Village Project ~~~ • Dispersion model -The U.S. EPA CAL3QHC line source dispersion model is used to model the concentration of CO at selected receptor locations due to roadway sources. • • Background CO -Background CO concentrations are added to the results of the modeling of local sources to estimate the total future CO concentrations. The background values represent the existing CO concentrations for averaging periods corresponding to the state standards. The CO monitoring analysis requires numerous assumptions regarding meteorology and vehicle operations. The following modeling assumptions were used. These are generally considered to be worst case assumptions for this type of analysis: • Wind speed of 1.0 meters per second • Analysis of 36 wind directions at 10 degree increments • Ambient temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit • Atmospheric stability class D • 20.6 percent of vehicles operating in a cold-start mode and 273 percent of vehicles operating in a hot start mode. • The analysis utilized year 2000 emission factors to represent the first year of operation of any portion of the proposed development. • Vehicle age mix consistent with Metropolitan area 1990 vehicle registration. • Vehicle type mix was the national average mix taken from the MOBILESa model. • One-hour average CO concentrations are predicted. based on the PM peak hour.- traffic volume forecasts documented in the traffic section. • Eight-hour average CO concentrations are predicted based on the peak one-hour concentrations, multiplied by a typical persistence factor of 0.7. The persistence factor accounts for the lack of persistence of the worst-case meteorological conditions for eight consecutive hours. An analysis was conducted of the intersection of 66th and Lyndale. This intersection will carry the highest traffic volumes and experience the most congestion of all intersections in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, thi's intersection represents worst-case air quality conditions in the project vicinity. Receptor sites were selected. in each quadrant of the intersection to represent locations where people may be present for time periods consistent with air quality standards (i.e., one-hour or eight-hour periods). The air quality modeling analysis accounts for CO from local roadway sources. The total CO concentration at a receptor is the sum of the local CO and background CO from remote sources. For purposes of this analysis, background CO concentrations of 5.0 PPM one-hour average and 3.0 PPM eight-hour average were assumed and were added to the modeling results. Based on monitoring conducted at other locations in the Twin Cities, .these background CO concentrations represent conservatively high estimates of actual background CO in the project vicinity. The results of the analysis are shown in the following table. • \\WENCK-F51\VOLIW_DruVE\08?T01\RICH-EAW.DOGlL1B-Imh Page 14 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project WORST-CASE PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) ~ ~ ~~ • RECEPTOR 1-HOUR AVERAGE 8-HOUR AVERAGE R1 -Northwest Quadrant 9.8 7.1 R2 -Northeast Quadrant 12.2 8.0 R3 -Southeast Quadrant 13.2 8.7 R4 -Southwest Quadrant 11.5 7.6 STANDARD 30.0 9.0 Note:. Values includes background CO concentrations of 5 PPM (one-hour average) and 3.0 PPM (eight-hour average). As shown in the table, all of the worst-case predicted CO concentrations are below the state ambient air quality standards, including conservative estimates of background air quality. It can therefore be safely assumed that development of the proposed project will. not cause or contribute to or exacerbation a violation of state ambient CO standards. 24. Stationary Source Air Emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? [XJ Yes [J No If yes, describe the.sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality. This project will involve installation of small, natural gas-fired space heating devices in new buildings. Natural gas-fired space heaters exhaust small amounts of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. These space heating devices are not expected to adversely affect air quality in the area. (See Odor Discussion, Question 25) 25. Dust, Odors, Noise Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? (XJ Yes [ J No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. Dust: Construction of the project is expected to generate dust. However, construction operations will involve water spraying as needed on dirt roads to suppress dust. Therefore, dust is not expected to be a significant problem. It is not anticipated that the project will generate any significant odors during construction. Odors: As part of this redevelopment, an existing fast food restaurant will be moved from its current location in the Northeast corner of the development to the southeast corner of the development. This proposed location is approximately 150 feet from the nearest resident. Other restaurants to be located on- site are farther away from any of the residents and are not expected to be an issue. The fast food restaurant will generate odors primarily from operation of its fryers and grills. The odors are in the form of grease and smoke particulate as well as organic vapors. As part of this project the proposer has indicated that the restaurant will install an electrostatic precipitator to minimize grease and smoke particulate generated by the restaurant. It will also install an activated carbon absorber to control the organic vapor portion of the exhaust. The existing fast food restaurant currently does not have such \\~YENCK-FSI\VOLI\N_DRIVE\08?T01\RICH-EAW.DOC'1-JB-imh Page 15 of 19 Revised Date 12~4~98 F..4W-Richfield Urban Village Project ~v equipment. The vendor for the control equipment estimates that this type of equipment will control 90 percent of the odor causing materials. The equipment will need regular maintenance however, to consistently maintain this control efficiency. Noise: Noise will be generated during construction of the proposed project and, after completion, by traffic moving to and from the project site on public streets. Noise .sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project site include the school immediately east of the project site and single family residences south of the site. Construction noise impacts will be temporary and will vary considerably depending on the phase of construction. Noise levels will likely be greatest during demolition and grading activities at the beginning of the construction process. Construction noise impacts can be minimized by the following methods: • Turn off idling equipment or move it away from noise sensitive areas. • Make sure all equipment is properly muffled and in good repair. • Restrict construction activities to typical business hours (7:00 AM to 6:00 PM). • Locate stationary equipment as far from noise sensitive areas as possible. • Construct berms proposed for the east and south sides of the site early in the construction process. Traffic generated. by the proposed project will add to traffic noise levels adjacent to the public streets serving. the project site. The site has been designed to route site generated traffic onto the major arterial streets serving the site (66th Street, Lyndale Avenue) and to restrict traffic onto residential streets. As illustrated on the site plan, the residential streets. south of the site will be looped together to prevent through traffic movements. Public through-streets will be terminated at 67th from Garfield Avenue to .Pleasant Avenue, and Pleasant Avenue from 66th to 67th. Street West reducing traffic noise along east and south (east of Garfield). Traffic on Pleasant Avenue to the north will have access to the site but will not be able to continue through on Pleasant. All of these factors will minimize traffic noise impacts on residential streets in the vicinity of the project. Based on the forecast traffic volumes, traffic noise levels along streets serving the site will increase by less than 1 dBA. This is not a perceptible increase in noise levels and no significant long-term noise impacts are expected. 26. Sensitive Resources Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: Yes No a. archeological, historical or architectural resources? X b. prime or unique farmlands? X c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? X d. scenic views and vistas? X e. other unique resources? X If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and ident~ any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. a. archeological, historical or architectural resources? The Minnesota Historical Society indicates that no such resources are present on or near the site. See attached letter from the State Historic Preservation Office. (Appendix D) \\WE~1CK-F51\YOLIW_DtuVE\082TOIVUCH-EAW.DOCU.JB-Imh Page 16 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban Pillage Project ~-~ 27. Visual Im acts Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from rote ~ e P lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) [XJ Yes [J No. If yes, explain. There may be an increase to residents in the area resulting from the increase in traffic on nearby road ways as well as resulting from the new Fast Food Restaurant. To mitigate glare from the restaurant traffic alight-barrier wall will be constructed along a portion of 67th Street West. 28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency? [xJ Yes [ J No If yes, ident fy the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain. The proposed project is subject to the 1997-2007 City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The Comprehensive Plan identifies sixteen (16) goals to ensure that the objectives of the plan are met over the life cycle of the plan. It is believed that the proposed project is strongly compatible with nine (9) of these goals (Goal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, I0, 15, and 16), and moderately supportive or neutral with respect to seven (7) of these goals (Goal Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14). The project is not believed to be incompatible with a_y of the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. In keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the residential area will need to be rezoned from Residential to - Regional CommerciaUO~ce. This application has been. submitted and is pending. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? [XJ Yes [ J No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a "connected action " with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW,• see "EAW Guidelines "for details.) The proposed project involves only modifications or additions to existing utility arteries serving the project area. Therefore, no environmental impacts are expected from a utility standpoint. The project involves the following removals of and/or modifications to existing roadway segments: Removal of Grand Avenue between 66th and 67th Streets; Removal of Pleasant Avenue between 66th and 67 Streets; and Modification to 67th Street to terminate traffic at (former) intersection with Harriet. Avenue. There are no negative environmental impacts expected with respect to these roadway modifications. Lastly, there are no other public services needed to serve the project. \\WENCK-FSI\VOL11N_DRIVE\082TOIUtICH-EAW.DOCU.IB-Imh Page 17 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 (SJ 30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts EAW-Richfield Urban Village Project a. Are, future stages of this development planned or likely [J Yes [XJ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? [J Yes [XJ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review. c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? [J Yes [XJ No d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28, ident~ and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. Not Applicable 32. Summary of Issues (This section need not be completed if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping: instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that may have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. The need for further investigation of previously discussed items is not anticipated at this time. Other than replacing trees that are lost during construction, no other mitigation is expected. The site will be further investigated to determine the possible presence of wells on-site. If found, these will be abandoned and sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health Regulations by a certified contractor to eliminate the potential for groundwater impact. All permits and approvals that are required prior to the start of construction will be obtained. • \\WENCK-FSi\VOLTIN_DRIVE\082T01\RICH-E~W.DOCUJB-imh Page 18 of 19 .Revised Date 12/4/98 EAW-Richfield Urban village Project ~~ ~~ Certifications by the RGU (a113 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of the EAW for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor A. I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~~~.,\ \' Signatu `,~` ;/ /~ti~u'~-- ~, ~ l B. I hereby ~~erti~y that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, pro`Ject stages or project components, other than those described in this document, which. are related to the project as "connected actions", or "phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410_0200, s p. 9b and subp. 60. Signature~~~z"Z" / " ~~'--Zc_c: 1- C. I hereby certify~that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list. ,~ Signature l~~ Title of signer C tT'~( ~ ~"~~°1,,, r IZ.-n-g8 Date • \\WENCK-FSI\VOLiW_DRIVE1082T0111LICH-EAW.DOC\LIB-Imh Page 19 of 19 Revised Date 12/4/98 ~~~~ Figures • • ~~~~ .~}V I` y8> 1 ~/~ •-- ~ : . 122 '* ~~_~+.~.,- R s.w~ -~ ~--- ~~~ h~inne~o~ ~< ~~.: ~,- ,~ ~ ~= . S~. Paul F a... w 7( v ~•. a,a 3 t I ~.: se I 13 I w~ ~ ~ ~ t s i. ~s Y ~ t N ~ y~. su"s _ b ~ ;e I 35 `• ©f : . S s a'1 ~.w t s~ ate.... 3~ 'fib w ~ (' ' ,3 t ~` - s = S ' ~ y1 S~ ~ '~~ .- 1F . u~r ~ 51 ;{ ~ ~ i t3I _ :: I1 ~ ~i ~~ ~ -~T .: ~. ! '~ :r`l~ • Ir 17 ~~ ~ ~ ~ :.I.a.. ~ ~ ~ t! t mr . ~ I . g \ * :~C ~• 3 38 ` ado •,-i ~.~ ~: 'r-° -,~•w.~ fow fc s f' s11 fL I .? •a ~ sa s `~ II~r 5`T~ f M.3~wlC R SO X . ~ . - fi ._x.i! '!r.3 •. we. sir x ~ ~ ' ~-~:! L..• c ..~~ ~ ~ . I s s 110 s.- ~ ? s. .C t 100 _ a .. si: > - 6r~ ~ r , s _ w„r ,an s ~ - ,~... ~:.~- - c ra.s ; ~ ~s "a. ' ,~;; ~ M dOta Site Location = - `~"' ' "°"' _ ~. . r -I ~a~w.~e~b.s~rw+ ,,..,.. z '•'~: ~? ~ . _ .. ~n•. s !'i L rw R Nara~deisl JYeOaK •~ Y~ ~ ~. w. 7Tf11.R I +~ ! Tll~ T ~ !1-~Ir Ila } '~ - 4~ ~ ~ ' ~'/ ':M' fa.:.1C ~ ~ t0e1i :1'!Xi. -• ~-,. (t?~...i /w !1. r ~_ \ C r ~: 1Yb ' ~r ~~ ~~ `lF~ ~~. L1a~ ~ ~Ya a { ~,:l Cer[ i ;rte ~~a.<'I % ~nt~ ~~~~~ ~.~ e•!•=i a~ i :~' ~a.. ~~e 26 tw- e.t ~a ~1^'~~~~d ~ • -.,<~-'~ k^-~~-•:i'~=Q Aa• Zs'~L .. r ~ ~~~ 3J - ~ ry, ~e ..~ -= i:: ~MT ~. ,.rr ~rYs~ ~t~r sz ,,qq~~ta~ :~~_ .~,i -~.:.~ .i..r~~. 'ter. 13 ~ \La` ~ •..~ -i.~ ` 34` ~+ +- 17 :.;~.~'- ~ -i.+~' r~ ;~ -r~ e ~ ~ ~ E39811 ~ N 3.'. le~; `µ~.... :~ ~. ~- . -. - ' ~`- DA OTA ~ ~O- ~ \' ` I _~Hennepin County A.- ~ a tir ~~^ Burnsville s _ _. ~~''~ v`I r`_ ~ ~~~ _N `~S~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~ 8 to ~ _ il~ 8• .i , r ! ! -gt a°~ _J~-. ~f~ ( ~ / !J .\ '' w V 1/tI lHJ"~/.r1C11T7 RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE ~ NOV 1998 Wenck LOC21aOt1 M2p WenckAssociates, lnc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr. Figure 1 Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 55359 ~- ~, _ ~, Lake ' '~Iarr,.iet' - `847 :~ =.~ l aisaace ' .~=.,r /-' `;` ~~.- . ar ' w ::, :. ~ ~ r -- ~I sT, ~ y ei ~J" ~-,,., ~ v 87 ~ ~' ' 93 - a t ~:-~P~~!k-- - f ; , ~ ~ o Q ( m J~ ~ '; ~ ~ e ^1 ~i 2 earl d m it " ~® ~ lake DD y ~ w . ~ ~ ,: ~ ~ Park( ~ ~ ; f 11-N + ~., , . _ . a a ~ D h h' N on ` ~ f A d i~ m Cif w sso - DD °- '~ ~ Q o ~ .~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ c ~ o Pak ~DDL~6.J ,'Kenn ` F P.arNk_ ? z m O /j a r. ah h f~= e ~ ~ ~~ ~o~ 1E tl_J~ ~ o ~ , 2 J R' ~ Id ~ v 0 9,Ip ~6 D ~ o - ~ p Oak Hilrl '~ ~5 V I (~°, 9p ~i t21 I, ~ ° N E P L U r.. _ ~ ~ . -- r ~~ Lake \~ ~f7~.:.....L ~ ° b _ :_~__ ; ~ r_. ~, .a ~ 0 ~~ y ~ ~~a_DDD _ .~ ~ . , z ~ a k ® q ~ I H,~` J ~ Q~~ co et at k ~_ ~ _ .... a ~ 1 1 .~'~ ~ '.. _ _ Legions . i x s ~^ k ~ ~ ~~ D Prod ect Location ~ D `- _ ' , w j~ " ~i~ ~j e / +_ ~ o H o 1 ~~ .J ~ ~ ~,, A l i e b t ~ ~ ii Ci HII``w x i ~. \~l ar i ~`~~ ~~ ~ rant~L~ u l LI a k II ~ M m ial a i`. I t I I~ 1 f :1. f° J ADD =~ ._._ ~ - ~, LIDD ~ ~l~L ._ ~ •',~F' 1e '' i x /f _ ~_ V Q ~~ c o _... •- ~ ~ e--.~ .- ;1~fi=7 ~ _~__e1 ~ ~ sr ~ c RICHFIELD URBAN. VILLAGE Q ~~~~ Wenck NOV 199 s Project Location Map V WenckAssociates,lnc. 1800 PioneerCn3ekCtr. Figure 2 Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 55359 i ~~ • ~, • ~~ gl V J O W U N F Z Q Y -~~ ~7~~~ ~~ ~~ m f ? i ~ ~~ ; DE C S i i f 1 } ~ 1 •~ ~ ~~4~ ` ~ ~ .~..._. . ~~ w .e ~ a O ~ ~ 1 # ~ ~ a ® ® ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ 9. a `- ~-~: a~~`~~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~g ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~~ ~~\ ~~ ~' ~~~~~ ~~~ 4~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ /~ ~,I ~'~L U M tom. b4 ~•. .••••••••. ..... ,~na w,aa.,,-dar.unu IuY IW. 1G lO. .]Y. YI 177C a1GM1 M,~N b ~ '~"ib IML Yt MYaUW~ ~l~ ~~~ ~ Y ! FY ~ ~ ~ ® ~!~ ~z ~~ ~a ~ • n 4 ~ 1 Yl1N3AYQNYY9. 13lYYN! . ~ ~ i a~~ tr~~~ a MM-,OWM•nvNYmwoWNr\'~/Mr~l ~M~N ~~ ~r Appendix A Project Summary • VII • • RICHFIELD URBAN VII,LAGE SITE, BUII,DING AND PARKING DATA SUMMARY November 19,1998 A. EXISTING STRUCTURES Total Gross 1. Richfield State Bank Building Bank/Office/RetaiUMcDonald's 95,535 sf 2. Woodlake Medical Clinic 22,190 sf 3. Existing 2 story Brick House @ Harriet & 67th 2,132 sf 4. Existing 1 Story Brick House--6709 Lyndale 1,478 sf 5. Single Family Structures between Grand/Pleasant (To be removed.) Total Existing 121,335 sf B. PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES L Office/Commercial Component lA. Program Total Gross Rentable Total Gross Level One: RetaiURestaurant 23,000 sf 32,775 sf Level Two: Medical 25,000 sf 30,250 sf Level Three: RSA Office 25,250 sf 27,045 sf 73,250 sf 90,070 sf 1B. Conceptual Parking Required Relocated 2-Story House 2,000 gsf @ 5/1000 gsf = 10 .Renovated 6709 House 1,200 gsf @ 5!1000 gsf = 6 Retail 8,000 gsf @ 4.5!1000 gsf = 36 Restaurant * 15,000 gsf @ 8.3/1000 gsf = 125 Medical 25,000 gsf @ 5/1000 gsf = ,125 RSA Office 25,250 gsf @ 5/1000 gsf = 126 Total Parking Required 428 • * Approx. 250 seats with/stall per 3 seats N:\082T01 \DATA-SUM. DOGIUB•Imh Richfield Urban Village Building and Parking Data Update Summary November 19, 1998 age 2 P / ~ ~ • UJ (~ 2. Assisted Living Component 2A. Program 78 Dwelling 973 gsf/unit Total Area Floors 1-3 75,967 gsf 2B. Conceptual Parking Required: 40 stalls 3. Multi-family Component 3A. Program 138 Dwelling Units: 6 Efficiencies 2 One Bedroom Townhomes 33 One Bedroom Flats 12 Two Bedroom Townhomes - 65 Two Bedroom Flats 15 Three Bedroom Townhomes 5 Three Bedroom Flats I38 Total Units Total Area Floors 1-3 . 181,065 gsf 3B. Conceptual Parking Required 138 x 1.5 Dwelling Unit = 207 (with reduction factor of .5/D.U.) 4. McDonalds Component 4A. Program 4,500 gsf f 4B. Conceptual Parking Required: 50 Stalls 5. Parking Ramp SA. Program .196,200 gsf (1'/z Levels down, access to commercial garage level, 4 Levels up) SB. Parking provided 597 stalls N:\082T01 \DATA-SUM1I.DOC~[.JB-Imh Richfield Urban Village Building and Parking Data Update Summary November 19, 1998 Page 3 ~ ~, ~ Z C. PARING SLTNIlVIARY Required: • 6701 -Relocated 2-story brick 10 • 6709 -Renovated Professional w/replacement • Replacement 415 • Office commercial 412 • Assisted living 40 • Multi-Family 207 Total Required 1084 Parking Provided: Standard HC Total • 6701 Lyndale 19 1 20 • 6709 Lyndale 5 1 6 • Ramp (4 up/1 1/2 down) 557 40 597 • Below Office/Commercial .106 3 109 • Below Assisted Living 50' 2 52 • Below Multi-Family 161 4 165 • McDonalds 58 2 60 • Bank on Grade 26 1 27 • Multi-Family on Grade 28 1 29 Total Parking Provided 1010 55 1065 Status Area Totals: • Existing Bank Building 95,535 gsf Existing Clinic Building 22,190 gsf • 6701 Lyndale (2 story brick house) 2,132 gsf • 6709 Lyndale 1,478 gsf Subtotal- Existing Building Area 121,335 gsf • .Parking Ramp (4 up/1 1/2 down) NIC • Commercial/ Office/ Restaurant/ Retail 90,070 gsf • .Assisted Living 75,967 gsf • Multi-Family 181,065 gsf • McDonaids 4,500 Qsf Subtotal- Proposed Building Area 351,602 gsf Grand Total Area Existing + Proposed 472,937 gsf (Does not include grade parking or parking ramp areas) N:\082T01 \DATA-S (1M. DOGILJB-Imh Richfield Urban Village Building and Parking Data Update Summary November 19, 1998 ~r _(~ Page 4 l0 D. SITE DATA SITNIlVIARY Item Existing Proposed % or FAR Total Site Area (sfl 628,997 628,997 Building Coverage (sfl 189,991 30% Total Bidg. Area (gsfl 121,335 472,937 0.75 Impervious Site Area 365,687 58% 460,291 73% Pervious Site Area (sfl 263,369 42% 168,766 27% N:1082T° I~DATA-SUM.DO(.WB-Imh Appendix B Minnesota National Heritage Information System Database Search Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ~r~~ Natural Heritage and Nongame Reseazch Program, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul. Minnesota 55155-40 Phone: (651)296-8279 Fax: (651)296-1811 December 1, 1998 Dale Clazidge Wenck Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 428 Maple Plain, MN 55359 Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of Richfield Urban ViIIage Project; Hennepin Co.; T28N R24W S.27. Dear Mr. Claridge, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features aze known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there are 4 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fields). Following are specific comments for only those elements that may be impacted by the proposed project. The Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state threatened species, occur in the vicinity of the project. Although we have no records from within the project area, it is possible that turtles exist in the area if there is suitable habitat on the site. For your information, I have attached 2 fact sheets about the Blanding's turtle: one from Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna, (1988, B. Coffin and L. Pfannmuller, editors); and the other - from DNR with land use. guidelines for [contractors/homeownersJ. As the fact sheets indicate, the turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1-3 feet deep), but they nest in open, sandy uplands up to 1/2 mile from wetlands. Nesting is in June and eggs hatch in September, at which time young turtles enter wetlands where they over-winter in soft sediments. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland. drainage and degradation, development on upland nesting areas, and possibly collection for the pet trade. In addition, because of the tendency for Blanding's turtles to travel long distances over land, they are often forced to cross roads in developed azeas. Many of the records we have of Blanding's turtles are from turtles killed crossing roads. To minimize impacts to the species, it is recommended that project design and construction activities not adversely affect water quality or natural water levels in surrounding wetlands. Retaining adjacent sandy uplands for nesting and providing for safe travel between wetlands and uplands will further help this population to survive in the face of continuing fragmentation of its habitat. Suggestions for implementation of these recommendations are included on the fact sheet mentioned above. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other. natural features. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by- DNR Information: 612-296-6157. I-800-766-6(H)0 TTY:6I2-296-5484. I-800fi57-3929 An Equal Opportunity Empluger I1• Printed un Recycled Paper Cuntainim_ Whu Values Divanin ~~ \finimunt of 11K~ Pua-Cumumer ~~aae ~Y ~ / county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Hennepin County. Our information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on-site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area. The enclosed results of the database seazch are provided in two formats: index and full. record. To control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a raze element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The index provides raze feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or internal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you .wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: "Copyright (yeaz) State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. This. index may be reprinted, unaltered, in Environmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal natural resource glans, and internal reports. For any other use, written percussion is required." The full-record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint the full-record printouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be awaze that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database search and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department. Thank you -for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, q~... sue, Jan Steier Environmental Review Technician enci: Database search results Natural Heritage Database-Print-Outs: An Explanation of Selected Fields Fact sheets: Blanding's Turtle Invoice ES# 990281 ~~ Appendix C Traffic Analysis Data • • cD ~ r~ ~- 8 T ~ T ~'~~ W. 64th Street 17 '-~ ~~(~ 1~ 24 ~ N ~ '- ~,,, ~,;; 1, ~; ~' MM^ d' 114 •- cfl T E-167 ~. ~.y X71 W. 65th Street 126 J" E~ '~` 143 ~~~ 62 -~, ~n ~ ~ x'-42 ~rnrn '~99 ~ ~ 724 27 ~ ~? y y ~ 627 ~ 732 101 17 ~J~1. o6th street. ~~;~. E6zh 5trest 235-'1' ~ ~ ~ 196-" ~, ~'~' ~ 1262-~ 1159 ~ 242 ~, o ao cfl ao cD 1090 ~ 57 ~ rn N r~ 32 ~- ~ N co cro ~ N s N c~ ~~ ,~ T~ T ~1 ~, l~ ~(} ~- 52 W. 67th Street ~_ `~< V ~ ~ ~1T~ ~ 1~ 29 Ncocfl TAT ~_~ ~~~T ~ N ~ = ~~. ~ ~ ~ _ _ __ T ;~ ~ 7~ i orn ~ - 274 ~ T ~n ~- '~ 9 ~ ~ ~r 5 y ~ -- -- _ 4sJ. 68th ~treet ~ - v~OCo ~_~ Figure 5 -. .. .. - 1998 Existing PM Peak Hour RICHFI ELD, MINNESOTA Turning Movement Volumes ®BRW anvmwM Nor re Seol. NOR1H SOURCE: BRw, INC. • C ~~M ~8 W. 64th Street 17 ~ .~- ------ -- ~ ~ 1~ 24 ~, ~ N n .- L i ~~ -Q ~~~ ?~ X144 TAT ~- y E-167 ~F" 71 W. 65th Street 126 J" ~~~ 143 62 ~ co ~ ~ N c`~i ~ 42 T E1yy E- 731 ~, 27 - 4V. 66th :street 23J ~ ~1 T ~ 1222 ~ ~ ~ 242 ~, m N `v~. -; ~ s ~ ~ y '~~ ~~ '` ~~ R I C H F I E L D M I N N E S O T A ®BRW revcc.+.d Nol ~o Scal• NORTH I~ c°~ o ~- 56 CO ~t N 1 J y ~.5 ~ 118 ~ 172 E , '~N. 66tH Street 196 - ~ ~' ~ 1336-~ ~, ~ {~ 1109 ~io~ ~~ -' GOr 101 ~ N co .- }, ~, n ~ T ~ T ~' 323 .~- y ~ , 89 W. 67th Street 34,' ~~f~ 1..~ ~ 29~, ~~ - N f~ OD 00 Ln - ' cq) _ T y ~ ~ 4~, ~_ - ~ 7J~- r _ -~ -- 274 ~ ~ °~° __ ~ 39 ~ m ~ `~. 5 ~ r y ~ = W.68tf~ Street __--_ - -= ~ _... ~ rn co ~ ~ J ' Figure 6 Richfield Urban Village Post Development PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes SOURCE: BRW, INC. ~~~ c+ ~ p~ C~1 ~ ~D N ~ M h i N .. C1 O N N N n h N e+1 v N N ~O n+ N n N . OHO ~ N `~ N [~ c+1 ~ 00 i ~ N ~ ~O h v'f ~ O m v i ~ y s j ~O t` N N .~ ~ ~ i ~ N O .~. .- r v1 ` N'1 (J~ i3 N N N ~ M ~ i ~O et i ~ ~i ?r ~ ... N ~ ~ (~ • ^I 1 E ~ .--~ ~ ~ M l~ ~O `ct h ~ I~ M~1 „ vS N ~ N r ~ ~ N ; c~ 1 i 1~1 .i7~ Q' E. ~ ~ ! ! r 7 . "'~ > > > > > > .~ L'' Gil .. z cz. fsl GL Z , ~ w~ ~ T r ~~ ~ ~ -1 Z s W Z t Z t Z ~ ~L ~ z t^ 3 F C~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a r ~ ~ r ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a s ~ a ~ K=.~ ~ R /~~ vs N ~O ~ R1 ~ ~ N ~ ~ i r N ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ '"~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ' N N ~ ~ N r iri N ap i ~ ° n ° i ~ ~ o o ~ v i N ~ w~l ~ ~ h a .mow ~ 4'1 `Md Y~ e~ e! O~ -7 I N c ~p ~ v' co Q; .- ~ ~ ~ chi ! .~ ~1 ^ O i ^ ~ . i M N N L F~ O F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wy ~ ww ~ N ~ lfS ~ //~~~ M~1 ~ ~ ~ OHO N ~ ^ ~ OrC i WJ ~ ~ N .'.~ F+~ ~ ~ ,' _ ~ ~ ~ G ~~, ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~' j j W a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z Z N r~• - - ¢ z ;~ r a .~ °~- ~' > > > > > > ~ > _ ~ ~~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ c :~ c ~ c ~ ¢ U p ~ v ~ r ~ s ~ ~ c:w Z = Z ~ Z s ~ ~ e= e i 3 ~O R 0. I cs _ ~O ~O S- ] :e ~D a r ~ H 7 ~s ~ ~r a s ~ .. ~O C r .. ~-.. ~. .. .- m a a • 0 ~..i V ... y CA CFr O r> a~ ~ r.7 j M .O i •c W v j q a~ ~ i~ U ... U ..» Q Li Q N ~ o s F¢ o~ a~ N A N :3 Z L' ~ ~ :~ ~ `~ z ~r Q~ Q Z 4 Q ~ G G ,, I V a ;. a °z ~_ a R~ ~~ I C3 N Z W > ~ L ~; I~ ~ ',z I~ a ~ ~ ~~ ,_, ~ I vJ Z La a a r: a o a ~~ ~~ Q N I r a 3 ~z ~I¢ 0 0 ~ ~ a ~~ ,, I Q L 5 Z iG is z `~ r ti o ~~~ 3 r m ~~ • • Appendix D State Historic Preservation Office Response ~- !~ yIINtiESOT:~ III$TURIC:~L SaCIET~' STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE November 10, 1998 Mr. Dale Claridge `r'Jenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center PO Box 428 Maple Plain, MN 55359 RE: Richfield Urban Village Project Richfield, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 99-0272 Dear Mr. Claridge: ~_~ ~_ ,:. ~~~ .=cam $Y >'JOV i 2 i~;_ ~G~~/(;j~; yin,,. • Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Please contact us at (651)296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our comments on this project. Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer • 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 46 Agenda February 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to subsections 506, 511, 521 and 546 of the Zoning Ordinance making administrative and definition-related changes. Background: The Planning Commission conducts an annual review of the Zoning Ordinance to keep it current. As a result of their most recent review, the Commission is recommending some administrative and definition-related changes to the ordinance. The recommended changes are as follows: Garage Definition: There has been. some confusion as to the difference between a garage and a shed. The amendment adds language to the garage definition relating to construction requirements to differentiate between the two structures. Lot Coverage: In the early 1990s, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow greater lot coverage (35%) on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet. The lot coverage for lots over 7,000 square feet was left at 25 percent or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater. The proposed amendment would allow lot coverage of 35 percent for all lots, regardless of size. Shed Heights:. Although the Zoning Ordinance does not allow two story sheds, recently several sheds have been constructed to the maximum height and in such a way that they are just under the legal definition of two stories. The height for sheds is currently the same as it is for garages (14 feet).. Because sheds are smaller in size and generally less well constructed, these tall narrow buildings have generated some neighborhood complaints. The proposed amendment establishes a separate height of 12 feet (measured from ground level to the highest point of the roof) for accessory buildings that are not garages. Variances: The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for a property owner to record a variance on the property title. Recording a variance is not required by state law (recording a conditional use permit is required by state law) and has not been part of standard practice in the past. Curb Cuts: The proposed amendment would require a property owner to remove an abandoned curb cut when they are installing a new one. Fencing: The amendment would change the spacing standards between fence posts for chain link fences from eight to ten feet. This distance is an industry standard. 5- Recreation-Related Fences: The amendment adds language to allow flexibility in fence heights for recreation-related fences in parks, school and churches. Currently, all fences in an R district are not supposed to exceed six feet. Fences taller than this have been constructed for facilities such as ballfields, technically in violation of the ordinance. Recreation fence standards would be kept on file to provide guidance for these types of fences. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of an ordinance amendment to subsections 506, 511, 521, and 546 of the Zoning Ordinance making administrative and definition-related changes. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Planning Commission conducts an annual review of the Zoning Ordinance to keep it current.. 2. The proposed changes are in response to issues that have arisen over the past couple of years and requests from residents, Planning Commission and staff members. 3. On November 24, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. 4. .First reading of the amendment was held on January 25, 1999. 5. Notice of the public hearing. was published in the Sun-Current. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny this amendment. 2. Approve the amendment with revisions. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, February 22, 1999 in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Respectfully submitted, J mes D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 506, 511, 521 AND 546 OF APPENDIX B OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 506.07, subd. 34 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 34. "Garage, private" - An accessory building or accessory portion of the principal building for the private use of the owner or occupant of the principal building, primarily for the storage of motor vehicles, with no facilities for mechanical service or repair of a commercial or public nature. The gara_ eq shall Section 2. Subsection 511.23, subd. 8 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 8. Posts. Posts and stringers on any fence located at or near the lot line shall be on the inside of the fenced area unless designed as an integral part of the fence. Posts for wooden a~-sl~a~ie-lid-fences shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed eight feet. Posts for chain link fences shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed ten feet. Section 3. Subsection 511.23, subd. 13 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is added as follows: Section 4. Subsection 521.05, subdivision 11 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new paragraph as follows: Section 5. Subsection 521.09, subd. 4 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: C 53 Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage: -Lots of 7,000 S . Ft. or less: 35% Lots of over 7,000 Sq. Ft.: The greater of 2-535% or 2,500 Sq. Ft. Non-residential uses: 50% Section 6. Subsection 521.11, subd. 2 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height: USE FRONT REAR. SIDE -INTERIOR- SIDE -STREETSIDE- MAXI UIGI HEIGHT SINGLE FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft. TWO FAMILY CUP 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft. ACCESSORY - GARAGE 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft. ACCESSORY - 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 12 Ft. NON-GARAGE STRUCTURES NON- RESIDENTIAL 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft. ACCESSORY 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft. Section 7. Subsection 521.11, subd. 3 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 8. Subsection 521.21, subdivision 10 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new paragraph as follows: Section 9. Subsection 521.25, subd. 6 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: ~~ • Subd. 6. Maximum lot coverage: Lots of 7,000 S . Ft. or less: 35% Lots of over 7,000 Sq. Ft.: The greater of 35~a% or 2,500 Sq. Ft. Non-residential uses: 50% Section 10. Subsection 521.27, subd. 2 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height: USE FRONT REAR SIDE -INTERIOR- SIDE -STREETSIDE- MAXIMU HEIGHT SINGLE FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 35 Ft. ACCESSORY - GARAGE 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 14 Ft. ACCESSORY - 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 12`Ft. NON-GARAGE STRUCTURES Section 11. Subsection 521.27, subd. 3 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 12. Subsection 521.41, subdivision 10 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new paragraph to read as follows: parking purposes. Section 13. Subsection 521.47, subd. 2 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: • 5-s Subd. 2. Required building setback and maximum height: USE FRONT REAR SIDE - INTERIOR SIDE - STREETSIDE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SINGLE FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft. TWO FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft. CLUSTER HOME CUP 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 ft. .ACCESSORY - GARAGE 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 14 Ft. 'ACCESSORY - 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 12 Ft. NON-GARAGE STRUCTURES NON-RESIDENTIAL 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft. ACCESSORY 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft. Section 14. Subsection 521.47, subd. 3 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 15. Subsection 546.09, subd. 11 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is repealed in its. entirety: Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of February, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ifs CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No 45 Agenda February 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Award the contract to install a traffic signal system at Portland Avenue (CSAH 35) and East 64th Street. Background: The 1999 capital improvement budget has identified the installation of a traffic signal at 64th Street and Portland Avenue. The Capital Improvement Budget contains $112,500 Municipal State Aid (MSA -gas tax) funds and $37,500 County funds for a total of $150,000 for installation of one full-traffic actuated control signal system, two emergency vehicle preemption systems and one traffic control interconnect system. Specifications for this work were sent to seven contractors. A formal bid opening was held on February 16,,1999 and a set of bid minutes/tabulation is attached for the Council's review. ~ Recommended'Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Ridgedale Electric Inc. in the amount of $121,626 for the installation of the traffic control system at 64th Street and Portland Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Ridgedale Electric Inc. submitted the lowest bid for the work required. The Engineer's estimate for the work was $173,000 and includes installation of emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. 2. The consultant has recommended award of the contract to Ridgedale Electric, Inc. 3. There are adequate funds available to fund this work. Alternative Recommendation: Council may reject the bids and instruct staff to obtain new bids; however, staff does not believe a more reasonable bid can be obtained from a reputable contractor. Delay in the award could affect the time schedule for the construction season. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the February 22, 1999 regular Council meeting in order to facilitate a timely construction start date. Respectfully submitted, ames D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA f Bid Opening ~ ~'I February 16, 1999 One Traffic Control Signal System Two Emergency Vehicle Preemption Systems and Interconnect City Project No. 401-30-519 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution, No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative .Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City.Clerk,.who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud,. bids for one traffic control signal system, two EVP systems and interconnect; as advertised in the official newspaper on January 22, 1999. Present: Thomas Ferber, .City. Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Base Bid Egan McKay Electrical Contractors, Inca 5% Bid Bond $ 136,197.00 Electric Service Co._ of Mpls. 5% Bid Bond $ 137,150.00 Killmer Electric Co: Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 137,798.00 Ridgedale Electric, Inc.. 5% Bid Bond $ 121,626.00 Electric Installation & Maintenance Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 136,989.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 22, 1999 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 4a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 44 Agenda February 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Award the bid for the purchase of a new ice resurfacer for the second ice sheet at the Richfield Ice Arena. Background: The addition of a second ice sheet will require the purchase of another ice resurfacer. The ice resurfacer scrapes the ice clean and lays down water to provide a clear sheet of ice for the ice users. It is important that each ice sheet has a resurfacer so that ice schedules can be maintained. During high school games and tournaments, the ice resurface times. vary depending on the number of penalties, stoppage of play and injuries. With only one ice resurfacer for two sheets of ice, it is very likely that ice rental schedules on the second sheet would not be maintained while high school games and tournaments are being played. There will also be unavoidable occasions when ice resurfaces will be pre- scheduled at the same time on both ice sheets. The second ice sheet addition project included the purchase of a new electric ice resurfacer. By having an electric ice resurfacer, the concern for unsafe levels of carbon monoxide or nitrogen dioxide is eliminated. Also, the new building's mechanical system is designed for an electric ice resurfacer, thus saving money in construction costs and energy usage. Bids were solicited from qualified suppliers and were opened on February 18, 1999 at 2 p.m. One quote was submitted: Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc.;15714 Colorado Avenue; Paramant, CA 90723 Base Bid: $77,250 Add: Advanced Watering System $ 2,500 Add: Water Gun for Batteries $ 200 Add Auto Snowbreaker 800 TOTAL $79,950 Recommended Motion: Approve the award to Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. for $79,950. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Zamboni is the only ice resurfacer meeting the specifications requested. • ~~JI 2. The Zamboni ice resurfacer is similar to the current Zamboni used in the existing arena. Therefore, the driving, operation and maintenance of the two machines will be similar for staff. 3. By having similar machines, the amount of replacement or spare parts kept in stock will be less than. if there were different ice resurfacers. 4. The location of the new arena does not allow for a practical means of having one ice resurfacer to be used for both ice sheets. 5. The proposal to add a second ice sheet included purchasing a new electric ice resurfacer since used electric ice resurfacers are not available. 6. The bid submitted was within the project estimate for the cost of an electric ice resurfacer. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Direct staff to seek bids for a different model/style ice resurfacer. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled on the consent calendar for the Council meeting of February 22, 1999. Action is requested to be assured that the ice resurfacer will be delivered prior to the opening of the second ice sheet. Respec Ily submitted, Jam .Prosser City anager JDP:cak • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ ,~ Bid Opening February 18, 1999 2:00 a.m. Ice Resurfacer for Richfield Ice Arena City Bid No. 99-1 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1.015, 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 ice resurfacer for Richfield Ice Arena, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 3, 1999. Present: AI Payne, Community Services Manager Tom Ferber, City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager. Representative • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Bid Security Frank J. Zamboni Co. lnc. Cashier's check Base Bid $ 77,250.00 Advertising Racks $ 400.00 Advanced Water System $ 2,500.00 Water Gun for Batteries $ 200.00 Back-up Alarm $ 325.00 Auto Snowbreaker $ 800.00 Snow Tank Light $ 150.00 TOTAL $ 81,625.00 The. City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 22, 1999 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk