06-08-98 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY
26, 1998 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF JUNE 1, 1998
PRESENTATIONS
• 1. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO 1998-99 MISS
RICHFIELD AMBASSADOR CANDIDATES
2. PRESENTATION TO RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT FROM
GROUP REPRESENTING AMERICAN LEGION WOMEN'S AUXILIARY
3. RECOGNITION OF RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN
STUDY OF MSP AIRPORT EXPANSION AND PROTECTION OF RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY
4. RECOGNITION OF RICHFIELD ADVENTURE GARDENS MINIATURE GOLF
STAFF FOR "BEST MINIATURE GOLF" DESIGNATION IN MAY 13 ISSUE OF
CITY PAGES, BEST OF TWIN CITIES FEATURE
5. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO CITY OF RICHFIELD
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING EMPLOYEES, CITY CLERK DIVISION
6. ACCEPTANCE OF TREE CITY USA TWELVE YEAR AWARD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 128
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
7. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
8. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
9. 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 MIDLAND
• HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING FOR REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF
FURNACE AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS IN AMOUNT OF $29,195
C.L. 129
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE
WATERSHED BOUNDARY CHANGE MOVING RICHFIELD LAKE AND
AUGSBURG PARK POND SUBWATERSHEDS FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT TO RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION C.L. 130
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING JUNE 22, 1998 FOR PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER ISSUANCE OF NEW WINE AND ON-SALE 3.2
PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR KETSANA'S THAI RESTAURANT,
7545 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 131
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
SUBSECTIONS-506 AND 52-1-OF ZONING-ORDINANCE-TO ALLOW
RESIDENTIAL FRONT PORCH ADDITIONS THAT ENCROACH ON FRONT
SETBACK AND APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 132
• 11. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
SUBSECTION 511 OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW LIMITED EXPANSION
OF NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 133
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
AIRPORT BUSINESS
12. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AIRPORT MITIGATION PROPOSAL IN
RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 134
13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
0
14. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
15. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
16. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
17. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative
Services Director at 861-9702.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 134
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Adopt the Airport Mitigation Proposal in response to the proposed construction of the
north-south runway (17/35) at MSP International Airport.
Background:
The City has prepared a Mitigation Proposal in response to the proposed construction
of the north-south runway (17/35). The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
runway project failed to address important potential impacts of the runway on the City of
Richfield and consequently failed to propose any mitigation for those impacts. The City
conducted its own analysis of the impacts, which indicate that there will be significant
noise, traffic, economic and other impacts on Richfield. The Mitigation Proposal
contains several measures the City believes are necessary to mitigate these impacts on
the City.
The City Council asked the Planning Commission to develop the land use component
of the airport mitigation strategy. The Planning Commission spent several sessions
learning about the impacts of low-frequency noise from the proposed north-south
runway and preparing a redevelopment concept in response to those impacts. The
• Commission also hosted several community meetings to inform residents and property
owners about low frequency noise and the Mitigation Proposal.
A summary of the Mitigation Proposal components is attached to the Council Letter.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the Mitigation Proposal. Direct staff to submit the Mitigation Proposal in
response to the Environmental Impact Statement for the north-south runway (17/35).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed north-south runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will
produce significant noise, traffic, economic and other impacts in Richfield that need
to be mitigated.
2. The Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately address the negative
impacts of the runway on the City of Richfield and has no proposal for addressing
the impacts.
3. The Airport Mitigation Proposal is a proactive means to address the significant
impacts of the north-south runway on the Richfield community.
4. The redevelopment portion of the Mitigation Proposal is based on the goals and
• objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
i0,-1
5. Several community meetings were held to inform residents and property owners
about the impacts of the runway and the proposed Mitigation Proposal.
6. Notice of the City Council consideration has been published in the Sun-Current and
other City publications.
7. On May 27, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
adoption of the Mitigation Proposal.
Alternative Recommendation:
Return the Airport Mitigation Proposal to the Planning Commission for further study.
City Manager
JDP:ds
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the north-south runway
are due by June 13, 1998. Further study by the Planning Commission would mean the
Mitigation Proposal would not be submitted as a comment on the EIS.
Respectf Ily submitted,
Jame .Prosser
E
/ 0--c-
SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS IN THE MITIGATION PROPOSAL
IMPACT MITIGATION CONCEPT EST. COST
A Air Quality • Require all measures in the DEIS 3.0
• Limit wait times on taxiways
• Tow planes in cargo area (night)
• Monitor air quality in Richfield
C Biota (tree losses) • Provide 200' wide "greenbelt" along TH77 1.5
• Fund additional trees in redevelopment area
D Bird -Aircraft • MAC must not solve problem by diverting
more traffic over Richfield (4/22)
E Construction • Distribute construction traffic to all 40.0
accesspoints
• Upgrade 66th and 77th Street interchanges
before construction
I Economic • Encourage non-residential redevelopment 14.0
• Help find replacement site for golf courses
• Pay City and School District for losses
• Fund efforts to retain families and
•
N Induces Socio-Econ. • businesses in Richfield
Improve communication and response to
14.0
airport-created problems
• Fund community support programs and
upgrading of neighborhoods
O Land Use • Fund all redevelopment costs 110.0
• Induce non-residential uses to
redevelopment area
• Keep new "west" terminal in Plan
• Support noise resistant high density housing
in redevelopment area
P Light Emissions • Screen lights in cargo area with plants, (included in C)
walls, and berms in "greenbelt" area
Q Noise • Adopt and fund all mitigation measures in 56.5
the DEIS
• Accept BBN low frequency noise area and
fund full noise mitigation in that area and
66% of those measures in the two-block
"transition area" beyond line defined by
BBN
• Fund Richfield neighborhood improvement
programs for properties east of Portland 10.0
• • Fund long-term health impacts study
page 1
is-3
R Parks and Recreation • Add Washington and Christian Parks to 12.0
noise affected list and provide sound
proofing
• Pay full value for NFT and RA parks
acquired
• Provide replacement site for gardens
• Assist in finding replacement site for golf
courses and ballfields
• Fund ball field development
T Social • Provide full relocation funding for golf 36.0
business
• Fund special assistance to find and improve
locations for displaced businesses and
residents
• Negotiate economic redevelopment with the
City as well as the Department of Economic
Development
U "4(f)" • Recognize NFT and RA parks qualify for 2.5
4(f) consideration
W Transportation • Upgrade 66th Street and 77th Street 33.5
interchange before construction and before
opening cargo area
• Fund improvements to collector streets that
will get overflow traffic and "calming" for
adjacent neighborhood streets
Y Visual • Provide 200' "greenbelt" along TH77 (included in C)
BB Surface Water • Meet all requirements of the Richfield 0.5
Stormwater Management Plan
CC Groundwater • Complete measures to protect old wells from 0.5
contaminating Richfield aquifer
• Accept responsibility for any future
contamination
GG Architecture • Provide "greenbelt" 6.0
• Permit Richfield to review and apply design
and operational conditions to all
development visible from the Richfield side
of TH77
NEW Fiscal • Fund all defined City and School District 16.0
long-term fiscal impacts
Mitigation Management • Fund management of the mitigation and 2.5
redevelopment program
Estimated Total Funds Required $358.5
page 2
is-q
Independent School District 280
Richfield, Minnesota
POSITION STATEMENT ON PROPOSED NORTH/SOUTH RUNWAY
The Richfield Public Schools and the City of Richfield are working together to
maintain and enhance Richfield as a good place in which to live, work, learn, and
do business. The proposed North/South runway poses a threat to the Richfield
community, and would have serious negative impacts on the Richfield Public
Schools, as detailed below:
1. Approximately 175 students and their families were displaced as the result of
an earlier buy-out of New Fordtown and Rich Acres due to airport . expansion.
Because of limited availability of housing within Richfield, approximately
seventy per cent (70%) of the affected students moved out of Richfield and
began attending schools outside of the Richfield School District. If 400
homes and 400 apartment units are lost due to additional airport expansion, it
is anticipated that at least 320 additional students and their families would be
displaced. Given our prior experience with New Fordtown and Rich Acres,
we anticipate that at least two thirds of these families would relocate to other
communities, resulting in a projected loss of approximately 214 students,
including 16 kindergarten, 123 elementary, and 75 secondary students.
2. Much of the school district's revenue is received on a per pupil basis. The
estimated annual loss in revenue, based on current per pupil unit revenue
amounts, would be approximately $1.23 million.
3. While the number of staff may be adjusted downward somewhat to
accommodate a reduction in enrollment, it will be difficult to achieve a $1.23
million annual reduction in expenditures without eliminating or reducing
programs and services that benefit ali students. Possible reductions include
course offerings, instructional materials, technology, guidance counseling,
gifted education, media services, health services, psychological and social
work services, building supervision, and transportation services. Other areas
such as building and district administration, clerical and custodial support,
staff development, equipment and supplies may also have to be reduced.
Having just completed a $1 million budget-cutting process in the spring of
1997, the Board of Education is keenly aware of the negative impact such a
process can have on the morale of students, parents, and employees.
0 (OVER)
/C7 -(
Independent School District 280
Richfield, Minnesota
POSITION STATEMENT ON PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The Board of Education appreciates the consideration given to the impacts of the
proposed North/South runway on the Richfield Public Schools. The purpose of
this statement is to outline the Board's position regarding the mitigation strategy
being developed by the City of Richfield. A separate statement outlines the
Board's position regarding construction of the North South runway (appended).
The Board of Education generally agrees with the plan as outlined, particularly
as it relates to the school district, children, and families, including the following:
¦ Replacement of lost housing coupled with incentive programs that
encourage residents outside the redevelopment area to buy townhouses
and make their homes available first to those displaced by the
redevelopment area.
¦ Replacement of the golf course and creation of parks, trails, and other
green spaces that mitigate against noise and other intrusions such as
landing lights while at the same time enhancing recreational opportunities.
¦ Proposed annexation of Taft Park into Richfield, and a commitment from
MAC not to acquire any more property in Richfield.
¦ Full funding of the redevelopment project, including replacement of taxes,
fees, and other revenues lost to the City of Richfield and the Richfield
Public Schools, over the full term of the redevelopment project.
The Board of Education recommends that the City Council consider the following
as the mitigation plan is finalized:
Review estimated financial impacts on the school district with school
district officials and make adjustments as appropriate.
2. Specify the minimum number of years for replacement of taxes, fees, and
other revenues lost to the city and school district. Possible substitute
wording is as follows: "Full funding of the redevelopment project,
including replacement of taxes, fees, and other revenues lost to the City of
Richfield and the Richfield School District, over the full term of the
redevelopment project or ten years, whichever is greater. "
10 (OVER)
aL_N
•
A
MITIGATION PROPOSAL
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
0
A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35)
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
Prepared For
The City of Richfield, MN
Prepared By
The Brauer Group, Inc.
project managers
On The Basis of Information and Analysis Provided By
Dr. Stanford Fidell Walter E. Gilfillan
Airports Noise Airports Planning and Operations
Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Dr. Geoffrey Gosling
Parks and Recreation Facilities Aviation Systems Planning
City of Richfield HRA Westwood Professional Services
Housing/Redevelopment/Relocation Transportation and Traffic
JMS Communications Richfield Community Services
Communications Public Works and Public Safety
Steven Pflaum, Attorney at Law
Legal
•
DRAFT (e)06/02/98
/(: -q
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
U
A MITIGATION CONCEPT REPORT
for a proposed
NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY
for
The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART SUBJECT PAGE
PART ONE Executive Summary .....................One-1 to ONE-12
PART TWO Identification of Stakeholders .... TWO-1 to TWO 4
PART THREE Definition of Impacts ........ THREE-1 to THREE-11
n
U
PART FOUR Mitigation Proposals ..............FOUR-1 to FOUR-7
PART FIVE Implementation Process ........... FIVE -1 to FIVE-6
ADDENDA Supporting Documentation
A. BBN Report No. 8196
B. BBN Report No. 8211
C. City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan Data
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98
• PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF
A MITIGATION CONCEPT
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPME14T AND OPERATION
OF
A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35)
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0 SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1.0 Overview . ONE-2
1.1 Supporting Detail ONE-5
1.2 Identification of Affected Populations
and Other Stakeholders ONE-5
1.3 Identification and Definition of Impacts
to be Mitigated ONE-7
1.4 Mitigation Proposals ONE-9
1.5 Implementation Process ONE-11
1.6 Exhibits.... Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield ONE-13
1. Summary from BBN Report No. 8196
2. Summary from BBN Report No. 8211
3. Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield... and Existing Land
Uses
4. Redevelopment Area... Existing Population
5. Redevelopment Area... Existing Market Values
6. A Redevelopment Concept
7. Option Six Plan For MSP Site Development (EIS)
DRAFT 06102198
/C?-/ /
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
is
1.0 Overview
This report contains the City of Richfield's concept for mitigating the impacts that would
be produced by the proposed north-south runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport ("MSP"). Notwithstanding the significant noise, traffic, economic, and other
impacts that the runway would produce in Richfield--impacts far greater than those that
would be experienced in any other community--Richfield does not oppose improvement
of the MSP site. However, Richfield believes that the project must include a
comprehensive mitigation plan that reduces negative impacts to the fullest extent
possible. This report outlines an effective concept for achieving that objective.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the runway project released in late 1996
(the "DEIS") failed to address important potential impacts, such as low frequency
aircraft noise, and consequently failed to propose any mitigation for those impacts.
Richfield was therefore forced to analyze impacts overlooked in the DEIS and to
formulate appropriate mitigation measures.
Richfield retained the Brauer Group, Inc., a planning firm with more than thirty years of
planning experience in Richfield, to serve as project manager of the mitigation effort.
• To support the Brauer Group's expertise in mitigation of "traditional" land use, traffic,
and economic impacts, Richfield hired BBN Technologies, an internationally respected
acoustical engineering firm, to analyze whether the new runway would create
significant noise impacts in Richfield.
BBN focused its attention on low frequency runway sideline noise from aircraft on or
near the ground, such as that produced by aircraft while taxiing, taking off, employing
thrust reversers on landing, or undergoing engine maintenance run-ups. Such low
frequency noise is experienced as low rumbling and/or vibration which can last far
longer than noise produced by an aircraft overflight. Recent years have witnessed
increased concern about low frequency noise at airports across the United States,
including San Francisco International Airport, Boston's Logan International Airport, and
Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
In its initial report (Summary appended as EXHIBIT 1, and the full report as Appendix
A), BBN concluded that the new north-south runway would increase low frequency
noise in a large portion of eastern Richfield and that such sideline noise could not be
effectively mitigated by either a noise berm parallel to the runway or traditional
residential soundproofing measures. Specifically, BBN found that:
• Aircraft operations on the proposed runway would "substantially elevate [low
• frequency noise levels] up to about a mile from the runway...."
DRAFT(J) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 2
/ a /3
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
• "Levels of low frequency noise exposure similar to those that will be created in
eastern Richfield by [the new runway] have given rise to noise complaints in
communities near other airports."
• An acoustic barrier (noise wall or berm) of sufficient size to provide appreciable
low frequency noise reduction for eastern Richfield is unlikely to be cost-
effective. (Appendix A at page 3.)
Having learned that the new runway would increase low frequency noise levels in
eastern Richfield, the challenge then became to determine the area that would be
exposed to significant low frequency noise impacts. Consistent with applicable state
and federal environmental laws, Richfield believes that the extent of significant impacts
should define the extent of needed mitigation. On the basis of a second study
performed by BBN (Summary is EXHIBIT 2 and full report is Appendix B) which
measured the degree of community annoyance associated with low frequency noise---
the same consideration underlying the FAA's 65 DNL standard for defining significant
"traditional" airport noise impacts---Richfield defined an area of significant impact within
a low frequency noise level of 75 dB. The "Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield"
(EXHIBIT 3 OF Part One) corresponds with the 75 dB low frequency noise contour.
1.0.1 Conclusions and Proposals in the Mitigation Concept ..............as reflected by
• the land use plan depicted in EXHIBIT 6, Richfield's Proposed Redevelopment Concept
as part of the total mitigation proposal includes the following elements:
a. Redevelopment of the portion of Richfield subjected to significant noise impacts
from the new runway with the twin goals of (1) replacing largely residential land
uses with development compatible with the noise produced by the runway, and
(2) minimizing the resulting population loss. To that end, Richfield's
redevelopment concept would replace existing land uses with high- and low-
density office and commercial uses in the eastern portion of the redevelopment
area, and with high-density, noise-resistant residential uses in the remaining
portion of the redevelopment area east of Bloomington Avenue (further away
from the new runway).
b. All structures in the remaining area within the 75dB low frequency noise contour
would be sound insulated under the current residential soundproofing program
specifications, and would receive additional low frequency noise mitigation work
including more resistant windows and doors, special suspended ceilings,
vibration reducing fasteners for wall-hung objects, dampening materials for
treatment of dishes and other objects in closets, cupboards, and shelves., and
minor structural improvements that will significantly dampen vibrations and
•
DRAFTWf 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 3
01
is-) 4
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
noise. All homes in the two-block wide "transition area" beyond the 75dB line
will receive dampening materials for wall-hung objects, and treatments for all
closets, cupboards, and shelves.
C. Relocation of the approximately 2,000 residents and 35 businesses that would
be displaced by the redevelopment concept.
d. To reduce social impacts (community-widel, programs that retain most current
residents and businesses', with new developments that are designed and priced
to retain residents and businesses, and by incentive programs that encourage
residents and businesses outside the redevelopment area to occupy the new
construction, so that existing homes and business spaces are available first to
those displaced by the redevelopment.
e. Replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town parks and related facilities
(if it is determined that the loss of those facilities is consistent with state and
federal law), including the expansion of the Ft. Snelling Golf Course into an 18-
hole facility and the provision of a replacement site for the community gardens,
bluebird restoration project, and the archery range.
f. Improvements to E66th, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and Nicollet Avenues,
to accommodate diverted overflow freeway traffic, and "traffic calming" devices
that will discourage further diversions though adjacent residential areas. The
transportation mitigation should also include provisions for improved transit
access to the airport, including access to light rail transit.
g. A 200-foot wide "greenbelt" of mixed trees and prairie grasses would be
provided over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to TH77. The greenbelt
would include berms and fences where needed to minimize off-airport intrusion
of landing lights from ground operations by aircraft, and plantings that will
support the current bluebird restoration project on the golf course site.
h. Increased freeway vehicle traffic noise would be mitigated with the best available
technology (BAT) for aesthetically pleasing and ecologically responsible sound
barriers or depressed grades (while maintaining visibility for new businesses
along TH77), landscaping, parks, and trails, over the complete length of the
improvements on TH62 and MAC border on TH77 in Richfield.
i. Groundwater quality impacts would be mitigated by appropriate wellhead
protection or closure improvements to wells that would be abandoned.
j. MAC property adjacent to Richfield in Taft Park would be annexed into Richfield,
• and MAC will not acquire any more property in Richfield.
DRAFTJd) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 4
01
/C.-
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
k. Construction impacts would be mitigated by equally distributing construction
traffic to all four access points on the MAC site, by completing improvements to
the E66th Street/TH77 interchange before runway 17/35 begins, and the E77th
Street tunnel and ramps before the air cargo area is operational.
Full funding of the redevelopment project, including replacement of taxes, fees,
and other revenues lost to the city of Richfield and the Richfield School District,
would be provided over the full term of the redevelopment project and an escrow
or endowment fund established to fund losses beyond that time.
1.0.2 Implementation Process ........ would be planned, designed, and managed by
the City of Richfield. Planning and design activities would likely take nine to eighteen
months, while actual redevelopment work would require six to ten years. Total cost of
implementation of the proposed mitigation program over the assumed ten-year life of
the project would be at least $358,500,000 in 1998 dollars for the broad conceptual
plan outlined in this report using zero base TIF funding.(less than sixteen percent of the
estimated $1.7 billion cost of the north-south runway project) The final plan may cost
more or less, but must include effective monitoring, communication, and enforcement
of all the terms and provisions, particularly those on continuing airport operations.
1.1 Supporting Detail ................ for mitigation of each of the impacts of the
proposed new runway 17/35 (the "north-south" runway) and related development is
presented in a brief, statement format as follows:
1.1.1 TERMINOLOGY AND CATEGORIES ......... of impacts and mitigation proposals
in this report refer to specific items (and alphabetical designations) that are used
in the DEIS. Those that are omitted are acceptable or not applicable.
1.1.2 IN RICHFIELD.... environmental consequences and impacts are compounded
and quite disproportional to impacts on any other community, while mitigation
options and choices are few, complicated, and not easily understood by the
affected residents, institutions, and businesses..
1.2 Identification of Affected Institutions, Populations, and
Other Stakeholders ............ include affected institutions, facilities, residential
owners and renters, and businesses that are not identified in the DEIS, but as
stakeholders must be important participants in an equitable, fair, and successful
mitigation process. Stakeholders today include (but are not limited to) the following:
1.2.1 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD....... represented by its City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, Planning, and Community Services Commissions.
•
DRAFT T 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 5
/),-/
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
0
1.2.2 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 280......... represented by its Board, staff
and parent-student organizations.
1.2.3 MT. CALVARY PRIVATE SCHOOL .............represented by its Board, staff,
and parent-student organization.
1.2.4 MT. CALVARY & RICHFIELD EVANGELI£AL FREE CHURCHES... presented
by their Church Boards and staff.
1.2.5 THIRTY FIVE (35) BUSINESSES .............represented by owners, managers or
employees..
1.2.6 SIX HUNDRED FOUR (604) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS ..... ..... will
represent themselves..
1.2.7 FOUR HUNDRED (400) RENTAL MULTIPLE DWELLINGS with SIX
HUNDRED FORTY ONE (641) TENANTS....... will be represented by owners,
property managers, and tenant representatives.
1.2.8 ABOUT 10,000 USERS OF EXISTING PARKS, GOLF COURSES, and
ATHLETIC FACILITIES .......will be represented by the Richfield Community
Services Commission and designated representatives of each of the specific
recreation and athletic groups that are affected..
1.2.9 FOUR (4) FRANCHISE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONS ........... (electric
power, gas service, telephone, and cable tv) will be represented by employees
and /managers.
1.2.10 NATURAL SYSTEMS ....................... of wetland and upland plant (urban forest)
communities will be represented in the process by the Community Services
Commission and designated representatives of affected arboreal groups.
1.2.11 CUSTOMERS AND VISITORS......... affected or impacted by the development
include non-resident customers of the businesses and visitors to residents in the
affected area, will be represented by residents and business owners or
managers.
1.2.12 SOCIO-ECONOMIC & PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS...........
will be represented by a cross-section of the resident population, the HRA,
Planning Commission, City Council, and special Task Groups designated by
the Council with the advice and assistance of special consultants
U
DRAFTT 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 6
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.3 Identification and Definition of Impacts to be Mitigated....
IN The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the MSP expansion
project lists "Environmental Consequences" under 33 headings (A through GG), and
describes the affected environment, the impacts, and mitigation measures proposed
under each heading. This report modifies, or expands on those impacts, and adds
new categories as follows:
1.3.1 A. AIR QUALITY ........ must be expanded to include impacts from aircraft engine
exhaust while on the ground to residents and businesses nearest to the
new runway.
1.3.2 C. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES .......... must be expanded to recognize the loss of the
urban forest in New Ford Town, Rich Acres, and the proposed
redevelopment area , as well as the upland habitat in the existing golf
courses and parks that are lost.
1. 3.3 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........... must recognize the disproportionate
impacts on Richfield transportation and traffic if traffic and highway
upgrades are not completed prior to construction.
1.34 L. ECONOMIC ........ impacts must recognize the disproportionate economic
golf course
ort related development
i
d
ld
fi
,
er a
rp
un
e
impacts on Rich
revenues, tax capacity, population, and student losses.
1, 3,4 N. INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............ must be expanded to
reflect the disproportionate socio-economic impacts on the smallest
neighboring city, that will lose population because of he need to convert
large areas of fine residential neighborhoods into non-residential uses.
1.3.5 O. LAND USE............ conversions of 1,000 residential units to compatible non-
residential and special construction residential uses within the low-
frequency noise impacted area must be included as impacts to be mitigated.
1. 3.6 P. LIGHT EMISSIONS ......... mitigation must include consideration of he impacts
of powerful landing lights from aircraft while taxiing in the air cargo area that
will intrude on Richfield properties west of TU77.
1.3.7 S. NOISE.......... impacts, including those frequency impacts defined in BBN
Report No. 8196, must be included in the effects to be mitigated. See
EXHIBIT 3, Existing Land Uses Within the Low Frequency Noise Impacted
Area, that delineates the boundaries of the impacted area.
L -I
DRAFT(,i) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 7
O
la-/ g
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.3.8 R. PARKS AND RECREATION .......... areas within the DNL65 contours
should include Washington Park, and the low-frequency noise APE must
include Christian Park in addition to those listed in the DEIS. Replacements
for the Golf Courses, Baseball Fields, Community Gardens, and Archery
Range should be included in mitigation funding consistent with State and
Federal laws and rules.
1.3.9 T. SOCIAL IMPACTS .......... from displacement of 1,000 residential units and 35
businesses in Richfield must be recognized as substantially more impact
than on any other city, and the basis for community support funding.
1.3.10 U. SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS ........... should include replacement of the New Ford
Town. Rich Acres Parks acquired under appropriate State and Federal law
requirements.
1.3.11 W. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ......... will have negative impacts on access
to TH77 for Richfield residents and businesses, and increased traffic on the
freeways will result in additional traffic diversions to local Richfield streets.
The DEIS must also include improved transit access to and from the City.
1.3.12Y VISUAL IMPACTS ..............of converting golf course and open space
amenities into paving and large buildings must be considered and mitigated.
1.3.13 BB SURFACE WATER QUALITY .......... must confirm that the Richfield Storm
Water Plan is not compromised by the additional runoff from airport
development and loss of storage areas for City flows.
1.3.14CC GROUNDWATER QUALITY ......... should include proposals for wellhead
protection of acquifers that supply Richfield wells from future contamination.
1.3.15GG DESIGN, ART, AND ARCHITECTURE .......... must recognize that the very
large air cargo structures that will replace the golf course do have substantial
negative impact and need to be mitigated.
1.3.1611 OTHER IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS......... that should be
included are:
a. Long-Term Fiscal Impacts on the City and School District...... should
be recognized and identified as a continuing responsibility until school
population in the impacted area regains current levels.
b. City Boundaries ........should be modified to consider trades of MAC
acquisitions within the City for current and future MAC lands outside of
the primary airport site.
c. The Legal Process ........for effective mitigation must be adopted..
DRAFT(q) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 8
/a -/ 7
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
0 1.4 Mitigation Proposals
1.4.1 A. AIR QUALITY ........ in neighborhoods adjacent to the new runway must be
monitored and reported regularly to residents and the City, and should be
controlled as much as possible by limiting the number of aircraft queued for
runway 17/35 and cargo areas, and other measures that may be developed.
1.4.2 C. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES......... that are replaced by pavements and structures
on the MAC site must be mitigated by providing a 200-foot wide "greenbelt" of
mixed trees and prairie grasses over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to
TH77, must fund replacements for mature trees lost in the redevelopment area,
and continue the bluebird restoration project in this greenbelt area as well.
1.4.3 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........ in addition to measures outlined in the
DEIIS, must be mitigated by completing improvements to the E66th Street
interchange prior to 17/35 construction, and directing construction traffic to be
distributed over all four MAC access points.
1.4.4 I. ECONOMIC ........ impacts on Richfield (the smallest neighbor with the most
economic losses) must be mitigated through complete fiscal support of the
• redevelopment project, replacement of tax, fees, and other revenues lost to the
City and the School District, on-going funding of community organization and
participation activities, Purchase Value Guarantee and improvement incentive
programs for all residents east of Portland Avenue.
1.4.5 N. INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ........ can be affected by MAC
policies that support redevelopment of the noise impacted area or Richfield, and
financial support of activities that encourage residents and businesses to remain
in Richfield to reduce negative impacts. (See Implementation for cost estimates)
1.4.6 O. LAND USE .............proposed for the primary noise impacted area of Richfield
(See EXHIBIT 6) should be fully funded for redevelopment by the City. MAC
must not acquire any more property or property rights within the city of Richfield,
1.4.7 P. LIGHT EMISSIONS ......... from aircraft moving on the ground in the air cargo
area adjacent to TH77 should be mitigated by construction of berms and fences
in the "green belt" area, and by restriction of the use of powerful landing lights in
this area from 9:00pm to 6:00am.
1.4.8 Q. NOISE .......... mitigation activities must extend structural protection beyond
the DNL60 limits for all runways, to include all of the areas within low frequency
75dB, or A90 (BBN Report 8196) area limits and a two-block "transition zone"
S delineated by EXHIBIT 3, Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield. Structural
DRAFT(21) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 9
pi
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
protection must include replacement of doors and windows and other actions
that will specifically reduce the impacts of low frequency sound and related
vibrations. MAC must accept the redevelopment concept (See EXHIBIT 6) and
provide for all required financing. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
a) Surface Access Transportation Noise ..................should be mitigated with
the best available technology (BAT) for aesthetic and ecologically
responsible sound barriers, landscaping, parks and trails.
b) Operation of Aircraft Engines in the Air Cargo Area...... must be limited to
6am to 9pm, and will be moved by towing at other times.
c) Fund an Independent Study of the Long-Term Health Effects of Aircraft
Noise......... in the noise impacted area of Richfield.
1.4.9 R. PARKS AND RECREATION .......... impacts must be mitigated by approval of
Richfield proposals for replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks
land, amenities, and improvements, provision of a replacement site for the full
community gardens and archery range (on other vacant MSP land), relocation
assistance and expedition of land acquisitions and exchanges that will result in
replacement of the ball fields, and expansion of the Ft. Snelling Golf Course into
an 18-hole facility, and full funding of all of these activities (See 1.5,
Implementation, for cost estimates).
1.4.10 T. SOCIAL IMPACTS ......... must be mitigated with full funding of relocation of all
2.000+/- residents (owners and tenants) and 35+/- businesses that are displaced
in the relocation concept (See EXHIBIT 6) with related highway transportation
improvements, funding of community organization including effective and timely
MAC response to requests and related interaction activities with the City and all
residents substantially affected by the MSP project and the resulting
redevelopment activities, and Purchase Value Guarantees for all residents east
of Portland Avenue within Richfield. (See 1.5, for cost estimates).
1.4.11 U. SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS ............ should include New Ford Town and Rich
Acres Parks covered under R. PARKS AND RECREATION, above.
1.4.12 W. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ......... mitigation must include improvements
to the E66th/TH77 interchange before 17/35 construction, and a functioning
TH77/E77th Street tunnel and ramps before the proposed air cargo area is
operational. Overflow traffic that will be diverted from the freeways to city streets
(E66th, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and Nicollet Avenues) will require
improvements and upgrading those streets, and traffic "calming" improvements
to discourage further diversions through adjacent residential areas. Provision
must also be made to provide improved transit access (including access to LRT)
to and from Richfield.
•
DRAFT(d) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 10
C
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
901 1.4.13 Y. VISUAL IMPACTS .............of the conversion from golf course and residential
area to vast paved areas and large buildings must be mitigated by development
of a 200-foot wide "green belt" described under 1.4.2, above, and enhanced
architectural treatments for building facades facing west (See .1.4.16, below)..
1.4.14 BB. SURFACE WATER QUALITY ......... must meet all requirements of the
Richfield surface water management plan.
1.4.15 CC. GROUNDWATER QUALITY ........... must include appropriate wellhead
protection or closure improvements to the existing wells that will be abandoned
in order to protect the aquifer that serves the Richfield water system.
1.4.16 GG. DESIGN, ART, ARCHITECTURE .......... must provide the "green belt" area
previously described as a buffer, as well as enhanced architectural treatment of
facades of the air cargo buildings that will be in full view from many multiple
residential units less than 1,000 feet to the west.
1.4.1711. OTHER IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS........... as follows:
a. Long-Term Fiscal Impacts ..............on the City and the School District
should be mitigated by compensation equal to the tax, fee, grants, and
other revenues lost because of all of the impacts of this airport project. (See
1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
b. City Boundaries ........... should be revised to exclude New Ford Town and
Rich Acres, and should be expanded to include all of MAC property in and
adjacent to the City (Taft Park area).
c. The Legal Status and Process...... required for effective implementation of
the approved mitigation plan must be adopted by both the City and MAC.
1.5 Implementation Process
1.5.1 ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PLAN ...............must first be
accomplished by CITY, and the funding mechanism adopted by MAC, through
formal resolutions. The PLAN must include full funding, staffing, allowance for
outside consulting commitments, stakeholder involvement, a communications
program, a time line, and an effective enforcement procedure, in order to
survive periodic changes in Council Members , Commissioners, and staff, as
well as continuous changes in the affected participants and "public interest"
groups that weave in and out of all redevelopment projects.
1.5.2 MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN ........... will be assigned to staff or consultants as
appropriate, by the City. The Mitigation Project Manager (MPM) will work under
the direction of the City Manager or designated staff. The City Manager will
. coordinate and communicate regularly with MAC through the Executive Director.
DRAFT(1 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 11
/a?aa
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.5.3 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN MITIGATION ACTIONS ........ will include
frequent and consistent information provided promptly to "hot line" callers, and
frequent, scheduled, disseminated by newsletter, direct mail, media releases,
presentations to neighborhood gatherings, informed feedback through
response cards and calls, random sample telephone interviews, interactive
public forums, and the continuing involvement of various stakeholder
representatives through specific neighborhood and/or project task groups.
a. Plan Provisions to Encourage Retention of Current Residents and
Businesses ......... must be part of the basic approach, and will include
financial incentives, priority access to existing or new construction, financial
assistance for remodeling or expanding existing structures outside of the
redevelopment area (East of Portland Avenue), and other forms of
transitional and long-term assistance that will encourage current residents
and businesses to stay in Richfield.
b. Participation ........... is critical to the success of the mitigation program.
Unless stakeholders are part of the process, and have a substantial part (not
simply input) in the solutions, the situation will be dominated by disorder and
conflict, to the detriment of the community and the MSP project.
1.5.4 AN ESTIMATED TIME LINE ..............target dates will be related to the airport
facility final design and funding. A preliminary estimate would be nine to
eighteen months for planning and design, two to three years for soundproofing,
and five to ten years for actual redevelopment acquisition, relocation, and new
construction.
1.5.5 MITIGATION FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT....... is
estimated to be $358,500,000 (in 1998 dollars) over the life of the entire project
(10 years), although some specific funding (trust or endowment funding for
continued loss of City or School District revenues) may continue beyond that
time, Future Legislative approval of special TIF or other funding sources or
mechanisms may substantially affect these cost estimates.
1.5.6 REVIEW THE PROJECT AND THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
ANNUALLY ......... in order to evaluate the effectiveness, responsiveness,
timeliness, appropriateness, enforcement of the provisions, impacts on
affected participants, and consistency with Comprehensive Plan provisions will
be required. The City will update all provisions, and make changes required to
improve the delivery system and the project. The City and MAC must also
update all legal, financial, legislative, and management criteria and constraints
on an annual basis .
•
DRAFT(J) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 12
el
la-a3
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
•
1.6 EXHIBITS .........included in PART ONE... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, include
the following:
EXHIBIT 1. Summary of BBN Report Number 8196,
An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequencv Aircraft Noi
(lnarn inn of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSF
14 May 1997
EXHIBIT 2. Summary of BBN Report Number 8211,
Field Study of the Annoyance of Low Frequency Runway Sideline
Noise, 9 October 1997
EXHIBIT 3. Noise Impacted Areas .....Existing Land Uses
EXHIBIT 4. Noise Impacted Areas...... Existing Population
EXHIBIT 5. Noise Impacted Areas...... Existing Market Values
• EXHIBIT 6. The Proposed Redevelopment Concept
EXHIBIT 7. MAC Option Six Plan for MSP Site Development
L?
DRAFT(q) 6/2/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 13
• PART TWO..... IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS
OF
A MITIGATION PROPOSAL
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
ANEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35)
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART TWO..... IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS
NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.
----
2.1 ---------
Overview ------------
TWO-2
2.2 Stakeholders
2.2.1 The City of Richfield TWO-2
2.2.2 Independent School District 280 TWO-2
2.2.3 Private Schools TWO-2
2.2.4 Churches TWO-2
2.2.5 Businesses TWO-2
2.2.6 Single Family Dwellings TWO-3
2.2.7 Multiple Dwellings TWO-3
2.2.8 Parks, Golf Courses and Athletic Fields TWO-3
2.2.9 Franchise Infrastructure Companies TWO-3
2.2.10 Natural Systems TWO-3
2.2.11 Others TWO-4
2.2.12 Socio-Economic and Physical Character TWO-4
2.3 Summary and Conclusions TWO-4
is
DRAFT (e)06/02/98
)9-aZ--)
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
0
2.1 OVERVIEW ....Affected Institutions ..........and facilities, residential owners and
renters, and businesses are not identified in the EIS, but as stakeholders must
be important participants in an equitable and successful mitigation process.
Organizations and their representatives, and individuals that are stakeholders
are identified in the following paragraphs.
2.2 STAKEHOLDERS AND REPRESENTATIVES
2.2.1 The City Of Richfield....... participates in the process represented by the City
Manager and staff designated from time to time as necessary. The City Council
makes all decisions and approves all agreements, with review and
recommendations from The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA),
Planning Commission, and Community Services Commission.
2.2.2 Independent School District 280......... participates in the process represented
by the Superintendent and designated staff. The Board of Education makes all
decisions with consultation and review by staff, consultants, and parent/
student/teacher organizations.
2.2.3 Mt. Calvary Church and School ............participates in the process represented
• by its Pastor/Principal and designated staff. The Church/School Board makes
all decisions in consultation with staff, consultants, parents, students, teachers,
and the congregation.
2.2.4 Richfield Evangelical Free Church ............participates in the process
represented by its Pastor and designated staff. The Church Board will make all
decisions in consultation with the congregation.
2.2.5 THIRTY IVE +/- BUSINESSES .............participate in the process represented by
owners or managers. Most decisions will be made by local owners with
consultations with partners or shareholders, but some decisions may need to be
made by officers of a parent corporation located outside of the City or state.
Current businesses that appear to be removed or are substantially impacted by
highway improvements and noise include (complete roster found in Addenda F):
a) Motel Six
b) American Family Insurance Appraisal Center
c) Richfield Liquor Store
d) AMOCO Service Station
e) Opticians
f) Barber Shop
g) Limo Service
• h) Pet Hospital (65??)
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART TWO.... IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO- 2
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
/
i) -)
Offices (2+
j) Brisson Stucco
k) Ryan Construction Office
1) Annual Color
m) Offices (4+/- businesses)
n) Auto Body
o) Warehouse (6424) _
p) Warehouse
q) Smith & Nelson Auto Service
r) Affordable Car Rental
s) Casper Printers
t) Richfield Vehicle Impound Lot
u) Auto Repair
v) Diamond-Vogle Paint
w) Hagen Floor Covering
x) Pet Hospital (63??)
y) Larson Roofing and Sheet Metal
z) Casper Printer
2.2.6 OVER ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY (1,350) SINGLE AND
• DOUBLE HOMES....... in the primary impact and 2-block transition areas will
e
s of
Th
l
partici e own
r
ves.
pate in the process and will make decisions themse
the single and twin homes are listed in a roster found in Addenda E.
2.2.7 TWENTY SIX (26) MULTIPLE DWELLING STRUCTURES with UP TO FOUR
HUNDRED TEN (410+/-) UNITS....... will be represented by building owners or
property managers who will in most cases make all decisions, and also renters
who will participate in the process as affected individuals. The owners and
resident representatives of multiple units are listed in Addenda E:
2.2.8 UP TO 61000 USERS OF PARKS, GOLF COURSES, and ATHLETIC
FACILITIES ........will be represented by the Community Services Commission,
that will recommend actions for decisions by the City Council. Representatives
of the larger user groups may also participate in the process.
2.2.9 FOUR 4 FRANCHISE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONS. (electric power,
gas service, telephone, and cable TV) ............participate in the process
represented by designated staff, and decisions by appropriate officials.
2.2.10 NATURAL SYSTEMS .......................will be represented by City staff and
representatives from the Community Services Commission. Decisions will be
made by the City Council after review by the Community Services Commission.
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART TWO.... IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO- 3
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
2.2.11 OTHERS .............such as regular visitors to residents and customers of affected
businesses will be represented by residents and the business owners or
managers.
2.2.12 FUTURE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE
COMMUNITY ........... will be represented by City Staff and representatives from
the Planning and Community Services Commissions and HRA. Decisions will be
made by the City Council and HRA.
2.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............begin with the obvious conclusion
that managing and accomplishing a project that affects the lives and livelihoods
of thousands of people and dozens of businesses and institutions will not be
easy, simple, or quick. The process must permit and encourage meaningful,
consistent, and persistent participation in the activities and decisions, not
mere input.
It is equally clear that unless these stakeholders are a part of the process, and
have a substantial part in the solutions, the situation will be dominated by
disorder and conflict, to the detriment of the community and the MSP project.
Both the City and MAC must accomplish the project with the stakeholders, or be
faced with reactions and resistance to what is being done to them and the chaos
• that results.
•
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART TWO.... IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO- 4
la-a?
• PART THREE..IDENTIFICATION & DEFINITION OF IMPACTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART SUBJECT PAGE
3.1 Overview.. 3-3
3.2 Specific Additional Impacts And Consequences
3.2.1 A..Air Quality _ 3-3
3.2.2 B..Archaeological Resources 3-3
3.2.3 C..Biotic Communities 3-3
3.2.4 D..Bird-Aircraft Hazards 3-5
3.2.5 E..Construction Impacts 3-3
3.2.6 F..Coastal Barriers 3-3
3.2.7 G..Coastal Zone Management 3-3
3.2.8 H..Endangered and Threatened Species 3.4
3.2.9 (...Economic 3-4
3.2.10 J..Energy and Natural Resources 3-5
3.2.11 K..Farmland 3-5
3.2.12 L..Floodplains 3.5
3.2.13 M..Historic/Architectural Resources 3-5
3.2.14 N...Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 3-5
3.2.15 O..Land Use 3-5
3.2.16 P..Light Emissions 3-6
3.2.17 Q.. Noise 3-6
3.2.18 R..Parks and Recreation 3-7
3.2.19 S..Site Preservation 3-8
3.2.20 T..Social 3-8
3.2.21 U..Section 4(f) Lands 3-9
3.2.22 V..Solid Waste 3-9
3.2.23 W..Transportation Access 3-9
3.2.24 X..Major Utilities 3-10
3.2.25 Y..VisualImpacts 3-10
3.2.26 Z..Wastewater 3-10
3.2.27 AA..Water Supply 3-10
3.2.28 BB..Surface Water Quality 3-10
3.2.29 CC..Groundwater Quality 3-10
3-2.30 DD..Wetlands 3-11
3.3.31 EE..Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-11
3.3.32 FF..Wildlife Refuges 3-11
3.3.33 GG..Design/Art/architecture 3-11
3.3.34 Other Impacts Not Covered in the DEIS 3-11
r?
DRAFT(e)06/02/98
I c A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PART THREE..... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS
3.1 OVERVIEW ................ of the impacts and consequences of the project as
defined in the DEIS indicates practically no adverse affects on the City of Richfield and
its residents, while a more studied view shows very clearly that the impacts and
consequences are extensive, pervasive, persistent, and completely disproportional to
any other community affected by the project. Effective and responsive mitigation of
these impacts will be more important to the. affected residents, businesses,
institutions, the School District, and the City, than any aspect of the expanded airport
project itself.
3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........ are listed in the DEIS under 33
major categories that will result from the expansion of MSP under OPTION 6. In
order to be consistent, impacts and mitigation proposals in this document use
the same descriptors and titles found in DEIS. The DEIS found:
a) Outside of Richfield ......about a third of those 33 impacts are not applicable
to the City. Mitigation was found to be "not feasible" or "not available" for two
categories (Birds and Endangered Species), and another seven impacts
involved mitigation activities on the MSP site only (Surface Water, Ground
Water, Wetlands, Energy Consumption, Solid Wastes, Mother Lake, and
Design/Art/Architecture).
• b) Future Negotiation .........was the answer to eight impacts to be "worked out
with appropriate agencies" as the project evolves '(Archeological,
Construction, Historical, Land Use, Lighting, Noise, Social, and Induced
Socio-Economic) under vague guidelines outlined in the DEIS. The
"agencies" and the specific issues to be worked out are not clearly identified.
c) "No Mitigation" .........was the conclusion for nearly half of the categories
(14), In the DEIS. Six of those (Coastal Barriers, Coastal Zones, Farmland,
Floodplains, Future New Airport Site Preservation, and Wild and Scenic
Rivers), clearly do not apply to the MSP site and would therefore require no
mitigation, but the other nine (Air Quality, Parks, Public Lands (4f),
Transportation. Access, Utilities, Visual Impacts, Wastewater Systems,
Water Supply Systems, and Noise), involve significant impacts that need a
mitigation proposal.
3.1.2 IMPACTS AND CONSEQUENCES ............ not covered, found to be insignificant,
or rejected in the DEIS must be considered in light of the completely
disproportionate burdens inflicted only on Richfield. This part of the report
identifies and defines additional impacts and consequences to Richfield under
each of the headings, and adds some additional categories not considered in the
DEIS based on extensive testing and research by the consulting firm BBN, and
a more accurate analysis from the perspective of the community most affected
is by the project.
DRAFT(e) 6/2198 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 2
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
3.2 ADDITIONAL IMPACTS ........not covered in the DEIS are identified and
described under each heading found in the DEIS as follows:
3.2.1 A...AIR QUALITY ........... consequences are covered in the DEIS except for the
problem of odor from jet engine exhaust on the ground. These very strong,
"petroleum" or "exhaust" odors are quite evident in the New Ford Town area that
is even farther from the 12R runway stacking and take-off area as the homes
and businesses west of Cedar Avenue will be from the same stacking and take-
off area on the proposed 17/35 runway. This issue must be addressed with
testing and monitoring, and appropriate mitigation measures must be applied to
this important impact. (See also 3.2.5, E.. CONSTRUCTION)
3.2.2 B...ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......... are covered in the DEIS.
3.2.3 C...BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ................described in the DEIS do not include the
loss of the urban forest area in New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods,
the Golf Courses, and the residential areas west of Cedar Avenue that will
require complete redevelopment. These areas represent a rather significant
(over 600 acres) area of habitat for birds and a variety of small critters that
.provide habitat as well as visual benefits to the whole community and should be
replaced or mitigated in some form. A clear example of an impact that applies
only to Richfield.
3.2.4 D.... BIRD-AIRCRAFT HAZARDS ............ are covered in the DEIS..
3.2.5 E...CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .................will fall disproportionately on Richfield
because of the fact that the major construction project is the new runway 17/35,
immediately adjacent to the city over its full length. This part of the MSP site is
the most likely location for batch plants and materials storage for the runway and
other work on the buildings, and the TH77-66th Street access will be the
primary access for construction traffic.
Air quality control during construction will be particularly important to Richfield
residents inasmuch as they will be nearest to the construction activities. Extra-
ordinary efforts to reduce and control dust, exhaust, and other emissions from
construction activities, materials storage and handling, materials processing,
and particularly from demolition must be required. Construction operations time
of day and night requirements of Richfield must be met.
3.2.6 F...COASTAL BARRIERS ....... do not apply to this project.
3.2.7 G...COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ......... does not apply to this project.
E
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-3
1a-31
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
0 3.2.8 H...ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES...... are not a factor in the City.
3.2.9 I...ECONOMIC ........... consequences and impacts on Richfield will be more
significant and disproportional because Richfield is much smaller in every aspect
(area, population, housing, employment, commercial services, tax base, etc.)
than the other three neighboring cities, and more pervasive because the new
runway impacts large abutting areas of the City over its full length and for the full
duration of take-off and landings rather than over a narrow flight path during
much shorter overflight periods. Every takeoff, and every landing on the new
runway will impact people in Richfield, unlike overflight noise that is distributed
widely as each plane takes a somewhat different departure or approach path. A
fair and objective analysis must acknowledge this significant disproportional Iity
and include mitigation proposals that will be appropriate to the circumstances.
Some specific economic impacts that must recognize this difference include:
a) AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT .............policies and practices of MAC
toward on and off-site airport related development will have significant impact
on the population, employment, tax capacity and revenues, and suitability
of residential uses ...... in other words, the very viability of Richfield A
disproportionate effort must be made in Richfield first to minimize, and also
to effectively mitigate the impacts of these related economic consequences.
b) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES ......... provide a significant economic return
to the City that is used to support other recreational activities, as well as a
small revenue to MAC. This is a consequence that must be recognized as a
factor that MAC land acquisition policies and plans can mitigate by assisting
and supporting the City in finding and developing replacement facilities on an
expanded MSP site or adjacent lands, and providing funding to cover
relocation expenses as with other displaced businesses on the site.
c) TAX CAPACITY LOSS.......... from acquisition of taxable properties must be
recognized as an impact that can and must be mitigated through MAC plans,
policies, and funding in support of development of non-planeside, airport-
related, compatible uses in redeveloped area of Richfield as a first choice in
recognition of the disproportionate impact on the City..
d) POPULATION LOSS ......................must be recognized as a most serious
and disproportionate impact to the viability of the entire community of
Richfield. Population loss in the proposed redevelopment area, in addition
to that already experienced in New Ford Town and Rich acres represents at .
least ten times that of any other affected community.
e) STUDENT LOSS ............represents a very serious threat to the viability of
the School District since students generate state-aid revenues and other
benefits for the school district that are even more important that the real
estate tax revenues. A loss of up to 240 students in the redevelopment area
in addition to the 170 from New Ford Town, requires closing of at least one
elementary school, and increased overhead costs for secondary schools.
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-4
/2.- 3 ;-
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
0 3.2.10 J..ENERGY SUPPLY and NATURAL RESOURCES.... are covered in the DEIS.
3.2,11 K..FARMLAND .................there are no farmlands involved in the MSP site.
3.2.12 L..FLOODPLAINS......... there is no floodplain encroachment or modifications.
3.2.13 M..HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ..............no significant historic
or architectural resources are at risk in Richrtield.
3.2.14 N..INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS .................are also discussed
under 3.2.9, ECONOMIC IMPACTS, above, and the economic aspects of the
impacts of noise (particularly low frequency noise) are also discussed under
3.2.17 Q..NOISE. However, the social consequences that result from
conversion of a substantial portion of east Richfield from a largely single family
residential community into a multiple and largely non-residential complex, will
have both short and long term social and economic consequences that must be
recognized, defined, and become basic considerations for the design and
management of the mitigation plan
Over six percent (6%) of the population of Richfield have already been, or will
be displaced and another six percent (6%) will be substantially impacted by
sideline noise due to the construction of, and operations on new runway 17/35.
None of the other affected communities will sustain this level of disruption in
either absolute numbers or as a fraction of total population. The project must
recognize and assume responsibility for mitigation of the impacts and
consequences of this substantial and disproportionate disruption to the basic
community social fabric and economic base.
3.2.15 O..LAND USE.......... in the most severely noise and air quality impacted area of
Richfield west of TH 77 must be substantially converted to non-residential and new
noise resistant residential uses prior to opening the new runway 17/35. Recent
tests and surveys funded by Richfield have shown that the . extent of the
unacceptable impacts (moderate to severely annoyed) is considerably larger than
that which is shown as the affected area in the DEIS. About 1,000 single and
multiple residential units are affected to an extent that requires conversion from
residential to more noise tolerant residential and non-residential structures. While
the DEIS explains that MAC and the Metropolitan Council are "working ......to
develop a set of mitigation measures" in all of the communities surrounding MSP,
the DEIS must recognize, that the low frequency noise impacts of runway 17/35
development on Richfield require redevelopment that must be funded by the project.
A definition of the primary impact area, and the proposed redevelopment area, are
shown in EXHIBIT 3 in PART ONE of this document
•
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 5
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
a) AIRPORT RELATED (RE)DEVELOPMENT........ as previously discussed
under 3.10.1 I..ECONOMIC, points out that MAC policies, plans, and
funding can provide a primary stimulus for quality, economically viable, new
developments in the noise affected redevelopment area.
b) "FUTURE" WEST TERMINAL ...............presents a dilemma for Richfield land
use planners in that the new terminal and second access will likely support
more regional commercial (hotels, restaurants, etc.) demand in the area,
around the TH77 and West 66th Street interchange than would be the case if
a new terminal is never constructed. This question needs to be clarified
between MAC and the Legislature so that Richfield can plan for appropriate
related future redevelopment, including LRT access to Richfield.
c) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY .......... in the redeveloped area must be as high as
possible in order to replace the population lost from New Ford Town, Rich
Acres, and from the noise impacted area from runway 17/35. New
residential structures must be larger scale buildings with special design and
materials that dampen low frequency sound transmission, and resist the
related vibrations, and must be concentrated in the farthest reaches of the
redevelopment area to blend in with existing housing and stay as far away
from the noise source as possible. (See Exhibit 3)
3.2.16 P..LIGHT EMISSIONS ............ discussed in the DEIS do not include the impact of
landing lights from aircraft moving on the ground in the air cargo areas. These
very powerful lights will intrude into the Richfield neighborhoods west of TH77,
and must be restricted by operating regulations, and effectively mitigated.
3.2.17 Q..NOISE (AIRCRAFT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION) ............ represents
the greatest consequence with the most intense impacts on a very large portion
of the City of Richfield. Because the DEIS and a special study by consultants
found no significant impacts without actual field measurements and analysis,
the City retained BBN Systems to measure low frequency aircraft noise levels
along existing runways, and project those results on the areas of Richfield that
will be affected by this noise. (See Addenda A and B of this report) A summary
of the results obtained follows:
a) STANDARD MEASUREMENTS ...............for the MAC studies are all based
on A-weighted measures that do not accurately reflect low frequency noise
and induced vibrations (secondary emissions). Without any documented
field measurement, the DEIS concluded that "Low frequency noise and
vibration levels ....would be well below the levels which would cause
structural damage to buildings or health risk to residents in the neighboring
areas of Richfield". That conclusion may be half correct, but it is callous and
clearly unresponsive to the real and substantial needs and concerns of the
affected residents, and does not recognize the extensive, and
disproportionate impacts of low frequency noise on Richfield.
DRAFT(e) 612/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-6
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
• b) SPECIAL MEASUREMENTS ...............authorized and paid for by the City of
Richfield, conducted and reported by BBN Systems in May of 1997 (copy of
the report dated 14 May 1997 included as ADDENDA A to this report), show
that low frequency noise and secondary emissions will be substantially more
severe than what is shown or can be interpreted from the standard results
reported in the DEIS. Low frequency noise impacts are being recognized
and mitigated in several airport projects in the US and must be recognized
and mitigated here as well.
c) STANDARD ABATEMENT AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES ..............
outlined in the DEIS including PART 150 sound insulation and structural
improvements, and the construction of berms or other acoustical barriers on
the MSP site included as mitigation recommendations in the DEIS will be
ineffective for abatement or mitigation of low frequency noise.
d) FIELD STUDY OF ANNOYANCE FROM LOW FREQUENCY NOISE......
was authorized and paid for by the City of Richfield, and conducted and
reported by the firm BBN Systems in October, 1997 (See copy of report dated
9 October 1997 as ADDENDA B to this report). The study was a structured
telephone interview of residents in a neighborhood of El Segundo between
1,000 and 5,000 feet from the centerline of an operating runway of Los
Angeles International Airport (LAX), a situation similar to the proposed 17/35
at MSP. Study results found that 21 % of residents were "highly annoyed",
• and 29% were "very" or "extremely" annoyed at 80 dB levels of low frequency
noise (LDN 65 dB, A-weighted). This level is well above what the FAA and
the courts have considered to be consequential and subject to mitigation
activity, and must be recognized.
e) THE IMPACTED AREA ............ described in BBN Figure 3 (ADDENDA B)
and Richfield EXHIBIT 6 (PART ONE), is a geographical representation of
the area that will have highly annoyed residents as a result of low frequency
noise and secondary emissions impacts from runway 17/35, and must be
mitigated in an effective manner.
f) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS ........... are described
adequately and proposed to be mitigated properly in the DEIS.
3.2.18 R..PARKS AND RECREATION ..................consequences to Richfield are all the
direct result of selection of OPTION SIX, and result in a loss of nearly one-third of
the total park space of the City, 100% loss of City golf courses, 100% loss of the
community gardens, and over 50% loss of softball and baseball fields. None of the
other adjacent communities faces any park loss, much less loss of this magnitude.
The DEIS fails to consider the magnitude or the disproportional ity of these losses
to the City if Richfield in finding no impact and no mitigation required. Specific
consequences and impacts in the DEIS should include:
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-7
f'a-35
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
•
•
•
a) PARKS AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT
(APE) .............listed in the DEIS include Taft, Rich Acres Golf Courses.
East Softball and Baseball Fields, the Community Gardens, and the Archery
Range. To that list should be added Washington Park that is clearly within
the DNL-65 noise contour (from 4/22), and Christian Park should be added
based on the BBN study which shows low frequency noise levels from 17/35.
(80dB equal to the DNL-65) cover a portion of that park as well.
b) TWO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS .... ............. (New Ford Town and Rich
Acres Parks) are clearly publicly owned parks under Section 4(f), and the
loss must be recognized and mitigated in some form.
c) COMMUNITY GARDENS.AND ARCHERY RANGE .......................cannot be
replaced in any public site within the City for a variety of reasons, must be.
recognized as unique to the MAC site, worked into some of the unused
spaces in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for the MSP site, and costs of
relocation included in the project costs..
d) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES AND DRIVING RANGE ........... is lost
because of the 17/35 runway option selected by MAC, and regardless of the
land lease contract arrangements, MAC should recognize the substantial,
disproportional, and inequitable impact on the Richfield parks, open space,
and recreational system by supporting and actively assisting the City in
relocation funding for developing replacement golf facilities.
e) DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ......................from substantial loss of
parks and recreational facilities fall only on the City of Richfield, and are
clearly out of proportion when compared to all of the other adjoining
communities, and should, therefore, be acknowledged and mitigated.
3.2.19 S..FUTURE AIRPORT SITE PRESERVATION ............ does not apply.
3.2.20 T..SOCIAL IMPACTS ................are another example of the disproportionate
impacts and continuing burdens of this project on Richfield.
a) COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ...................Rich Acres golf courses are one
of only two businesses existing on the present airport site that are being
terminated. The DEIS points out that relocation assistance will be available
to the Airport Medical Clinic business relocation, so it quite logically follows
that assistance must also be available to the Rich Acres Golf Courses
relocation. There are several other medical clinics, but only one golf course
in Richfield, or for that matter, in this portion of the metro area. This is
another example of the disproportionate impact of this project on Richfield,
and certainly requires extraordinary ( and disproportional) mitigation.
b) HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED ......... should include the 410 removed from New
Ford Town and Rich Acres. While the DEIS says that there is no connection,
the fact that the actual runway construction goes directly through New Ford
Town (NFT) and lies within a few hundred feet of Rich Acres (RA) makes it
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-8
/C,)-,3(o
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
• quite clear that OPTION SIX could not be built without removal of all of these
homes In NFT and RA. The DEIS says 390 of the 444 households displaced
are in Richfield. Add to that those over 1,000 households west of TH 77 that
are within the low frequency noise redevelopment area, and the total
Richfield households lost is 1,390 out of 1,444, or 96% of households
displaced by this proiect are in Richfield. That is certainly disproportional
and must be considered as a significant social impact to the community
without comparison in any other adjacentcity..
c) BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT .............. is equally disproportionate in that
20 out of 28 (off-site) businesses that will be displaced (DEIS numbers) are
located in Richfield. The other displaced businesses are in Bloomington,
and while they are larger businesses, they represent a much smaller
proportion of that city's business base. Again, the disproportionate nature of
this impact should be taken into account when responding to the mitigation
requests of the City.
d) "WORK WITH "APPROPRIATE ...AGENCIES ............... should include the
state Department of Economic Security as suggested in the DEIS, but
common sense (as well as common courtesy) requires that the first contact
and clear understanding must be with the City of Richfield where all of the
impacts and consequences are disproportionately larger than on any other of
the affected communities.. Recognition is a first step to reconciliation.
3.2.21 U..SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS .............lists should include Rich Acres and New
Ford Town Parks since both are City owned property and were fully utilized for
park and recreation purposes. Washington Park should also be listed as falling
within the designated noise impact area, and as a result of the BBN work, a
portion. of Christian Park also falls within that noise boundary. All of these
impacts should be recognized and mitigation provided.
3.2.22 V..SOLID WASTE IMPACTS ............ covered in the DEIS do not affect Richfield.
3.2.23 W..TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ........... described, in the DEIS fails to mention
existing airport traffic access from TH 77 to the MSP site from the 66th Street
interchange and the impact of the improvements to this interchange that are
required. While it is not the major airport access point today, it will become
much more important as the primary access to the major construction site and
the enlarged cargo and service area of the MSP site when the runway 17/35
development is completed.
a) TH 77-66TH STREET INTERCHANGE ............ has a major impact on.
Richfield. Sixteen (out of 30 in the area) businesses will be removed to
construct this interchange (another example of disproportionate impacts),
and there is no doubt that the level of service for Richfield traffic will be
L?
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-9
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
lowered as a result of the increased airport (truck cargo) traffic. This
interchange improvement should be completed before runway construction
begins, or certainly, before the new cargo area is operational.
b) TH 62 ADDITIONAL LANES ..................will also impact Richfield homes
and require taking of a portion of the Veterans Park site and should be
mitigated.
c) TRAFFIC DIVERSION TO LOCAL STREETS .............will be a serious
impact only in Richfield, particularly on 66th and 77th Streets as far west as
Lyndale, for overflow passenger traffic that departs to or arrives from the
west (most of the traffic), and for the truck traffic from the air cargo facilities
along runway 17/35. Analysis (and common sense experience) shows that
traffic will by-pass clogged freeways by using local streets for alternative
access or escape. The project must include provision for active and effective
measures to accommodate additional traffic on local collector streets and
for keeping it out of residential areas.
3.2.24 X..MAJOR UTILITIES .............the power line relocation does not affect Richfield.
3.2.25 Y..VISUAL IMPACTS ...............that result from the conversion of the NFT and RA
residential areas and Golf Courses to large airport warehouse buildings and
pavement are not considered to be significant in the DEIS, Richfield residents
• that have a view of this part of the airport site will experience substantial
denigration of what is now an excellent view of trees, turf, and open space.
Mitigation of the view from the west must be included in the project.
3.2.26 Z..WASTEWATER ................will have no significant impact on sewer service,
capacity, metropolitan wastewater allocations, or alterations of service charges
to the City of Richfield according to the DEIS. This must be the case.
3.2.27 AA..WATER SUPPLY ......... for the City of Richfield will benefit indirectly from the
conversion to Minneapolis water from on-site production wells that draw from the
same acquifers that supply Richfield municipal wells. No impacts need to be
mitigated.
3.2.28 BB..SURFACE WATER QUALITY ..............impacts are entirely contained within
the MSP site with one outfall to the Minnesota River so that none of the MSP site
runoff goes through Richfield; or impacts Richfield storm drainage systems
except for provision for storage in the Mother Lakes complex. The project must
recognize and mitigate any loss of storage and modifications to the Richfield
storm drainage plan that are required due to the loss of this storage area.
3.2.29 CC..GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS ............ must be monitored until the
existing wells are capped and plugged, so that they do not become the conduit
for surface contaminants to enter the Richfield wells aquifer.
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-10
/D 3S
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
is 3.2.30 DD..WETLANDS ..................impacts are all on the MSP site itself.
3.2.31 EE..WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..............do not apply to the MSP site.
3.2.32 FF..WILDLIFE REFUGES ...............the wildlife refuge impacts are covered.
3.2.33 GG..DESIGN, ART and ARCHITECTURE ..............conclusions of the DEIS that
the air cargo buildings proposed to replacethe golf course ..."do not represent a
substantial change from the existing visual conditions and will not disrupt the
natural environment or aesthetic integrity" .............are certainly inaccurate, if not
completely misleading. The golf courses are a positive, cultivated open space,
visual amenity, while the air cargo buildings will be a very negative visual
intrusion. The impact of these large buildings, much closer to the highway and
existing residential areas than any of the existing large structures now on the
MSP site, certainly require effective mitigation.
3.2.34 HH..SHORT and LONG TERM COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........... are
covered in the DEIS
3.2.35 OTHER CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
DEIS.......... as specific areas of concern. While some legal aspects are
mentioned in the discussion under a few of the specific areas, the legal status
and relationships of MAC and Richfield, and the legal processes involved in
implementation of mitigation activities should be recognized and defined,
particularly in regard to the implementation of short and long-term mitigation
programs, and the specifics of funding.
1. Legal Relationships .............between MAC, the City of Richfield, and the
affected parties and entities should be defined, understood, and agreed
upon as a basis for implementation and funding of a comprehensive, and
effective Mitigation Plan as outlined in this report.
2. City Boundaries.......... for New Ford Town and Rich Acres should be
removed and traded for equal or greater areas of MSP properties that could
be incorporated into the City of Richfield.
3. The Legal Process ....................for implementation of the Mitigation Plan
including scope, authorities, responsibilities, accountability, funding, and
related matters should be defined, understood, and adopted by MAC and
the City, so that the arrangement can be clearly communicated to, and
understood by, all affected individuals and entities.
4. The Fiscal Consequences .............and impacts on the public (City and
School District) treasury, a new expenditure pattern to support a very
different mix of uses and occupants, and the fiscal basis for financing
redevelopment and loss of revenues during the transition, must be
recognized, defined, and funded as part of the cost of the runway project.
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART THREE... IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-11
/ o?- V
PART FOUR..... MITIGATION PROPOSALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE
--------------------
4.1 Overview..
4-2
4.2 Mitigation Proposals
421 A..Air Quality _ 4-2
4.2.2 B..Archaeological Resources 4-2
4.2.3 C..Biotic Communities 4-2
4.2.4 D..Bird-Aircraft Hazards 4-2
4.2.5 E..Construction Impacts 4-2
4.2.6 F..Coastal Barriers 4-3
4.2.7 G..Coastal Zone Management 4-3
4.2.8 H.. Endangered and Threatened Species 4.3
4.2.9 (...Economic 4-3
4.2.10 J.. Energy and Natural Resources 4-4
4.2.11 K..Farmland 4-4
4.2.12 L..Floodplains 4.4
4.2.13 M..Historic/Architectural Resources 4-4
4.2.14 N...Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 4-4
4.2.15 O..Land Use 4-4
4.2.16 P..Light Emissions 4-5
4.2.17 Q.. Noise 4-5
4.2.18 R.. Parks and Recreation 4-6
4.2.19 S..Site Preservation 4-6
4.2.20 T.. Social 4-6
4.2.21 U..Section 4(f) Lands 4-7
4.2.22 V.. Solid Waste 4-7
4.2.23 W.. Transportation Access 4-7
4.2.24 X..Major Utilities 4-7
4.2.25 Y..Visual Impacts 4-7
4.2.26 Z.. Wastewater 4-8
4-2.27AA..Water Supply 4-8
4.2.28 BB..Surface Water Quality 4-8
4.2.29 CC..Groundwater Quality 4-8
4-2.30 DD..Wetlands 4-8
4.2.31 EE..Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-8
4.2.32 FF..Wildlife Refuges 4-8
4.2.33 GG..Design/Art/chitecture 4-8
4.2.34 HH..Short & Long Term Resources 4-8
4.2.35 ...Other Impacts Not Covered in the DEIS 4-8
DRAFT(e)06/02/98
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
4.1 OVERVIEW ................the consequences and impacts defined and
described in the previous part of this report require mitigation. This Part presents, in
outline form, a brief description of mitigation measures for each of the subject areas
included in the DEIS. These are "proposals", or "Concepts" and do not represent a
"plan", since a specific "plan" for mitigation must be negotiated, prepared and adopted
by both entities _
4.2 MITIGATION PROPOSALS .............in addition to those outlined in the
DEIS are outlined under each of the major headings defined in the DEIS as follows: 1
4.2.1 A...AIR QUALITY ........... all five possible" mitigation measures and all four
construction mitigation proposals listed in the DEIS, should be adopted and be
required. In addition, the problem of odor from jet engine exhaust on the ground
must be mitigated through operational policies that limit lengthy waiting on the
taxiway, threshold ramp, and air cargo area, and other policies that will reduce
the concentration of exhaust fumes from aircraft on the ground. Air quality
monitoring stations should be set up in the affected Richfield neighborhoods,
and regular reports of current conditions and mitigation measures in place
should be provided to the City and residents on a regular basis. (See comments
0 under 3.6, E..CONSTRUCTION as well)
4.2.2 B...ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......... are are covered in the DEIS
4.2.3 C...BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ................the loss of the urban forest area in New
Ford Town, Rich Acres, and the Golf Courses should be mitigated in part by
providing a substantial (200 foot) "greenbelt" along the full length of the MSP site
from Mother Lake to 1494. This space should include berms high enough to block
lights from vehicles and taxiing aircraft, dense, mixed conifers and deciduous
trees and prairie grass ground cover. The trees should be selected for cover,
nesting, and feeding benefits for small birds (including continuation of the
Bluebird project) and mammals, but will not be attractive to geese and other
large waterfowl. Funding should be provided to plant large trees and shrubs in
the public spaces in the redevelopment project.
4.2.4 D.... BIRD-AIRCRAFT HAZARDS ............ should be reduced by discouraging
geese and other large waterfowl from nesting and grazing on the MSP site, and
not by altering the flight distribution patterns that produce disproportional
impacts on Richfield residents.
4.2.5 E...CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .................will fall disproportionately on Richfield
and policies must be adopted and enforced by MAC for construction operations
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 2
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
to distribute traffic, storage and processing of materials, and other activities
appropriately between several access points rather than directing all of the traffic
and activity to use the TH 77 - W 66th Street access point. The 66TH Street
interchange improvements must be completed before 17135 construction begins,
and the 77th Street tunnel and ramps must be completed before the air cargo
facilities are operational.
4.2.6 F.... COASTAL BARRIERS ....... Act does not- apply to this project.
4.2.7 G...COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ......... Act does not apply to this project.
4.2.8 H...ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES ......... not required..
4.2.9 I...ECONOMIC ........... consequences and impacts on Richfield will be more
significant and disproportional because Richfield is much smaller in every aspect
of economics. The DEIS must acknowledge this significant disproportionallity
and include mitigation proposals that will be fair and appropriate to the
circumstances including:
a) AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT .............policies and practices of
u MAC toward on and off-site airport related development must be formulated
and implemented to have significant positive impact on the population,
employment, tax capacity and revenues. A disproportionate effort must be
made in Richfield first to minimize, and second to effectively mitigate, the
impacts of the economic consequences through encouragement of
appropriate, airport related development in parts of the redevelopment
area shown on EXHIBIT 6, and through long-term support of economic
activity in Richfield.
b) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES ......... elimination represents economic loss
to the City as well as MAC, which should be mitigated by land acquisition
policies and plans that aid and support the City in finding and developing
replacement facilities on or nearby the expanded MSP site.
c) TAX CAPACITY LOSS ................from acquisition of taxable properties
should be mitigated by payments to the City and School District for
revenues lost during redevelopment.
d) POPULATION LOSS........ particularly of school-age children can, and must
be mitigated through MAC funding to support and encourage development
of new housing that is noise resistive and attractive to residents in the
airport related redevelopment area of Richfield. Encouraging "empty nest"
owners to move to new townhouse or multiple housing so as to make their
single family home available for updating and upgrading to retain displaced
families must also be supported by subsidies for acquisition and upgrading
those homes. Extra effort should be made to retain and attract school age
children.
DRAFT(e) 612/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 3
a_qa
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
0 4.2.10 J..ENERGY SUPPLY and NATURAL RESOURCES ........ affect MSP only.
4.2.11 K..FARMLAND .................no farmland is involved in the MSP site.
4.2.12 L..FLOODPLAINS....... not required for the MSP site.
4.2.13 M..HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ............................there are no
significant historic or architectural resource's at risk in Richfield.
4.2.14 N..INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS .......................economic mitigation
is discussed under 4.10 I..ECONOMIC IMPACTS, above, and mitigation of the
noise (particularly low frequency noise) is discussed under 4.18 Q..NOISE, in
following paragraphs. In addition, the social consequences must be mitigated
first by much improved and effective communications with the City, affected
institutions, residents and businesses. MAC must also fund Richfield programs
that reinforce the social fabric through community and neighborhood
organizations, existing City loan and grant programs for maintaining and
upgrading remaining housing stock outside of the redevelopment area, and
extraordinary communications with residents and businesses in and adjacent to
the redeveloped area during an extended transition and redevelopment period
(at least 10 years). EXHIBITS 3, 4, and 5 indicate the extent of population,
students, and market value impacts in the noise affected area, and EXHIBIT 6
includes projected resident and school populations as well as potential market
value for tax base for a redevelopment concept for comparative purposes.
4.2.15 O..LAND USE ................acquisition "write-downs", planning, management and
operations costs for the redevelopment of the area impacted by low frequency
noise must be funded by the MSP project in recognition of the unique and
unfortunate location of the new runway with its disproportionate impacts on
Richfield. Funding should begin with the investment required to prepare a
specific redevelopment plan that will define the scope and nature of the project,
estimated time line, and costs, include acquisition and relocation expenses,
new development land cost write-downs, allowances for extraordinary noise
abatement construction costs, and administrative costs for the complete project.
EXHIBIT 6 is a graphic depiction of a proposed land use redevelopment for the
noise impacted area following the same principles that supported the City
Comprehensive Plan update completed in 1997. Non-residential land uses that
housed in large structures are proposed on the land nearest the MSP site in
order to provide a buffer for residential areas to the west. New housing would
be high density multiple dwellings primarily for seniors, and single family
attached (townhomes) constructed with extraordinary noise abatement materials
•
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 4
Id-43
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
and designs. Some additional open space and recreational facilities are
provided in an attempt to build a town home complex that will retain or attract
families with school-age children
a) ...AIRPORT RELATED (RE)DEVELOPMENT............ activities and uses
generated by MSP development that are consistent with the redevelopment
plan adopted, should be encouraged to locate in the redevelopment area
through MAC policies, plans, and incentives.
b) ..."FUTURE" WEST TERMINAL ....... -..... should be included in the 2010
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, so as to eliminate the uncertainty
and support development of high value and high quality regional
commercial projects as depicted in the redevelopment concept (EXHIBIT
6). The LTCP should also include provision for an extension of the LRT
system to Richfield and/or connections to bus feeder lines.
c) ...RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ...................programs and policies must be
adopted, funded by the MSP project, and effectively managed by Richfield
in order to develop higher densities that can replace lost population in
structures that minimize the noise impacts. Effective efforts including
financial incentives will be necessary to open and upgrade many single
family homes outside of the noise impacted area to retain displaced
families, and attract new families with school-age children. Neither the City
nor the School District can afford to lose any more population than has
• already been lost through acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
4.2.16 P..LIGHT EMISSIONS ................from aircraft moving on the ground in areas very
close to TH77 must be mitigated with berms, walls, and plant materials in the
buffer strip along the full length of the air cargo area adjacent to TH 77.
4.2.17 Q..NOISE (AIRCRAFT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION) .......... represents
the greatest consequence with the most intense impacts on a very large portion
of the City of Richfield. Mitigation should include all of the thirteen abatement
measures, and all eleven land use planning measures listed in the DEIS, and in
addition:
a) STANDARD MEASUREMENTS ...............must be modified so that they
accurately reflect low frequency noise and induced vibrations (secondary
emissions) as well as primary (high frequency) noise.
b) SPECIAL MEASUREMENTS ..............conducted and reported by the firm of
BBN Systems in May of 1997 (copy of the report dated 14 May 1997
included as ADDENDA A), should be accepted as the defined area for
aircraft noise mitigation activities as new FAA and MAC standards.
c) EXTRAORDINARY MITIGATION PROCEDURES ..............over and above
the standards outlined in the DEIS including PART 150 sound insulation
and structural improvements, and the construction of berms or other
acoustical barriers included as mitigation recommendations in the DEIS
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 5
/C? -qC/
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
should be authorized in view of the extraordinary nature of the impacts (low
frequency noise), and the disproportionate impacts that will be experienced
in the complete primary and buffer zones in Richfield (See EXHIBIT 3).
d) FIELD STUDY OF ANNOYANCE FROM LOW FREQUENCY NOISE......
should be used as the basis for defining the impacted area to be mitigated
as outlined in the BBN Systems report (See copy of report dated 9 October
1997 in the ADDENDA B, and summary as EXHIBIT 3 in Part One).
e) THE IMPACTED AREA ............ described in BBN Figure 3 represents the
noise impacted area, and EXHIBIT 3 (Part One) of this report delineates
the primary and secondary noise impacted (mitigation) areas, EXHIBIT 6
(Part One) of this report is a graphical representation of the area that must
be redeveloped with compatible land uses, funded by the MSP project.
f) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS .......... mitigation should
include all measures described in the DEIS.
4.2.18 R..PARKS AND RECREATION ..................impacts and losses to Richfield are all
the direct result of selection of OPTION SIX, and must be mitigated as a part of
the MSP expansion project. Specific mitigation should include:
a) PARKS AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT
(APE) ............should include Washington Park that is clearly within the
0 DNL-65 noise contour (from 4/22), and Christian Park, based on the BBN
study which shows low frequency noise levels from 17/35 (80dB equal to
the DNL-65) cover a portion of that park as well. Cost of all redesign and
redevelopment required to mitigate increased noise intrusion should be
funded by the MSP project.
b) TWO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ..................(New Ford Town and Rich
Acres Parks) are publicly owned parks, and the loss must be mitigated by
payment in full for the fair value of the 6.8 acres.
c) COMMUNITY GARDENS ...................may be mitigated by permitting
development on other unused and available sites owned or controlled by
MAC in recognition of the disproportionate impacts on Richfield.
d) DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ......................from substantial loss of
parks and recreational facilities only on the City of Richfield are clearly out
of proportion when compared to all of the other adjoining communities, and
should be disproportionately mitigated through assistance in finding land
and funding acquisition and development of replacement sites and facilities
for the golf courses and athletic fields lost to the MSP expansion project.
4.2.19 S..FUTURE AIRPORT SITE PRESERVATION .......... does not apply.
4.2.20 T..SOCIAL IMPACTS ................are another example of the
disproportionate burdens of this project on Richfield and should be mitigated.
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 6
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
. a) COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ...........................Rich Acres golf courses
should be provided full relocation assistance allowed for displaced
businesses under the Uniform Relocation Act, to the extent permitted by
State and federal laws and rules.
b) HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED ......... should receive all of the relocation
assistance required by law, as well as special assistance for families with
school -age children to find housing in the community outside of the actual
redevelopment area but still within the-school district.
c) BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT ....................should receive all of the
relocation assistance required by law as well as special assistance in
finding locations within the redevelopment area or other sites within the
community.
d) "WORK WITH "APPROPRIATE ...AGENCIES" .............should include the
state Department of Economic Security as suggested in the DEIS, but the
contact should be made together with the City of Richfield. MAC must
recognize the disproportionate impacts on Richfield and begin to work more
effectively with the City in the redevelopment project and in everyday,
normal operations.
4.2.21 U..SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS .............identification and mitigation efforts
should include Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks, together with Washington
Park and a portion of Christian Park that falls within that noise impacted area.
4.2.22 V..SOLID WASTE IMPACTS ............ are covered in the DEIS.
4.2.23 W..TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ........... mitigation must also include
upgrading the TH77/66TH Street interchange and constructing the 77th Street
tunnel connection under and ramps to TH77 prior to operation of the enlarged
air cargo facilities, and should be done before construction begins.
a) TH 77 AND EAST 66TH STREET INTERCHANGE ............ requires major
mitigation for businesses removed, and the cost of all improvements
required to maintain the existing level of service for Richfield traffic. This
improvement should be completed before runway construction begins, but
must be completed before the expanded air cargo operations begin.
b) TH 62 ADDITIONAL LANES ........... mitigation is provided in the DEIS.
c) TRAFFIC DIVERSION TO LOCAL STREETS .............must be mitigated by
including the cost of upgrades and improvements to local streets,
particularly 66th and 77th Streets, and north-south collectors Bloomington,
12th, Portland, Nicollet, and Lyndale Avenues. Funds should also be
provided to cover costs of "traffic calming" means and devices that are
required to discourage diversion of traffic through residential streets.
0 4.2.24 X..MAJOR UTILITIES ...... power line relocation does not affect Richfield.
DRAFT(e) 6/2198 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 7
fa-q(0
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
4.2.25 Y..VISUAL IMPACTS ... from the conversion of the golf course and
open space to runways and cargo buildings must be mitigated by
construction of a 200 foot wide (minimum) "green strip" with berms, prairie
grass and trees over the full length of the MSP site along TH 77.
4.2.26 Z..WASTEWATER.......... will not impact on the City of Richfield.
4.2.27 AA..WATER SUPPLY ......... No impacts on Richfield.
4.2.28 BB..SURFACE WATER QUALITY ........ no impacts in Richfield.
4.2.29 CC..GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS ........... the DEIS should
outline proposed methods to protect the groundwater sources used by
Richfield, and clearly accept all future responsibility for remediation that
may be required as a result of contamination from operations on the MSP
site.
4.2.30 DD..WETLANDS .................no impacts to mitigate in Richfield.
4.2.31 EE..WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..............not applicable.
4.2.32 FF..WILDLIFE REFUGES ...............none in Richfield.
4.2.33 GG..DESIGN, ART and ARCHITECTURE ..............construction of the
runway, taxiway, and air cargo buildings along TH 77 require mitigation in
the form of a development of the "green strip" described above, and must
include fully informing the City of building proposals, and responding to
reasonable requests for site design, architectural., and operational
conditions that the City may request.
4.2.34 HH..SHORT and LONG TERM COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES........... mitigation requirements in the DEIS are acceptable.
4.2.35 OTHER CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
DEIS
a) LEGAL AND FISCAL CONSEQUENCES .......... are not included in the
DEIS as specific areas of concern but require mitigation as follows:
1. Legal Relationships .............between MAC, the City of Richfield, and the
affected parties and entities must be outlined, understood, and agreed
upon as a basis for implementation of a coordinated, comprehensive,
and effective Mitigation Plan including redevelopment.
2. City Boundaries.......... for New Ford Town and Rich Acres should be
traded with other MAC property that could be developed, or compensated
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 8
0- q 11)
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
do to the extent of the 28.6 acres of street row acquired by MAC.
3. The Legal Process ....................for implementation of the Mitigation Plan
including scope, authorities, responsibilities, funding, accountability,
and related matters should be defined, understood, and adopted by
MAC and the City, so that the arrangement can be clearly communicated
to and understood by all affected individuals and entities.
4. The Fiscal Consequences .............and impacts on the public (City and
School District) treasury, due to substantial changes in sources and
nature of revenues, a new expenditure pattern to support a very different
mix of uses and citizens, and the fiscal basis for financing redevelopment
and loss of revenues during the transition, must be recognized, defined,
and mitigated by providing an escrow or endowment corpus that can
provide continuing funding of future losses in full.
•
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FOUR....... MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 9
/ CQ_?(S
•
PART FIVE...IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
OF A
MITIGATION CONCEPT
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35)
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
Prepared For
The City of Richfield, MN
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r
PART NO. SUBJECT
PART FIVE Implementation Process
5.1 Overview
5.2 Adoption of a Mitigation Plan
5.3 Legal Basis
5.3.1 Independent Project
5.3.2 Funding Basis
5.4 Management of the Plan
5.5 Stakeholder Participation
5.5.1 Stakeholders
5.5.2 Participation Process
5.6 An Estimated Time Line
5.7 Estimated Mitigation Funding
5.8 Estimated Annual Budget
5.9 Annual Review
PAGE
--------------
--------------
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 3
FIVE - 4
FIVE - 4
FIVE - 5
FIVE - 6
DRAFT(e)06/02/98
C9,-49
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PART FIVE ..... MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
5.1 OVERVIEW ...................... of what may well be the most important aspect of a
successful mitigation program, the implementation. Effective, active, and
consistent participation by those affected is essential to accomplishment of the
physical objectives of the mitigation project.
5.2 ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PLAN ................by the City,
and approval of the funding mechanism and funds by MAC must first be
accomplished by formal actions of the City and MAC. The City will provide a
complete PLAN including effective staffing, provision of office space and
equipment, a projected time line, performance goals and objectives, and a
schedule of funding requirements from MAC, by formal resolutions.
5.3 THE LEGAL........ process must be complete and appropriate to the requirements
of both the City and MAC, as well as any specific Legislative directives for the
redevelopment and related community support activities included in the
approved mitigation plan. The basic agreement must provide an effective
procedure through which the stakeholders and the City can obtain timely and
appropriate responses to all inquiries and requests, and effective enforcement
of the construction, development, funding, and operational commitments made
by MAC.
5.3.1 INDEPENDENT PROJECT .................for redevelopment must be set
apart from the actual airport construction project as well as from the day-to-day
operations of both the City and MAC, in order to effectively complete the
mitigation activities, and to maintain credibility with the affected stakeholders.
The mitigation Plan must be seen as an undertaking worthy of its own specific
identity, responsibility and authority, rather than an insignificant adjunct to the
huge airport construction project, or simply short-term extra duty for City staff.
The City may contract with a private sector development entity (or entities if the
project is divided into geographical or functional units) for planning,
management, relocation, demolition, and construction of the redevelopment
portion of the overall project..
5.3.2 FUNDING BASIS ...............from all available sources for both MAC and
the City should be effectively applied in order to generate as much as possible
of the investment capital and management costs from the development project
itself. The City and MAC will likely need to cooperate in asking the Minnesota
Legislature for special funding and management authority for this unique
situation.
•
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 2
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
5.4 MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN ........... should be directed by a Mitigation Project
Manager (MPM) hired or retained by the City, . The MPM will employ staff and
retain consultants, utilize City and MAC staff when appropriate and applicable,
direct and coordinate the work of the redevelopment contractors, and will
prepare a budget document for adoption by the City and review by MAC each
year. The MPM will be responsible to, and work under the direction of the City
Manager or designated staff. The City Manager will coordinate and
communicate with MAC through its Executive Director, and will make
presentations to both groups and to the public on a regular basis. .
5.5 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN MITIGATION ACTIONS ........ must include
frequent, timely, and consistent information provided promptly through a 24-
hour "hot Line" for the Richfield mitigation project, and frequent, regular
dissemination of information and news by newsletter, direct mail, media
releases, presentations to neighborhood groups, signage, hand-outs, etc..
Feedback, input, and critiques from the affected individuals and groups should
be provided through forums, focus groups, telephone and in-person interviews,
etc., on a continuous basis throughout the project. Meaningful participation will
most likely prove to be the primary means available to help preserve the solid
community character that exists in the affected area today.
5.5.1 STAKEHOLDERS ................include at least three distinct groups, each
of which view the project and the process quite differently because of different
risks, and the nature of involvement over time. While all will need to know the
same basic information and have the same opportunities to participate in the
process, each group will have differing concerns and needs that must be
recognized and met. These groups can be defined as follows:
a) The Displaced ............ stakeholders are the first group, and are the easiest to
identify and communicate with because they are within the boundary of the
redevelopment area itself.. They are involved in the project until they are
displaced, and most will not have any long-term involvement unless they
move to a new location in the redevelopment project or to a home in the
neighborhood that is made available to them. Every effort should be made to
retain current owners, businesses, and tenants, particularly families with
school-age children, through finding and swapping available housing in the
adjacent neighborhoods, and through financial incentives to help them
improve or acquire new properties in the redevelopment area..
b) Abutting ........stakeholders are the second group because their property is on
the outside of the redevelopment boundary line and are most directly affected
by the actual redevelopment activity and the future structures and uses.
Abutting properties, like the displaced, can be exactly determined by their
property description, and, unlike the displaced group, are most concerned
with the long term aspects of the project since they will remain through
redevelopment.
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 3
la-5-l
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
c) Bordering........ stakeholders are the third and largest group. They are those
that will remain where they are today beginning one lot or so beyond the
boundaries of the redevelopment area, and extending to a not so easy to
determine outer limit. Concerns may be views, traffic, non-residential land
uses, occupant demographics, etc., most important of which are the long
term aspects of the project. Stakeholders should share in the definition of
this area early in the process. Ultimately, any who believe that they are in
the affected area, and are actively involved, will be included.
d) Neighborhood ......... stakeholders are those that live or work anywhere east of
Portland Avenue and wish to be involved.
e) Community .................stakeholders will come from outside of the geographic
areas defined above, and will include representatives of community groups
(Chamber of Commerce or Service Clubs), quasi-public institutions
(churches.. clubs), public institutions (Conservation Or Watershed District) as
well as individual residents and business people..
5.5.2 THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS .............must include clear, adequate,
and complete information so that the stakeholders can make informed judgments
and decisions. The process must also be flexible and open to changes in both
substance and form that come from the participants. The managers, leaders,
and moderators used in the process should be experienced, objective, and
without a vested interest in any outcome.
5.6 AN ESTIMATED TIME LINE ...............begins with negotiations, adoption,
funding, and designation of management of the PLAN, and will continue until
the last mitigation activity has been accomplished. Specific TARGET DATES
will be related to the airport facility final design, negotiated mitigation
parameters, funding commitments, construction and operating schedules, and
other factors, most of which are not yet evident. A preliminary outline based
upon the recommendations in this report is as follows:
Negotiate the Mitigation Plan Joint Powers Agreement 3 to 5 months
Approve The Agreement and select the MPM 2 to 3 months
Initial Stakeholder Information and Communication 3 to 4 months
Complete Investigations, Surveys, and Designs 5 to 6 months
Public and Stakeholder Review of Preliminary PLAN 2 to 3 months
Complete Final PLAN, do Funding, Bids and Contracts 9 to 18 months
Demolition, Construction, Relocation 5 to 10 years
Periodic Feedback Forums and Surveys quarterly
Project Management Review & Evaluation annually
Project Completion Review and Evaluation 3 to 4 months
5.6 MITIGATION FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT ......is based on
the following considerations and assumptions:
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE_ 4
/a-5c?
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
0
40 1.4.10 Social Impacts 36,000,000
5.6.1 Project Life.......... is assumed to be ten (10) years.
5.6.2 No Allowance .......for inflation (1998 figures).
5.6.3 Specific Development Plan....... must be prepared and specific cost
estimates may be more or less than estimates in this conceptual proposal.
5.6.4 Zero Base TIF Funding...... is expected to be available for the project.
5.7 ESTIMATED. MITIATION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ....... are as follows:
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION ACTION ESTIMATED COST
1
4
1 Air Quality Monitoring & Management $ 3,000,000
.
.
2
4
1 Biotic Communities 1,500,000
.
.
3
1
4 Construction Impacts 40,000,000
.
.
4
1
4 Economic Impacts 14,000.000
.
.
5
4
1 Induced Socio-Economic Impacts 14,000,000
.
.
4.6
1 Land Use (Redevelopment Only) 1 10,000,000
.
1
4.7 Light Emissions (Included under 1.4.2, above)
.
8
1
4 Noise Treatment for 740 homes 56,500,000
.
.
8a
1
4 Health Impacts of Noise Study (20 years) 10,000,000
.
.
1.4.8b Highway Noise Mitigation (Included under 1.4.4, above)
9
4
1 Parks And Recreation 12,000,000
.
.
4.11
1 Section 4(f) Parks (2) 2,500,000
.
1.4.12 Transportation (In addition to 1.4.3, above) 33,500,000
4.13
1 Visual Impacts (Included under 1.4.2, above)
.
14
4
1 Surface Water Quality 500,000
.
.
4.15
1 Groundwater Quality 500,000
.
1.4.16 Design, Art, Architecture 6,000,000
1.4.17 Other Impacts..... Fiscal; Impacts 16,000,000
Administration See Detail in 5.8, below 2,500,000
ESTIMATED TEN-YEAR MITIGATION COSTS $ 358,500,000
5.8 ESTIMATED ANNUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS............ are based on the scale
and magnitude of the project concept outlined in this report as follows:
a) Professional and Support Staff (Estimated Ann ual Cost Range)
Project Manager ................................................ $ 45,000 to $ 55,000
Assistant Project Manager ................................ 30,000 to 35,000
...................................................
Administrative 25,000 to 32,000
Professional Staff (or consultants) ..................... 35,000 to 40,000
Technical Staff (or consultants) ........................ 25,000 to 30,000
DRAFT(e) 6/2/98
PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE FIVE-- 5
/C - 5
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
•
•
l_J
b) Office Space and Equipment
Office Space, Equipment, & Furnishings ......... 10,500 to 13,000
Personnel Field Equipment (Rental) .................. 3,500 to 5,000
c) Communications Expenses
Telephone .......................................................... 3,000 to 3,500
Internet .............................................................. 1,000 to 1,500
Teleconferencing 11,000 to 13,000
Postage, Messenger, Express ........ .- ............... 2,000 to 3,000
d) Travel, Mileage, and Other
Auto Mileage and Travel ....................................... 3,000 to 4,000
Other Expenses .................................................... 2,000 to 4,000
e) Management Consultant and Government Support Services
Management and Legal Services ......................... 30,000 to 40,000
Government Support Goods and Services........... 9,000 to 12,000
Estimated Total Annual Cost For Project Management $235,000 to $273,500
Estimated Total Project Management Cost (10yrs)........... $ 2,350,000 to $ 2,910,000
5.7 REVIEW THE PROJECT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS ANNUALLY ......... in
order to evaluate effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, appropriateness,
and to review all legal, financial and legislative criteria and constraints.
a) The MPM will prepare an annual report that details the activities of the past
year, specifically describes the status of each subproject, and outlines the
proposed action plan for the next year.
b) The action plan will be developed with participation of the stakeholders.
c) The action plan will be reviewed, amended, revised, and approved by the
City and financial elements confirmed and adopted by MAC.
d) The Richfield Planning Commission will use this project review process as a
basis for recommending amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for review
and adoption by the City Council.
DRAFT(e) 612198
PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 6
i0-5
EXHIBIT 3 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
lei Existing Land Uses and Areas
w z
Q O
W
Z z Z m O z
0 O Z = = 0_' Y = U 0 ?-- H H H F- H O F- F=- Y=-
cZV chi U v u a O a U U W ° m U
•
ill H
Z
NMI
1
i CCFkkkkk
yeL?.:ki i
PERM ?t
M7,"?
MM-? T M
l ?^
f=.
K M P M I M'M M ?I
111111 OM?? M M M M M M M M M
I M I M M M I M PT?l IT-1 PR
ffl mo
1?mwllm 1-494
N
500 0 500 1000 Feet
"W?? +
Ell
91 73RD ST. -- ore s ter'?eze area` acv"',
Transition Boundary
"Primary Area Boundary (approx. 75
*Redevelopment Boundary
if ? Comp Plan Boundary
® Commercial
® Apartment
63RD ST. ® Duplex
= Residential
® Quasi-Public
@EH School
64TH ST. Church
Vacant
Park
65TH ST.
66TH ST.
67TH ST.
68TH ST.
69TH ST.
70TH ST
n 71ST ST.
ApeNnart Urit6=
72ND ST. nparone d Uric = dot
Comprehensive Plan
74TH ST.
TOTALL 110 1199991 96.
1 'C"
75TH ST. nrnrhnent umm=
76TH ST.
Apartment
eherch
covmeccial
77TH ST. ° °le
Park
Residential
78TH ST. school
AwMard Urow =10
71
May 28, 1998
EXHIBIT 4 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD !a 5S
Existing Resident and School Populations
EVELOPMENT AREA - Existing Conditions vs. Pro' posed Redevelo ment Concept
LAND USE
AREA ac
Concept
Units (u
Concept Total
Population
Concept School
Population
Concept
Single Family 113.7 547 1258 179
Single Family High Density 6.5 50.5 58 404 122 848 20 81
Multi-Family Medium Density (25 u/ac) 15.6 401 641 1155 122 17
Multi-Family High Density (50 u/ac) 16.5 825
Regional Commercial/Office 18.2* 48.8
High Density Office 18.2
Low Density Office 34.7
Neighborhood Commercial 1.3
Parks 19.2 24.3
Streets 60.6 18.5
Other 5.06 5.5
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 220.7 218.3 1006 1229 2021 2003 321 98
* Includes all commercial uses
PRIMARY AREA
LAND USE
AREA (ac)
Units (u Total
Population School
Population
Single Family 180.2 893 2054 377
Single Family High Density 6.5 58 122 11
Multi-Family Medium Density 15.6 401 641 40
Multi-Family High Density
Regional Commercial/Office 21.4*
High Density Office
Low Density Office
Neighborhood Commercial
Parks 29.7
Streets 47.4
Other 6.42
(vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 285.8 1352 2817 428
* Includes all commercial uses
•
Page 1 5/28/98
EXHIBIT 5 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Existing Market Value of Properties
0 3
ui O
z ¢ w
2 LL
0 0
F F Z H F ? Z
H H H F=-
r m U OJ N N N
•
•
FIR
712 h
pq:q
WV2
63RD ST
64TH ST
65TH ST
66TH ST
n
n
S
~ 67TH ST
68TH ST
69TH ST
70TH ST
71 ST ST.
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
Primary Area
Land use ` #.Parcels --Market Value
Apartment 32 9438000
Church 1 0
Commercial 61 16308300
Duplex 29 2873000
Park 6 0
Quasi-Public 1 0
Residential 892 73277100
School 2 0
Vacant 2 97000
Redevelopment Area
I Land Use -.*.Parcels Market Value
Apartment 32 9438000
Church 1 0
Commercial 48 14959100
Duplex 29 2873000
Park 6 0
Residential 546 46487000
School 2 0
Vacant 1 78000
Comp Plan Area
Land Use A'Parcels `1 market 'Value
-
Apartment 30 8594000
Commercial 47 14814100
Duplex 29 2873000
Park 5 0
Residential 228 19433900
Vacant 1 78000
74TH ST. Source: 1996 Hennepin County Property
Value Data
N
75TH ST.
76TH ST. 500 0 500 1000 Feet
77TH ST. February 4, 1998
ADDENDA C Comprehensive Plan / a- 57
Cedar Avenue Corridor
Z Q
w
cc L o
O 2 2 2 O Z 2 2 F- o Z O
U) z
P F_
M r r r U OJ - N N N fA N
W R F-EF]
OEMN MP
=i ffiffli Vim, lim
62ND ST.
63RD ST.
64TH ST.
65TH ST.
66TH ST.
67TH ST.
68TH ST
69TH ST.
/k/ Comp Plan Boundary
COMP PLAN DESIGNATION
09 Community Commercial
Community Commercial/Office
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional Commercial/Office
® Office
Quasi-Public/Utility
SF Residential - High Density
® Multi-Residential - High Density
Park
70TH ST Comp Plan # Parcels Area Acreage
nm???o
DC
1-494
71 ST ST.
ti
ti
2
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
75TH ST.
76TH ST.
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
500 0 500 10001500 Feet
J
0
January 21, 1998
C-C 26 282347.793 6.48
C-C/0 9 80064.448 1.84
C-N 7 94083.070 2.16
C-R/O 86 899939.731 20.66
0 83 1075009.498 24.68
PK 1 113171.461 2.60
QP-U 3 128415.653 2.95
R-SFH 88 806663.198 18.52
RMH 35 624702.970 14.34
R-.
a
•
•
EXHIBIT 6 NOISE IMPACTED' AREAS IN RICHFIELD
A Proposed Redevelopment Concept
°_
Z Q J
W
cr LL
F H H 0 F o Z H H N z
W r'
m V U OJ T N N N
IT:] EaF
Prnnnsed ConCent
TOTAL SCHOOL MARKET
LAND USE AREA (ac) UNITS POP'N POP'N VALUE
Single Family High Density 50.5 404 848 81 54.5
Mufti-Family High Density (50 u/ac) 16.5 825 1155 17 41.3
Regional Commercial/Office 48.8 61.0
High Density Office 18.2 22.8
Low Density Office 34.7 34.7
Neighborhood Commercial 1.3 1.3
Parks 24.3
Streets 18.5
Other (vacant, schools, 5.5
churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 218.3 1229 2003 97 215.5
(in 000,000s)
r` 68TH ST
2
~ 69TH ST
70TH SF
71 ST ST.
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
75TH ST.
76TH ST.
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
? Realigned Roadway
M a Redevelopment Boundary
ia Parkway
PROPOSED LAND USES
® Church
Neighborhood Commercial
High Density Office
High Density Office/Regional Commercial
® Low Density Office
® Park
High Density Multiple Residential
High Density Single Family Residential
tiiiTTiil School
500 0 500 Feet
.J
February 3, 1998
1-494
/I
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 133
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to subsection 511 of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow limited expansion of nonconforming residential
structures.
Background:
Staff has received several variance requests in the past two years from property owners
who want to build an addition onto a house or garage that does not meet current
setback requirements. (See Attachment A.) A structure that does not meet current
setback requirements is considered nonconforming. Nonconforming structures can
only be enlarged if the expansion meets current building and zoning requirements. This
makes it difficult for some buildings to be expanded because the addition would be out
of line with the existing structure.
For example, the side setback requirement for detached garages used to be two feet.
The current setback requirement is three feet. To expand a garage with a two foot
setback (on the side with the two foot setback) the expansion has to be set back three
• feet from the property line. (See Attachment B.)
The proposed amendment adds an exception to the nonconforming structures provision
in Section 511.13, subd. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The nonconforming structures
provision currently reads, "a nonconforming building occupied by a conforming use may
be enlarged if the expansion meets all applicable City Code requirements." The
amendment would add an exception to this provision to allow expansions that don't
meet setback requirements. The provision places the following limits on these
expansions:
• it applies only to single and two family residential properties;
• the structure can be expanded up to 100 percent of current size (provided all
other requirements are met);
• the expansion cannot extend any farther into the setback; and
• it applies only to setback infringements of 50 percent or less (e.g. a garage with
a five foot setback that is supposed to have a 15 foot setback would not qualify
for this exception).
There may be instances where the City would not want a nonconforming structure
expanded because an expansion would worsen a bad situation. To avoid these
situations, the amendment places limits on the amount of variance permitted without a
• public hearing.
11-1
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of an ordinance amendment to
subsection 511 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow limited expansion of nonconforming
residential structures.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Staff has encountered several instances in which a property owner has
encountered difficulty expanding an existing nonconforming structure.
2. It is appropriate to review the Zoning Ordinance when multiple situations suggest a
change may need to be made.
3. In cases where the setback infringement is minimal and/or the existing structure
does not cause any problems, the variance process can be onerous.
4. The City Council conducted first reading of the amendment on May 11, 1998.
5. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
6. On April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the amendment.
Alternative Recommendation:
• 1. Approve the amendment with changes.
2. Deny the amendment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, June 8, 1998 in the Council
Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. A two-thirds majority vote is
required to approve an ordinance amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
. Prosser
IC?ityanager
JDP:ds
C]
/7/-)-
• BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 511.13 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is
amended by adding the following new subdivision:
Subd. 5. Enlargement of building with nonconforming setback. A legally
nonconforming single or two family dwelling or garage which existed on or before June
1, 1995, which is occupied by a conforming use, and which does not meet current
setback requirements can be expanded up to 100 percent of the floor area of the
existing structure, as long as the following conditions are met:
a) the expansion does not extend anv farther into the reauired setback than
the existing structure:
b) the existing structure does not infringe on the setback more than 50
• percent of the required setback distance: and
c) the expansion meets all other applicable City Code requirements.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
June, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
C]
•
Q
Z
W
V
Q
H
Q
•
U)
w OC)
Z
Q
CL
X
w
I-
U
_Z
0
U.
0
Z
0
Z
LL
U)
J
00 OC)
N
CO
<<s> O O
w>€€R1T
co
c0 O
co 'T
00
_ ..
ki 0() 00 CC) CC)
E>
M
M M
M O
LO LO
N M
v
?! 'i?;? ......
. . ::
a) 4)
..
.. -D .TD
M M N
j
O
r
M
3 »> O O
(1)
O 0 CC
O L (D
N
40-)
O
CN 04
L
U
L
U
L
U O
O .O
N U
>'<>
O
O
O (o
'r D cc
::#A.'.«.s€?;»:`<'.:«:
O
O
0 0 co
O O
C C C O C C
fix::... ..
O
O O O E O O
C N C N C N C O O
O o O O O 0) O O rn
"O
cu
.
O
N
O co
O
O
Cc
a (o 'O N fo (a
Q a Q rn Q M Q Q rn
1-3
m
F-
Z
W
v
FQ-
a
Z
N w
L J
N
??
(a
?z e
T
T
X
I r .
Z
Q
a
w
H
t/1
11-y
r
Q
w
Q
0
0
N
H
? W
O J
Z Q
U
N
3NIl AlH3dOHd
3nN3AV
+ ? F
t. Z
Z ?
ZE
Z
:J01
CLNJ
O?
u
U_
l0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 132
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to subsections 506 and
521 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential front porch additions that encroach on
the front setback.
Background:
The Planning Commission has developed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that
would allow property owners to add porches onto the fronts of single and two-family
homes. Currently, the residential front setback requirement is 30 feet and covered
porches are not allowed to encroach into this 30 foot setback. Because most houses
are built at the 30 foot setback, it is not possible to add a front porch.
The Planning Commission considered allowing a blanket reduction in the residential
front setback requirement. The Commission suggests that the reduction be limited to
front porches at this time. The Commission also recommends that design criteria be
applied to any addition that would encroach on the front setback.
The proposed amendment makes changes to the R, R-1 and MR-1 (two family
residence) zoning districts. The amendment would mean that residential property
owners could add on a front porch, up to 10 feet in depth and as close as 20 feet to the
front property line, and not be in violation of the setback requirement.
The amendment includes the following provisions:
• porch additions up to 10 feet are permitted as long as the addition is no closer than
20 feet to the front lot line;
• plans must be approved by the Community Development Director;
• the exterior materials must be consistent with the front of the dwelling;
• the roof must be integrated with the dwelling and have no less than a 3/12 slope;
• the base of the porch cannot be open (deck-like);
• at least 65 percent of the facade has to be either open or occupied by
screens/windows/doors of transparent material; and
• plans that are not prepared by an architect have to be reviewed by the Design
Advisor.
An additional provision would allow front porches on homes that are located on corner
lots and face the street rather than the avenue. These additions would also have to be
at least 20 feet from the streetside lot line.
Due to the growth in residential remodeling activity over the past few years, the
Planning Commission has periodically reviewed the Zoning Ordinance to make sure
that zoning regulations do not act as a barrier to housing improvements. In the past,
changes. have been made to the ordinance to allow reuse of small lots and to make it
easier to construct two-car garages. The Planning Commission views the proposed
amendment as a response to this need to continually review ordinances and remove
barriers to positive improvements.
io_I
If the amendment is approved, staff plans to market the concept to homeowners. Staff
will have sketches prepared showing how a porch addition onto typical Richfield homes
would be possible. A handout including design suggestions will accompany the
sketches.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of an ordinance amendment to
subsections 506 and 521 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential front porch
additions that encroach on the front setback and approve a resolution authorizing
publication of a summary of the amendment.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Staff has received several requests from residents wanting to build front porches
over the past few years.
2. Porch additions can improve the curb appeal of homes, utilize front yard space to
add on to a home, and provide an opportunity for socially-oriented activity in the
front of a home.
3. Because the porch encroachments will occur in front yards and bring dwellings
closer to the front property line, it is important to have criteria requiring well-
designed additions.
4. The variance process would be an inappropriate way to allow front porch
additions. A variance requires a finding of undue hardship that denies a property
owner reasonable use of property. It would be difficult to argue that not having a
front porch constitutes a hardship.
5. The City Council held the first reading of the amendment on May 11, 1998.
6. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
7. On April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the rezoning.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the amendment with changes.
2. Deny the amendment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 1998 in the Council
Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue. A two-thirds majority vote of the full Council is
required to approve an ordinance amendment. A unanimous vote is required to
approve a resolution authorizing summary publication.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
% D-J--
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
SUBSECTION 506 AND 521 OF APPENDIX B OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to Appendix
B of the Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the
expense of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 506 AND 521 OF APPENDIX B
OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE ALLOWING PORCHES TO ENCROACH ON
RESIDENTIAL FRONT SETBACKS WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
APPROVAL
0 This summary of the amendment is published pursuant to section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
The purpose of the ordinance is to allow the addition of porches on to the front of
single and two-family residences. The front porch addition would be allowed to
encroach up to 10 feet into the 30-foot front setback. The porch addition would be
subject to design requirements and would have to be approved by the Community
Development Director.
Copies of the amendment are available for public inspection in the Community
Development Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling 861-
9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
June, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
is Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
io-3
• BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 506.07 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield is amended by adding subdivision 63 as follows:
Subd. 63. "Porches" - A sheltered entr yay attached to a building and projecting from
its main mass, may be open-sided or partially enclosed.
Section 2. Subsection 506.07 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield is amended by renumbering subdivisions 63 through 87 as follows:
Subd. 634. "Public utilities, major" - Public utility buildings with more than 500 square
feet of gross floor area; electric sub-stations; or high voltage transmission lines.
Subd. 645. "Public utilities, minor" - Public utility buildings with 500 square feet or
less of gross floor area; transformer boxes or similar utility features; or low voltage
• transmission lines.
Subd. 656. "Restaurant - Class I" - Full Service Restaurant: restaurants where food
and intoxicating beverages are served and consumed by customers while seated at a
counter or table, and which may provide entertainment, either live or prerecorded.
Subd. 667. "Restaurant - Class II" - Traditional Restaurant: restaurants where food and
non-intoxicating beverages are served and consumed while seated at a counter or table;
Cafeteria Restaurant: restaurants where food and non-intoxicating beverages are selected
by customers while passing through a service line and taken to a table for consumption.
Subd. 6-8. "Restaurant - Class III" - Fast Food or Convenience Restaurant: restaurants
where most customers order and are served their food at a counter or in a motor vehicle in
packages prepared to leave the premises, or able to be taken to a table or counter to be
consumed; Drive-in Restaurant: restaurants where most customers consume their food
on-site in a motor vehicle regardless of how it is served.
Subd. 689. "Restaurant - Class IV" - Take Out Only Restaurant: Establishments where
food is usually ordered by telephone and prepared on the premises for consumption off
the premises, with no seating or other area provided on the premises for consumption.
The establishment may deliver food to the customer, or the customer may pick food up.
0
.io-q
Subd. 6070. "Service station" - An establishment where gasoline and other petroleum
products are sold as the principal use of the property. Light maintenance activities such
as engine tune-ups, lubrication, and minor repairs may also be provided if incidental to
such principal use. Service stations do not include premises where retail sales space
exceeds 25 percent of the total building area or 500 square feet of gross floor area,
whichever is less. Service stations do not include premises where heavy automobile
maintenance activities such as engine overhauls, automobile painting, and body work are
conducted.
Subd. 741. "Service station/convenience store" - An establishment where gasoline and
other petroleum products are sold, and where the retail sales space exceeds 25 percent of
the total building area or 500 square feet of gross floor area. Service station/convenience
stores do not include premises where heavy automobile maintenance activities such as
engine overhauls, automobile painting, and body work are conducted.
Subd. 7-12. "Set back" - The minimum horizontal distance required between a building
and the related front, side, or rear lot lines.
Subd. 733. "Shopping center" - A grouping of retail businesses, service establishments,
and/or office uses on a single site with common parking facilities.
• Subd. 734. "Story" - That portion of a building included between the surface of any
floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the
space between such floor and the ceiling above it.
Subd. 745. "Story, half" - That portion of a building under a gable, hip or gambrel roof
the wall plates of which, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are not more than two
feet above the floor of such story.
Subd. 7-56. "Structure" - Anything erected, the use of which requires more or less
permanent location on the ground or attachment to something having permanent location
on the ground.
Subd. 767. "Structural alteration" - Any change, other than incidental repairs, in the
supporting members of a building such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or
foundation.
Subd. 7-78. "Use, accessory" - A use associated with, incidental to, and on the same lot
as, a principal use.
Subd. 799. "Use, conditional" - A use, either public or private, which because of its
unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in a particular
district. After due consideration in each case, of the impact of such use upon neighboring
• land, and of public need for the particular use at the particular location, such use may or
may not be approved by the Council.
10--:
• Subd. 7480. "Use, permitted" - A principal use which may be lawfully established in a
particular district, provided it conforms with all the requirements, regulations and
performance standards of such district.
Subd. 881. "Use, principal" - The primary purpose for which land or premises or a
building thereon is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is or may be occupied
or maintained.
Subd. 84.2. "Use, prohibited" - A use which shall not be established or conducted within
a particular district.
Subd. 8-23. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the literal provisions of this code
where it is determined that by reason of special or unusual circumstances related to the
individual property under consideration, strict application of the code would cause undue
hardship, and granting of a variance would not interfere with the general purpose and
intent of this code, nor have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
Subd. 8-34. "Yard" - A required open space located on the same lot with a building,
unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground
up, except for landscaping or other uses as
provided by this code. The minimum depth
. or width of a yard shall consist of the
horizontal distance between the lot line and
the nearest wall of the principal building.
Subd. 845. "Yard, front" - An open space
on the same lot with the building extending
across the entire width of the lot and situated
between the front lot line and the nearest line
of the principal building, as projected to the
side lot line(s). (Figure 8)
Rear Lot Line
i ;
i , Side
Side Rear Yard ! Lot Line
!
Lot Line i
Side ! Bullding Roof i Side
------------------------------ -------
Yard --L-' Yard
--------------------
Front Yard
Front Lot Line
Figure 8
Subd. 8-56. "Yard, rear" - A yard extending across the entire width of the lot and
situated between the rear lot line and the nearest line of the principal building, as
projected to the side lot line(s). (Figure 8, p. 506-10)
Subd. 867. "Yard, side" - A yard lying between the side lot line and the nearest line of
the building extending between the front yard and the rear yard, or in the absence of
either such front or rear yard, to the front or rear lot lines. (Figure 8, p. 506-10)
0
• Subd. 8-78. "Zoning district" - An area or areas of the City for which the regulations
under this code governing use, land, or structure are uniform.
(Amended, Bill No. 1996-22)
Section 3. Subsection 521.11, subdivisions 7 (g) and 7 (h) of Appendix B of the
ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows:
in reauired front vards, covered porches attached to the principal building that extend
no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the front
lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community Development
Director. The Community Development Director must make the following findings
to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet:
i) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or
complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the
front of the dwelling;
ii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated
with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope;
iii) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with
the base of the dwelling;
iv) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by
windows screens and/or doors of transparent material; the facade
• constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling;
and
v) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's
Design Advisor;
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as
needed to make the required findings; and
h) in reauired residential street side vards. covered porches attached to the front of a
principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no
closer than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is
approved by the Community Development Director. The Director must make the
findings required by Section 521.11, subdivision 7(g)(i) - (v). The Director may
attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the
required findings.
Section 4. Subsection 521.27, subdivisions 5 (e) and 5 (f) of Appendix B of the
ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows:
e) in required residential front yards, covered porches attached to the principal building
that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet
from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the
is following findin sg to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet:
i) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or
complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the
front of the dwelling;
ii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and intearated
with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope;
iii) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with
the base of the dwelling;
iv) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by
windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade
constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling;
and
v) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's
Design Advisor;
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as
needed to make the required findings; and
in reauired residential street side vards, covered porches attached to the front of a
principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no
closer than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is
approved by the Community Development Director. The Director must make the
findings required by Section 521.27, subdivision 5(e)(i) - (v). The Director may
attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the
• required findings.
Section 5. Subsection 521.47, subdivisions 6 (f) and 6 (g) of Appendix B of the
ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows:
f) in required residential front yards, covered porches attached to the principal building
that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet
from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the
following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet:
i) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or
complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the
front of the dwelling;
ii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated
with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope;
iii) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with
the base of the dwelling;
iv) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by
windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade
constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling;
and
v) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's
Design Advisor;
•
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as
needed to make the required findings; and
g) in required residential street side yards, covered porches attached to the front of a
principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no
closer than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is
approved by the Community Development Director. The Director must make the
findings required by Section 521.47, subdivision 6 (e)(i) - (v). The Director may
attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the
required findings.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this- day of ,
1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
qc
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 131
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Setting date of public hearing for consideration of the issuance of a new wine and on-
sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale
Avenue.
Background:
An application for a new wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's
Thai Restaurant was received by the City on April 7, 1998. City ordinance provides that
the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all wine and on-sale 3.2 percent
malt liquor license applications and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the
hearing.
Recommended Motion:
Set June 22, 1998 as the date of the public hearing for consideration of the issuance of
a new wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's Thai Restaurant,
7545 Lyndale Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered.
2. The new process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearing on June 22, 1998 will provide ample time to complete the
licensing process.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearing on June 22, 1998 will provide sufficient time for
legal publication of the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame-e. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
q8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 130
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Authorization to negotiate watershed boundary change moving the Richfield Lake and
Augsburg Park Pond subwatersheds from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) to the Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization
(RBWMO).
Background:
At the June 1, 1998 Council Study Session, concerns about the role of the MCWD,
which are resolved for now, and the City's desire to continue addressing the proper
location for the boundary between the RBWMO and the MCWD were discussed. The
Grass Lake and Richfield Lake subwatersheds have had their outlets redirected from
the MCWD to the RBWMO. The Augsburg Park Pond will be redirected with a project
in the Capital Improvement Program and is being addressed at this time. The Legion
Lake subwatershed is in the MCWD and continues to drain to Minnehaha Creek.
Included in the Study Session discussion was a letter from MCWD requesting
negotiations on the watershed boundary change. At the Study Session, Council
Members expressed particular concern about the Grass Lake subwatershed which
could remain in the MCWD even though it drains to Richfield Lake. Staff should
• consider proper controls for water quality and quantity coming from Grass Lake as well
as appropriate financial participation from the Grass Lake subwatershed for any
downstream improvements.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize City staff, including City Attorney and City consultant, WSB & Associates, to
negotiate with officials from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of
Minneapolis for a watershed boundary change moving the Richfield Lake and Augsburg
Park Pond subwatersheds from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to the
Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City continues to feel a need to address the proper location for the boundary
between the RBWMO and the MCWD.
2. The MCWD has contacted the City about proposed watershed boundary changes.
The letter included several questions the MCWD felt should be addressed.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not pursue any boundary change(s).
2. Continue discussion of any proposed boundary change at a special RBWMO
meeting.
6-I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the June 8, 1998 Richfield City Council regular meeting.
Council may choose to delay action until a later time.
Respectfully submitted,
James . rosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
is
919
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 129
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for removal and installation of furnace and air conditioning systems at
Wood Lake Nature Center, 735 Lake Shore Drive.
Background:
The Capital Improvement Budget adopted for 1998 includes $30,000 for the removal
and installation of furnace and air conditioning units at Wood Lake Nature Center.
Bids for the project were opened according to legal requirements on May 20, 1998.
Vendor Total Bid
Midland Heating and Air Conditioning $29,195.00
The nature center is in need of replacing both the furnace and air conditioning systems
which were installed as a part of the original structure in 1971. The air conditioning
does not work at all at the present time. The new furnaces will be more efficient and
therefore result in saving money on utility bills. The current efficiency rating is 60%.
The new furnaces will be rated at 92%. Two bids were requested from the plan
holders. One was for standard, 80%, furnaces and one for high efficiency. The concern
was due to some talk of the higher efficiency furnaces also needing higher
maintenance. The bidder, Midland Heating and Air Conditioning, a Richfield business
and the contractor for the original furnace, recommends their Lennox brand high
efficiency furnaces for the center. This recommendation will result in more savings in a
building which needs to update its energy efficiency. Some insulation work was done
last year, which will allow the new furnaces and air conditioning units to work at a more
optimum efficiency.
Recommended Motion:
Accept Base Bid A and award a contract to Midland Heating and Air Conditioning for
removal and installation of furnace and air conditioning systems in the amount of
$29,195.
Basis of Recommendation:
The bid submitted was within the capital improvement budget allocation for 1998.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could recommend accepting the Base B bid for a standard efficiency
furnace; however this would not result in the savings on gas utility bills.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the June 8, 1998 Council meeting in order to facilitate the
work on a timely basis.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
May 20, 1998
10:00 a.m.
Removal and Installation of Furnace and Air Conditioning at Wood Lake Nature Center
Project 423-40-753
Bid No. 98-1
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and installation of
furnace and air conditioning at Wood Lake Nature Center, Bid No. 98-1, as advertised
in the official newspaper on May 6, 1998.
Present: Nancy Stroth, Acting City Clerk
Karen Shanberg, Recreation Services Director Representative
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR Bid Security Base Bid A Base Bid B
Midland Heating and
Air Conditioning 5% Bid Bond $29,195.00 $23,450.00
Richfield, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
June 8, 1998 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Stroth Acting City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 128
Agenda June 8, 1998
Issue Statement:
Acceptance of a Tree City USA Twelve Year Award.
Background:
Tree City USA began as a 1976 Bicentennial project co-sponsored by the National
Association of State Foresters and the USDA-Forest Service. The National League of
Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are now co-sponsors as well. To become
(and remain) a Tree City USA, a community must meet four standards: a tree board or
department (which is the Community Services Commission); a city tree ordinance
(Richfield's ordinance provides for the planting, maintenance, care, protection and
removal of trees on public property); a comprehensive community forestry program, and
an Arbor day observance.
The Forestry Division pursues an aggressive diseased tree removal and disposal
program, as well as a planting project each spring. The Forestry Division budget
contains over $200,000 each year to achieve these goals, which is well above the $2
per capita requirement for Tree City USA status.
In 1985, the City of Richfield applied to the National Arbor Day Foundation for Tree City
USA status. Richfield was named a Tree City USA for the first time in 1986. Since that
time, Richfield has applied for and received Tree City USA status each year. This will
be the twelfth year Richfield has been named a Tree City USA.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the Twelve Year Award recognizing the City of Richfield as a Tree City USA.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield has promoted an effective community forestry program as an ongoing
process of growth and renewal, a program of planting and care that continues
through the years.
2. Due to this program, the City of Richfield has earned Tree City USA status for the
past 12 years.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the June 8, 1998 Council meeting. Public Works Director
Mike Eastling will be in attendance at the meeting to represent the Forestry Division.
Respectfully submitted,
James .f. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds