Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10-06-97 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD • MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL I. 7:00 -7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF MODIFYING 1 -35W NOISE WALL BETWEEN 68TH STREET AND 73RD STREET- STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 34 11. 7:30 -8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED NEW 1 -35W BRIDGE OVER 66TH STREET AND POSSIBLE CITY RESPONSE 0 STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 35 III. 8:00 -8:15 P.M. REPORT FROM FOURTH OF JULY COMMITTEE IV. 8:15 -8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 36 V. 8:30 -9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF TRANSIENT MERCHANT SALES THAT OCCUR IN RICHFIELD AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 37 VI. 9:00 -9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF CITY FACILITY NEEDS AND FINANCING CONSIDERATION STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 38 9:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON. REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO . THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861 -9702. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 38 Agenda October 6, 1997 Issue Statement: Discussion of City facility needs and financing consideration. Background: A number of City facility issues have been raised in the past few years. Many such issues are long- standing needs while others are relatively new. In virtually every instance, full funding has not been identified in order to proceed with a respective project. - The purpose of this letter and accompanying discussion is to identify these specific projects, their respective costs and potential funding. Each project cost is a best estimate used for discussion purposes only. Projects Multi- Purpose Building Approximate cost: $5,000,000 A multi - purpose building may include amenities such as an indoor pool, gym, fitness facilities, dance /aerobic space, senior congregate dining area which could be in combination with meeting rooms and program spaces for all ages. The City anticipates receiving $3,000,000 from MAC for acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres parks. Other sources will comprise the other $2,000,000. No specific funds have been identified for the $2,000,000. The $5 million is a target cost suggested by staff. The City Council, as advised by the Community Services Commission, may establish a higher or lower target cost. 2. Soo Line (Highway 62 to 1 -494) Approximate land cost: $550,000 Approximate trail development cost: $450,000 Purchase for the Soo Line Track through Richfield appears to be closer than originally anticipated. The appraisals by Hennepin Parks indicate a purchase price of just under $550,000 from Highway 62 to 1-494. Hennepin Parks is currently considering whether special funds should be requested in the 1998 Legislative Session to purchase the track section from 61 st Street to the 1 -35W crossing in Bloomington as a start towards the Soo Line Regional Trail designated in the Metro Parks and Open Space Plan. The entire purchase price appears to be $3,000,000, plus costs to make affected businesses "whole" in Minneapolis and Bloomington. Hennepin Parks staff is investigating methods of funding the purchase and 'make whole' costs. They are targeting the year 2000 to have funds available. Options for Richfield: • Provide purchase price at approximately $550,000; • Assist with a smaller portion of the purchase price; Front end the purchase price and receive reimbursement from the State through the County; or • Wait for the State to fund the entire line through, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space implementing agencies. 3. Richfield Outdoor Pool Approximate cost: $2,300,000 The current outdoor pool facility is approaching the end of its expected life span. Leaks in the piping system are occurring annually and have necessitated several extensive repairs in the past few years. The gutters and liner are both now in need of replacement. Major overhaul of the existing facility, including bath house, would cost about $1 million. A new updated pool and bath house operation would likely cost about $2.3 million. No funding is identified for this project at this time.- -This project could be considered as an option or in addition to the Recreation building. 4. Ball Field Replacement Approximate cost: $5,800,000 Replacement of the ballfield lost to the MAC for the proposed North /South runway at MSP Airport must be considered. The total cost would include $2.8 million for construction and design and could include as much as $3 million for land acquisition and relocation benefits. No funding source is identified at this time. City staff is working on the possibility of state funding. 5. City Maintenance Facility Approximate cost: $5,600,000 The City has reviewed a number of concept proposals for a new City maintenance facility. Based upon the preferred concept proposal, the City will need to obtain an additional $1.5 million of funding to complete the project. No funding source has been identified at this time. 6. Public Safety Training Facility Approximate Richfield cost: $500,000 The cities of Richfield, Edina, Bloomington, Eden Prairie and the MAC are seeking training facilities for their public safety operations. Based upon the initial configuration of municipal participants; outside funding and the facility concept design, Richfield's initial contribution for the proposed facility would be $500,000. If state funding assistance for the project does not materialize, there would likely be a greater initial contribution required from each of the cities. A state statute passed in the most recent legislative session would allow each of the four cities to issue up to $1,000,000 of General Obligation bonded debt without voter (referendum) approval. In addition, approximately $500,000 of monies set aside for the private pension plan consolidation could also be used, as those funds are highly unlikely to be needed for pension costs now that the funds are consolidated with PERA and appear well - funded. 7. City Hall Remodel /Updating Approximate cost: $1,300,000 Significant remodeling of the current City Hall configuration is needed to address two separate concerns. The first is the need for more space in Public Safety and for a method of providing greater security for the police area. The re- orientation of public safety would include moving the counter forward to take advantage of the public safety lobby area which is now, for the most part, unused space. Reconfiguration of the inspectional services area would also be accomplished in the work. The final component of this remodeling would be the reconfiguration of offices and p g 9 support area in the lower level of City Hall. This change would take advantage of the space that will become available with the potential move of some Public Works and Recreation personnel to the new maintenance garage facility. An elevator to meet ADA requirements would also be included in the project. Currently, no funding has been identified for the project. 8. Fire Station Improvements Approximate cost: $80,000 Both Fire Stations 1 and 2 require updating and general repairs such as: Fire Station One - Portland Avenue • radio system: both paging and two -way • ramp repair • apparatus bay painting Fire Station Two - Penn Avenue • radio system • ramp repair • apparatus bay painting • plan for carpet and interior painting No funding has been identified for these improvements. 9. Facility Repair and Replacement Approximate cost: $100,000- $200,000 annually In addition to the projects summarized above, there are other infrastructure needs that must also be considered. One major issue is the ongoing maintenance and major repair of the City's aging existing infrastructure. A number of City facilities are in need of roof repairs, carpeting, parking lot resurfacing and a number of other significant upkeep items. This reinvestment back into existing facilities is necessary to keep the City's buildings and related hard surfaces up to a standard expected by the community. These costs do not include items such as play features or park upgrades. These facility upkeep items would most likely be funded from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). 10. City Streets Approximate Cost: $16,000,000 Another significant issue that will be facing the City in the future will be the replacement of a number of the City's permanent streets. The cost of overlaying Richfield's residential streets is $16 million. Most of this cost will likely be 10 -20 years or more out. However, in 1997 the surface of 65th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue failed. The overlay of 65th Street was evidence that isolated street surfaces may fail. • Recommended Motion: fe Discussion of some of the most significant capital expenditures facing the City now and in the near future. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Several public facility needs now face the City. 2. A systematic process of identifying priorities and a strategy for addressing these needs must be developed. 3. For the most part, funding does not exist for most of the potential projects addressed in this letter. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to review these issues at this meeting and postpone the discussion to a future meeting. 2. The City Council could decide not to review these issues at all. Discussion /Decision Mode: There is no critical timeframe for most of the projects listed here. However, it is timely to begin to have a dialog about the City's future course of action regarding these critical infrastructure issues. Respectfully submitted, P Y Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 37 Agenda October 6, 1997 Issue Statement: Discussion of the transient merchant sales that occur in the City and their licensing requirements. Background: In May 1997, staff received letters from the following people expressing their continuing concern over transient merchants being able to sell flowers from various locations in the City: 1. Pat Harris of Richfield Floral & Gardens, Inc. - 811 East 66th Street 2. Greg Njoes of Richfield Flowers and Events - 6515 Nicollet Avenue 3. Lorrie Olson, Property manager for Midwest Management, Inc., which manages Richfield Shoppes (Richfield Flowers and Events is a tenant in that complex) At the July 7, 1997 City Council Study Session, Pat Harris spoke of how unfair it was that flower vendors are allowed to sell their products from transient locations in the City. She stated that these vendors don't pay yearly rent, taxes or have any other overhead as they do. Their letters indicated that they are not against competition but state that they are unable to compete fairly with these merchants and believe they should not be allowed to sell. At the July 7, 1997 Study Session, staff was directed to consult with the City Attorney's office and answer the following questions: • Can the City prohibit transient merchants from operating in the City? • Can the City restrict transient merchant sales to the Farmers Market? • What, if anything, can the City do to further restrict transient merchant activities? It should be noted that the current version of the transient merchant ordinance was adopted in 1988. From review of the City's file, it appears that the Richfield Chamber of Commerce may have been the initiating force in favor of the revised ordinance. In 1986, the Chamber of Commerce asked the City Council to adopt an ordinance that would prohibit transient merchants from operating in the City. At the time, the City Attorney advised that the City could not enact a complete prohibition on transient merchants, but that some steps could be taken to strengthen the City's regulation of those activities. The issues arose again in 1987, when several transient merchants took advantage of the 1987 Minnesota Twins success and sold World Series paraphernalia in the City. In response to these situations, the City Council adopted the ordinance as it now reads. • The current ordinance states that a "Transient merchant means any individual or entity which engages in temporary or transient business in the city from a fixed location or locations, but without the intention of being located there for a period longer than six months and which hires, leases, occupies or uses any building, structure or land to conduct such business." A transient merchant license is required for these types of sales and the cost is $60 per day. Highlights of the current ordinance are as follows: (ordinance attached) • The seller must obtain the written consent of the property owner to sell on their property and provide that to the City. • No part of any transient business may be located upon a public- right -of -way or within 150 feet of a street intersection. • The site of the transient business shall abut and have access to an arterial roadway. • The business must not cause undue traffic congestion on surrounding streets and off - street parking must be adequate for both the transient business and the other uses on the property. • A transient business may be conducted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. (This is not strictly monitored after 7 p.m. The City Attorney has advised staff that it is more appropriate to state the hours as being "sunrise to sunset" to better fit the time or season of the year.) • Transient businesses may be conducted only in C -2 districts of the City. • All tents, canopies, awnings or similar items and all water, electrical and lighting facilities must be in compliance with applicable codes and regulations. • No transient business activity may be conducted in the City for more than eight days during an 60 -day period and on no more than three consecutive days. • Signage may not be larger than a total aggregate face of more than six square feet. • Businesses involving food products are required to be inspected by Bloomington health inspectors. The City has the authority to regulate itinerant activities by either or both of two means: licensing and /or zoning. 1. Regulation by Licensing_ Licensing is an exercise of the City's police power to promote the public health, safety and welfare. The City has the authority to license business activities, provided that the licensing regulations are constitutional, reasonable, and not pre - empted by state regulation. a. Constitutional limits. (1) Home - Grown products: Can't require license. Under the Minnesota Constitution, "[a]ny person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor." This provision applies to non - residents of the state as well as residents of the state. iCan Regulate. Although sellers of home -grown products cannot be required to obtain a license, the City may regulate such sales so that they do not become a nuisance, by prescribing reasonable conditions on the times, places and manner in which such sales may be made. The regulations must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and not designed to prevent the person's exercise of their constitutional right. (2) No Discrimination. Transient merchant regulations must apply equally to residents and nonresidents of the city, county or state. A discriminatory ordinance may be invalid on equal protection grounds or as an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. b. Pre - emption. A city has no authority to regulate on a subject matter that the State has pre - empted. c. Reasonable regulations. Regulations on transient merchants must be reasonable, and generally, what is reasonable is determined in relation to the legitimate government purpose that is served by the regulation. In most of the attorney general opinions, court cases, and treatises that have transient merchant activities, the opinions and writers have focused on issues concerning public safety, such as traffic control, prevention of consumer fraud, and • prevention of a nuisance. Regulations designed to serve that end, and which are reasonable in their scope, are upheld. Regulations that are intended to limit competition or protect local businesses, however, would not deemed reasonable. 2. Zoning. Cities have the authority to impose regulations on transient merchant activities, through exercise of their zoning power. Zoning regulations, like licensing regulations, must be reasonable. Zoning ordinance that are intended to protect enterprises from competition are invalid. Based on information received from the City Attorney, the following are answers to the questions that the City Council posed at the July 7, 1997 Study Session: 1. Can the City prohibit transient merchants from operating in the City? The answer is no. Such a prohibition could be challenged on grounds of denial of equal protection, violation of the Minnesota constitutional protections for home grown products, and possibly on Commerce Clause grounds. Other cities may have done so, but it is the City Attorney's opinion that those cities have not yet been sued. The City Attorney is not aware of any case that has been upheld or has suggested that it would uphold a complete ban on itinerant activity. 2. Can the City restrict transient merchant sales to the Farmers Market? The answer is probably not. If a transient merchant can meet the zoning and parking requirements to conduct their activity in a C -2 zone and does not pose a traffic hazard or other public nuisance, then there would seem to be no rational basis for treating that transient merchant differently from other retail merchants that sell the same products (except restriction of competition, which is not a legitimate government objective). 3. What, if anything, can the City do to further restrict transient merchant activities? The following are some suggestions: • The Council could choose to amend the ordinance to explicitly require that merchants who are exempted from the license requirement register with the City. The City may impose such a restriction. • The Council could choose to amend the ordinance to require that any person who claims to be exempt under the home -grown products exemption provide an affidavit attesting to that fact. This type of requirement has been upheld. • The Council could choose to amend the ordinance to specify that applications must be submitted at least "X" days prior to the requested permit date. This would permit the City time to conduct its background investigation of the applicant, and it would • tend to inhibit "fly -by- night" operators. However, the Attorney General has questioned this type of waiting period for home -grown products. • The Council could choose to amend the ordinance by imposing any other conditions that are reasonably intended to address public safety, health, or welfare concerns that the business activity raises. Once those concerns can be identified, the City Attorney can assist in formulating some appropriate regulations. Recommended Motion: No formal action is required at this meeting. If the City Council would like to pursue a change in the ordinance, the discussion should include: • All types of transient merchant activities would need to be included; such as, seafood sales, artwork, etc. • Any information concerning a change in the ordinance should be provided to all those businesses currently licensed as transient merchants. Basis of Recommendation: Staff has received three requests to consider amending the City ordinance so that transient merchant sales are more closely regulated. C7 Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide to do nothing and to leave the current ordinance as it now is. This would mean that transient merchants could continue to sell their products from transient locations after being issued a City license. Discussion /Decision Mode: The matter is being presented to the City Council at the Study Session scheduled for Monday, October 6, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • • Richfield City Code 1181.01 (Rev. 1988) Section 1181 - Transient merchants, peddlers and wagon peddlers, hawkers, canvassers and solicitors (Repealed Sec. 1180, Bill No. 1988 -15; Added Sec. 1181, Bill No. 1988 -15) 1181.01. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. "Transient merchant" means any individual or entity which engages in temporary or transient business in the city from a fixed location or loca- tions, but without the intention of being located there for a period longer than six months and which hires, leases, occupies or uses any building, structure or land to conduct such business. The term includes not only the entity or indi- vidual on whose behalf the transient business is being conducted but also all individuals actually engaged in conducting the transient business within the city. Subd. 3. "Transient business" means a business enterprise conducted by a transient merchant involving the selling of goods, wares or merchandise. Subd. 4. "Peddler" or "hawker" means a person who goes from house -to- house, from store -to -store or from place -to -place conveying or trans- porting goods, wares or merchandise, offering and exposing the same for sale. Subd. 5. "Wagon peddler" means a person selling ice cream, popcorn, candy, soft drinks or other similar food items from a pushcart, wagon, self - propelled vehicle, trailer or similar vehicle directly to the consumers. Subd. 6. "Solicitor" or "canvasser" means a person who goes from glace -to -place or from street -to- street soliciting or taking or attempting to take orders for the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or personal services of any nature whatsoever for future delivery or future performance whether or not such person carries or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of any such order or whether or not the person is collecting advance payments for such orders. Subd. 7. "Itinerant activity" means any activity . described in subdivision 2 through 6 of this subsection. 1181.03. License. Subdivision 1. License required. No transient merchant, wagon peddler, peddler, canvasser or solicitor can sell or offer for sale any goods, wares or merchandise without having first obtained the appropriate class of itinerant activity license for such activity from the city manager. Subd. 2. Classes of licenses. The following are the classes of itinerant activity licenses: (a) Class I - transient merchant (b) Class II - wagon peddler (c) Class III - peddler or hawker (d) Class IV - canvasser or solicitor Richfield City Code Subd. 3. Exception to license requirement. _ will be required for the following: 1181.03, Subd. 3 (Rev. 1988) No itinerant activity license (a) sales made to dealers by commercial travelers or selling agents in the usual course of business; (b) sales made by sheriffs, constables or other public officials selling goods, wares or merchandise according to law; (c) sales made by bona -fide assignees or receivers appointed in this state to make such sales for the benefit of creditors; (d) sales of products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by the person making such sales, except as required pursuant to subsection 615.19 of this code; (e) sales or offers for sale by peddlers or solicitors who appear at the customer's home or place of business by an appointment which was made prior to such appearance; (f) the canvassing or soliciting of money, donations, financial assistance or information for the purposes of any charitable, religious, political or educational organization; or selling or distributing literature or merchandise for which a fee is charged or solicited on behalf of any such organization; this exception does not include activity which has its primary purpose profit for the individuals who are engaged in such activity. Subd. 4. Proof of state license. In addition to the required license, persons desiring to obtain an itinerant activity license must, at the time of application file proof of the sta, t� license required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 329.099 to 329.17. t�'""�" Subd. 5. Application. Application for an itinerant activity license will be made on forms supplied by the city. Separate applications must be made for the individual or entity on whose be the business is being conducted and for each individual who will actually conduct the activity for which a license is required. The application must contain: (a) The applicant's name, age, address or residence. If the applicant is a partnership, the names of all partners must be verified by one such partner. If the applicant is a corporation, the names of all officers must be verified by one such officer. (b) The applicant's (i) business and residence addresses for a period of five years prior to the application date, (ii) a statement as to whether the applicant is the sole owner of the business, and (iii) a statement to the effect that no persons other than those named in the application have any interest in the management and control of the business. (c) The class of itinerant activity license which is being requested and a �' brief description of the activity. • Richfield City Code 1181.03, Subd. 6 (Rev. 1988) (d) For applications for class I licenses, the location where the activity is to be conducted and written consent of the owner or, if the parcel is under lease, the lessor of the parcel of land authorizing use to conduct a transient business. (e) The length of time (including the beginning and ending dates) for which the license is desired. (f) A photograph of the applicant taken within sixty days of the date of application. The photograph shall be two inches by two inches, showing the head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishable manner. (g) Information relating to any conviction of any crime by the applicant; felony, misdemeanor or city ordinance violation (other than traffic); the nature of the offense and conviction date. Subd. 6. Fee. The license fee for the various classes of itinerant activity licenses is fixed in Appendix D of this code. The fee must be paid in full at the time the application is presented. Subd. 7. Duration of license. Upon approval of any license application the city manager shall specify the period for which the license is valid. The period may not exceed six months or the period remaining in the calendar year in which the license is issued, whichever is less. Subd. 8. Issuance of license. If after review by the public safety department, the city manager is satisfied that the application and all other required submittals are complete, that the applicant is of good character and standing and that the activity as described in the application meets the re- quirements of this section, the city manager will issue to applicant an itiner- ant activity license for the designated class described in the application. If the city manager disapproves the issuance of the license, the applicant will be notified in writing of such disapproval and the reasons for the decision. The notification will also inform the applicant of its right to appeal the disap- proval to the city council. The notification will include a refund of the license fee. Falsification or an incomplete application is immediate grounds for denial. Subd. 9. Exhibition of license. Upon approval, the city will issue a license certificate to the licensee. The license certificate will contain the applicant's photograph and such other information as will appropriately describe all the conditions upon which the license is valid. The licensee must have the license in his physical possession at all times during which the licensed activity is being conducted, and must visibly display the same for inspection on their person in the case of an individual, or conspicuous place in the case of a business. 1181.05. Regulation. Subdivision 1. Compliance required. All itinerant activities must conform to the following regulations whether or not an itinerant activity license is required. . Richfield City Code 1181.05, Subd. 2 (Rev. 1988) Subd. 2. Transient business. (a) the site of the transient business shall abut and have access to an arterial roadway; (b) no part of any transient business may be located upon a public right -of -way or within 150 feet of a street intersection; (c) the business must not cause undue traffic congestion on surrounding streets; (d) off - street parking must be adequate for both the transient business and other uses conducted on the parcel; (e) the business must not generate noise, light, dust or odors which reasonably. would tend to disturb or annoy occupants of adjacent residential. properties; (f) the transient business license must keep the parcel free of trash, litter and debris; (g) a transient business must be conducted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (h) no transient business must be conducted by a person who has previously had an itinerant activity license revoked by the city or any other political subdivision; . (i) no more than one transient business may operate from a single parcel at one time; - (j)- all tents, canopies, awnings or similar items and all water, electri- cal and lighting facilities must be in compliance with applicable codes and regulations; (k) transient businesses may be conducted only in C -2 districts of the city; (1) no outside storage of vehicles or merchandise is permitted unless specifically authorized by the city manager; (m) no transient business activity may be conducted in the city for more than eight days during any 60 -day period; and on no more than three consecutive days; (n) signs used to advertise the transient business must not have a total aggregate sign face of more than six square feet; and the licensee must obtain the necessary temporary sign permit before utilizing any such sign; and (o) the transient merchant must have in possession written evidence of consent of the owner or leasee (whichever is required) of the parcel to conduct the transient business thereon. Richfield City Code Subd. 3. Other classes. 1181.05, Subd. 3 (Rev. 1988) (a) the activity must be conducted in such a manner as not to reasonably annoy or disturb residents of the community; (b) the activity must be conducted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m.; and (c) the activity must not be conducted on any premises which have been conspicuously posted by the owner for no peddling or soliciting. 1181.07. Relationship to other licenses or permits. Whenever the particular nature of the itinerant activity requires the issuance of other licenses or permits, whether from the city or other licensing authorities, it will be unlawful for any person to commence such itinerant activity without having obtained such other permits or licenses. 1181.09. Suspension or revocation. Subdivision 1. Action by city manager. If the city manager determines that the licensee has violated any of the provisions of this section, the city manager will proceed as follows: (a) If the licensee has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdic- tion for a violation of the provisions of this section which relate to the ' current term of the license or permit or if the consent described in subsection 1181.03, subd. 5(d) has been withdrawn, the city manager will forthwith suspend the license for a period of time not to exceed the date of the next regularly scheduled city council meeting which is at least 14 days from the first day of the suspension. Notice of the suspension shall be mailed to the licensee at the address shown in the application. (b) If the licensee has been charged with, but has not been convicted of, a violation of the provisions of this section which relate to the current term of such license, the city manager shall notify the licensee in writing at the address contained in the application of the determination and in'the notifica- tion shall also notify the licensee that unless a cash deposit (deposit) is made to the city within 7 days of the notification, the license will be automatically suspended for the term described in subsection 1181.09, subd. 1(a). The deposit shall be $500 for each charged violation,a nd shall serve to ensure the faithful performance by licensee of the provisions of this section between the date of notification and the date on which the city council meets to consider the matter. (c) If no charge has been brought against the licensee, the city manager shall notify the licensee or permittee that the city council will consider suspension or revocation of the license at its next regularly scheduled council meeting at least 14 days of the date on which the notice is mailed. Subd. 2. Hearing. At the hearing the licensee or their representative will have an opportunity to rebut any of the information contained in the city manager's notice and to offer evidence in mitigation thereof. LI Richfield City Code 1181.09, Subd. 3 (Rev. 1988) Subd. 3. Determination. Following the hearing, the council will determine whether the evidence establishes a violation of the provisions of this section or a withdrawal of consent, and whether the license should be suspended or revoked. The council may, in lieu of continued suspension or revocation deter- mine to place further and additional conditions upon the license if the council concludes that such additional conditions will assist in the orderly conduct of the activity. The council may also forfeit to the city or continue to hold all or part of any deposit if the council believes that such will reasonably assure future compliance with the provisions of this section. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 36 Agenda October 6, 1997 Issue Statement: Status of airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following: • Runway 4 -22 In December 1996, the Commission approved reconstructing a section of the south parallel runway. Test results showed that underlying subgrade problems warranted more then just surface repairs. Even though Northwest Airlines Flight Operations staff was notified of this reconstruction, other NWA staff was unaware that this project would limit the runway's use to 6,000 feet. The construction period would have lasted from May 1997 until August 1997, and then again in 1998. Due to NWA's concerns about the timing of the reconstruction, this project was delayed by one year to give NWA time to adjust their fleet use plan. Because the reconstruction would restrict flights off the parallel runways, air traffic off 4- 22 would be increased. In order to prepare residents for additional noise impacts, Nigel • Finney has been contacted regarding the timing of the reconstruction project. Finney stated that he will soon be contacting surrounding communities regarding the reconstruction. It is currently uncertain whether the reconstruction will take place. NWA has commented that they would like the project to take place after the north -south runway is operational. This, in turn, conflicts with MAC's consultant assessment that the subgrade problems are a safety concern. • 4 -22 Litigation All parties in the runway 4 -22 litigation (City of Richfield, MAC and FAA) have submitted status reports to the Eighth Circuit Court. Richfield's response in the report stated the City's position on the issue of noise redistribution and MAC's intention of construction in 1999. It reiterated Richfield's strong belief in the merits of the suit. • The MAC's report centered around the fact that they want the litigation of 4 -22 to be reviewed now and not at a later date. That is, in case something changes within MAC's Capital Improvement Plan (runway construction, etc.), the construct of a taxiway on 4 -22 for traffic redistribution would be done without having to deal with a lawsuit by Richfield. • The FAA's response to the Courts stated that due to the passage of time from initial approval of the project, the FAA would most likely need to take another look at the • 4 -22 redistribution project. In response to the reports, the Court set a date in early September for a pre -trial motion. In an effort to prepare the information needed, the FAA and City filed a joint motion to extend the date for the pre -trail motion for 90 days. The Eighth Circuit settled on Opening briefs being due on October 14. Currently, Steve Pflaum is working on those briefs. • Proposed North -South Runway At the August 5 Planning and Environment meeting, commissioners recommended to the full commission adoption of the hearing officer's report on acquisition of properties in Bloomington (to include, but not limited to: the Amoco station, VFW, Excel Inn, NSP substation, Super America, Sheraton Hotel, Double Tree Hotel, Metro Office Park, Met Center property, Kelly Lounsberry property, and Middle Marker property). This then leads the MAC to proceed with the process of negotiation or condemnation. The FAA has not approved any land acquisition at this time. An excerpt from an EIS meeting reported that MAC's proceeding with land acquisition prior to the Record of Decision is entirely at their risk. The FAA has sent documentation to the MAC stating that it is not a party to the program, and that the FAA will not be bound or prejudiced by funds invested in land purchases prior to a final decision. • The AMM Transportation and General Government Policy Committee has voted to approve inclusion of legislative policy specific to addressing the impacts of low frequency noise from the proposed north -south runway. Representative Garcia and Senator Johnson will be contacted about sponsoring the policy. [Copy of policy is attached] • New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition The most recent status report for acquisition and relocation is as follows: Phase V Update: 20 appraisal reports have been completed and forwarded to the review appraisal firm. The appraisal process is now 83% complete for Phase V. 20 environmental site inspections have been completed. This process is 83% complete. Offer meetings for Phase V business owners, multi - family owners and land owners are nearing completion. 19 offers have been presented to owners, with 8 owners accepting their offers. The process is 79% complete. 2. Phase V Tenant Update: The initial interview process has begun for those tenants who are in Phase V. The date of the initial interview will be the "official start date" . for the tenants relocation process. W.D. Schock will be meeting each tenant, thoroughly explaining the relocation process, and then answering any questions the tenant may have. • As of September 25, 49 tenants have been contacted and 49 initial interviews have been conducted. The process is 78% complete. 3. Auction 9 Update: 12 houses have been successfully closed and two houses out of 12 have been removed from the project area. Two additional houses have been moved off their foundations and are ready to be removed from the project area soon. The houses that were purchased at this auction must be removed by November 14. 4. Auction 8 Update: There are still two houses on site to be removed. The removal deadline was July 11. Recommended Motion: Discuss current airport issues. Basis of Recommendation: It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns. Alternative Recommendation: Defer discussion to another date. • Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of October 6, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • AMM Transportation Policies 0 V. V -K In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature concluded the Dual Track Airport Planning Process by selecting the expansion alternative to meet the state's major airport needs. The means of mitigating airport and aircraft noise impacts were not addressed in the legislation. Instead, the Metropolitan Airports Commission was charged with developing a mitigation package for legislative consideration in 1997. The decision to keep the airport at its current location for the benefit of the state and Metropolitan area does create an obligation to ensure that every effort is exerted to resolve and mitigate noise issues within the affected communities. Noise mitigation programs need to be enhanced to beyond the current 60 DNL contours and for newly impacted areas due to runway expansion /addition. Individual communities will continue to have an obligation to plan development and redevelopment in a manner compatible with airport operations, however, cost associated with noise mitigation should be borne by the airport (MAC) and the state since the airport is considered a statewide facility. Enhanced mitigation programs should be provided through state and MAC funds for areas impacted by airport activity, and areas beyond the current 60 DNL contour lines. A program of reduced subsidy should be initiated for several miles beyond the current contour cutoffs based on distance and noise level. Mitigation programs for low frequency noise should be created and constantly monitored for effectiveness. In addition to the traditional acquisition and sound insulation techniques, the Airport Area Community Protection Concept Package developed by affected cities, Metro Council, and MAC should be adopted. This package includes tools such as property value guarantees, preferential tax programs, housing revitalization, expansion of tax increment financing authority and eligibility criteria and community development banks. Airport associated commercial development should be encouraged within the affected communities. Private use facilities on airport property, including leased facilities, should be required to make payments in lieu of property taxes and fiscal disparities contributions, such funds to be dedicated to mitigation activities. Noise monitoring systems, including low frequency noise measures, should be . enhanced and operated independently to ensure noise abatement procedures compliance. This would determine that new standards for low frequency noise levels should be developed. Fines from violations should be returned to the affected communities to implement mitigation activities which are consistent with an overall noise mitigation plan. Landing fees, gate leases, facility leases, passenger charges, etc. should be evaluated as to national comparability and any incremental increase dedicated to the affected communities to implement mitigation activities which are consistent with an overall noise mitigation plan. 4) EJ 0 k Q k E � U \ 0 �k � 0 % a § f f 0 £ _0 E /_ = k k E E E k= k k q k 2 2 l o o 7 7 a co ca 7/ 2 2 2 7 .m m E q $-a e 0 w 2 2 E a-0 Gi§ k- 2 2 2= ■ c c o o c L 0 c c c c C c Wi <1 < ol 2 cc Q » < ca I < < < 2 % m m � o ° k k k n £ / o Cl. 2 c q§ f/ / / m = :/ 2 a) k F 2 E J 7 0 0 S o / 'a — § K a .E c ƒ t: ca 2 § � �) M ■ o — k § J \ a® $ /f ¥: c $ o. f m x % f a 2 e ® $ / § ¢ 2 £ ° f R - 2 m q 0 -0 E# w■§ a cu R o c§ g �� 5 o a g E�� c f c �$�co� ¥� ■£ ) a « . 2■ 7 R§ ` k m 5 C $ 0 § E \ ■ ®. 2§% k 2 m 2§ 2 o G a o f k� o 2 a 2 k 2 k o&/ R� f$ E r § O�/ U 2 w■ _< c << o a < c U) d 2 > ¢ a > < < E < E < 2 o = a £ f © (0 A 2 _ 3 2 / . . § o o # m m m 2 k k 2 co � / k % J J . % J f f f G G G o 6 w OD 'T D - - q n # n o » m % a &I O U N 0 'Z a G 0 U 'O Ia� G Q. N •% C tS CO O N Q O N - O y , . c0 (� -a 4 U N O O O U N N OD � O N N O r O , , Za.N U i .Q N ON . co o O- co O 0 0 U W co of O 'd 4:! N co N >.. "d N N O O -C- N O) o ° c a o ai ° ° °i a fl i N u " c N s O U � 'O o N V 0 � U (1) t� L N V CO O j � cli � S V U 3 � � ot� coa . z, U o C (� N O N c fl Z d C U 00 rn Q to 4 C N CD 7 Q Q &I O U N 0 'Z a G 0 U 'O Ia� G Q. N •% C tS CO O N Q O N - O y , . c0 (� -a 4 U N O O O U N N OD � O N N O r O , , Za.N U i .Q N ON . co o O- co O 0 0 U W co of O 'd 4:! N co N N 0 Q7 Q t0 'L7 N U N M h- d' r Lm rn t4 a -C- N � -o la) � CO cli U T Cl) � Cl) Q O Q to 4 C CD N � Q cb ce) do0 C14 � r Q di T N 0 Q7 Q t0 'L7 N U N M h- d' r Lm rn t4 a m O rn rn r Qoi N • O NV N N No o 5� QC0 G o W 0 C O o c d� O �'t0 .O✓ oy 4) O O G O G o co o O 3 N O .Or m o o s N N @ �) ,7-. c 4) m CL p Loa tN = c6 � N 0 O 0 0 C6 C O O o N U) �� � O i V Y S0 O N O s- 0 0 O O s= O @ C) �i CO 7i L N r ':: N N O O 4) N — o r- N o U o U c N N (6 O a) 0 3 0 o N 7 3 p a c N CD G d @ CO N O °x o o Q 3 cs a s m u•► aoi o = cm 4) 4) it O c0 N N N C6 co co CO Q rna C6 � � .� � 0 o O O dT y Q- N N CO a t6 4) N i0 'C3 t6 q) 'O ch �j tD a � p C W •"sy NN ce) N r o° 3� y C N zj N o> y o r• c 3 Q N ) N -C. v rd LT N N O G � � o o. G 3 t6 m 'CS tN6 tN C6- N +O- tOti O G -O N 4) 6 4) m o 4) ¢ o Q ,0 O 00 L � N VN N 4) N N N 4) > O N �j .� i 4) O N 7 O -o G 0 .O O "' s Z � o o a 4) t a m ul () W a 0 Q 0 O CL Ul Z Q. U 4 U z O a M t�J) O C" C VID N r r N to cD a� Q � � � 4) Z sa t6 4) N i0 'C3 t6 q) 'O ch �j tD a � p C W •"sy NN ce) N r o° 3� y C N zj N o> y o r• c 3 Q N ) N -C. v rd LT N N O G � � o o. G 3 t6 m 'CS tN6 tN C6- N +O- tOti O G -O N 4) 6 4) m o 4) ¢ o Q ,0 O 00 L � N VN N 4) N N N 4) > O N �j .� i 4) O N 7 O -o G 0 .O O "' s Z � o o a 4) t a m ul () W a 0 Q 0 O CL Ul Z Q. U 4 U z O a M t�J) O C" C VID N r r N to cD o° 3� y C N zj N o> y o r• c 3 Q N ) N -C. v rd LT N N O G � � o o. G 3 t6 m 'CS tN6 tN C6- N +O- tOti O G -O N 4) 6 4) m o 4) ¢ o Q ,0 O 00 L � N VN N 4) N N N 4) > O N �j .� i 4) O N 7 O -o G 0 .O O "' s Z � o o a 4) t a m ul () W a 0 Q 0 O CL Ul Z Q. U 4 U z O a M t�J) O C" C VID N r r N to cD G 0 .O O "' s Z � o o a 4) t a m ul () W a 0 Q 0 O CL Ul Z Q. U 4 U z O a M t�J) O C" C VID N r r N to cD k L) � E 0 lea) k E CL ` a � 0 k� k E E 0 7�� § 2 .rl ca c 0-0 o 7E; 5 E 0k m E -Z ƒ$ R t o c 7 0 / 0 2 " k (D � k c g 9 @ ® ¥ c Co `7 k 2 « 2 k : 0 (n 0 CL3 2 d 0 4 qI g $ w t / � ■ m \ co / k k 2 O $ 2 � ¢ / $ $ 7 t « S % � � o � k 0 2 k 0 # £ C') 7 A' $ $ / o Cj 2 ƒk � d « m % 2 0 % $ & E k c 2 o c 2 a 2 CO @ X«?m 75 :ck k 2 k $� � � e � 0 » 2 E k k / 2 k � a @, _ c E 0 Q¥ \ � Q S 0- a O � � 0 a � � � 0 LL Z_ m 4 Q U) U LU Z O 3 a q � k � 0 $ § k k k § Lu 7 2 / § E � $ 2 7 % k : $ /0 2 / J/ Q u 0.0 « f (D 7 ca ® �/ % k 0 2 f -0. / « © ■ § C'. a § 2 2 / D CM > / 2 $ k / $ o c 6■� 2 c 0 2 ' 0 w # 2 2 « m C> k ck 0 r $ �0 �2 ©0 5 0 § 0 E o 0 " w -0 e (n ® m £ § $ a 2 e m 2 0 2 k (D � k c g 9 @ ® ¥ c Co `7 k 2 « 2 k : 0 (n 0 CL3 2 d 0 4 qI g $ w t / � ■ m \ co / k k 2 O $ 2 � ¢ / $ $ 7 t « S % � � o � k 0 2 k 0 # £ C') 7 A' $ $ / o Cj 2 ƒk � d « m % 2 0 % $ & E k c 2 o c 2 a 2 CO @ X«?m 75 :ck k 2 k $� � � e � 0 » 2 E k k / 2 k � a @, _ c E 0 Q¥ \ � Q S 0- a O � � 0 a � � � 0 LL Z_ m 4 Q U) U LU Z O 3 a q is Metropolitan Airports Commission Operations and Complaint Summary August 1997 Operations Summary - All Aircraft Runway Arrival % Use Departure % Use 04 N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A MSP AugustFleet Mix Percentage Stage Scheduled 1996 Scheduled 1997 ANOMS Count 1996 ANOMS Count 1997 Stage 2 48.5% 40.3% 49.7% N/A Stage 3 51.5% 59.7% 50.3% N/A Airport August Complaint Summary Airport 19% 1997 MSP 2737 2027 Airlake 2 0 Anoka 5 5 Crystal 6 0 Flying Cloud 5 3 Lake Elmo 7 5 St. Paul 4 7 Misc. 1 0 1 TOTAL 2766 2048 August Average Daily Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 1996 1997 Air Carrier 884 883 Commuter 360 329 G.A. 144 161 Military 8 10 TOTAL 1396 1383 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 • • • Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary August 1997 Complaint Summary by City Time of Day Nature of Complaint Time' Total Nature of Complaint Total 00:00 - 05:59 60 Excessive Noise 1841 06:00 - 06:59 50 Earl /Late 122 07:00 - 11:59 376 Low Flying 24 12:00 - 15:59 255 Structural Disturbance 7 16:00 - 19:59 512 Helicopter 1 20:00 - 21:59 374 Ground Noise 28 22:00 - 22:59 305 Engine Run-up 3 23:00 - 23:59 95 Freciuencv 1 Total 2027 Total 2027 Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs • • Metropolitan Airports Commission Available Time for Runway Use Tower Log Reports - August 1997 All Hours <010 35% 36% 0% A A 104 20%%/o :*%s 4% 1^7 8% % Nighttime Hours 0% 0% 04 3% I IN." 2% Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs V 62% A 61% V 90% 90% % Page 3 � e � PEN" � � � � ?\ � � � � k� k RINIvridw0a AO HHgWIN � .� � ; a � % � � ƒ :r . � \ .r 6 � � 'r ® � . � : k � � $ % � % � � « % § o � @ �\ \ c m � . . � In ` 2 ) ��\ a \ w m ) -61 \k) $ 4 � t \ �2 i � 0 a,v ,c 3 T , .�• ...b bt_ l Y� .aw }K 4. 1 �- ,Z .x h.a Y i 3 ` t� 1zr �. _s3xh�2 3'"4 i " ""` �+' - / ,t�'� TA GE I I TA GE III HUSHKIT Hushed B727 B727 CARRIERS Totals Totals American 81 0 DC9 DC9 Hushed Totals Totals N/A N/A Continental 30 0 28 0 Delta 130 30 N/A N/A Northwest 40 0 179 84 Sun Country 11 6 N/A N/A TWA .42 0 58 46 United 75 2 N/A N/A US Airways N/A N/A 63 34 �- American- Feasi 4 llty Analysis Continental - Replacing Aircraft with New Stage III Delta - Continuing with Hushkit Schedule "i f Northwest - Continuing DC9 Fleet, Beginning B727 Fleet Sun Country - Negotiating Leases, Continuing Schedule TWA - Continuing DC9 Fleet, Financial Analyse= 13727's United - Continuing B727 Fleet, Selling to Meet Deadline US Airways - Hushkits on Hold, Considering New Aircraft F F • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 35 Agenda October 6, 1997 Issue Statement: Review of proposed new 1 -35W bridge over 66th Street and possible City response. Background: The Council approved the layout for the extension of the 1 -35W High Occupancy Vehicle, lane on March 24, 1997. However, the details of improvements needed at the 66th Street interchange were not addressed at the time of the 1 -35W layout approval. The 1 -35W plan calls for the reconstruction of the 1 -35W bridge over 66th Street. The bridge is being designed to handle an upgraded 66th Street which will include: • left turn lanes, • wider sidewalks, • a bus pullout in each direction, and • bikeway. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) staff is asking not only if the 66th Street section is adequate but how will the wider 66th Street section transition to the • existing 66th Street. The existing design of 66th Street in the vicinity of 1 -35W is deficient, especially considering the high traffic volumes carried by this major east -west arterial. The reconstruction of 1 -35W offers the City the opportunity to evaluate options for creating an attractive gateway entrance along 66th Street and the chance to correct several design shortcomings to the existing roadway. City staff has contacted the engineering consulting firm of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to submit a proposal to explore several design concepts for 66th Street between Newton Avenue and Rae Drive. The study would address the following issues: • Definition of the role and function of 66th Street to the remainder of the community; • The adequacy of 66th Street to handle future traffic volumes; • Methods to correct existing deficiencies in sidewalks, bicycle movements, and accidents; • Urban design and landscaping issues; • Potential right of way impacts; and • Long and short range plans to serve as guide for improving 66th Street. City staff is recommending that the community be given the opportunity to express their views on potential improvements along 66th Street through the SEH study. The improvements to 1 -35W are scheduled for construction in the spring of 1999. Richfield will be able to use State and County funds to make improvements to enhance 66th Street as a gateway to the City. However, with the short time before freeway construction begins, a study is needed to provide residents the opportunity to offer their views on planning and design options for the long range role of 66th Street. No cost estimates are available but will be available shortly. In the very near future the proposal will be submitted to Council for approval including a cost estimate. Recommended Motion: There is no motion. This is for discussion purposes only. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Details of improvements needed at the 66th Street interchange were not addressed at the time of the 1 -35W layout approval. 2. City staff believes there is need for a study to, among other things, explore several design concepts.for 66th Street between Newton Avenue and Rae Drive and give the community the opportunity to express their views on potential improvements along 66th Street. Alternative Recommendation: . None. Discussion /Decision Mode: This is for discussion purposes only. Based on the October 6 discussion, Council may soon be asked to make a decision about a study related to the proposed new 1 -35W bridge over 66th Street. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 34 Agenda October 6, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of modifying the 1 -35W noise wall between 68th Street and 73rd Street. Background: The Council approved the layout for the extension of the 1 -35W High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on March 24, 1997. However, the Council stipulated that residents be given the opportunity to express their wishes about whether or not to build new noise walls where none exists today. The detailed design of a wall was not the focus of the public meeting. That responsibility rests with a special design committee that includes citizen representatives of both Minneapolis and Richfield. A public meeting was held on August 7, 1997 for residents living west of 1 -35W between 68th Street and 73rd Street, the area currently without a noise wall. The meeting was well attended and led by a mediator hired by the City. Residents heard a wide range of differing views on the topic. A general desire to seek compromise was expressed by a significant number of people who attended the August 7 meeting. City staff informed people attending the meeting that the Friends of Wood Lake had recommended that a noise wall be built on the east side of 1 -35W to protect the Wood Lake Nature Center • from highway noise. A record of public comments is attached to this Study Session letter and displayed on two maps to assist Council in arriving at a decision. Comments were grouped in six general categories ranging from strongly favoring a noise wall to strongly opposing a noise wall. The six categories are: Number of Residents Position Taken in Support 1. In favor of a continuous 20' wall 19 2. Extend 20' wall to match wall on east side 1 3. Smaller wall or stepped wall 2 4. In favor of 6' to 8' wall as a safety barrier 7 5. Partial opening to retain a lake view 3 6. Opposed to a new wall 13 Total of comments received: 45 Council will have the opportunity at the Study Session to hear from residents respond to the alternatives outlined in this report. • Council will be asked to make a decision on noise walls at the October 27, 1997 City Council meeting. Recommended Motion: There is no motion. The report is for discussion of possible alternatives. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The issue of noise walls is a community standard. Although noise levels are expected to exceed the federal noise standard of L(10) 70dBA, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated it will respect the Council's wishes on whether or not to add new noise walls. 2. Noise levels require a continuous wall for effective noise mitigation. Alternative Recommendations: Four alternatives are listed in the attached report. They are: do nothing (no new noise wall); extend the noise wall to match the existing wall on the east side of 1 -35W; provide a short safety wall or barrier in the area with a lake view; and, provide a continuous wall of 15 feet or 20 feet in height. Other alternatives may be suggested by residents. Discussion /Decision Mode: This is for discussion purposes only. Council will be asked to make a decision on noise walls at its October 27, 1997 City Council meeting. • Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachments • Report on Consideration of Noise Wall Modifications in the Area West of 1 -35W between 68th Street and 73rd Street in Richfield At an August 7, 1997 public meeting, residents representing forty-five homes located west of 1 -35W provided comments on the issue of whether or not to build a noise wall in the area between 68th Street and 73rd Street where an opening in the noise wall exists. The opening had been created originally to provide a scenic view of Wood Lake. Most people attending the August 7 meeting supported reaching a compromise on this issue. Residents were made aware that the Friends of Wood Lake has made a recommendation that a noise wall be built on the east side of 1 -35W to protect the users of Wood Lake Nature Center from the harmful effects of noise. Comments were grouped in six categories: Table 1 Public Comments on Noise Wall Modifications on the west side of 1 -35W from 68th Street to 73rd Street Number of Residents Position Taken in Support I 1. In favor of a continuous 20' wall 19 2. Extend 20' wall to match wall on east 1 side 3. Smaller wall or stepped wall 2 4. In favor of 6' to 8' wall as a safety 7 barrier 5. Partial opening to retain a lake view 3 6. Opposed to a new wall 13 Total of comments received 45 There are two maps attached to this report that show resident comments based on where they live relative to 1 -35W. The maps show that most people opposed to a new noise wall live on the frontage road with a clear view of Wood Lake. There is a group of residents on the south end of Lake Shore Drive who want a noise wall because there already is a noise wall on the east side of 1 -35W. In addition, residents who do not live right on Lake Shore Drive tend to support a new noise wall. A smaller group on the north end where the wall terminates favor a new noise wall or extending the noise wall to the south, perhaps as far as 69th Street. According to a technical memorandum on 1 -35W Noise produced by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, noise levels on both sides of 1 -35W between 68th Street . and 73rd Street in Richfield are forecasted to exceed the federal noise standard of 70 L(10) dBA. The L(10) dBA standard means that noise levels may exceed the 70 decibel level ten percent of the time. The report also analyzed the effect of noise walls of 10 feet, 15 feet and 20 feet in height. The results are shown below: Table 2 Noise Modeling Results for the Year 2013 Peak Hour Traffic for Different Noise Wall Heights at 70th Street west of 1 -35W Wall Height Estimated Noise Level L(10) dBA 10 Feet 72 15 feet 68 20 Feet 64 Based on the noise analysis, a fifteen foot high wall would meet the federal noise standard and a twenty foot high wall would meet the state noise standard of L(10) 65 dBA. The state noise standard is more stringent than the federal standard. Based on the public comments received, four alternatives are listed below in no particular order: A) Do Nothing (No New Noise Wall) This would mean leaving the opening in the wall to retain the existing view for homes located along the west frontage road. Noise levels will remain high for the entire area B) Extend the Wall to Match the Wall on the East Side of 1 -35W A new wall would extend north from the existing wall that terminates at 73rd Street by the pedestrian bridge to 7128 Lake Shore Drive. Homes on the frontage road have a limited view of Wood Lake because of the noise wall on the east side of 1 -35W. The wall on the north end of the opening can also be extended at least to 69th Street in response to resident comments. Noise will remain a problem for areas without a noise wall. C) Provide a Short Safety Wall or Barrier in the Area with a Lake View Residents suggested a short wall of about 6 feet to 8 feet in height to protect people using the frontage road from cars veering off I -35W. The low wall would provide very little or no noise protection. D) Provide a Continuous Noisewall of 15 Feet or 20 Feet in Height A continuous noise wall is the only alternative that will effectively reduce the noise for the entire area. A wall of either 15 feet or 20 feet will produce a noticeable noise reduction. Existing noise walls are 20 feet high. This alternative will eliminate any view of Wood Lake. Note: if the City Council decides to construct a continuous noise wall on the east side of 1 -35W, this alternative may be the only option available for residents living on the west side of I -35W. • • ll _11O " ►K DATE: September 15, 1997 TO: File FROM: Thomas Foley Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: 1 -35W Noise Wall Open House and Meeting Thursday, August 7, 1997 Woodlake Lutheran Church NAME COMMENT Terry Stark The noise level, both in the front and back yards of ours and our 7232 Humboldt neighbors is quite excessive as it is now. An additional lane or two 869- 4025/954 -2148 will make the situation "unbearable." Perhaps an addition to the west wall can be constructed to match the wall on the east side, up to 70th street. That would give us and our neighbors noise abatement and preserve the view for others. It is absolutely necessary that a sound wall be built on the west side of 35W on Humboldt Avenue. To satisfy the people on lake Shore Drive /Humboldt Avenue, the wall could terminate at 70th Street as it does on the east side of 35W on Humboldt Avenue. (Some of those folks voiced opposition to the wall because of their view of Wood Lake.) I do feel those folks will regret that decision, as we surely do, for refusing the sound wall when it was first offered to us. WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THE AMOUNT OF NOISY TRAFFIC ON 35W, nor did we anticipate its EVER expanding! Also, there is the accident danger (as we have experienced several times) with just a metal link fence as a buffer between us and the speed- moving 35W traffic. Christine Evans There is no question that the 35W162 Commons area is a very 7138 Knox Avenue poorly designed highway, partly due to the political process. I have 861 -7538 to hope that this opportunity to effect true improvement will not be squandered by undue compromise, political process and "the band - aid" approach which is so common in Minnesota. People will continue to exceed the speed limit and the noise will continue to grow. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the exemption that exists on 35E in St. Paul, without noisy semi's barreling along at 75 m.p.h. at all hours. I wonder at what socio- economic level we would need to be to receive this consideration. In any case, most of our surrounding [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 0 • [comsery /35w /cm35nois] area is in favor of a sound barrier, as high as possible, as soon as possible. As our neighbor Mrs. Steiger put it, "We were screwed..." Many do not enjoy the view, and we are tired of the noise. Thomas Evans A 20' noisewall is a must investment in the health of Richfield! Even 7138 Knox Avenue on Knox Avenue we have too much noise for young families -young 861 - 7538/663 -1378 children. The view of the "Lake" is a value to few. The cost is noise (660- 2183 - pager) pollution and air pollution load that hurts many. I would like minutes from today's meeting and any draft reports sent to all residents of 7100 Knox. A short wall is not a solution. It is a "Minnesota Nice" compromise. It is the wrong decision for the City. 20 years of the hearing of our children have to be considered. Richfield wants improved housing stock. We can't remove 35W and we can't do a 35E blvd. As the only part of 35W w/o noise walls, we must be the laughing stock of the corridor. Consider a one way street and $300,000 in trees against the wall and a bike path. What is the noise guidance of the law? How many people were contacted for this meeting tonight? Does the law require a noise wall. I believe in the long run a wall is essential for Richfield. Diane Rappe We live a few blocks west so direct noise is not a major impact, but 7110 Knox Avenue when in our yard, there is a constant din of noise. If I lived along the 869 -3097 freeway, I would most definitely want the barrier. Either way I am in favor of sound barriers. City needs to look at narrow lane at Lake Shore Drive. May be one way street and put in bike lane. Need better control of speed along this area. Be visionaries. By increasing traffic, have you done studies to include addition to speed and air quality? John and Florette One of the main reasons we bought on Lake Shore Drive was the Chenevert view. We have not complained of the noise. We do not want a wall. 7010 Lake Shore The most noise we have is the airplanes not highway traffic. 866 -2484 Is the State in favor of a wall on the east side? Linda M. Ausley Don't want tall wall. Don't want to live in the dark. 7137 Irving Avenue 869 -4265 Robert Ausley No more walls. 7137 Irving Avenue Arnold and Dorothy Replace the chain link fence with a 6 -8' wall with sound absorbency Peterson in middle. Extend "tall" wall on west side to 72nd to equal wall on 7120 Lake Shore east side. "Short" wall on west side from 72nd St. north to where 869 -1809 acceptable. Do persons affected by looking at a 20' wall only have any more weight in a vote from those living 3-4 blocks away who will [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 0 0 .7 [comsery /35w /cm35nois] still be looking at nicely landscaped homes? The only place Richfield is identified as a great place to live is by seeing the homes across from Wood Lake - yes there is a Richfield! Many persons have expressed this to us as seeing a pretty area with beautiful trees and well -kept homes A 6 -8' wall for safety is acceptable - like the idea.. Carolyn Dobis and We would like the tall wall decorated like the 77th Street wall and Tony Peszneker have a low wall by Lake Shore Drive. Both options must be 7226 Humboldt considered - THE SAFETY ISSUE. Cars are going through the 866 - 6734/686 -0405 chain link fence. We live at 7226 Humboldt, the section of the freeway that faces our home. There is the fence and a sound wall on the opposite side of the freeway. Therefore the sound is louder, more dirt, because we are lower. Our home is even with the freeway. We strongly urge the City and MnDOT to extend the wall at east to 70th and Humboldt. We love living in Richfield. I have been a resident for 25 years, 4 years at this residence. I have two issues. How about a graduated wall and make it nice like the one constructed on 77th Street. And there is a safety issue - cars going through. Bernice Volkert We prefer no wall. The view is pleasant. We are used to noise, but 6920 Humboldt it is getting worse. 866 -0732 Tom Wawra I agree on the compromise of a short 5 -8' wall by Lake Shore and a 7024 Irving Avenue taller wall in other areas. 861 -4820 Bob Druke If a wall is constructed on the Wood Lake side, how tall would it be: 1 7021 James Avenue would like a low wall on the west side of 35W - 6 -8 foot wall. 866 -3246 David & Norma Martin The people who do not like the noise, let them move, but do not 7115 James Avenue block the view of the Nature Center. The people who complain the 866 -5172 most knew the noise level when they moved in. Our vote is for no wall. I have no problem with 35W; the airplane noise is worse. we are 3 -4 rows of houses back from the freeway and we get no relief from the noise. Jim Matczynski In favor of a noise wall. Would prefer 20' extended from 68th to 6911 Irving Avenue 73rd, but a stepped down wall in each direction would be 861 -1282 acceptable. Air quality should also be a factor in the decision. Improvements will increase traffic which in turn increases noise. [comsery /35w /cm35nois] • U [comsery /35w /cm35nois] Ten to twelve homes can see Wood Lake. Trees and bushes are along 70th and 71 st. - Shame to let those few people decide. How many surveys were taken in 1995? How many tonight? The sound is getting unbearable. Joe & Linda Stratig We would like to see a noise wall constructed on the west side of 1- 7200 Logan Avenue 35W. Jim & Shirley Poppe We definitely want the wall between 66th and 73rd. The higher- the 6838 Humboldt better. It might also help block out some of the airport noise. The 869 - 2632/376 -3200 wall would help prevent cars from crashing through existing wire - mesh fence. The wall would eliminate the chance of someone jumping the fence, stop small animals from straying onto freeway, and cut down on fumes from cars. Also help resale of houses due to fact of less noise. William Boe We need a wall. Increased traffic on 35W and future increases 6929 Irving Avenue make it a big need. 866 - 7445/866 -3980 How about taking a vote? Map out the yes and no's. Tim Turenne & Tim Were not able to be at the meeting. Sent written comments. We Thomson both strongly disagree with any type of sound barrier - the noise 6918 Humboldt does not bother us at all. If it did, we never would have bought the (write -in) house. Looking across the freeway at Wood lake Nature Center is a plus. Please do not construct a wall , we are totally against it. Nadine Collins I was among the stalwart souls who combated the wall when 6912 Humboldt previously proposed. Today, I again say, NO WALL. I very much (write -in) enjoy the view the scenery and the view of Wood Lake Nature Center. People coming into the cities from the south on 35W have also experienced their surprise and pleasure in seeing the lovely homes in the area and the naturalness of the terrain. Do we want Richfield to be known as "The Walled City ?" Richfield has been my home for 30 years and I truly would hate to leave it as would many others. But - don't fence us in!! Leone C. Cain Sept. 1962 (35 years ago) I moved into my home at 6906 Lake 6906 Lake Shore Shore Drive, and I have enjoyed everyday of living there. I am very 866 -1882 disturbed by the thought of a noise wall in the front of my home. It is (write -in) very disturbing and saddening that first time home owners on Logan and Knox (four blocks from 35W) want a noise wall. Would they want it in front of their homes? The residents on Lake Shore that oppose the wall, have all been long time homeowners and plan to stay in our homes. A noise wall will affect the value of our property besides we will be prisoners in our own yard. Please consider we love the area and enjoy the view of Wood Lake. It is a privilege to have country living in the City. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 0 C7 [comsery /35w /cm35nois] We live very close to the wall. The noise from the planes are worse. 90% of the residents have air conditioning. I have yet to see neighbors visiting one another in the front yard. Days of the front porch are gone. Gary & Elaine Limpert We attended this meeting and spoke. We strongly oppose any noise 6936 Lake Shore Dr. wall on the east side of 35W. It would increase noise in west 869 -7154 Richfield. We strongly oppose a wall in front of our property. It (write -in) would destroy our view of Wood Lake Nature Center and provide no benefit to us. Many who favor a wall moved here after the freeway was built. Why? We did, because we like Richfield. Thanks for the opportunity to express our views. 9/3/97 Phoned to add he would like to see a concrete barrier to protect the frontage road. am against the wall. We had a good builder for our Jim & Norma Ryan When we purchased our home 37 years ago, we were well aware of 7028 Lake Shore the noise situation and have never regretted it, because we enjoyed 869 -7121 the Wood Lake greenery. Apparently, more recent residents know (write -in) when they purchased, what was already there, and now choose to complain, and to deny those of us right on the freeway the ability to continue living here without a wall to box us in. The suggestion of FOWL is ridiculous! Putting a wall on the west side of Wood lake would make all other alternatives moot and for what? It's like Mr. Fondrick wanting that tall wall at Donaldson Park so the players could hear their scores. Also, at the original hearings, it was understood that no walls should be built north of 73rd Street - yet the east side one turned up. When people on James or Knox say that bringing up children there is harmful because of noise pollution - our three were raised here and none are "hot house flowers" or ill because of pollution. Are we compelled to try to sell quickly, or wait till our view is gone and try to sell it, boxed in at a lower price? Lester & Agnes Gross We have lived here for 28 years and the traffic has increased 6827 Humboldt tremendously. The pollution is also really bad. We would appreciate 861 -3285 a noise wall very much - the sooner the better! (write -in) Joan Fiedler My hope is that a compromise can be worked out. The people on 7034 lake Shore either end of the street (73rd and 68th) really do need a sound 866- 3070/929 -3317 barrier. The people on the streets behind (James, Knox) would like (write -in) a lessening of the noise, but we do not wish to lose our view. I'd like to see a vote to determine where the wall should be lowered. We have one of the lowest elevations on Lake Shore Drive (8'). A wall that was a maximum of 6' would be helpful in noise deadening and safety without being intrusive. This is assuming no wall is put in place on the Nature Center side of the freeway. Of course, if a wall is erected on the east side, we would need one on the west side. I [comsery /35w /cm35nois] • • �J [comsery /35w /cm35nois] hope the City Council will be able to come up with a fair solution. Thank you for taking time to listen to our opinions. I also think having a mediator at the meeting made a big difference. It was very helpful. Mark Fiedler With the information we have on noise reduction, would it be higher 7034 Lake Shore with the noise wall? Drive Iva L. Harper We live at 6833 Humboldt. The freeway right of way fence is 135' 6833 Humboldt from our back porch. With the new runway extension open, and (write -in) resultant increased flights over west Richfield, the total noise pollution has become unbearable. For hours every day, every other vehicle is a semi - trailer truck. In between, we have motorcycles with no mufflers driving 75 miles per hour. We built this house in 1960. The freeway stopped at 66th St. then. One car every 5 minutes, beautiful view of Wood Lake. But things have changed drastically. We need a wall now to prevent some of the noise and dirt pollution generated by vehicles. Our porch and house are covered by oil from diesel exhausts from trucks and must be washed down with ammonia every summer. I am 77, my wife is 78. 1 do believe this entire neighborhood will deteriorate in the near future if noise walls are not erected. I have talked to neighbors who have indicated they will sell to the highest bidder and move out. One final comment, the noise level in my back yard exceeds federal standards now! Imagine what they will be like in the year 2000 with two more lanes. We voted against the wall before and now we want it. The noise level is high, and you have to scrub to get the dirt and grime out. Margaret M. Harper My husband and I attended the meeting regarding sound walls, and 6833 Humboldt these are my thoughts on our situation. There were 3 families (write -in) represented at the meeting who share in our situation. Our houses on Humboldt have the freeway fence as our back yard boundary. consequently, our noise, pollution and visual levels are unique. We envy friends who open windows in the summer. This is a luxury we don't have. The sound of trucks all night is not conducive to a good night's sleep, and we cannot afford the upkeep of cleaning drapes and blinds that open windows on a freeway entails. You can imagine what our summer electric bills do to make our retirement years more secure. We have a screened porch. We do no invite anyone to sit on it with us. We learned that most people do not care to converse over freeway noise. We are not looking forward to the coming construction work without a wall. Please consider individual cases of hardship in this discussions. It's disheartening to hear people who live two blocks from us state that walls are not necessary. We are only asking for a wall behind our property. We [comsery /35w /cm35nois] • [comsery /35w /cm35nois] have no desire to inflict a wall on people who feel they have a view they don't want to lose. BUT WE BADLY NEED RELIEF. Bette Babcock Thank you, Mr. Foley for an interesting and informative meeting at 7232 Humboldt Woodlake Church. (How convenient for us that you chose that 869 -4025 location!) I write to impress upon you how imperative it is that there (write -in) be a sound wall constructed from 73rd St. and 35W on the west side on Humboldt Av. To compromise those folks who live on Lake Shore /Humboldt Av., the west wall could terminate easily just beyond 71st St. AS IT DOES ON THE EAST SIDE. I fail to understand why this is such a problem! EVERYONE CONCERNED would be agreeable and satisfied. Terry Babcock Could we perhaps build a lower wall to help the noise bounce? 7232 Humboldt Carol & Bernie We attended the noise wall meeting on August 7. When we left the Mittelsteadt meeting, we held on to some of our original thoughts, but we listened 6996 Lake Shore and learned that others also had a point. It is our suggestion that Drive surely no tall wall should hide our lovely Wood Lake Nature Center, 866 - 9671/541 -4800 but rather a concrete barrier could be placed on the west side of (- (write-in) 35W. This would please both those who walk along the freeway and those who face Wood Lake. What a loss it would be to hide the view of the nature center from locals as well as visitors! Surely we can work together for the benefit of all. was not at the Wood Lake FOWL meeting when they recommended the wall, and I am strongly opposed to the wall. In 1995 a petition was circulated among the residents to see if they wanted a noise wall, and the people said no. I don't understand why the wall is brought up again. I work very hard for Wood Lake. It was initially opposed because we would lose the view. Jan & George Brust YES. We feel not having a wall reduces the quality of life we have in 7219 James the home. The noise is awful 24 hours a day. On the other side 866 -7998 (Wood Lake) of 35W, the noise levels are reduced substantially (write -in) because they have a wall. In fact, I believe having a wall creates more noise for us. Most of the people who live on this side get NO benefit from the Wood Lake view. If I had looked at the house in summer, I never would have bought it. I would have moved to Bloomington. Gary & Karol Ness We are strongly in favor of seeing a noise reduction wall constructed 1611 W. 72nd from the existing wall at 73rd Street to 69th Street. Our home is Y2. 869 -6692 block off 35W and we experience traffic noise 365 days a year, 24 (write -in) hours a day. We feel the noise issue is a blight to an area of Richfield which in all other aspects is a very desirable location; i.e., well maintained, medium to upper priced homes, mature trees, low traffic, convenient to Richfield amenities. In light of Richfield's [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 0 • • [comsery /35w /cm35nois] attempts to raise property values, installation of a noise reduction wall would maintain or increase the property value of the surrounding area. We strongly do not support a shorter "compromise" wall. With no cost to the City of Richfield, construction of a noise reduction wall seems to be the correct solution for all residents affected by this situation. Wayne Olson Our family has lived in Richfield since 1983. We lived at 7128 Knox 7144 Irving until we moved to our current address in October 1994. 1 was 869 -2781 always amazed the sound barriers were not constructed for the (write -in) entire area from 66th to 76th Street along 35W. We need the noise walls!!!. It will improve the noise db level and hopefully will aesthetically be an improvement.. There are often times when we have guests in our home that we have had to shut the windows and turn on air conditioning because the noise level was so high. Outdoor gatherings are constantly interrupted by freeway noise. /we enjoy walking Wood Lake nature Center paths, but again, the appearance of the freeway and the noise level are unacceptable. I realize there are a few homes along the freeway where residents prefer the open view, but there are many, many others whose homes and lives are affected by the absence of these walls. My understanding is that by both State and Federal guidelines /regulations, noise walls should be constructed on both sides of the freeway. The current and future db are above standards for residential areas, parks and nature areas. I don't understand why there should even be a question! Thank you for this opportunity to express my views. I understand that it would be desirable to leave the wall down on the nature Center side for motorists to be able to see. The short distance that the Center is visible is not significant, and in such a short time, little can be seen, wall or no wall!! Mrs. Anna Weseloh Yes, I would like a noise wall. 1605 W. 72nd Street 869 -7352 (write -in) John Walstrom We should build the wall that would cut noise level for everyone west 7200 James of 35. There isn't much of Wood Lake Nature Center that anyone 866 -3851 can see - cars on 35W aren't very attractive. I would rather have (write -in) quiet for everyone - not a view of 35W for a few. Robert P. Halloran I have lived on the corner of 72nd and Humboldt for over 21 years. 1601 W. 72nd Street In the early years it was nice to not have a wall - but over the years 861 -2546 the noise keeps increasing and is now to a point in time where (write -in) changes are needed. With the added lanes it will really reach an unbearable level. My property value suffers a 20% loss below what you tax me at. A wall must be built on the west side of 35W. I you [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 0 0 L -i [comsery /35w /cm35nois] compare the noise level on Humboldt by the church and Donaldson Park where the wall is (very little) to the area from 73rd to 72nd where there is no wall, a continuation of the wall is necessary. Noise is very loud and will be worse with additional traffic. The view factor is a thing of the past - even with the tree growth in front of us. Nothing but cars and trucks. PLEASE BUILD THE WALL 20 FEET. THANK YOU. Alan & Marion Our family has resided at this address for 20 years. When we Hargreaves bought, we realized the noise from 35W would be with us 24 hours a 7244 Humboldt day, and we would cope. It hasn't always been pleasant, but we 869 -1360 have managed. The backyard isn't too bad! Nowadays the traffic is (write -in) of course heavier than 20 years ago, and the thought of all the construction and even heavier traffic in the future is worrisome. We are 100% in favor of the noise wall! At least along the west side. The folks along 77th Street have a beautiful wall, although we need a higher one, and the traffic there is minuscule in comparison to 35W. We want to stay in our home for many years to come so hope you can help us out. Thank you. Stephen & Leslie We wish to go on record as being in favor of the two wall project. A Mitchell wall along the west side is a minimum, and for the Wood Lake 7213 James Nature Center and area residents, a wall on east side is also 869 -6373 necessary. In our location, the construction of the east side wall has (write -in) bombarded our neighborhood with noise, more so than if the wall wasn't there. Now to make it livable, a west side wall is an absolute necessity. The construction of a west wall will necessitate an east wall in Wood lake. Otherwise the same situation that now exists in our neighborhood will disturb the Nature Center. Lastly, I can tell you from living here, that the legislature and state law enforcement need to address the noise emitted from motorcycles. They are louder and can be heard for longer duration than trucks and semi's. Cynthia & John Davy I am writing you today to express my concerns over NOT BUILDING 7129 Knox NOISE WALLS along the east and west sides of 35W from 73rd 861 -2260 Street to 69th Street. The noise is extremely annoying now. It can (write -in) only get worse. PLEASE BUILD THE WALLS. Thank you. Bjorn Hagen 9/7/97 A noise wall is a waste of taxpayers money. In the winter 7238 Humboldt noise isn't a problem. He has a split level home. A twenty foot high Avenue wall will be ineffective in controlling noise at the second level. He prefers the trees. A noise wall is ugly. Trees are helpful in mitigating noise and collecting dust. Corey Brown & family My wife and I have owned two homes now in Richfield since 1983, 7145 James Avenue the first 8 years on 7144 James, and now going on 7 years in a 861 -3886 newly constructed home at 7145 James Avenue. We now have three children and we generally pleased with our neighborhood and community. I can say with certainty that the sound level coming up [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 0 • • ice [comserv/35w /cm35nois] from 35W has steadily increased over the last decade. One major difference we suffer with our new home from the first is that our back yard and second story bedroom faces the direction of the highway. The constant tire noise and occasional roar of loud trucks makes our use of the back yard unpleasant. We have not been able to open our bedroom windows for a much needed summer night's breeze since we moved in. We as a family of five appeal to those making a decision to build a noise wall, to please consider the enormous burden the present and future sound level puts on us. It seems so sensible to appeal to the 100+ homeowners and our needs rather than be influenced by less than a dozen homeowners who prefer to be exposed to the Wood Lake Preserve (which in the past decade has become almost entirely enshrouded with tree and brush growth at the perimeter.) Connie Villella 9/3/97 She favors the noise wall even though she has a view of the 7139 Knox Avenue lake. Noise is a problem in the winter and at night. Megan Beyerl 9/2/97 1 believe it is to the benefit of the majority of Richfield citizens 7124 Knox Avenue that the amount of noise in our neighborhoods is reduced. 866 -9315 1 do feel badly for the people that may lose their views, but I'm thinking that in the long run even they would wish to have the noise reduced. I am in favor of the walls if they can somehow be done in an attractive manner. I would rather have them done now in association with the freeway project than have to fund them later. Lynn & Peggy We, a family of four, oppose a noise wall in front of our home. We Holznagel especially oppose a noise wall abutting Wood Lake Nature Center. 7114 Lake Shore We feel our vote should carry more weight - as he freeway is out our front window. We would not object to a short insulated wall if deemed necessary. Jerry Leffler In the winter, the snow banks absorb some of the noise. The tire 7128 Lake Shore noise ricochets off the wall. I like the idea of a modified wall. Bill Boltz Could we vote for a wall on one side and not on the other? Rick Stone How high are the existing walls on the west, and how high would 6935 Irving they be at Wood Lake? Our back yard faces the freeway. Only eight to ten people have the view compared to so many others. Luis Conrad We are opposed to a high wall. We like the idea of a shorter wall. 7014 Lake Shore Main concern is safety. Kids are going to the parks and cars are coming through fences. Brian McVanney I Have there been any studies done on property values that have a [comserv/35w /cm35nois] • • it 11 6820 Humboldt wall or do not have a wall? Noise is very distracting. With the proposed lanes of traffic, we will have more noise. What can we expect? If it exceeds the noise level, should there be a wall? Has anyone petitioned for an exemption? would encourage you (staff) to place on a map the people for and against the wall. Randy Gerdes The wall ends at my yard. We hear the traffic on the south not the 6821 Humboldt north side. We lived on 76th and Wentworth, and when they constructed the barrier on 77th Street, it made a big difference. Dave Goeman Are you going to build a concrete median at the Crosstown. Center 7000 Lake Shore wall makes the noise worse. Could we compromise with a shorter Drive wall? Everyone walks on Lake Shore Drive. It is not only for a handful of people. Charlotte Goeman We voted it down once. We don't want the wall. 7000 Lake Shore Barbara Bailey We lived across from a cemetery, sold our home and live next to 7044 Lake Shore 35W now. We own the view and we want the view. Cars going by have a picturesque view of our City. It is a good promotion for Richfield. We do not want the wall. Resident 6'x 3" wall will not cut sound. consider a double wall. Resident If you put the wall where the fence is, how far back will the wall extend? Resident Assuming a wall is going up, is there a way of enhancing the wall. Are there options? Resident Dog walkers, children, everyone treat road (Lake Shore Drive) as major street. City should enforce speed and have people slow down. Resident Three accidents have occurred on corner of 72nd and Lake Shore with kids speeding. Resident Speed limit is a serious problem. Have a guard rail to protect going through the fence if there is not a wall. Resident What is the track record of selling homes on the east side of the wall? I travel the freeways daily and the 35/494 intersection is the worst in the City. What are the plans for this area? Resident Has MnDOT considered asphalt vs. concrete? Resident If a wall were to be built, would it go in after the road repairs? Resident When you have your windows open, tires will make a different noise. On the concrete it is unbearable. There is a difference on the asphalt. Resident We should all remember that this decision affects the whole [comsery /35w /cm35nois] • 12 [comsery /35w /cm35nois] neighborhood and not just those who cam tonight. Carl Guggenberger I have a concern with a compromise of a short wall. Could it amplify 6832 Humboldt the noise? Mary M. And Berk Mary Rodgers wrote: I have lived in our home for almost 12 years Rodgers and with each passing year, the noise level on 35W gets worse. We 7220 Humboldt have a wall on the opposite side of the freeway and the noise that 866 -2350 resounds off of that wall at times is unbelievable. If the people overlooking Wood lake don't want a wall to block their view, then they shouldn't have one, but we definitely need one at our end of Humboldt. I'm sure that there are ways to satisfy everyone. Berk Rodgers phoned to say that he wants a noise wall for the entire length of the opening. He doesn't have a view of Wood Lake now. [comsery /35w /cm35nois] 35W Noisewall Comments u �" EAsfing Noisewall E)dsbng ITT Noisewall P7 4 P^4.ill c: Noisewall 35W Noisewall Comments 1 Wall entire length 2 Wail same as east 3 Stepped /small wall V� �] 4 Safety wall by view 5 Partial opening for view 6 No wall ILI IN E 5 W Noisewail Survey Results l� J'�J IJ -7 IJ 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Miles