The URL can be used to link to this page

10-27-97 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997 • 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 OCTOBER 13, 1997 AND (2) RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1997 PRESENTATIONS INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR EXCEPTIONAL VOLUNTEERISM EXHIBITED IN HELPING MINNESOTA CITIES RESTORE THEIR COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY DURING FLOOD OF 1997 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 257 AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA RESOLUTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADDING NOISE WALL ALONG WEST SIDE OF I-35W BETWEEN 68TH STREET AND 73RD STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 258 CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SOUTH HENNEPIN REGION PLANNING AGENCY'S JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS FOR: (1) RESEARCH, PLANNING AND COORDINATION; AND (2) THE FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE C.L. 259 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL C.L. 260 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY OF RICHFIELD AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT FOR WETLAND CONSERVATION C.L. 261 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 10, 1997 FOR NEW ON-SALE LIQUOR AND SUNDAY LICENSE FOR GR OF MINN., INC., DBA THE GROUND ROUND, 1500 EAST 78TH STREET C.L. 262 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR, ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT AND ITINERANT FOOD LICENSES WITH FEES WAIVED FOR ST. RICHARD'S FALL FESTIVAL ON NOVEMBER 8 AND 9, 1997 C.L. 263 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF 90-SEAT RESTAURANT AT 6519 NICOLLET AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 264 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF INTERIM ORDINANCE WHICH AUTHORIZES STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED AND MORATORIUM TO BE IMPOSED ON DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY ALONG INTERSTATE 494 FROM PLEASANT AVENUE TO CEDAR AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 265 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING DEPOSIT OF SNOW FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY TO BOULEVARD NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SUCH PRIVATE PROPERTY COUNCIL LETTER N0.266 RESOLUTIONS 9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING ADEQUACY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT FOR TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND ORDERING CERTAIN ACCESSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS; MEREDIAN CROSSINGS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER N0.267 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SALE OF $750,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1997 COUNCIL'LETTER NO. 268 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 11. FIRST READING OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, SECTION 526, INCREASING PRINCIPAL BUILDING HEIGHT TO 100 FEET IN C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED EAST OF I-35W, WEST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 AND SOUTH OF 77TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER N0.269 12. FIRST READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE SALE OF CITY- OWNED PROPERTY AT 300 WEST 78TH STREET (FORMER LAMPERT LUMBER SITE) FOR REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL LETTER N0.270 13. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REZONING .LAND AT 300 WEST 78TH STREET FROM C-3 (HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 271 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 14. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION .REGARDING RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON HONDA AND.. LAMPERT LUMBER SITE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 272 15. COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER FOR TERM WHICH EXPIRES IN OCTOBER 2002 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 273 AIRPORT BUSINESS 16. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 17. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 18. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 19. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 20. 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. /S CITY OF-RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 273 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Council confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner. Background: The term of HRA Commissioner Tom Harms will expire in October 1997. Commissioner Harms was appointed to the HRA in 1980. Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to confirmation of the City Council. The Mayor has indicated he will make an appointment to the HRA for a five year term at the October 27, 1997 Council meeting. Recommended Motion: Confirm the Mayor's appointment of a Commissioner to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for. a five year term which will expire in October 2002... Basis of Recommendation: An appointment needs to be made for. a term .which expires in October 2002. Alternative Recommendation: Continue the appointment-to a future Council meeting. DiscussionlDecision-Mode: This item has been scheduled for the October 27, 1997 Council meeting so the appointment can be made to ensure a full complement of members on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Respectfully submitted, Ja a D. Prosser City anager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 272 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of Community Development Director's recommendation with regards to Richfield-Bloomington Honda and Lampert Lumber site. Background: In 1993 to obtain necessary right-of-way for the 77th Street project the City entered into a letter of agreement with the owner of the Richfield-Bloomington Honda dealership. Among other things the agreement said "The Community Development Director will recommend to the Council that prior to offering the Lampert Parcel for sale to the public, it will negotiate in good faith with your clients for the purchase thereof, for a period of at least 90 days, subject to then current zoning. This shall not limit the City's right to rezone the Lampert Parcel before or after any sale of the Lampert Parcel by the City." Recommended Motion: That staff initiate good faith negotiations for the sale of the Lampert Lumber site with the owner of Richfield-Bloomington-Honda for a period of at least 90 days. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Director of Community Development is required by the April 1993 letter of agreement to make this recommendation. 2. Richfield-Bloomington Honda is immediately adjacent to the Lampert Lumber site and may be able to utilize this property to relieve crowded conditions. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the recommendation and direct staff to receive offers from the public including any which may be submitted by Richfield-Bloomington Honda. 2. Delay consideration until a future date. .Discussion/Decision Mode: Action at the October 27 City Council meeting would facilitate the public offering process. Respe ully submitted, J D. Prosser Cit anager JDP:cak /3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter. No..271 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning land at 300 West 78th Street from C-3 (high density commercial) to C-2 (general commercial). Background: Staff is recommending that-the property at 300 West 78th Street, the Lampert Lumber site, be rezoned from C-3 (high density commercial) to C-2 (general commercial). The rezoning would also include the 50 foot wide parcel of land to the east of the Lampert site that is owned by the Soo Line railroad. The C-3 zoning district was created in 1987 as a means of encouraging higher density development and restricting development that is inconsistent with the goals for the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) area. The C-3 district has strict setback, floor area ratio, and use regulations that restrict the type of development that can occur. The strict zoning regulations and the three month length of time it takes to complete a rezoning of property can be a disincentive to developers seeking to purchase the property. Rezoning the property at this time gives the City more flexibility in marketing the site. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance rezoning land at 300 West 78th Street from C-3 to C-2; and set a public hearing and second reading for November 24, 1997. • Basis of. Recommendation: 1. Rezoning. the property would provide the City with greater flexibility in marketing the property. 2. The City, as owner of the property, has control beyond its zoning powers over the type of development that can occur on the property. 3. The proposed zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. On October 14, 1997 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. Alternative Recommendation: Deny this rezoning at first reading. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is set for October 27, 1997. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be scheduled on November 24, 1997. Resp tfully submitted, Ja a .Prosser • City anager JDP:ds /3-/ BILL NO. 1997- AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (300 West 78th Street and 50 Feet to the East) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix 1 which describes the boundaries of various zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respect: A. Section 3, Paragraph (67) is hereby added to read as follows: (67) M-16 (SW of 77th and Soo Line Railway) That area bounded by I-494 on the south, 77th Street on the north, the extended centerline of Grand Avenue on the west, and 25 feet west of centerline of the Soo Line Railway right-of--way on the east. B. Section 4, Paragraph (1) is hereby amended as follows: (2) M-44-16 That area bounded by 1-494 on the south, 77th Street on the north, Lyndale Avenue on the west, and the. extended centerline of Grand Avenue on the east.c~^ 1 i.,e ~nih~inv ~n +hc one+. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 300 West 78th Street and the property 50 feet to the east of 300 West 78th Street from C-3 to C-2. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of .1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • /3 • 300 West 78th Street--Existing Zoning 77TH ST W • ~. d ~. ~: 3QQ West ; n.; to 78th :Street w ~:. Q ~'' f- w Q 78TH ST W N 200 0 200 Feet w a m J J Zoning I (Industrial) %~~' C-2 (general commercial) :,.;, C-3 (high density commercial) 0 R (single family residential) MR-2 (medium density multiple) October 7, 1997 • /3-3 300 West 78th Street--Proposed Zoning '_~~__ 77TH- ST W ,,,~i j J ~~>' %/ ' / ~~jf~%// ~J~ !iii%,'%J~~/~%% /~/~ ,~ ~~ ,,~ , ~ w ~J i ~,~ i' ~Ji' ~'I li ,, J / / / , ,~ , J ;,,,,, ;,,~' ,~ ~ ~ m ~' / J~~///%/ // / /ij ./ Q. i~iiii/%~/~i J i % ~i ,. i / , %i~ 78TH ST W N 200 0 200 Feet --- Zoning I (Industrial) C-2 (general commercial) ,. C-3 (high density commercial) 0 R (single family residential) MR-2 (medium density multiple) October 7, 1997 CITY OF :RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2~0 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of a first reading of a transitory ordinance to authorize the sale of City- owned property at 300 West 78th Street (former Lampert Lumber Site) for redevelopment. Background: The City purchased the former Lampert Lumber site at 300 West 78th Street in order to gain site control for future redevelopment. Some minor, blighted structures on the site at that time were demolished. The existing structures have been used to accommodate certain City operations, namely the engineering services and street maintenance divisions. Also, a small portion of the site along .the northern property line was taken for the 77th Street expansion project. Within the past few years, the HRA explored the possibility of redeveloping the site into a joint facility for the VFW and American Legion. This project did not materialize. Strong market interest for the site is present. At this time, staff is proposing that a transitory ordinance for the sale of this land be processed in order to be prepared as opportunities present themselves.. At this writing, staff has received one offer from a hotel developer.. Based on various meetings with other real estate brokers, staff . anticipates one or two competing offers to be presented in the near future. The attached schedule indicates that the earliest date a land sale could take place is January 3, 1998. However, a purchaser would likely undertake a "due diligence" which could include appraisal work, title update and environmental investigation, for example. The "due diligence" would be included as terms of a purchase agreement. A closing would be scheduled once the process was successfully concluded. Recommended Motion: Conduct first reading of a .transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the City-owned property described in the attached ordinance and set a public hearing and second reading of the transitory ordinance for November 24, 1997. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City purchased the former Lampert Lumber site for future redevelopment purposes. 2. Strong market interest exists for redevelopment. 3. Undertaking a transitory ordinance for a land sale at this time would expedite the redevelopment process. a-~ Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose not to iridertake a transitory ordinance for the land sale at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: The first reading of the transitory ordinance at this time will expedite any redevelopment opportunities that may present themselves. A public hearing and second reading of the transitory ordinance is proposed to be held on November 24, 1997. Publication of the transitory ordinance would occur shortly thereafter and would be effective 30 days after publication. A sale transaction could not occur until after the effective date. Respectf Ily submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • /~ --~ Time acid Events Schedule Transitory Ordinance Land Sale Former Lampert Lumber Site at 300 West 78th Street 10/27/97 Council meeting and 1st reading of land sale transitory ordinance 11/12/97 Publication of Legal Notice of Public Hearing 11/24/97 Council meeting, public hearing and 2nd reading of land sale transitory ordinance 12/03/97 Publication of land sale transitory ordinance 01/02/98 Effective date for transitory ordinance • is -3 • Bill No. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by the City as herein provided: The West 239.00 feet of the East 330.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, except part taken for Interstate Highway Number 494 and 77th Street, according to the United States Government Survey, thereof,. Hennepin County, Minnesota. ~, Section 2: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all actions as required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all- documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this day of , 1997 by the Richfield City Council Martin L. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 269 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 526, increasing the principal building height to 100 feet in the C-2 (general commercial) zoning district for properties located east of I-35W, west of Trunk Highway 77 and south of 77th Street. Background: City staff are recommending that the allowable height in the C-2 district be increased to 100 feet for properties located along I-494 (east of 1-35W, west of Trunk Highway 77, south of 77th Street and north of 78th Street). The Zoning Ordinance currently limits building height in the C-2 (general commercial) district to 40 feet. Several buildings along 1-494 have been constructed at heights over 40 feet (Minnesota School of Business, Hampton Inn, Meridian Crossings, Richfield Towers), and those developers have had to obtain a variance or rezone the property to a planned district. The Comprehensive Plan encourages regional commercial and office development along I-494; however, this type of development typically exceeds 40-feet in height. The reconstruction of 77th Street creates a separation between the commercial area along I-494 and the residential areas. This separation minimizes any negative impact of increased commercial building height on the residential neighborhood. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing a principal building height of 100 feet in the C-2 district for properties located east of I-35W, west of Trunk Highway 77 and south of 77th Street; and set a public hearing and second reading for November 24, 1997. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed 100 foot height limit (9-10 stories) is comparable to the height of existing buildings along the freeway corridor. 2. The Comprehensive Plan encourages higher density development along 1-494 which makes it appropriate to allow taller buildings in this area. 3. 77th Street provides a separation between the commercial area along 1-494 and the residential area to the north. 4. Buildings taller than 40 feet have been approved along the corridor in the .past. It is inappropriate, however, to utilize the variance process to authorize taller heights. Jt is also cumbersome to require that a building be developed as a planned unit development in order to build at a taller height. It-I 5. Historically,-height limits were .placed on buildings because a city's fire department only had equipment to service a limited height. Today's built-in fire protection systems make height limitations for this reason unnecessary. 6. On October 14, 1997 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. Alternative Recommendation: Deny this amendment at first reading. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is set for October 27, 1997. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be scheduled on November 24, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Jame ' .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • //-~ Bill No. 1997- Amendment to the City Code of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield Does Ordain: A. Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is amended to read as follows: I. Subsection 526.31, subd. 7 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 7. Story limitations. Principal buildings shall not exceed three stories in height, and accessory buildings shall not exceed one story in height, except as provided in subd. 8. II. Subsection 526.31, subd. 8 is hereby added to read as follows: Subd. 8. Maximum height exception: principal buildings. The maximum height of principal buildings may be increased to 135 feet in the case of property located within .the 1-494 Corridor defined as that area east of Penn Avenue west of Trunk Highway 77, south of 77th Street and north of 78th Street.. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this. day of 1997. Martin J: Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk !~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 268 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution providing for the sale of $750,000 Taxable General Obligation improvement bonds, Series 1997. Background: The City Council has just considered the adoption of the resolution approving the adequacy of a Special Assessment petition for certain assessable improvements for the TOLD Development/Meridian Crossings redevelopment project. Total cost of the improvements, including the cost of issuing General Obligation improvement bonds, would be approximately $750,000. The City does not have adequate funds on hand to pay for the cost of the requested improvements.. Instead, it is suggested that the City issue $750,000 Taxable General Obligation-.Improvement Bonds.to cover the cost of these improvements...TOLD Development, in turn, would be responsible for the annual special assessment payments tothe City, which would be necessary to cover the-annual debt service on the bonds. City staff suggests that the City retain the services of Ehlers and Associates, Inc. to assist the City in the sale of-the bonds. The fees-paid to Ehlers would come from the proceeds of the bond sale that would ultimately be paid by TOLD Development, the petitioner. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution providing for the sale of $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement bonds, Series 1997. Basis. of Recommendation: 1. The City does not have funds on hand necessary to pay-for the costs of providing the assessable improvements petitioned for. 2. Ehlers and Associates, the City's independent financial advisor, has provided a financial review of this matter and has determined that a $750,000 taxable G.O. Improvement bond issue would be an appropriate source of funding. 3. The City may proceed to secure such financing by following procedures of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). 4. The resolution authorizes the City to proceed with the bond sale and. to engage Ehlers and Associates to assist the City with the sale. Ce-- J Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to authorize the bond sale. However, that would leave the special assessment petition without a funding source. 2. If the City Council decided not to accept a special assessment petition by TOLD Development, then there would be no purpose for the proposed bond sale. Discussion/Decision Mode: City staff is recommending action on this item on October 27 to provide adequate time for the City to proceed with the bond sale. This would allow appropriate timing between the installation of the assessable improvements and the completion of the Meridian Crossings redevelopment project. Respectfu submitted, Ja D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds • RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE ~(~ OF $750,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1997 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1997 (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of various improvements in .the City; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc. in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance. with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting: Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Presale. Report attached hereto for he purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding-,the sale of the Bonds. < The: City Clerk, or designee, shall open proposals:at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal to be included~in the Official Statement.. 3. Presale Report. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are set forth in the "Presale Report" attached hereto and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection .with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and- participate in the preparation. of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following Council Members voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1997. . ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk e 4 • BOND SALE REPORT $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1997 City of Richfield, Minnesota • _J October 13, 1997 ~~ Ehlers and Associates, Inc. .OVERVIEW This report describes the proposed plan for the City of Richfield to issue $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement .Bonds, Series 1997. This report has been prepared by Ehlers and Associates, in consultation with City Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with: • Purpose and components of bond issue. • Structure. • Other considerations in issuing bonds. • Market conditions. • Issuing process. PURPOSE The $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1997 are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, for the purpose of financing improvements for Told Development's Meridian Crossing project. The -list of specific projects is included in the list of Sources and Uses attached as Exhibit 1.00. Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of $750,000. STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT The Bonds are general obligations of the City of Richfield and as such are secured by a pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to use the special assessments levied in the years 1997 through 2012 at 101 % of the annual debt service payment against the benefitting property owner for payment of 100% of this bond issue. Page 1 The Bonds would be sold November 10, 1997 and be dated December 1, 1997. The first interest payment on the Bonds will be August 1, 1998, and semiannually thereafter on February 1 and August 1. Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 1999 through 2013. The projected debt service and flow of funds can be found in Exhibit 2.00. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Following is a summary of key factors in the finance plan: • We recommend the following call feature: Bonds maturing February 1, 2006 and thereafter will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2005. • Bidders on this issue may submit a bid which contains a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption. If the purchaser of the Bonds designates certain of the maturities as Term Bonds, subject to a mandatory call, the City will be responsible for providing a Notice of Call to holders of the Bonds at least 45 days prior to the call date. The paying agent can provide the proper call notices to owners of the Bonds. Allowing potential purchasers the term bond option results in increased bidder interest in this issue and possible lower interest rates. • These Bonds are taxable and, therefore, not exempt from State or Federal income taxes. The issuance of the Bonds will not affect the City's annual limit on bank qualified bonds or bonds eligible for the smaller issuer exemption from arbitrage rebate. • The Bonds will be global book entry with a bank designated as the paying agent. As "paperless" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond printing and annual registrar charges. The Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi-annually and on an annual basis for the principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services provided by the bank. • The City currently uses Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. in Minneapolis, Minnesota as Paying Agent for their outstanding book-entry-only Bonds. • Moody's Investors Service will be asked to rate this issue. The City currently has an "A" rating on its outstanding general obligation bonds. Page 2 • Prior to closing on the Bonds the City Council must take action to order the . improvement and must have a signed petition from the specially benefited property owner petitioning the City for the improvements, waiving the public hearing for the improvements, and agreeing to be assessed for 100% of the improvements. • New regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the .continuing disclosure of municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more. Because the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and any other issues required to be integrated with the Bonds is less than $1,000,000, the City is exempt the from Continuing Disclosure requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is not required to enter into any undertaking to provide continuing disclosure of any kind with respect to the Bonds. REFUNDING OPPORTUNITIES • We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that it is not feasible to refund any of the City's outstanding issues at this time. MARKET CONDITIONS The graph on the following page shows the trends in the Bond Buyer's 20-Year G.O. Index (BBI) since 1990. While interest rates have risen from historic lows in 1993, current rates still mirror conditions found several years ago. Page 3 Bond Buyer's 20-Year G.O. Index 8.00% 7.50% 7.00% 6.50% 6.00% 5.50% 5.00% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Ehlers and Associates ISSUING PROCESS Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process. October 27, 1997 Week of October 2 7, 1997 Week of October 27, 1997 Week of November 3, 1997 - November 10, 1997 Week of December 1, 1997 • ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale of the Bonds Submit draft Official Statement and rating materials to Moody's Investors Service for credit rating Distribute Official Statement Receive credit rating Bond sale Bond closing Continuing Disclosure: Certain of the City's outstanding debt issues are required to submit updated operating and financial information by December 31 annually. According to the continuing disclosure contract between Ehlers and the City, we will complete this requirement for the City by the December 31, 1997 deadline at no charge. Page 5 EXHIBIT 1.00 For Discussion Only City of Richfield, MN Sources & Uses for the Meridian Crossing Project ~~ 750,000 Par Amount of Bonds 0 Interest Earned Total Sources $750,000 ses Mitigation of Existing Wetland 216,916 Engineering 33,500 11 769 Removal of buried concrete on site , 12 085 Soils correction under Phase II building , 367 260 Traffic light installation and reconstructed median , WSB Associates, Inc. 28,500 25,000 Field Engineering 000 8 Change Order -Soils Correction , 2,500 City Staff Time 715 4 Minnesata Pollution Control Agency , 9,700 ATC (Soils Engineering) Differential Costs to relocate utilities avoiding right of way on CSM property Imperial Developers 37,205 16,122 Shafer Construction 2,800 Barr Engineering Barr Engineering re: Sanitary Sewer / 35W 2,000 Relocation of Existing Utilities 22'824 3'908 Holleran-Duitsman Architects 15,932 Relocation of US West cable 1,600 Curb Masters, Inc. Total Project Costs 715'443 19,000 Costs of Issuance 11,L50 Discount 4,307 Rounding Amount $750,000 Total Uses Prepared by Ehlers and Associates 10/08/9 City of Richfield, MN General Obligation Taxable Improvement Bonds of 1997 E7~IIBIT 2.00 $750,000 For Discussion Only Total Total 101 12ate i I Rate Interest P& I n al Annual 12/01/97 08/01 /98 35,105.00 35,105.00 02/01/99 20,000 6.20 26,328.75 46,328.75 81,433.75 82,248.09 08/01/99 25,708.75 25,708.75 02/01/2000 35,000 6.30 25,708.75 60,708.75 86,417.50 87,281.68 08/01/2000 24,606.25 24,606.25 02/01/2001 35,000 6.40 24,606.25 59,606.25 84,212.50 85,054.63 08/01/2001 23,486.25 23,486.25 02/01/2002 35,000 6.50 23,486.25 58,486.25. 81,972.50 82,792.23 08/01/2002 22,348.75 22,348.75 02/01/2003 40,000 6.60 22,348.75 62,348.75. 84,697.50 85,544.48 .08/01/2003 21,028.75 21,028.75 02/01/2004 40,000 6.70 21,028.75. 61,028.75 82,057.50 82,878.08 08/01/2004 19,688.75 19,688.75 02/01/2005 45,000 6.80 19,688.75 64,688.75 84,377.50 85,221.28 08/01 /2005 18,158.75 18,158.75 02/01 /2006 50,000 6.90 18,158.75 68,158.75 86,317.50 87,180.68 08/01/2006 16,433.75 16,433.75 02/01/2007 50,000 7A0 16,433.75 66,433.75 82,867.50 83,696.18 08/01!2007 :14,683.75 14,683.75 02/01/2008 55,000 7.10 14,683.75 69,683.75 84,367.50 85,211.18 08/01/2008 12,731.25 12,731.25 02/01/2009 60,000 7.20 12,731.25 72,731.25 85,462.50 86,317.13 08/01 /2009 10,571.25 10,571.25 02/01/2010 .65,000 7.30 10,571.25 75,571.25 86,142.50 87,003.93 08/01 /2010 8,198.75 8,198.75 02/01 /2011 65,000 7.40 8;198.75 73,198.75 81,397.50 82,211.48 08/01/2011 5,793.75 5,793.75 02/01/2012 75,000 .7.45 5,793.75 80,793.75 86,587.50 87,453.38 08101/2012. 3,000.00 3,000.00 02/01/2013 80,000 7.50. 3,000.00 83,000.00 86,000.00 86,860.00 $750,000 514,311.25 1,264,31125 1,264,311.25 Notes Dated: 12/01/97 Bond Years: 7,150.00 Interest Start: 08/01/98 Average Llfe: 9.533333333 Discount: 11,250.00 Average Coupon: 7.19316% Net Interest Cost: 7.35051% Fiscal Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Prepared by Ehlers and Associates 10/08/97 Resolution No. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution Providing for the Sale of $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1997 A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $750,000 Taxable General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1997 (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of various improvements in the City; and B: WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; FindinQS. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting• Proposal Openine. The City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Presale Report attached hereto for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds. The City Clerk, or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal to be included in the Official Statement. 3. .Presale Report. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are set forth in the "Presale Report" attached hereto and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following Council Members voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated this day of (SEAL) 1997. City Clerk Page 6 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 267 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution approving the adequacy of special assessment petition and waiver agreement for TOLD Development Company and ordering certain assessable improvements. Background: Attached to this Council Letter is a resolution declaring the adequacy of a special assessment petition from TOLD Development Company authorizing the installation of certain assessable improvements pertaining to the Meridian Crossings redevelopment project. The resolution authorizes the City to proceed with the improvements and assess the owner for the full cost of those improvements in ten annual installments beginning in 1997 and bearing an interest rate of 8.5%. The resolution anticipates that the City will secure financing. for the improvements through a general obligation bond issue. A number of improvements are needed in conjunction with the Meridian Crossings redevelopment project,. including the mitigation of existing wetlands, certain engineering services, traffic light installation and reconstruction of the street median, relocation of utilities and architectural costs. The developer is requesting that financing be provided. for these improvements through the special assessment process. In a special assessment petition process such as this, the City would obtain financing through Minnesota Statutes,- Chapter 429, special assessment procedures. This petition process is the same as has been used by the City a number of times to provide fire suppression equipment and installation to assist private entities in bringing their facilities up to code. Financing in these cases may be provided either through the sale of general obligation improvement bonds or with temporary funding through the Public Improvement Revolving fund. In either event, the Petitioner repays these costs through an annual special assessment charge. The Petition and Waiver Agreement under consideration here contemplates the use of general obligation bonds to provide for the .project financing. The resolution before the City Council provides for accepting the Petition and Waiver Agreement and establishing a course for financing the improvements. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution declaring adequacy of petition and labor agreement for local improvement. Basis of .Recommendation: 1. Minnesota. Statutes 429.031 provide the legal basis for a petition for certain assessable improvements. 4~1 2. The procedure has been reviewed by the City Attorney and found to conform with Minnesota Statutes 429.031: 3. The TOLD Company has petitioned the City assistance providing the aforementioned improvements to assist in the completion of the redevelopment contract. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could~decide not to approve the petition. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item should take place on October 27 so that staff may proceed with implementing this process as soon as possible. The resolution, once adopted, will be published to notify the public and initiate a 30-day period to allow for comment on this action. A separate item on the October 27 agenda will provide for consideration of the resolution providing for the sale of $750,000 taxable general obligation improvement bonds, Series 1997, to pay for the improvements. Re tfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds RESOLUTION. NO. ~_-~ • RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City .Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. This Council has received a petition from all of the owners of certain property (Property) legally described as Lots 2 and 3, Block 3,, Cloverleaf Addition in the City requesting the installation of certain assessable improvements which are required in furtherance of the redevelopment project envisioned for the Property. 2. Assessable improvements to be completed in conjunction with the redevelopment project including wetland mitigation, traffic tight and intersection improvements, relocation of utilities, engineering, services and related costs as fully described in the attached document entitled "Sources and Uses for the Meridian Crossing Project" and shall be filed with the City Clerk. The estimated cost of said assessable improvements is $750,000. 3. The City is authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, Subd. 3 to construct and install the improvements and to assess the cost as .requested. 4. The Council finds and determines that the petition was signed by all owners of the • Property names as the site of the installation of the improvements. 5. The installation of the improvements is designated Improvement Project No. and is ordered as proposed. 6. The Mayor and the City Manager were authorized and have executed the Petition and Waiver Agreement on behalf of the City: 7. The City may, at some future date and in the manner prescribed by law, issue and sell general obligation bonds or other obligations to finance. in whole or in part the City's cost of construction of the improvements described herein. 8. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish this resolution as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN this 27th day of Qctober, 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST:. Thomas.P. Ferber, City Clerk EXIiIBIT 1.00 For Discussion Only City of Richfield, MN Sources & Uses for the Meridian Crossing Project ur s Par Amount of Bonds 750,000 Interest Eamed ~ 0 Total Sources $750,000 ses Mitigation of Existing Wetland 216,916 Engineering 33,500 Removal of buried concrete on site 11,769 Soils correction under Phase II building 12,085 Traffic light installation and reconstructed median 260,367 WSB Associates, Ina 28,500 Field Engineering 25,000 _ Change Order -Soils Correction 8,000 City Staff Time 2,500 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 4,715 ATC (Soils Engineering) 9,700 • Differential Costs to relocate utilities avoiding right of way on CSM property Imperial Developers 37,205 Shafer Construction 16°122 Barr Engineering. 2,800 Barr Engineering re: Sanitary Sewer / 35W 2,000 Relocation of Existing Utilities 22,824 Holleran-Duitsman Architects 3,908 Relocation of US West cable 15,932 Curb Masters, Inc. 1,600 Total Project Costs 715,443 Costs of Issuance 19,000 Discount 11,L50 Rounding Amount 4;307 Total Uses $750,000 Prepared by Ehlers and Associates 10/08/97 8 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 266 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment prohibiting the deposit of snow from private property to a boulevard not immediately adjacent to such private property. Background: The winter of `96-'97 created snow storage problems for City residents, as well as for maintenance crews. Staff received many complaints about private snow removal companies moving snow onto boulevards from private driveways, creating sight hazards, and extra work for the resident to clean up in the spring.. The current ordinance does not prohibit shoveling or plowing snow and ice from private property onto a neighbors' boulevard. It does prohibit plowing or shoveling snow and ice onto streets, sidewalks, alleys or public parking lots. Recommended Motion: Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of the ordinance amending Subsection 830.41 of the Richfield City Code. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Forecasters are predicting another 80"+ of snow for the upcoming winter season. The proposed amendment would give City staff a better system to discourage snow storage by private citizens on other's boulevards. 2. The present ordinance does not cover this issue, and therefore cannot be enforced. Alternative Recommendation: Leave the current ordinance as is. In the event of deep snow accumulations, staff would continue with the current practice. Discussion/Decision Mode: Conduct a public hearing and approve the second reading of an ordinance amending Subsection 830.41, providing clearer definition of acceptable snow or ice removal from private property. Respectfully submitted, • Ja a b. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak FI-l ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SNOW AND ICE; AMENDING SUBSECTION 830.41 OF THE. RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 830.41 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 830.41 Snow and ice. No owner or person in control of private properly may shovel, plow or cast or permit to be shoveled, plowed or cast snow or ice from such private properly onto a public street, alley, sidewalk, boulevard or public parking lot. This subsection does not prohibit an owner or person from removing snow or ice from a private driveway or walkway and depositina the snow or ice on the portion of the boulevard immediately adjacent to such private property. Adopted this 27th day of October, 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 26s Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an interim ordinance which authorizes a study to be conducted and a moratorium to be imposed on the development of property along Interstate 494 from Pleasant Avenue to Cedar Avenue. Background: - On August 26, 1997 the City Council adopted the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for the future development of the City. Following adoption of the Plan, the City had planned to review its Zoning Ordinance to determine that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by state statute. Several properties along I-494 are currently zoned industrial, meaning that many properties along the freeway could be developed in a manner inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A study of all zoning along the freeway from Pleasant Avenue to Cedar Avenue should be undertaken to determine whether or not the zoning currently in place is such that it promotes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The moratorium would prevent most new building activities in the subject area. It would not prevent routine maintenance activity nor would it prevent the sale of property. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and second reading of an interim ordinance authorizing a study on zoning along I-494 and imposing a moratorium on development of property between 77th Street and I-494 and from Pleasant Avenue to Cedar Avenue until September 5, 1998. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for the City to guide future land use decisions. When redevelopment occurs, it should be consistent with the goals and objectives found in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the tools the City uses to help accomplish the .goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the ordinance to make sure that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate at this time. 3. Conducting a study and providing a 12 month moratorium while the study is conducted is a reasonable response. • ~~~ 4. The City's zoning and Zoning Ordinance do not adequately address the development of property along I-494 in a manner consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The moratorium period will extend from September 22, 1997 (when the resolution was passed) to September 5, 1998 (when the ordinance expires) and will be used to complete the following tasks: • Gather Data 3 months • Review and Analyze Information. 2 months • Test Potential Ordinance Changes/Solicit Input 2 months • Draft Ordinance Amendment 2 months • City Council Adoption of Ordinance 2 1/2 months The Planning Commission will provide the City Council with a regular update on its progress to ensure that the study is proceeding in a timely manner. 6. A letter was sent to all property owners informing them of the moratorium and the public hearing. 7. A two-step process has been developed to responsibly control development along I-494 during the study period: • a resolution covers the period of September 22, 1997 to December 5, 1997; and • an ordinance covers the period from December 5, 1997 to September 5, 1998. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may decide to authorize a moratorium for a shorter period of time. 2. The City Council may decide not to authorize a study and moratorium. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled on October 27, 1997. An ordinance becomes effective December 5, 1997 if approved on October 27, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Jam .Prosser City ~ anager JDP:cak a. ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED AND RESTRICTING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City of Richfield regulates land use activities throughout its official controls which include the City's Comprehensive Plan,:zoning regulations and subdivision regulations. 1.02. The City has recently modified its Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The modifications include a recognition of the need to reconsider the zoning pattern for properties lying between Pleasant Avenue on the West, Cedar Avenue on the East, 77th Street on the North and I-494 on the South ("Study Area"). 1.03. There exist a number of significant planning and land use issues pertaining to the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, including, without limitation, whether existing or new zoning classifications should be established in the Study Area, what uses should be permitted and what should be conditional, and the standards for each, and whether any design or performance standards should be applicable to development within the Study Area. 1.04. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355 Subd. 4 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct studies to determine if there is a need to amend the City's official controls relating to the Study Area described. in Section 1.02. above, and if so, to adopt the appropriate amendments. 2.02. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens regarding such matters. Section 3. Planning and Zoning Study; Moratorium. 3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City Staff to determine whether .the City's official controls need to be modified as they relate to the Study Area described in Section 1.02. above. • ~-3 3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's official controls, it shall be unlawful, except as provided herein, for any person to establish, expand, or rebuild any Property located within the Study Area; and except as providedherein, no building permit may be issued, nor may any rezonings, plattings or replattings or land divisions or combinations be granted by the City within the Study Area. 3.03. Upon application to the City Council, and the showing of an undue hardship, the City Council may grant such waivers to the provisions of this ordinance, and upon such conditions as the City Council shall, in its sole judgment, deem appropriate. 3.04. The Moratorium shall not be applicable to the issuance of building permits which: a. are necessary to repair existing structure, or b. .involve the remodeling or improvement of existing structures which do not result in a change of use and which .involve construction work of not more than $25,000.00 Section 5. Enforcement. The City may enforce any provisions of this ordinance by mandamus, injunction • or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 6. Term. Unless earlier terminated by action of the city Council this ordinance shall be effective for nine months from its effective date, and may be further extended for such additional periods asthe City Council may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. Section 7. Resolution Repealed. Resolution No. 8523 is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of October, 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 264 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow operation of a 90-seat restaurant at 6519 Nicollet Avenue. Background: The applicant is proposing to open a 90-seat Chinese restaurant in the Richfield Shoppes. The restaurant would be a buffet style and would not serve alcohol. Residents living to the east of the shopping center have reported that restaurants located in the shopping center in the past have generated odors detrimental to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed restaurant with the stipulation that the applicant work with the Health Department to develop a plan to address odors. Last week, the Health Inspector met with the applicant and the property owner and suggested a variety of methods that can be used to minimize odors. The property owner is in the process of evaluating these options. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit to allow operation of a 90-seat restaurant with the following stipulations: 1. That plans to install a trash enclosure be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director and Health Department. 2. That the applicant and property owner work with the Health Department and Community Development Department to develop a plan, acceptable to both parties, to address the odors that would be generated by the restaurant and that the plan be shared with the neighborhood. 3. That the conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There is adequate parking for the proposed restaurant use. The shopping center has a parking ratio of 4.8 parking stalls for every 1,000 square feet of space. 2. The shopping center has been occupied by restaurant uses in the past. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Regional Commercial/Office. • ~~l 4. The neighborhood has experienced the effect of odors from restaurants located in the shopping center in the past: ~t is appropriate to develop a plan to address the issue of odors. 5. Although it is not possible to eliminate restaurant odors, it is possible to reduce their effect on nearby residential properly by installing special technology and routing ductwork away from the residential neighborhoods. 6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. 7. On October 14, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the request with a finding. that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. DiscussionlDecision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled. for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Ja es D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • .RESOLUTION NO. / _~ RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6519 Nicollet Avenue WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a conditional use permit for a Class II restaurant on land generally located at 6519 Nicollet Avenue South, legally described in Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use. permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: A conditional use permit is issued for a Class II restaurant as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions before a building permit will be .issued: • That plans to install a trash enclosure be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director and Health Department. • That the applicant and property owner work with the Health Department. and Community Development Department to develop a plan, acceptable to both parties, to address the odors that would be generated by the restaurant and that the plan be shared with the neighborhood. • That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed,-and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~3 • EXHIBIT A RICHFIELD SHOPPES Legal Description TSI File No. C12983-A B Hennepin County, Minnesota SCHEDULE A-4-A PARCEL A: Sub Parcel 1: That part of Lots 3 and 131ying Southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 13 at a point 0.07 feet North of the Southeast comer of said. Lot 13 and running thence Southwesterly in a straight line to the Southwest comer of said Lot 3, all of Lots 2 and 14 except the South 21.93 feet thereof and all of Lots 1 and 15, Block 9 in "Town's Edge" Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record iri the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. Sub Parcel 2: The North 49 feet of Lots 7, 8 and 9. The South 10.95 feet and the North 5.05 feet of Lots 6 and 10, and All of Lots 5 and 11, Block 9 in "Town's Edge" Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. Sub Parcel 3: The South 21.93 feet of Lots 2 and 14; Lots 3 and 13 except that part of said Lots lying Southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 13 at a point 0.07 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof ,and running thence Southwesterly in a straight line to the Southwest comer of said Lot 3, Block 9 in 'Town's Edge" Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. Sub Parcel 4: Lots 6 and 10 except the South 10.95 feet and except the North 5.05 feet of each lot, Block 9, in 'Town's Edge" Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. PARCEL B: Lots 10, 11 and 12, Goodspeed's First Plat, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County. PARCEL C: The South 35 feet front and rear of Lots 4 and 12, Block 9, "Town's Edge" Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. Note: Parcel designations are for convenience of reference only and do not constitute an integral part of the legal description. • • • ~~µ Cn Q~ r.r 0 Z O C N N O 65th Street East ea a X01 .3113 sf ~Simek's Meats & Seafood ~ I N---- _-- - ~ 6113 sf ~ I - ~3-OS - I paper Warehouse ' I~ ~ ~ '- i507 _ 2239 sf - ~ H & R Bl ock 1509 1937 sf Cyber Palace - i511 2600 sf Vision World 7304 sf - ss1 Richfield Flowers - 4796 sf - 517 Futon Gal 1 ery 21 sf 3 6519 ~_ _~ 6519 i 3000 sf ~ Crosstown Cy le 1 6521 a2nn sf Tanl no ~ -..-.~ , i 6523 __.___-_--_-- 1 8I 86525 -1465 sf Check Express_____ 6527 775-sf ~ Cary .,.s m_^a e~3 g~ 6 29 _1120 sf---Lit- a Caesar's -_`~ - ~ C 10,500 sf ~ r, Adventures In Video If ------ ~----•-r-----r--,..r ,,,, N ~ w ro c a w L N N N 1 N S W~ 1 N d ~ N !A d d ~ N ep l/7 ~ ^ U ~ 01 ~ 1 1 O ~I -~-, © ~! ~I I I I ~~ l~" o D W 4i tai ..! ' ICI t l l l l I~ c ~-1 O c 66th Street East s .r 0 to `^ W i.~. i.rG. O ~ s ~ > ~ to ~~ 4 ~,~ L V O ~~ W a ~~ ...+ ~ L ~~ V ~ ~~ 5E CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 263 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Request by Church of St. Richard's for an on-sale 3.2 percent malt .liquor license, Itinerant Place of Amusement license and an Itinerant Food license with fees waived for the 1997 Fall Festival to be held November 8 and 9, 1997. Background: On October 14, 1997, St. Richard's Church submitted a request for a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor, an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food license for November 8 and 9, 1997. They are requesting that any fee be waived. Recommended Motion: Approve the licenses, fees waived, for November 8 and 9, 1997 for St. Richard's 1997 Fall Festival. . Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. 2. The applicant will supply liquor liability insurance coverage as soon as possible. 3. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the St. Richard's Fall Festival. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis fora denial. In addition, the Council has previously. granted. these licenses in conjunction with the St. Richard's Fall Festival Discussion/Decision Mode: Approve the request by St. Richard's Church for an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, itinerant place of amusement license and an itinerant food license with a fee waiver for the 1997 Fall Festival to be held November 8 and 9, 1997. submitted, City . Prosser JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 262 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Setting date of public hearing for a new on-sale liquor and Sunday license for GR of Minn., Inc., dba The Ground Round, 1500 East 78t" Street. Background: GR of Minn., Inc., dba The Ground Round, has had a change in one of their director positions. As a result of this change, the ordinance requires that they must apply for a license as if they are a new licensee. This means that before a public hearing can take place, it is necessary to set a date for the public hearing. Recommended Motion: Set the date of a public hearing for a new on-sale liquor and Sunday license for GR of Minn., Inc., dba The Ground Round, 1500 .East 78t" Street, for November 10, 1997. Basis of Recommendation: A public hearing must be scheduled and- held before a new license may be considered. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action to set the date of a public hearing for a new on-sale and Sunday liquor license for GR of Minn., tnc., dba the Ground Round, 1500 East 78t" Street, is presented at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jams .Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • ~C CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA Council Letter No, 261 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Resolution for City of Richfield to act as the Local Government Unit (LGU) related to wetland conservation. Background: The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 calls for a Local Government Unit (LGU) to accept responsibility for wetlands. Each municipality is to have a LGU, whether it be the municipality itself or another agency such as a watershed district which has been delegated the responsibility. The City of Richfield has been performing as the LGU for wetlands and expects to continue that role. It is desirable to confirm this role in an official manner. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution designating the City of Richfield as the Local Government Unit for wetlands in the municipality. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield has been and expects. to continue acting as the Local Government Unit for wetlands in the municipality. 2. It is desirable to confirm the City's Local Government Unit role. Alternative Recommendation: Council could chose to delegate LGU responsibility elsewhere but there does not appear to be a reason to do so. Discussion/Decision Mode: As this is a recordkeeping or confirmation item, action is requested at the October 27, 1997 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser' City Manager JDP:cak • 5~-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT FOR WETLAND CONSERVATION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City of Richfield has been and expects to continue acting as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for wetlands in this municipality. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th. day of October, 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor LJ ATTEST: Thomas P. ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 260. Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing continued participation in the Livable Communities Act programs which are administered by the Metropolitan Council. Background: The Livable Communities Program (also known as "The Local Housing Incentive Account Program") is a 15-year strategy for 90 communities in the region to develop a more diverse housing stock. The-state legislature requires communities to annually renew their resolution to participate through the Metropolitan Council administered program. The City has. done so the last two. years. Participation keeps Richfield competitive in securing state and regionally distributed funds as made available. The goals of a more diverse housing stock for Richfield remain unchanged: • More market rate new construction and remodeled homes which are being provided through our. Richfield Rediscovered program. • Development of townhomes and other life cycle and replacement housing choices; redevelopment at Richfield Lake, Lyndale South and the City Garage are opportunity areas. • A greater variety of apartment choices: a $580,000 Livable Communities funding request from Richfield for an apartment remodeling program is presently being evaluated by the Metropolitan Council • Affordable housing opportunities; the HRA's first-time buyer and vo-tech projects are continuing. Given the loss of housing units in recent years, the addition of 500 units in the next five years is an appropriate goal. The goals statement, as originally approved in 1996, is attached. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution electing Richfield to continue participating in 1998 in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Program participation and established goals for Richfield remain consistent with community goals. The Metropolitan Council supports the goals. 2. Participation keeps Richfield competitive in securing state and regional community development resources. • 5g-1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. Withdraw from participation. 2. Modify the goals. r Discussion/Decision Mode: The Metropolitan Council must be informed of Richfield's plans to participate prior to November 15, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Jam .Prosser City anager JDP:cak • ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the Metropolitan Area defined by Minnesota Statues Section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and. Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives . Account Program under the Minnesota Statues Section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program-must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 1998, a metropolitan area municipality that did not participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1997, can participate under Minnesota Statues Section 473.254 only if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1997; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. • ~/~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield hereby elects . to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1998. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1997 . Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ';SX~-~' • Housing Goals Agreement Metropolitan Livable Communities Act PRINCIPLES The City ofltichfield supports: O A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. © The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. ® A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. ®. Acommunity ofwell-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. OO Housing development that respects the natural environment ofthe community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. ® The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City ofRichfield agrees to ^ Use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable • and life-cycle housing goals for the specified periods. ^ Make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. ^ These goals will be reviewed by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in 2001 and 2006. CITY IlVDEX BENCHMARK RICHFIELD GOAL FOR RICHFIELD (1996 to 2010) ~ ~ 99F rr, 2nn 11 • Affordability Ownership 97% 64-77% 92% Rental 64% 32-45% 59% Life-Cycle Type(Non-single family detached) 36% 38-41 % 36-41 Owner/RenterMix 65/35% 64-70 / 30-35% 65-70 / 30-35% Density Single-Family Detached 3.6/acre 2.3-2.9/acre 2.9-3.6/acre Multifamily 21/acre 11-15/acre 15-21/acre CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 259 • Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of the South Hennepin Regional Planning. Agency's Joint Powers Agreements for: 1) Research, planning and coordination; and 2) The Family Services Collaborative. Background: The South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency Board (Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie and Richfield) and the Interim South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative Board (four South Hennepin pities and school districts) have agreed to create two separate agreements, one to cover the SHeRPA research, planning and coordination of human services and the other to cover Family Services Collaborative functions. While there are two separate agreements, they are linked in two important ways. First, it specifies that the FSC will contract with SHeRPA for administrative and coordinating services; and second, the members of the SHeRPA Board must also be members of the FSC Board. The purposes of these linkages are: 1) to avoid duplication of administrative overhead for a new organization; 2) to ensure the integration of SHeRPA's research, planning and coordinating functions and the Family Services Collaborative where appropriate; .and 3) to streamline the governing boards of SHeRPA and the FSC. The parties of the SHeRPA agreement will be the four South Hennepin cities. The parties to the FSC agreement will be the four South Hennepin cities and school districts, Hennepin County and Community Action For Suburban Hennepin (CASH). Each of these is currently in the process of considering the FSC agreement. Attached is a summary of the key features of the SHeRPA and FSC agreement. Recommended Motion: Approve the SHeRPA and FSC Joint Powers Agreements. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Will assure coordination between SHeRPA and the FSC. 2. Avoid duplication of administration for the FSC. 3. Streamline the governance of both SHeRPA and the FSC. 4. Will continue the cooperative working relationships in South Hennepin to solve problems of mutual concern. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Decide not to participate in one or both of the agreements. This would mean that the City of Richfield would not participate in regional research, planning and coordination and/or be a partner in the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is presented to the City Council for their consideration on October 27, 1997. Respectf submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds ~~ ~ % Key Features of the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency Agreement October, 1997 Parties Cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and Richfield. School districts may join at any time. Purpose • Provide human services research, planning and coordination to member organizations • Provide admiriistrative and coordination services to the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative • Authorize member organizations to enter into a family services collaborative agreement Governing Board City managers of member cities Advisory An advisory body may be established. The present Commission is inactive Commission due to the work of the Family Services Collaborative, but is expected to be reconvened in 1998. Current composition includes 3 representatives from each community, including one city council representative and two representatives from- existing city commissions. The Commission's composition may be reconsidered before it reconvenes. Financial Determined annually by each member. Current contribution is $18,400 per Contributions member. Other Key Family Services Collaborative Agreements ~~ ~ O~- Key Features of the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative Agre+~ment October, 1997 Parties SHeRPA (municipalities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie and Richfield) • School Districts of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie and Richfield • Hennepin County • Community Action For Suburban Hennepin (CASH) Purpose • To create and manage a family services collaborative in South Hennepin Cou • Contract with the. South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHeRPA) to provide administrative and coordination services to the FSC. Governing Board 4 city managers • 4 school district superintendents • Hennepin County representative • CASH representative The FSC Board will hold joint meetings with the SHeRPA Board (4 city managers). Advisory Council • Five representatives from each community (1 city, 1 school, 2 parents/youth/s 1 faith community/informal community support) • One Bloomington Public Health representative - CASH representative • 2 other representatives of MOU providers • Hennepin County representative • Business representative Financial • Minimum annual $500.00 cash or in-kind contribution Contributions Other Key Memorandum of Understanding between the FSC and private providers Agreements participating in the Collaborative. This agreement establishes the commitmen providers make to the Family Support Network regarding their participation i Collaborative's shared intake process and client database, service coordination through Family Support Teams, staffing for CRCs, and developing/enhancing strength-based and early intervention practices. This agreement will also be used to reflect the operational commitments by members of this FSC Agreement (the cities, school districts, Hennepin Count CASH). Countywide • Local Collaborative Time Study/Revenue Enhancement Agreements . • Alliance for Families and Children for countywide inter-collaborative service coordination CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 25s Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of a motion adding a noise wall along I-35W 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. Two public meetings were held on August 7, 1997 and October 21," 1997 for residents living west of I-35W between 68th Street and 73rd Street, the area currently without a noise wall. The meetings were well attended and facilitated by a mediator-from the State of Minnesota Department of Planning. Residents heard a wide range of differing views on the topic. The second meeting benefited. from new noise monitoring (the results are attached as Exhibit 1) and residents were given the opportunity to indicate their preference from among seven options (the results are attached as Table 1.) -New comments~on the design of I-35W received at the October 21 meeting are: • Provide a pedestrian bridge over I-35W so residents can gain access to the Wood Lake Nature Center • Lower the speed limit to 45 MPH to reduce noise • Use a sound absorbent material on the noise wall to reduce the echo effect • Ensure that the noise wall and landscaping are attractive • The existing noise walls. in the area are an eyesore FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Federal noise criterion is L(10) 70dBA. When noise levels are expected to exceed this level, noise mitigation including noise walls should be considered. 2. The State daytime noise standard is L(10) 65 dBA (Exhibit 2.) 3. The Federal noise criterion and State daytime noise standard are exceeded in the first row of homes both today and in the year 2013 forecast. 4. The State daytime noise standard is exceeded in the second row of homes both today and in the year 2013 forecast. 5. The Federal noise criterion and State daytime noise standard are not exceeded in . the third row and beyond either today or in the year 2013 forecast. 6. Based on the noise analysis, a 15 foot high wall would meet the federal noise criterion of L(10) 70 dBA and a 20 foot high wall would meet the state noise standard of L(10) 65 dBA for the forecast year of 2013. 7. Based on the noise analysis, a 12 foot high wall would meet the federal noise criterion of L(10) 70 dBA for today's traffic and noise levels but not for the forecast year of 2013. 8. Homes located adjacent to the freeway and elevated above it will benefit from a noise wall if the wall is at least 8 feet to 12 feet high. See attached letter from Jim Hansen of MnDOT (Exhibit 3.) T-' 9. The results of a noise study performed by MnDOT that estimates the noise reduction for a range of wall heights from 6 feet to 20 feet. It shows that the greatest noise reduction occurs for houses located within the first two rows of houses located closest to the freeway. The third row of homes benefits from the noise wall as well, but to a somewhat lesser extent. 10.At a height of 12 feet a noise wall would block the view at eye level from the first floor of only six houses located between 69th Street and 72nd Street closest to I- 35W. (Their addresses are: 6900; 6906; 6912; 6918; and, 7144 on Lake Shore Drive and 7137 Irving Avenue.) At a height of 20 feet a noise wall would block the view at eye level from the first floor of all houses located on Lake Shore Drive and Humboldt Avenue. A record of public comments is attached to this report. In the areas north of 69th Street and south,of 72nd Street, most residents favored extending the existing noise wall at a height of 20 feet. Disagreement centered on the area between 69th Street and 72nd Street. Results of the October 21 meeting are grouped block by block to show the degree of resident support or opposition to the seven alternative heights proposed for a wall. The results also are grouped by proximity of rows of homes to I-35W. The seven options offered and resident reaction to them are listed in the attached -Table 1. Council will be asked to make a decision on noise walls at the October 27, 1997 City • Council meeting. If the decision is to install either no wall or a wall height that does not reduce noise levels below the State of .Minnesota daytime noise standard [L(10) 65dBA], a request by Council must be made for an exemption to the standard. Residents will have an opportunity to challenge the exemption request at a public hearing conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and a 30-day comment period following the public hearing before the exemption can be granted. Recommended Motion: 1. Request that MnDOT construct a noise wall of 20 feet in height to be built for the entire length of the existing opening between 68th Street and 73rd Street along the west side of I-35W. The wall and landscaping must be designed in an aesthetically pleasing manner. 2. If this motion is approved, request MnDOT to install a noise wall on the east side of -35W. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The public discussion on whether or not to add noise walls failed to establish a consensus on which to base an exemption to the State Daytime Noise Standard. 2. The future noise levels for the first row of homes west of I-35W are expected to exceed the state daytime noise standard of L(10) 65 dBA, and the highest noise wall possible of 20 Feet will produce the greatest reduction in noise. levels now and in the future. T ~Q~ 3. A review of residents' preferences for walls of different heights indicated there was no consensus on any wall height for the area between 69th Street and 72nd- Street. 4. Recent noise monitoring performed by MnDOT showed noise levels drop sharply beyond the first two rows of homes closest to I-35W. 5. Noise walls to provide the most effective noise mitigation require a continuous wall. 6. Construction of the 20 foot noise wall on the west side of I-35W, removes the need to maintain the open view of the nature center. 7. The nature center would benefit from. the noise wall construction. Alternative Recommendation: 1. A 12 foot high noise wall for the segment between 69th Street and 72nd Street could be built that offers a view of Wood Lake for all but a few homes located adjacent to I-35W while offering some noise attenuation (approximately 60% of the 20 foot high wall) to meet the Federal noise criterion of 70 dBA for current noise levels. The State standard of 65dBA is frequently exceeded even for busy city streets and variances are frequently requested. Some people consider the State Noise Standards to be too stringent. This course. of action will require a request for an exemption from the State daytime noise standard. The segments north of 69th Street and south of 72nd Street would still have a noise wall 20 feet high. 2. Five other alternative wall heights, including the No Wall option, were considered. Any one of which can be considered~as an alternative recommendation regarding wall height for the segment between 69th Street and 72nd Street. Each wall height offers. a different combination of views of Wood Lake and protection from highway noise. All of these different wall heights would require a request for an exemption from the State daytime noise standard. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council is being asked to make a decision on noise walls at its October 27, 1997 meeting. The decision is needed so the Minnesota Department of Transportation can complete the project design so I-35W construction can begin in 1999. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:cak Attachments • ffiIBIT 1 ^~ r O w W z W c~ ... ~ LL. O s~ c~ ~~ ~ F~- ~"' 0 U ~. • F S Z m ~ W W N .WSi 2 ~ _~ aaW 4 ~ r Z ~ F- ~ z ~ N w ~ w d J J = ~ ~~ ~ W ~~ Q F- ~ ~ 2 W e W ~ y ai~ow a~?~ Z W ~~~~ ~ ~N W p "~ T ~~~o ~ ~ ~ WFEZ ~ J ~ d }y~z W ~ ;p ~~= ~ ° w}off Gu-~ ~ W Wt~ t~i~G~W Q~ ~ ~ ~ wS~ aw g ~ ~~o~ ~~ g~~' ~ Z N _~ p~~ ~~ d~~W ~m ~ Z Q ~ = W W ~ ~ W W OW~~ H~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~a -~ ~ W W~p ~(~ ~ W ~p~N ~~ F- LIJ o ~ 44~ ~ a o ~ ~ + ~ Z ,a7 rN y tWi. Table 1 ~.-~ Results of I-35W Noisewall Vote Held on October 21, 1997 • • For Segment North of 69th Street Distance from I-35W Total Voters No Wall 6' Wall 8' Wall 10' Wall 12' Wall 15' Wall 20' Wall All Tiers 12 12 For Segment South of 72nd Street Distance from I-35W Total Voters No Wall 6' Wall 8' Wall 10' Wall 1.2' Wall 15' Wall 20' Wall All Tiers 10 1 g For Segment between 7 1st Street and 72nd Street Distance from I-35W Total Voters No Wall 6' Wall 8' Wall 10' Wall 12' Wall 15' Wall 20' Wall 1st Tier 8 4 3 1 2nd Tier 2 2 3rd Tier 1 1 Others 2 2 Totals 13 For Segment between 7 0th Street and 71st Street Distance - from I-35W Total Voters No Wall 6' Wall 8' Wall 10' Wall 12' Wall 15' Wall 20' Wall 1st Tier 10 7 3 2nd Tier 6 1 1 1 3 3rd Tier 5 5 Others 2 2 Totals 23 F or Segment between 69 th Street and 70th Street Distance from I-35W Total Voters No Wall 6' Wall 8' Wall 10' Wall 12' Wall 15' Wall 20' Wall 1st Tier 10 6 2 2 2nd Tier 14 2 12 3rd Tier 0 Others 0 Totals 24 Summary o f Votes for Three Segments from 69th Street to 72nd S treet Distance from I-35W Total Voters No Wall 6' Wall 8' Wall 10' Wall 12' Wall 15' Wall 20' Wall 1st Tier* 28 6 13 0 0 6 0 3 2nd Tier 22 0 3 1 1 0 0 17 3rd Tier 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Others 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Totals 60 6 18 1 1 6 0 28 • • Minnesota Rule 7030.0040 Minnesota Rules Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 7030 7030.0040 NOISE STANDARDS. Subpart 1. Scope. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, .annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land activities by_the noise area classification (NAC) system established in part 7030.0050. `- However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare. Noise standards in subpart 2 apply to all sources. Subp. 2. Noise standards. Noise Area Classification Daytime Nighttime I'50 I'10 L50 I'10 1 60 65 50 55 2 65 70 65 70 3 75 80 75 80 STAT AUTH: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4 HIST: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614 Current as of 05/13/97 E%HIBIT 2 Page 1 of 1 HS Minnesota Rule 7030.0080 Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Rules, Table of Chapters ~~~ Table of contents for Chester 7030 7030.0080 VARIANCE. If, upon written application of the responsible person, the agency finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provisions of any noise rule would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances, the agency may permit a variance upon the conditions and within the time limitations as it may prescribe for the prevention, control, or abatement of - - '- noise pollution in harmony with the intent of the state and any applicable federal laws. STRT AUTH: MS s 116.Q7 subds 2,4 HIST: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614 Current as of 05/13/97 • • pctober 24, 1997 E%HISIT 3 ~f-7 'Thomas Foley Transportation Engineer Public Works Department G700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota SS423-2599 Subject: Effectiveness of Noise walls at different locations J7ear lV1r. Foley: In response to your-request Mn/Dt~T bras looped at four different location- s to show what noise wall heights are effective. This is based on three criteria that the Federally Approved Stamina 2.0 Naisc Model (as modified by MnIDOT) uses to predict noise reduction from a noise barrier. They are: 1) Stack height of heavy commercial vehicles is S feet over centerline of roadway. 2). Receiver height of 5 feet above activity area in yard. 3). Effective height of noise barrier (That height which is over the straight tine of sight from the receiver to stack height of truck). The following addresses had cross-sections drawn and noise barrier drawn: • Address 6918 Lake Share Drive 7014 Lake Shore Drive 7044 Lake Shore Dryve 7128 Lake Shore Drive Effective Wall Height 10 ft. or higher 8 f3. or higher l O lj:. or higher 12 f3. or higher Please refer to cross-sections for exalt height of barrier. C?vcr this height one would start getting noise reduction (SdBA reduction}. For every 2 feet above this one would generally receive a one dBA addition reduction of noise. Obviously this is a simplification of the noise model, but is a goad rule of thumb. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any questions please contact me and I will try to answer your questions. • James W. Hansen Noise Abatement and Air Quality Supervisor cc. R. Stchr M. Christensen O. Schmid A.Jasephson 9-8 • MEMORANDUM DATE: October 24, 1997 TO: File FROM: Thomas Foley Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: I-35W Noise Wall Open House and Meeting.on August 7, 1997 and October 21 Meeting 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 35W/62 Commons area is a very 7138 Knox Avenue poorly designed highway, partl~r 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 a# what socio-economic level we would need to be to receive this consideration. In any case, most of our surrounding [comserv/35w/cm35nois] `f-9 • • 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. 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 thisarea: 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. We 866-2484 suggest a safety wall with trees planted on top, then wait ten years. The speed of traffic causes. noise so lower the speed limit to 45 MPH: 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 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 [comserv/35w/cm35nois] -/D 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 Weprefer 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? 7021 James Avenue I 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 kn ew the noise level when they moved in. Our vote is for no _ wall 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. Ten to twelve homes can see Wood Lake. Trees and bushes are along 70th and 71st. 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. [comserv/35w/cm35nois] 4-I • • 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. 10/21/97 The ropes along 35W helped. We do not want a wall higher than 8 feet. If a safety wall is desired;-then`just°put barriers along the edge of I-35W and don't build any wall:-We are also concerned that a wall on the east side of 35W would increase noise on our side and prevent us from seeing Wood Lake. A wall of 8 feet high on the east side would totally obstruct our view of the lake. 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. 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 [comserv/35w/cm35nois] ~~/~ • • 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. I am against the wall 9/3/97 Phoned to add he would like to see a concrete barrier to protect the frontage road. Letter sent on October 6, 1997 confirming his comments at the October 6 Council Study Session. A noise wall on the east side is unnecessary and harmful. It would benefit very few residents, increase noise for others, and is not recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. - - The reduction in noise by a 20 foot wall from 72 to-~64 L(10) dBA is relatively minor. Experience with the existing wall when installed was that it increased noise (diverted it) to the areas away from the street fronting the freeway. Nearly all the residents whose homes front the freeway do not want a noise wall. See color chart in Mr. Foley's report. Present wall, due to lack of maintenance and accidents, is an eyesore, and does not reflect favorably on Richfield. This wall should be renovated or replaced. A safety wall/concrete barrier is needed along the entire street fronting that portion of the freeway which does not have a wall. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the subject. 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? 10/23/97 Letter was sent to Tom Foley. In our thirty-seven years in this house, we have responded to every inquiry regarding a sound wall in front of us, and we are still of the same desire- no wall preferred. Now we can no longer attend the public meetings for physical reasons. If a safety barrier is necessary, the lowest possible obstacle would [comserv/35w/cm35nois] '~-i3 • • be our choice. The two or three instances when cars have ended up in our front yard, the vehicles have come from the service road, and we called 911. Whatever decision is made is very important to us. It would be good if the Humboldt residents at 72nd Street could have their piece of the wall so they can resist the idea that it would be easier for those in these blocks to move, rather than their tolerating the noise opposite the east-wall. My recollection is that the east side wasn't to have been built either. You are welcome to come and look out our living room window to see our: perspective.. __ ..... .: , 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! Children can't hear (write-in) parents or approaching them. This is a safety issue. 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 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 asemi-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. I do believe this [comserv/35w/cm35nois] ~-/~ • r1 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. lt'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 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 [comserv/35w/cm35nois] -1.~ • • • 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. I 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 favorof seeing a noise reduction wall constructed 1611 W. 72nd from the existing wall at 73rd Street to 69th Street. Our home is %2 869-6692 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 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. I 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 dBA 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. I/we enjoy walking Wood Lake Nature Center paths, but again, the appearance of the freeway and the noise level are unacceptable. realize there are a few homes along the freeway where residents prefer the open view, but there are many, many others whose [comserv/35w/cm35nois] 4 /6 • • 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 dBA 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!! Wants at least 12 feet-higft-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. 1 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 awall -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 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 [comserv/35w/cm35nois] i r ~- r~ 10 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 longerduration 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 & 10/7/97 A noise wall is a waste of taxpayers money. In the 7238 Humboldt winter noise isn't a problem. He has a split level home. A twenty foot Avenue high 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. He is concerned that a noise wall will result in a loss of value to his house. 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 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 I believe it is to the benefit of the majority of Richfield citizens [comserv/35w/cm35nois] • • 11 5~ / R 7124 Knox Avenue that the amount of noise in our neighborhoods is reduced. 866-9315 I 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 McKamey Have there been any studies done on property values that have a 6820 Humboldt wall or do not have a wall? Noise is very distracting. He favors a noise wall. 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? I 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. favor a continuous wall 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 [comserv/35w/cm35nois] • `{-19 12 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. Since hearing the October 21 discussion, I support a 12 foot high wall as acceptable because I'm on the hill and this allows for sight view of Wood Lake, but not sight of highway. Resident 6' x 3" wall wilt 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 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 and wrote to say that he wants a high noise wall in front of his home and for the entire length. of the opening. He doesn't have a view of Wood Lake now. [comserv/35w/cm35nois] • 13 -~ U Laurie Romero and 10/6/97 They want a twenty foot high noise wall. Ms. Romero Glen Mosier believes that residents are concerned with the appearance of the 7038 Irving Avenue wall and landscaping. Citizens should be able to see what kind of landscaping will be done along the wall. She does not want to force residents along frontage road to lose view of Wood Lake. Mrs. L. C. Cain 10/22/97 She called to say the voting at the October 21 meeting 6906 Humboldt Ave. was poorly organized.. Some people may not have been residents, others had two or three members of one home voting and others voted several times. The information on noise was too technical. -She likes things the way they are. She does not want any. wall Resident 10/21/97 Asked that speed limit on 1=35W be reduced to 45 MPH to reduce noise levels in the neighborhood. Resident 10/21/97 Asked that a pedestrian bridge over I-35W be built so residents from the west side of the freeway be able to gain access to Wood Lake Nature Center. Resident 10/21/97 Noise levels are worse along streets perpendicular to the freeway where no houses block 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. 10/6/97 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. I want the State Noise Standards and variance procedure attached to the Council letter. [comserv/35w/cm35nois] CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 257 Agenda October 27, 1997 Issue Statement: Presentation of Certificate of Commendation. Background: The Flood of 1997 affected a great number of people and properties, primarily in the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks area. The City of Richfield sent two of its employees, John Thom and Bill LaLonde, to provide assistance in restoring the water supply. The City was reimbursed for the employees' time. Governor Carlson has issued a Certificate of Commendation to the City of Richfield for the assistance provided. Recommended Motion: Acknowledge the Certificate of Commendation from the. State of Minnesota's Governor's Office. Basis of Recommendation: City of Richfield personnel provided assistance and expertise in restoring the water supply lost during the Flood of 1997. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the October 27, .1997 Council meeting. John Thom, Utilities Superintendent, and Bill LaLonde, Community Services Worker, will. be in attendance. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City anager JDP:CAK