08-01-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 1994
SPECIAL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY HRA:
1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT
FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH CSM CORPORATION
HRA LETTER NO. 56
2. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ISSUANCE OF PHASE I LIMITED
REVENUE NOTE AND PAYMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT PER CONTRACT TO CSM
HRA LETTER NO. 57
3. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
SALE OF RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROPERTY AT 7412 AND 7416
FOURTH AVENUE TO MARLIN GRANT HOMES, INC.
HRA LETTER NO. 58
ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL:
1. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR AMENDED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT /FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH RESPECT TO PHASE I OF CSM
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 212
2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH CSM FOR USE OF
EMERSON AVENUE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 213
3. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
SUBDIVISION WAIVER TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF EMERSON AVENUE
CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH TO NORTHERLY PORTION OF CLOVERLEAF SITE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 214
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
I. 7:00 -7:45 P.M.
II. 7:45 -8:00 P.M.
III. 8:00 -8:30 P.M.
IV. 8:30 -9:00 P.M.
9:00 P.M.
AGENDA
REVIEW OF RESULTS OF 76TH STREET WEST OF
I -35W STUDY
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 23
DISCUSSION OF I -35W AND I -494 TRAFFIC
CORRIDOR STUDIES AND RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 24
DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
KENNEL LICENSING PROCESS CURRENTLY USED BY
CITY
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 25
DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 26
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.
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 26
Agenda August 1, 1994
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background :
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the
following:
♦ New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
As of July 22, there were 145 homes included in the first phase
of the acquisition. W.D. Schock expects that costs for those
homes will be about $19.6 million. The Phase I appropriation was
about $15 million. The cost overruns are due to the excessive
number of hardship applicants approved.
Hardship applications continue to come in as residents are
hearing that future funding may decrease. City staff, MAC,
Schock and the residents' group have been in constant contact
with staff of the congressional delegation to insure consistent
levels of funding for the project. The Federal AIP (Airport
Improvement Program) budget has gone to conference committee and
an approved bill is expected shortly. The AIP provides the
funding for sound insulation programs.
Twenty -two homes, and several detached garages, were auctioned
July 28. Homes that are purchased must be moved within 90 days.
The property management firm has been doing an acceptable job of
maintaining vacated properties. Auctioned home buyers are
responsible for leaving the property presentable once the house
is moved, meaning they must fill in the holes and reseed the lot.
♦ 4 -22 Extension
The Minnesota Department of Transportation released the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Extension of
Runway 4 -22 at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Wold-
Chamberlain Field on Friday, July 1. MnDOT is the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU) for state approval of the document.
Prior to release of the document, City staff met with
Professional Staff of the House Aviation Subcommittee, FAA Office
of Energy and Environment, MnDOT, Met Council, and MAC to
continue urging the Airports Commission to engage in mediation to
resolve the deficient and vague aspects of the FEIS. In
correspondences from Edwin Cohoon, Deputy Commissioner of MnDOT,
and MAC Chair Richard Braun, our request for mediation has been
refused until the comment period for the document is concluded.
The comment period began Friday, July 15, and lasts for 30 days.
Following completion of the public comment period, the federal
RGU - FAA - will issue a Record of Decision. City staff and
consultant Steve Pflaum of McDermott, Will & Emery are currently
analyzing the document and preparing comments. If MnDOT
determines that comments submitted are of substantial concern,
those issues would be addressed in a Supplemental to the FEIS;
which would be subject to the same approval process.
The likelihood is that the document will sail through the
approval process in short order, with submitted comments included
in the record. The decision to construct the extension then goes
to the MAC Commissioners. City staff have met with several
commissioners individually to better educate them about
Richfield's concerns. These commissioners have been active
making MAC staff accountable for actions and demanding answers in
the past, but still represent a minority. The extension has been
in planning stages for more than 15 years and MAC wants it
completed. There are several alternatives for the direction
Richfield goes to accomplish our objective of forcing MAC to
withdraw their objective of noise redistribution in the FEIS.
Should the City choose to pursue litigation, there must be a
decision as to which court that suit is filed. A NEPA (National
Environmental Protection Act) challenge to the FEIS would be
filed in the Federal Court of Appeals. NEPA litigation does not
go through trial court proceedings, but rather is heard directly
in the Court of Appeals. NEPA is an established body of law with
strong supporting case law. The best approach for this suit
would be to challenge the alternatives analyzed by MAC as being
insufficient. Alternatives must be analyzed that accomplish more
and /or less of both objectives. The FEIS does not do this.
There are also factors to consider that make NEPA less attractive
as the basis for litigation. The Court of Appeals hearing is
based solely on the record. In other words, it doesn't allow for
discovery, motions or emotional appeals to a jury. Also, a
victory in the Court of Appeals does not necessarily kill the
project. A successful NEPA challenge is basically a holding
measure until an adequate EIS is produced. But that may be
enough because MAC may not have the determination or political
stamina to push through another document. Finally, the Court of
Appeals has not been terribly receptive to suits challenging the
FAA; and, although Pflaum says we have a very solid case, he
estimates the best case scenario is a 50/50 chance of prevailing.
The second litigation alternative is a MEPA /MERA challenge. The
Minnesota Environmental Protection Act and the Minnesota
Environmental Rights Act would be the basis for filing a
challenge in a State Trial Court. A successful challenge under
MERA would effectively kill the project. Once the plaintiff
establishes that adverse environmental effects would result, the
burden of proof falls upon MAC, the defendant, to show that no
feasible or reasonable alternative exists. Trial Court also
allows the City to conduct depositions, discovery and normal
trial proceedings. This would allow the City to get answers
under oath that have not been forthcoming in several years of
requests. But, like a NEPA challenge,.there are negative
considerations for a MEPA /MERA challenge.
The cost of a MEPA /MERA challenge is going to exceed that of a
NEPA challenge, due to the opportunity to depose and make motions
of discovery, not to mention a longer trial proceeding.
Secondly, the Council would have to reevaluate Richfield airport
policy. Is it in the City's best interests to have MAC abandon
the project? A defeat for MAC at this point in the process would
make it difficult to proceed with another extension proposal and
EIS process. Failure to construct the extension will have
negative financial impacts on Northwest Airlines, with worst case
outcomes being that NWA may restrict hubbing activities at MSP or
endorse a new airport.
Finally, MEPA isn't as well defined as NEPA and doesn't have
nearly the supporting case law. A recent MERA challenge was won
(Archabal, 1993) involving Minneapolis' intent to raze the Armory
to build a new jail. Using MERA guidelines, the State Supreme
Court determined removal of the Armory was an adverse
environmental effect because of its historic value. Whether the
court would be influenced by economic arguments favoring the
airport cannot be determined based on prior case law.
Another alternative is to continue pursuing sympathetic views
among the Commissioners. It is within their jurisdiction to
approve parts or all of the project, but it is unclear if
modifications were made whether it would force a new EIS process.
Also, there is a 90 day window of opportunity to file a NEPA suit
from the day of the FEIS release (July 1). This means a decision
has to be made before September 29, 1994 whether to pursue
litigation. A final recommendation for which court provides the
greatest opportunity will be given following a complete review of
the FEIS and after witnessing the approval process by MnDOT and
FAA.
♦ MSP Long-Term _Comprehensive.Plan
No new developments recently. MAC is working on finalizing the
details for airfield and terminal alternatives identified in the
LTC :P .
♦ Part__ 15O_._ Sound _Insulation Program
MAC: Commissioners voted to place Betts & Johnson Builders on a
two -year probation. An employee approached MAC staff with a
complaint that Mr. Johnson was not paying minimum wages as
specified by the Davis -Bacon Act for federally funded programs.
MAC: auditors determined that not only did Mr. Johnson pay below
minimum wage, but that his record keeping was insufficient, he
paid employees in cash and fraudulently endorsed employee's names
on checks written to them for the purpose of cashing those
checks. MAC staff recommended the probationary period, with
Betts & Johnson being terminated from the program if subsequent
audits do not show compliance. It is important that MAC be
stringent with contractor compliance regulation to guarantee the
program remain above reproach because of the sensitive and
emotional nature of the sound insulation program.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport policy issues.
Basis for Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on
airport policy.
Alternative Motion:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discusssion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of August 1,
1994.
Respectf011y submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 25
Agenda August 1, 1994
Issue Statement:
Council discussion regarding the residential and commercial kennel
licensing process currently used by the City.
Background:
The current definition of a residential kennel license is a place
where more than two dogs or two cats over six months of age are
kept on premises which are zoned and occupied for residential
purposes.
The definition of a commercial kennel is a place where more than
two dogs or two cats over six months of age are kept, and where the
business of selling, boarding, breeding, showing, treating or
grooming dogs or cats is conducted.
The process currently used for new and renewal kennel license
applications is as follows:
♦ Residential kennel packet is sent /delivered to resident with more
than two dogs or two cats.
♦ The packet contains the following information:
1. An instruction sheet for applicants to follow step by step
through the process.
2. Individual pet license renewals.
3. Residential kennel license application.
4. Letter to applicant that explains the entire residential
kennel license process.
5. A copy of a sample letter that will be sent to the applicant's
neighbors. This will let the applicant know what the letter
will say that will be sent to their neighbors.
6. As an example, a visual two -sided map showing applicants which
of their neighbors will be sent the letter.
7. Copy of animal related ordinances.
♦ Once the residential kennel license application is completed and
returned with fees (application must contain three signatures
obtained from contiguous property owners per City ordinance
905.31, subd. 2). In addition, at the Council's direction, the
sample letter is sent to fourteen of their neighbors. This
letter will indicate they are to call or write City staff by a
specific time to indicate their approval or disapproval of the
issuance of a residential kennel license. Their letter or calls
to staff should indicate specific reason(s) why they approve or
disapprove of the residential kennel license.
♦ If staff does not receive any negative calls /letters concerning the
application, they will forward the application to the City Council
with a recommendation to approve.
♦ If staff receives any negative calls /letters, a public hearing will
be scheduled before the City Council. The applicant will be
requested to attend and the previously notified neighbors will
receive notice of the public hearing date. Written testimony may
be submitted by those neighbors unable to attend the public
hearing. Staff's recommendation will be based on information
received by the City via letters /calls and their complaint system.
Between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994, eighteen residents had more
than two dogs or two cats. Twelve residents applied for residential
kennel licenses and the remaining six moved out of the community for
reasons unrelated to animal licensing. Of those twelve, three had
problems reported to City staff by their neighbors which required a
public.hearing.
Five of those applicants had dogs only ranging from three dogs to
five dogs. Five of those applicants had cats only ranging from three
cats to six cats. Two applicants had a combination of dogs and cats
(three dogs and three cats, two dogs and four cats).
In the previous licensing year (July 1992 - June 1993), there were
twenty one residents with more than two dogs or two cats. Seven of
those residents moved out of the community. Four were denied a
residential kennel license by the City Council based upon information
received from staff and other residents. These four were required to
reduce the number of animals they owned to no more than two dogs or
two cats. This was accomplished.
Staff has recently changed the process used for commercial kennels
(pet grooming establishments) that are located in residential
neighborhoods. These types of home occupations located in a
residential neighborhood are also now required to obtain contiguous
property owners' signatures. Staff will also send letters to
fourteen of their neighbors requesting any positive or negative
feedback on the operation of the business. Commercial kennels
located in business areas (veterinarians) are not required to obtain
contiguous property owners' signatures.
Recommended Motion:
Council discussion on whether to amend the current ordinance or
establish policy regarding residential and /or commercial kennels in a
residential area.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion of this issue to another Study Session.
DiscussionZDecision_Mode:
Staff, at the direction of Council, is presenting this item for the
Study Session.
Res c ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
JDP:ds
Richfield City Code
Section 905 - _ Animal. :control.
905.01
905.01. Licensing of domestic animals. Subdivision 1. Definitions. Far the
purposes of-this -section the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings
given them.
Subd. 2. "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, harboring or having
custody of a dog or cat.
Subd. 3. "Commercial kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or two
cats over six months of age are kept, and where the business of selling,
boarding, breeding, showing, treating or grooming dogs or cats is conducted.
Subd. 4. "Residential kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or
two cats over six months of age are kept on premises which are zoned and
occupied for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is
incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes.
Subd. 5. A dog is "at large" when it is off the property of its owner and
not under restraint.
Subd. 6. A dog is "under restraint" if it is controlled by a leash not ex-
ceeding six feet in length, or at heel beside a competent person having custody
of it and obedient to that person's commands, or within a vehicle being driven
or parked on a public street or within the property limits of its owner's
premises. An unattended dog on the property of another, without the consent of
such property owner, is "at large" and not under restraint even though it is on
a leash.
905.03. License. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may own, harbor, keep
or have custody of a dog or cat over six months of age within the city, unless a
current license for the animal has been obtained as provided in this subsection.
Licenses shall be issued on an annual basis and shall be made for the whole or
unexpired portion of the year ending on the 30th day of June next following the
first effective day of the license.
Subd. 2. License fees. The license fee for each dog license, the license
fee for each cat license, and the charge for a duplicate license for either
animal is as provide in appendix D.
Subd. 3. Late penalty. If the license for a dog or cat is obtained while
the dog or cat is impounded by the city, or after the required license period
has commenced, there shall be added to the regular license fee a late- license
penalty as provided in appendix D for each animal; provided that an owner who
acquires a dog or cat after the start.of the license year, or an owner who has a
dog or cat at the time of becoming a resident of the city, shall be allowed
thirty days to secure a license, without incurring the late - license penalty
provided in this subdivision.
Richfield City Code 905.03, Subd. 4
Subd. 4. Contents of application. Application for a dog or cat license
shall be made to the city clerk or to the pound keeper. The application shall
include such descriptive information as is .necessary to provide reasonable
identification of the animal. and his ownet. Applicants shall provide a
certificate. issued by a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine showing that the
animal has been vaccinated against rabies and that.such vaccination is effective
on the date of the application.
Subd. 5. Identification of licensed animal, Upon the issuance of -a dog or
cat license by the city clerk or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be
provided with a matallic tag bearing the license number, .the word "Richfield,"
and the year when the license period beings or has begun. Except where the dog
or cat for which the license is issued is indoors on the premises of his owner,
the animal shall have a collar or harness on which the license tag is affixed.
No person may counterfeit any tag of this city or use a counterfeit tag.
Subd. 6. License nontransferable.. A license tag is nontransferable to any
other animal.or to a new owner for a dog or cat for which it is issued.
Subd. 7. Replacement of lost tag. If any such tag is lost or stolen, the
owner may obtain a new tag by surrendering the receipt for the first tag and by
paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in appendix D.
905.05. Dogs not to be at large: immediate disposal of dog feces. An owner
may not permit a dog to be at large in this city, but shall keep dog under
restraint at all times. A dog owner and a person having custody or control of a
dog shall immediately clean up and sanitarily dispose of any feces of the
animal, except that this provision does not apply to blind persons with respect
to their ownership and use of seeing.eye dogs.
905.07. Confinement when necessary. The owner shall confine within a building
or secure enclosure any fierce, dangerous or vicious dog, except when muzzled
and in the control of a competent person. A female dog or cat in heat shall be
confined in a building, secure enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding
kennel, or shall be controlled on a leash while being exercised, provided the
animal does not create a public nuisance.
905.09. Public nuisances. The keeping of a dog or cat which annoys other
persons is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written
complaint of such annoyance by the occupants of two or more neighboring
properties, the city shall notify the owner of such dog.or cat that the nuisance
shall be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey a notice is a violation of
this subsection.
905.11. City pound. The council may provide for a city animal pound either
within or outside the limits of the city.
905.13. Pound keeper. If a city pound is established, the manager shall
designate the pound keeper who may appoint and deputize special officers to
enforce this section. The special officer shall have police powers to cite
owners of dogs or cats for violations of this section, to impound dogs or cats
and to enforce the provisions of this section.
Richfield City Code 905.15
905.15. Enforcement - procedures Such .officers as- :th,e,.- .manager:= shaiI7,:designa.te = °°
�.� ..
to enforce this% =section- may _pick up and .:impound zany: -,dog: or_:°cat.-found�:not to: be.- -- _
kept, confined.or' restrained, or license in -the manner required by this section.
The officers may enter upon private property where -there is reasonable cause to
believe that .a- dog.or cat is..on the premises _and--is-not licensed as required by
this section, or -that there is a dog or cat on the premises which is not being
kept, confined or restrained, as herein provided. An owner shall produce for
inspection a dog or cat license receipt when requested to do so by the officer.
905.17. Quarantine. A dog or cat that has bitten a person shall immediately be
impounded for at least ten days and kept apart from other animals, under the
supervision of a veterinarian, until it is determined whether the animal had or
has a disease which might have been transmitted by the bite. The impounding may
be done by the owner and need not be at the city pound or any pound designated
by the city, but if it is not at the city pound or designated pound, the owner
shall notify the pound keeper or director of public safety immediately and
shall furnish proof in writing that the dog or cat is being impounded. Upon the
expiration of ten days, if it is determined that the dog or cat does not have a
disease which might have been transmitted by the bite, he may be released and
the pound keeper or director of public safety shall be notified immediately
prior to the release by the owner of the dog or cat. If the dog or cat is
impounded at the city pound, it may be reclaimed as hereinafter provided. Any
dog or cat which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall be euthanated or
impounded and kept in the same manner for a period of six months; provided that
if the dog or cEft which has been bitten by a rabid animal has been vaccinated at
least three weeks before the bite and within one year of the bite and if it is
again immediately vaccinated, then such animal shall be confined or impounded
for a period of forty days -before.-it is released. The owner of a dog or cat
which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall notify the city pound keeper or
director of public safety immediately prior to the release of the dog or cat.
905.19. Dangerous animals. If a dog or cat is diseased, vicious, dangerous,
rabid or exposed to rabies and the dog or cat cannot be impounded after a
reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to the persons
attempting to impound it, or if a dog or cat has made; more than one attack on a
person or persons, the dog or cat may be immediately killed by or under the
direction of an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this section.
905.21. Treatment during impounding. Any dog or cat which is impounded in the
city pound or designated pound shall be kept, with kind treatment and sufficient
food and water, and sanitary conditions, for the animal's comfort. If the
animal is not known or suspected of being diseased and has not bitten a person
or been bitten by a rabid animal, it shall be kept in the pound for at least
five days, unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If the animal is known
to be or, is suspected of being diseased with a disease which might be
transmitted to persons, it shall be kept in the pound for at least ten days.
905.23. Redemption of animals. A dog or cat may be redeemed from the pound by
the owner upon paying the following:
Richfield City Code 905.25
(a) the license fee for the animal, -if the license has not-previously been
obtained;
(b) the late license penalty, where a license has not been obtained within
the time provided in this section;
(c) the amount of the boarding fee which the city is required to pay to
the pound keeper; or
(d) an impounding penalty as fixed.in appendix D.
905.25. Disposal of unredeemed animals. The city pound keeper or designated
pound keeper shall make an effort to contact the owner of any dog or cat which
has been impounded and which has identification on it. If at the end of the
impounding period the dog or cat is not reclaimed by the owner, the animal shall
be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of or sold to any person
following the procedures contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 514.93. If
the animal is to be kept in the city, a license shall be obtained before
possession of the animal is given to the purchaser.
905.27. Limit of dogs on one premise. Not more than two dogs over six months
of age shall be kept on any one premise, except at a licensed commercial kennel
or a licensed residential kennel.
905.29. Abandonment. It is unlawful for any .person to abandon any,dog or other
animal in this city.
905.31. Kennel licenses. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The terms "commercial
kennel" and "residential kennel" are defined in section 905.01.
Subd. 2. License required. No person may operate a commercial or
residential kennel in this city without first obtaining a kennel license as
provided in this subsection. Application for the license shall be made to the
city clerk and must be accompanied by the license fee set by appendix D. The
clerk shall refer the application to the council, which may grant or deny the
license. Licenses issued for kennels shall be on an annual basis.
Subd. 3. Approval of continguous property owners. The application for a
residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the
approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises
on which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all of the occupants of
abutting property approve the application, the council may grant or deny the
license. The license may not be granted unless the council finds that the use
of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not
be likely to have, any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy
thereof, and will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. The council
may impose conditions upon the granting of any residential kennel license.
Subd. 4. Revocation. Kennel licenses may be revoked by the council by
reason of any violation of this subsection or by reason of violation of any
other provisions of this code or any order, law or regulation.
Richfield City -Code 905.31, Subd. 5
Subd. 5. and -:searing. j �Befor e revoking - kennel.,__license. the
-
licensee "shall be given notice:nf the.: meeting.at which such revocation= wii3.be
considered and if the licensee is-present at such meeting, the licensee must be
given an opportunity, to be heard. Notice of the meeting shall be given to the
licensee in writing. Written notice- - shall:. -be .:mailed. to -the address of _the_
licensee as set forth in the licensee's application for the kennel license, and
it shall be mailed at least five days before the date of the meeting at which
the revocation is to be considered by the council.
Subd. 6. License fees. The fee for a commercial kennel license and the
fee for a residential kennel license are as fixed in appendix D. The
residential kennel license fee is in addition to the usual animal license fees
provided in this section.
Subd. 7. Sanitation. Kennels shall be maintained in a clean and healthful
condition at all times, and shall be open to inspection by the director of
public safety, at all reasonable times.
Subd. 8. Reports to city. Each month that a kennel is operated, the owner
of the kennel shall report to the city manager, accurately stating in writing
the greatest number of animals kept on his kennel premises during the preceding
calendar month. Animals kept by a kennel in its capacity as the city pound need
not be so reported.
905.33. Reports by pound keeper. The city pound keeper or designated pound
keeper shall account for and pay over monthly to the city all monies received by-
-- him on behalf of the city as license fees or other charges. The pound keeper
shall also give an accurate written report each month to the city, stati- ng -(i)
licenses issued, (ii) fees or other charges collected, (iii) sales made., (iv)
dogs, cats and other animals impounded, (v) the duration of any such
impoundment, (vi) all animals destroyed, and (vii) other pertinent data relating
to animal control which may be requested by the city manager.
905.35. Miscellaneous prohibitions. Subdivision 1. General rule. The
existence of any of the conditions enumerated in this subsection are declared to
be nuisances and may be proceeded against in the manner provided in section
925.
Subd. 2. Swine. No swine of any kind or nature may be kept within the
limits of the city at large or in any enclosure situated within a distance of 75
feet from any dwelling house, store or shop of any person other than the owner,
nor within 75 feet of any public street in the city.
Subd. 3. Maintenance of grounds for fur - bearing animals. No person may
keep mink, foxes, muskrats, raccoons or polecats in yards, pens or houses for
breeding purposes in the city.
905.37. Maintenance of fowl and birds. Subdivision
owning or keeping chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons
permit the same to run at large or enter upon the
permission, nor may any such fowl or birds be kept,
any street, park, lake or public ponding area.
1. Prohibition. No person
or other fowl or birds may
premises of another without
raised or permitted to go on
r
7209 12th Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
July 25, 1994
Mr. John D. Erskine, Public Safety Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Erskine:
As you are aware, at the Richfield City Council meeting on June 27, 1994, I made a short presentation
about our experiences attempting to renew our residential kennel license this year and last. Following my
presentation, there was a discussion about our situation and residential kennel licensing in general.
During that conversation, City Manager James Prosser made several statements which are at odds with
statements made to us by you and other Public Safety Department personnel. At the conclusion of the
discussion, it was requested that the subject of residential kennel licensing be placed on the City Council
Study Session calendar.
In preparation for this planning session, I am requesting the following information from you:
1) the total number of Residential Kennel licenses issued between June 1, 1993, and June 1,
1994,
2) a breakdown between those issued for dogs and for cats-,
3) the total number of "problem" kennels;
4) the number of complaint calls from residents about the "problem" kennels; and
5) a copy of the City Council letter to the Public Safety Department, instructing you to canvass a
greater number of residences (14) than the number (3) that the current ordinance
(Section 905.3 1, Subd. 3) calls for.
I expect that the subject of Residential Kennel Licenses may be on the August agenda, and I understand
that this request gives you a very short lead time. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.
If you have any questions about my request, you may contact me in the daytime, at my office, at 725 -4323.
Sincerely,
Ronald M. Glaub
cc: James D. Prosser
Donald J. Priebe
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE APPLICANTS
1. Review the letter addressed to you as applicant and also the
sample of the letter that will be sent to your neighbors
explaining the residential kennel license process. You will
also note we have enclosed-a map which identifies for
you which of your neighbors will receive this letter once we
have received your completed application and fees.
2. Fill out the enclosed application and obtain the three
signatures of your abutting neighbors (each side of you and
directly behind you.)
3.. Once this has been completed, return the application in the
enclosed envelope or in person at City Hall, Public Safety
Department; Monday through Friday, 8:00 —4:30 p.m.
Please remit the proper fees which would include your
animal's individual licenses (enclosed). This information
should be received in our office by July 15, 1994. Your
current 1993 license will remain in effect until the 1994
licenses are issued.
IF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROCESS, PLEASE
CONTACT DEB AT 861 -9870.
N
RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT
OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
GUIDELINES FOR THE
CARE AND KEEPING OF ANIMALS
The Richfield Public Safety Department has carefully reviewed the ordinances relating to animal
control in the City of RICHFIELD. We hope these will be of benefit to you. As always, we are more
than willing to discuss these and other issues with you.
905.03 DOGS AND CATS TO BE LICENSED
- Issued yearly
- Rabies cert ficate needed to apply for license.
- All animals 6 months of age and older must be licensed.
- Licenses must be attached to the animal's harness or collar.
- Duplicate licenses are available if the license is lost.
905.05 DOGS MUST BE UNDER RESTRAINT
- When off the owner's property.
- By a leash not longer than six feet.
- Dog is restrained when at the owner's heel and obedient to
commands to stay at the owner's heels.
905.05 DISPOSAL OF FECES
- Feces shall be immediately cleaned up and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
905.09 PUBLIC NUISANCE
- Dogs and cats that annoy others by noise or behavior are a nuisance.
- Two or more residents must sign a petition.
- City will order owner to abate the nuisance within 48 hours.
905.17 ANIMALS TO BE QUARANTINED
- Any dog or cat that bites a person and breaks the skin must be quarantined for ten
days.
- A quarantined animal may not be taken out of Richfield during the quarantined period.
- Quarantined animals are to be kept from contact with other animals or people.
906.29 ABANDONMENT
- No dog or other animal may be abandoned.
905.31 KENNEL LICENSE REQUIRED
- For more than two dogs.
- For more than two cats.
- Animals must not become a nuisance.
- License may be revoked by reason of violation.
905.07 CONFINEMENT WHEN NECESSARY
- Any fierce, dangerous, or vicious dog must be confined in a building
or secure enclosure, except when muzzled and controlled by a
competent person.
- Any dog or cat in heat to be confined except while being exercised
on a leash.
Please feel free to contact an Animal Control Officer on any questions you may have: 861- 9800
i
i8OHS
ON01
A0113A
NMON8
NVI
0 0
, (138
L)
lkvdo
IIIHM
ANTS
u' 31VY1
w
z
In
tu
ZH
O
z
0
0
z
Y
O
z
LLI
0
z
D
LLJ x
iE
any
2:
uj
SI
0 0
Z ui
cc
co
0 55 z o LL 0) w
W? C<) L)
LL
co 0
saifddnc g swjoj josued
w w
mfr
lz di
< 5
Ir a
0
T C) - x
U- w
0
CS CL
0 W Z
z 0
CV) (1)
UJ EC
z w Yw
P:
<
m z cc m m
IL Z
—
X03 =0
P: Q
cr 0
W <
M
w
LLJ
CL
W 0
o 0
Cl) cli
LaC ;
w
C%j
w
Q ":r
LO
W in LO
z z
:3
>
W
wow
cn
0 CL L—L
z
LLJ
Z
<
i8OHS
ON01
A0113A
NMON8
NVI
0 0
, (138
L)
lkvdo
IIIHM
ANTS
u' 31VY1
w
z
In
tu
ZH
O
z
0
0
z
Y
O
z
LLI
0
z
D
LLJ x
iE
any
2:
uj
SI
0 0
Z ui
cc
co
0 55 z o LL 0) w
W? C<) L)
LL
co 0
saifddnc g swjoj josued
CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVE. SO. RICHFIELD, MN 55423
RECEIPT NO. LICENSE NO. NEW RENEW
APPLICATION FOR KENNEL LICENSE
July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995
.................................. ...............................
Applicant's Name:
,Applicant's Address:
Applicant's Phone No:
Business Name:
Business Address:
Business Phone No.:
FEE
Residential
$ 85.00
Commercial
$ 150.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $
.................................. ...............................
I (we) hereby agree to operate such business in accordance with
the laws of the State Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of
Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Authorized Signature: Date:
.................................. ...............................
COMPLETE FOR RESIDENTIAL KENNEL ONLY
APPROVAL OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESIDENTIAL KENNEL
(A residential kennel is a place where more than two dogs or two
cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for
residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats
is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential
purposes.) (In July of 1991, City Council passed a policy that no
resident may have more than six animals (dogs & cats) in total.)
Ordinance Code Section 905.31, Subd. 3 - The application for a
residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition
showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real
estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be
located. Whether or not all of the occupants of abutting
property approve the application, the council may grant or deny
the license. The license may not be granted unless the council
finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential
kennel. will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse
effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and
will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. The council
may impose conditions upon the granting of any residential kennel
license.
SEE ATTACHED PETITION
HEREBY APPROVE OF A RESIDENTIAL.KENNEL ON THE PREMISES OF:
APPLICANT: ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE: ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE: ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE: ADDRESS:
.................................. ...............................
FOR CITY USE ONLY
HEALTH DEPT. APPROVAL: YES I NO Signed Date
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO Date
FORM SP:C1
LICENSE APPLICANT:
DG 3/92
Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 270.70 Tax Clearance: Issuance of Licenses,
the licensing authority is required to provide to the Minnesota
Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification number
and the social security number of each license applicant.
Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy
Act of 1974, we are required to advise you of the following regarding the
use of this information:
1. This information may be used to deny the issuance, renewal or
transfer of your license in the event you owe the Minnesota
Department of Revenue delinquent taxes, penalties or interest;
2. Upon receiving this information, the licensing authority will
supply it only to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However,
under the Federal Exchange of Information Agreement, the
Department of Revenue may supply this information to the Internal
Revenue Service;
3. Failure to supply this information may jeopardize or delay the
processing of your license issuance or renewal application.
Please supply the following information and return along with your
application to the agency issuing the license. DO NOT RETURN TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
LICENSE BEING APPLIED FOR OR RENEWED:
LICENSING AUTHORITY:
(name of city, county or state agency issuing license)
LICENSE RENEWAL DATE:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Applicant's Name:
Applicant's Address:
City County State Zip Code
Social Security Number:
BUSINESS INFORMATION
Business Name:
Business Address:
City County State Zip Code
Minnesota Tax Identification No.:
Federal Tax Identification No.:
If a Minnesota Tax Identification number is not required, please explain
on the reverse side.
SIGNATURE
t
Date
Warning)
IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR A LICENSE, THE CITY HAS ASKED
THAT YOU PROVIDE IT WITH INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF WHICH IS
CLASSIFIED AS EITHER PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL BY THE MINNESOTA
GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT (M.S.A. 13.04). ACCORDINGLY, THE
CITY IS REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. The purpose and intended use of the information requested
is: Tn d tOrmine if env are P1ic7ib7e fnr a linenGe from the
r-i i-Y of Richfield _
2. You are not legally obligated to supply the requested
information.
3. The known consequences of supplying the requested information
is: The i_nfnrmat i nn nr fuT-1-h .r i nvecti crab nn r-mil d ri Gr1 nce
i nfnrmat-i nn whir -h r-nvl d gawp Yn"r appl i rati on 17n hp-
4. The known consequences of refusing to supply the requested
information is Ynirr 1'Pfrllest fnr a 1 i npnce nnnnnt he
5. The following persons and entities are authorized by law to
receive the information if provided: _staff of Richfield_
Vuhl i n Safety nenartmPni- RiirAau of rri mi nal An.r) reh _nai nn
HF+nn p in rmin Y Warrant nffir.P Ramgp3Z Connt:�z Warrant
nffine State of Minnesota - Driver License Sectin .
Henneni n C'rnrntz Avdi tnr n hair Qnver mental agenni ea
nenecaary 1-n prPaant�r. ajon1 i nati nn _
The undersigned, by signing this notice, acknowledges that
he /she has read and understood the contents of this notice.
DATE:
Signature
PROOF OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE
Minnesota Statute Section 176.182 requires every state and local
licensing agency to withhold the issuance or renewal of a license or permit
to operate a business in Minnesota until the applicant presents acceptable
evidence of compliance with the worker's compensation insurance coverage
requirement of Section 176.181 Subd. 2. The information required is: The
name of the insurance company, the policy number, and dates of coverage or
the permit to self - insure. This information will be collected by the
licensing agency and put in their company file. It will be furnished, upon
request, to the Department of Labor and industry to check for compliance
with Minnesota Statute Sec. 176.181, Subd. 2.
This information is required by law, and licenses and permits to
operate a business may-not be issued or renewed if it is not provided
and /or is falsely reported. Furthermore, if this information is not
provided and /or.falsely reported, it may result in a $1,000 penalty
assessed against the applicant by the Commissioner of the Department of
Labor and Industry payable to the Special Compensation Fund.
Provide the information specified above in the spaces provided, or
certify the precise reason your business is excluded from compliance with
the insurance coverage requirement for worker's compensation.
Insurance Company Name:
'NOT the insurance agen
Policy Number or Self - Insurance Permit Number:
Dates of Coverage:
(or)
I am not required to have worker's compensation liability coverage because:
( ) I have no employees covered by the law.
( ) Other (Specify)
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND MY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARDS TO
BUSINESS LICENSES, PERMITS, AND WORKER'S COMPENSATION COVERAGE, AND I
CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
SIGNATURE
1/91
DATE
June 1994
Dear Residential Kennel Applicant:
I am writing to make you aware of a change made in 1993 in the
process the City uses whenever we receive an application request
(new or renewal) for a residential kennel license.
In the past, we relied solely on the contiguous property owners
of the applicant for an indication as to whether or not the
animals provided any problems in the.neighborhood. We have found
that other neighbors can also be affected.
For that reason, we will be sending the attached letter to those
of your neighbors that are indicated on the map we have enclosed.
This will help us to determine if they have any concerns. The
letter will state that if they have any problems with your
animals that they must either write or call us with that
information by a specific date. If we are contacted by any of
them, the matter will go before the City Council at a public
hearing. These same neighbors will then be made aware of the
public hearing and can either attend in person or have their
written testimony submitted for council's review.
You should still obtain signatures from the neighbor on each side
of you and behind you on the enclosed application form.
We have found this is the best way to determine if problems exist
that we may be unaware of and hope that you understand the need
to do so. If you have any questions concerning this change in
the process, I encourage you to contact me personally at 861-
9881.
Sincerely,
Betsy h is nsen
Admini' ative Support Services Manager
Richfield Public Safety Department
bac:ttf
attachment
Dear Resident:
I am writing to you because your neighbor at
has recently made application for a residential kennel license in
the City of Richfield. They currently own dogs and
cats. I want to take this opportunity to explain to you what
that means and the process that is involved.
A residential kennel license does not mean that your neighbor
will be introducing a commercial business in your neighborhood.
It does not mean that an unusually large structure will be
constructed for breeding purposes, etc. They may have an average
size kennel on the property for their pet's exercise and shelter.
It simply is the name we have given to the license that is to be
obtained for anyone owning more than two dogs or two cats in a
residential neighborhood.
The City believes that when a resident has more than two dogs or
cats there is a potential for those animals to have an adverse
effect on neighbors. For that reason, we have recently changed
our procedures by contacting approximately a dozen neighbors of
the applicant by letter so that we can determine what problems
may exist if any.
If you should have concerns, please call Deb at 861 -9870 or write
a brief letter outlining those concerns and return it to us at
6700 Portland Avenue, Attn: Deb (Public Safety). Either your
telephone call or letter should be received in our office by
in order to process their license request.
If we receive calls or written information, there will be a
public hearing on the license request before the City Council.
You will be contacted and made aware of this date. You may
choose to attend in person to present your testimony (either for
or against the license being issued) or you may request that we
included your written letter in the City Council's information
packets.
Page Two
Residential Kennel License
June 1994
I am confident that this process will provide the information
necessary to make a recommendation to the City Council to either
approve or deny the license request. I appreciate your
willingness to participate and encourage you to contact me
personally at 861 -9881 or Deb at 861 -9870 if you should have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Betsy h i ensen
Suppor ervices Manager
Richfield Public Safety Department
bac:ttf
„s .
l
d
L
0
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 24
Agenda August 1, 1994
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the I -35W and I -494 traffic corridor studies and
related items.
Background:
I -35W and I -494 have a number of traffic /transportation issues,
interests and concerns. Several agencies including MnDOT, Met
Council and other cities are involved in the I -35W and I -494
traffic corridor studies. City staff have attended several
meetings and met with various organizations to obtain the most
recent information on these issues. It is useful to review this
data with the City Council to discuss strategy regarding these
issues.
Recommended Motion:
None required as this is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City Council is updated periodically on items of interest and
concern.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Di_scussion/DecisionMode:
The City Council will meet Monday, August 1, 1994.
RespYan�ager
ly submitted,
Jame rosser
City
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.23
Agenda August 1, 1994
Issue Statement:
Review the results of the 76th Street West of I -35W Study.
Background:
The 76th Street West of I -35W Study, begun in October 1993, was
initiated in response to a request by residents who live along
76th Street. The citizens wanted corrective action taken to
alleviate conflicts between traffic and residential land use
along 76th Street.
The City undertook a study of this issue in October 1993. The Ad
Hoc Traffic Committee involved the residents in four neighborhood
meetings and evaluated six alternatives. Three stayed on the
76th Street alignment and three shifted to new alignments closer
to I -494.
All six alternatives were evaluated based on project objectives
that responded to issues raised by residents. A summary of the
evaluation is attached for your review.
An origin - destination survey was completed in March 1994. The
survey involved interviews of 535 motorists who drive on 76th
Street at three different locations. The results of the survey
are also attached. They show that 95 -97% of all motorists on
76th Street have either an origin or a destination in Richfield,
Bloomington or Edina. These results indicate that 76th Street
carries short, local trips, not the long, regional trips many
people expected.
The Richfield Ad Hoc Traffic Committee met with neighborhood
residents on April 6, 1994. Residents were asked to indicate two
alternatives they liked and two they disliked. The results are
shown on the attached summary.
The Ad Hoc Traffic Committee met again on May 25, 1994 to receive
public comments and prepare a recommendation. The committee
unanimously recommended Alternative #3 (widening 76th Street)
with one modification. The committee asked that three homes east
of Penn Avenue not be acquired if the design can avoid them.
Maps of the six concept alternatives will be available for review
at the Study Session.
Since the Council's June 1, 1994 Study Session where the Ad Hoc
Traffic Committee's recommendations were first presented, City
staff updated the mailing list by adding approximately 25
residents. A letter advising neighborhood residents of the
status of the 76th Street Study was sent on June 20, 1994 using
the updated mailing list. The letter invited people to call to
meet with staff if they had any questions or concerns. Since the
May 25 Ad Hoc Traffic meeting, City staff has visited five times .
with about 25 residents and business people to discuss the study.
Staff has found a difference of opinion between residents living
east and west of Penn Avenue.
The people living west of Penn Avenue are generally supportive of
the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee's recommendation to widen 76th
Street. In contrast, people living east of Penn Avenue do not
agree that a traffic and noise problem exists, oppose any
widening and claim that the proposed Alternative #3 does not
provide adequate protection to adjacent residential properties.
The Master Park Plan which was reviewed by the public contained
an east -west bikeway, although the park plan was not sufficiently
detailed to show an alignment on 76th Street.
Recommended Motion:
There is no action needed at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The evaluation of all six alternatives is summarized in the
attached report.
2. The committee used an extensive public participation process
as part of the 76th Street Study. The committee held five
meetings with the neighborhood. City staff contacted
numerous homeowners and businesses about the study.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decis,ion_Mode:
A decision will be requested in approximately a month to give
direction to the Ad Hoc Committee and staff on this issue.
Res t ly submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:cak
30
i
L �
E
I
.�
U)
•e
e0
e
ee'
e e e
Mr"�e
U
a N L
c O O .�
L
�
Co (n
�(n
20ioo
��,m
to T- T-
CO
ca
; c>, aa)
Q
C
3UOO
�
Co
ocaE
to
64 6%
a�
LL
O
f` O
Y 4-
U cu Q)
0 y>% o
U L� .Q
`n 3 cu
a) C U
�di�
'> E c
c •— .�
U .,_ o �. c�
U L O U Cc-
0 co
v !n i
z
0
O� —(n
a'L
a) Cc
L
cuNL
CL 0)
0(D
Na)��
��.
L j.._O-�
oo LcuE0)
to v cu
v
MM2
cu
0�J.0
:3:2
;m C!»]
00
LO
so
e 0 e
00
00
so*
c)cooT7
E
a)
E
c
E
N U
in o
�l
W
. .
. . .
. •
W • •
_ • • •
tea)
cn • • • .
i
Q >
Hw
N
c i
1q•
cn
cfl
0 m 0
O
••
ooe
00
e
e e e
cciN�O
cli4r-�
a
c
EA 6F} EA
>
O
cc
LL
U
Q
c
222
ca J
oo
•••
ee
00
0 e
a� to V-
N
Cj .11:
T-
4
•II
a) O
N cu m
00
000
00
00
000
chi ncg0
J
I
O
O
U
c
cu
- J
00
000
00
00
000
cvocc)0
T-: °��
4
i
30
>
E
I
.�
U)
Z
m
Co � cu
U O
ca N
�' cn Co
U
U
a N L
c O O .�
�
Co (n
�(n
20ioo
��,m
c0
ca
; c>, aa)
Q
ca
3UOO
�
Co
ocaE
o 0(a
.0
a�
LL
O
co cu .�
N o U
Y 4-
U cu Q)
0 y>% o
U L� .Q
`n 3 cu
a) C U
�di�
'> E c
c •— .�
U .,_ o �. c�
U L O U Cc-
0 co
v !n i
z
0
O� —(n
a'L
a) Cc
3:0
Oa
0
cuNL
CL 0)
0(D
Na)��
��.
L j.._O-�
oo LcuE0)
to v cu
v
O
�-
cu
0�J.0
:3:2
;m C!»]
> °'a�
Qa.Z
c0cmu
cuCnJ
>o7�
0Z�Q
o0�° —'oo`r
U) �U�i -U-'
v n
o
w
W M
cc
>
E
a)
E
c
E
N U
in o
�l
W
. .
. . .
. •
W • •
_ • • •
tea)
cn • • • .
i
Q >
Hw
N
c i
1q•
cn
cfl
0 m 0
30
4/6/94
76TH STREET PLANNING STUDY
SUMMARY OF SURVEY ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS
Origin to Destination
Vincent
Sheridan
Logan
Richfield to Richfield
11%
6%
1.6%
Richfield to Bloomington
2%
2%
2%
Richfield to Edina
0%
21%
0%
Richfield to Other
3%
3%
4%-
Bloomington to Richfield
9%
5%
15%
Bloomington to Bloomington
4%
3%
1%
Bloomington to Edina
0%
16%
0%
Bloomington to Other
10%
1%
8%
Edina to Richfield
18%
0%
19%
Edina to Bloomington
5%
0%
5%
Edina to Edina
2%
2%
0%
Edina to Other
25%
0%
14%
Other to Richfield
5%
5%
8%
Other to Bloomington
1%
5%
3%
Other to Edina
0%
26%
1 %
Other to Other
5%
5%
2%
♦< Traffic>Notes:76 /35- Xer(4/6/94)
NCITES ON RICHFIELD AD HOC I35W/I494 TRAFFIC C 34,1ITTEE MEETINGG
SUBJECT: STUDY OF 76th STREET WEST OF I -35W
Wedn>e`sday, April 6, 1994
Present: Committee Members Karnas, Sausen, (Luettinger, Stokes, Snyder,
Nilsen absent)
Council Me mmbers Kirsch, Rosenberg
Residents (approximately 35 people)
City Staff Members Eastl.ing, Foley, FbrYiric k
The meeting was held in Fellowship Hall of Woodlake Lutheran Chump, 7525
Oliver Avenue South. At approximately 7:05 p.m., Cmndttee Vice -Chair Sausen
called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. He explained
that the purpose of the meeting was to review six concept alternatives to
address issues and concerns about 76th Street between I -35W and Xerxes Avenue.
He ernourF g = 2 people to sit at three tables where the information would be
presented in small groups.
Charleen Zimmer, Joe Kern and John R= of Sugar, Roscoe, Fausch, Inc. gave
presentations on the results of the 76th Street origin - destination survey, the
layouts of the six concept alternatives and an evaluation of the advantages
and disadvantages of each alternative.
After the presentation and discussion at each table, people were given a
ballot to indicate the two alternatives they liked and the two they disliked.
There were thirty responses and the results of this euxermcise were:
Alternative
Like Dislike
1. Four 11 -foot lanes with curb and gutter on 10 12
76th Street
2. Three lanes with two -way left turn lane- west 5 17
of Penn; four 11 -foot lanes east of Penn on
76th Street
3. Four 12 -foot lanes with left turn lane and 19 5
landscaped median on 76th Street
4. New arterial with four 12 -foot lanes using 4 10
existing front-,age road /78th Street
5. Using 77th and 78th Street, new arterial with 12 8
four 12 -foot lanes east of Penn and three lanes
with two-way left turn lane- west of Penn
6. Four 12 -foot lanes on 76th Street east of Penn 4 13
and new arterial between 76th and 78th Street
west of Penn
Several people provided comments with their preferemes. The comments are
grasped by alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 1. COMMENTS: Doesn't solve the problem! Eliminate bike paths.
Please don't do this! The road will come right into my patio and I'd never get
out of my driveway(7544 Sheridan Ave.) Alternative 1 doesn't solve the
problem.
Date: July 27, 1994
To: Ad Hoc Traffic Committee
From: Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer
RE: Comments on 76h Street West of I -35W Study
from Residents and Property Owners Located
East of Penn Avenue
Kevin Handt
He is concerned that Alt. #3 removes the sidewalk on the
7600 Morgan Av.
south side of 76th Street. He insists that the sidewalk be
Richfield, MN 55423
retained. He wants to know if screening will be provided.
If not, he believes his children will be exposed to danger
from cars on the street.
Joseph and Pamela Krzyzaniak
They oppose Alternative #3. They have lived here for 34
1920 76th St.
years. They have invested in a beautifully landscaped
Richfield, MN 55423
home and don't want to move. He rarely has problems
backing out onto 76th Street. He also can walk across
76th Street without difficulty to go to the Tom Thumb
store. He doesn't believe that 76th Street has a traffic
problem. He recommends doing nothing on 76th Street
from Penn Avenue to 35W.
Elaine Brown
She opposes widening 76th Street. She favors
1912 W. 76th Street
Alternative 94 that moves the traffic down to the 78th
Richfield, MN 55423
Street frontage road.
Louis Buesing
He is a long -time resident who does not want to have his
1900 W. 76th Street
house taken to widen 76th Street.
Richfield, MN 55423
Tim and Reva Vincent
They oppose moving 76th Street closer to their home.
7538 Logan Av.
They just bought their house and believe Alternative #3
Richfield, MN 55423
will reduce their property value.
Pany Siharath
No comment but attended a neighborhood meeting
7532 Logan Av.
where people were opposed to alternative #3.
Richfield, MN 55423
Robert Peck
He is concerned that three homes would be taken as part of
7505 Morgan Av.
Alternative #3. He has a concern that residents can make the
Richfield, MN 55423
left -turn movement onto 76th Street.
Lillian and Lester
They are concerned that widening 76th Street would result in
Carlson
homes being taken. They don't believe it will be easier for
7508 Morgan Avenue
residents to gain access to 76th Street.
Richfield, MN 55423
Sam Pearson
He favors Alternatives # 3 and #6. He does not support
7514 Morgan Avenue
Alternatives #2 and #5. He believes that the roads should
Richfield, MN 55423
discourage through traffic.
HermanNinteman
He believes the best plan for 76th Street is Alternative #5.
7526 Morgan Av.
When I -35W and I -494 is widened, abridge crossing at 77th
Richfield, MN 55423
Street could connect the business communities on both sides
of I -35W and keep the traffic out of residential areas.
Fritz Rodde
He does not agree that the road needs to be widened to benefit
7533 Morgan Av.
through traffic. He is concerned by the proposed taking of
Richfield, MN 55423
three well maintained homes. He opposes the bikeway and the
6' fence. The widened road will cut the residential area in two.
Joan Peterson
She opposes widening 76th Street. Her home would be next to
7539 Morgan Av.
the new street. She believes it will devalue her property. She
Richfield, MN 55423
opposes a large noisewall.
Esther Berger
She does not agree that 76th Street needs to be widen_ ed.
7520 Morgan Av.
Traffic noise is not a problem.
Richfield, MN 55423
Arlene Dixson,
She is concerned with Alternatives #4 & #5 that require right-
representing owners of
of -way taking from Fountainhead Apartments. She does not
Fountainhead
want the widening of 76th Street to move the road closer to
Apartments
Fountainhead Apartments. She asks that a traffic signal be
7611 Knox Av.
installed at 76th Street and Knox Avenue. She expresses
Richfield, MN 55423
concern that any road widening project not increase
stormwater runoff onto the Fountainhead Apartments
property.
Louis Sullivan, owner of
He opposes a median that prevents full access to his store.
Tom Thumb Superette
7600 Knox Av.
Richfield, MN 55423
Robert and Kim Otness,
They are concerned about a 20 -unit building that is set back
owners of
the same distance as single - family homes facing 76th Street.
The Colony Apartments
They would like to see the widening of 76th Street narrowed
on 76th Street
as much as possible. They suggested combining the bikeway
5200 Willson Road
and sidewalk into one 5' or 6' path because few pedestrians
Edina, MN 55424
use the sidewalk. They claim most bike traffic is recreational
and will not reduce motor vehicle traffic on 76th Street. They
want the City to conduct a study to justify the taking of
property to create a bikeway. They oppose the addition of a
left -turn lane and grassy median. They believe additional study
is needed in the section from Penn Avenue to 1-3 5W to
address the following issues: location of bus turn-outs at a
distance from rental units; location of bus turn -outs in relation
to the main driveway entrance to Colony Apartments; the need
to verify distances from the new road to existing residential
properties; and, ease of access for tenants wanting to make a
left turn onto 76th Street from the Colony Apartments parking
lot.
i
i
i
r
r
TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR
76TH STREET WEST OF 1 -35W
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PREPARED BY:
SRFENGINEERS & PLANNERS
INC.
JULY 1994
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
76th Street is one of two four -lane arterial streets in Richfield that run east/west
across the entire city and provide access for city residents to, from and across
-35W. The existing roadway surface is in poor condition. The street is forty -
four feet wide curb -to -curb. As a result of the narrow width, buses and other
vehicles using the curb lane must drive over storm sewer grates which
significantly increases the traffic noise along the street.
The role and function of the 76th Street corridor, which currently carries between
12,000 and 16,000 vehicles per day, has always been very important to the City
of Richfield's transportation system. Although the land uses along 76th Street
are primarily single- family residential, the street was designated a village arterial
in 1955. It was designated a Municipal State -Aid street in 1961 and upgraded to
four lanes between 1966 and 1973, when it was designated by the City as an
arterial thoroughfare. 76th Street was classified as a collector by the
Metropolitan Council in 1977 and as a Minor Arterial by the Richfield City
Council in 1982.
Throughout its history, the land uses along 76th Street have remained primarily
single family residential. Increasingly, the traffic volumes and associated safety,
environmental and aesthetic impacts have become concerns for the adjacent
residential neighborhoods.
STUDY PROCESS
In recent years, the City of Richfield has received many comments from
residents along 76th Street concerned about traffic speed and congestion, noise,
air pollution, pedestrian and traffic safety, and other issues. In order to address
these concerns, the City agreed to undertake a study of the area to identify
potential solutions to traffic problems. The study was intended to develop and
evaluate alternatives for improving 76th Street or diverting traffic to a new
roadway alignment to handle traffic between 1 -35W and Xerxes Avenue (Edina
city limits). This report documents the findings and recommendations of the
study.
The City's Ad Hoc Traffic Committee was to oversee the study to ensure
adequate opportunity for local resident and business input. The Committee
would then make recommendations to the City Council. The final decision on
any improvements or changes to 76th Street west of 1 -35W will be made by the
Richfield City Council.
■
The Ad Hoc Traffic Committee conducted four public input meetings between
October, 1993 and April, 1994 to review project issues, identify project goals and
objectives, develop alternatives and evaluate the options. The public input
meetings conducted by the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee were designed to solicit
input from interested citizens and businesses regarding their concerns about
76th Street and their opinions about various alternative solutions to documented
problems. At the April, 1994 meeting, the people who attended the meeting
were asked to indicate their preferences for the alternatives.
The public was also invited to attend the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee meeting on
p 9
May 25, 1994 to provide further comments on the alternatives. The Committee
selected their preferred alternative at this time. The Committee's
recommendations were discussed by the Richfield City Council in June, 1994,
and will be discussed further starting in August, 1994.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Key issues that were identified in the public input meetings and addressed in the
study include the following:
• Traffic level of service and intersection operations
• East -west traffic flow and capacity
P Y
• Through traffic versus local traffic; commercial traffic versus residential traffic
• Safety (vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists)
Provision for public transit
• Provision of pedestrian/bicycle facilities
• Neighborhood and property access
• Air quality, noise and vibration
• Aesthetics
• Right -of -way acquisition
a • Financial feasibility and eligibility for funding
0 2
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Based on the issues identified ' by neighborhood residents and factual
information about traffic, accidents and alternative modes of transportation,
specific goals and objectives were developed for the project. These goals and
objectives are:
Goal 1: Improve east -west travel through Richfield
Provide a minimum capacity for 15,000- 25,000 ADT
Provide a minimum intersection Level of Service D
Goal 2: Develop a transportation system that provides for all modes of travel
Goal 5: Improve the environmental quality in the area
Reduce noise
Reduce CO emissions
Reduce vibration
Goal 6: Develop a proiect with a reasonable cost that can be constructed within
the next five years
Estimated construction and right -of -way cost
Compatibility with 1-494 and 1 -35W reconstruction plans
r
A
u 3
Provide bus facilities
Provide sidewalks on both sides of 76th Street
Provide east/west bicycle trail
Goal 3: Improve accessibility for residents and visitors
Improve driveway access along 76th Street
Improve local street access along 76th Street
Goal 4: Enhance in the
aesthetics area
Provide screenwalls in residential areas
Provide landscaping in corridor
Goal 5: Improve the environmental quality in the area
Reduce noise
Reduce CO emissions
Reduce vibration
Goal 6: Develop a proiect with a reasonable cost that can be constructed within
the next five years
Estimated construction and right -of -way cost
Compatibility with 1-494 and 1 -35W reconstruction plans
r
A
u 3
i
i
i
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Concept drawings were prepared at a scale of 1" = 50' to help identify and
compare the potential impacts of the alternatives. Six concepts were developed
as follows:
Alternative 1: Four 11 -foot lanes with curb and gutter on 76th Street
Alternative 2: Three lanes with two -way left turn lane west of Penn and
four 11 -foot lanes east of Penn on 76th Street
Alternative 3: Four 12 -foot lanes with left turn lanes and landscaped
median on 76th Street
Alternative 4: New arterial with four 12 -foot lanes using existing frontage
road/78th Street
Alternative 5: New arterial with four 12-foot lanes east of Penn and three
lanes west of Penn using 77th and 78th Streets
Alternative 6: Four 12 -foot lanes on 76th Street east of Penn and new
arterial between 76th and 78th Street west of Penn
These alternatives were evaluated against the project objectives as summarized
in Table 1.
AD HOC TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
A meeting of the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee was held on May 25, 1994 to review
the project alternatives and evaluation measures, as well as to receive additional
public comments on the alternatives. The committee voted unanimously to
support the following recommendation:
"Recommend Alternative 3 (Four 12 -foot lanes on 76th Street with
left turn lanes and landscaped median) with the condition that the
possibility of saving homes from being acquired on the east side of
Penn Avenue should be explored."
The recommended alternative is shown in Figure 1. The estimated cost of the
proposed project is approximately $4.5 million. This alternative is compatible
with reconstruction plans for 1 -35W and 1-494, as well as the current
reconstruction of the Penn Avenue/76th Street intersection.
L
o
40
a e•• °e
is W CD r
cot
0 000 CO
00 6a, 68t
••
00
.222
0
cri
• d°
m •
.22
2
> •
ooe
N N ° e 00
N 212
d cy ) •
'a 00 OO
000 ��
N qCj •00
00
N J 3 222
CO CA
C co w •
° 000 0�r
N 00 00
m pO •O0
r J
r
r
d
U G U to
N N U 0 C r . OC �0 ` � ► V U N O co a
� s N
O V � O co co 0) r 0 N N co t i N '6 O L
N co O =RO 9 � 0 O 0) 6 0 o - CO N N y 0
co 3 _o � cl � !, ; co 0) c = ) 4)
U) U N N � 0
�`��a a�o� BUJ oZ >4 co -Co
>►- mN a N •
U. 0 a CO o� CO o o- Z E. ° O
Z 6 paJ G N� • •
• '
t Q tJ l • ` Cry d
J -� r N
m4
r7t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
::Zz F-
6W M9
6w o
mg l�iI z U.J Lj Li
z 11 00
2 1 0)
,,
0
11
i
T- 7
T
6w 0' 6w
ou: 1" 01
T
N
, —Z
WUJ
O -,z J0.1 L
L i L l�IJ �o
Ll Lri
_j Z UJ
W <
0 II: L"6
a 0
z
Yea C9 "MI
0
Z
6W z
LW
T2 Fill,
6W 0
> ;=
W.J cc)
LU
oe >
<
: ii'lit
M
LU
W 4A
I 4jT-
w
V
4)
M
"i
-C
z
0
1A
I-
w
wj
LO
OF
C ?
LL
W
Cj)
LLJ
w
>
Ix
z
w
Z
z
11--
C)
U)
LLJ
—i
LU
IV
0
1:
<
M
LA
in w
cc
0
w
,n
U-
LL
LLJ
0
6-1
<
M
W
00
W
cn
Z
0
A2
C)
u
LLJ
0
0-
ce
U)
Z
Ix
LU
W 4A
I 4jT-
w
V
4)
M
"i
-C
z
0
1A
I-
w
wj
PL-4
P4
Cf)
ii
LO
C ?
LL
0
Cj)
LLJ
w
>
w
w
Z
cr
11--
C)
U)
LLJ
—i
LU
LL
(D
1:
<
u
r.,
cc
0
w
0
U-
LL
LLJ
M
W
U
cn
Z
0
C)
u
LLJ
0
0-
ce
U)
Z
cr
PL-4
P4
Cf)
ii