07-06-87 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 22
July 6, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an ordinance limiting the location of driveways
and parking areas on one and two family residential property to
side and rear yards; adding the definition of vehicle turnaround
to the ordinance; and prohibiting parking on vehicle turnarounds
located in front yards.
Background-
The Public ?Safety Department was directed to study the problem of
parking in front yards. The practice is increasing in the city,
especially along arterial streets. The present ordinances
prohibit parking in a front yard, but do not prohibit placing a
driveway in the front yard, for parking. The city staff and
Council have received complaints from residents regarding this
problem.
Many residents have created areas in their front yards which meet
the current definition of a driveway. They use the area for
turning their vehicles around to avoid backing into the street.
In some cases that area has also become a parking lot in the
front yard, creating a crowded condition which is not in keeping
with the intended use of residential zones. In addition, the
• existence of the parking areas may encourage the occupation of
single-family homes by more than two renters, in violation of the
zoning ordinances.
The revised ordinances submitted for Council discussion
accomplishes the following:
1. Prohibits parking of vehicles in front yards while also
meeting the safety needs of residents on arterial streets.
It allows the construction of an area in the front yard for
turning vehicles around, thus reducing the risk of accidents
from backing onto a busy street. However, the language makes
it clear that parking on the turnaround area is prohibited.
2. New language is added which distinguishes parking areas from
vehicle turnarounds and restricts parking areas to side and
rear yards. The existing definition of driveway would be
retained in the zoning ordinances.
3. The revised ordinance would prohibit parking on existing
turnarounds in addition to those constructed after adoption
of the revisions. Also, residents on non-arterial streets
who have constructed turnarounds would be required to remove
them, since the ordinance only allows vehicle turnarounds on
arterial streets.
• 4. The revised ordinance will still allow parking on drives
leading to "tuck under" garages, most of which require that
the driveway be in the front yard. Also, the revision does
not affect the ordinance which allows parking in front yards
while streets are being plowed.
The vehicle turnarounds can be paved with the same materials as
existing driveways, which can be concrete, asphalt or gravel.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the council review the proposed ordinance,
suggest changes and provide direction to staff for further
consideration.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The revised ordinance will allow the construction of vehicle
turnarounds where safety is a factor, but will prohibit
parking on those areas in order to keep the use of front
yards consistent with residential zones.
2. The ordinance will also prohibit the construction of vehicle
turnarounds on streets where backing into the street does not
present the safety problem which exists on arterial streets.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could determine that the present practice of
parking in front yards is acceptable and reject the ordinance
revisions.
2. The council could determine that the scope of the ordinance
be expanded to allow turnarounds on all streets instead of
restricting it to arterial streets.
3. The council could determine that other solutions be
considered. It should be noted that the Public Safety
Department has already explored other possible solutions with
the management team and did not find another practical
solution.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The proposed revisions to ordinances governing the location of
driveways, vehicle turnarounds and parking in front yards has
been scheduled for discussion at the July 6, 1987 city council
study session. If the city council agrees that such an ordinance
is necessary, first reading of the proposed ordinance could be
scheduled for the July 27, 1987 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
• Suggested Ordinance Revisions to Control Parking
in Front Yards of One and Two Family Homes
In 4.04, add the following terms to the title:
4.04 CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAYS, OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS
VEHICLE TURNAROUNDS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS
Place the following definitions in 4.04, Subd. 1, renumber the
existing language in Subd. 1 as Subd. 2, and renumber the
subsequent subdivisions.
In 4.04, old Subd. 8, make the following changes:
• 4.04. Subd. 8. Driveways, Parking Areas, and Vehicle
Turnarounds - Special Regulations. The following special
regulations shall be observed in the construction of driveways,
parking areas, and vehicle turnarounds:
(1) No driveway fre.m. Driveways on private property serving a
she one family e'6te-i-ling or two family dwelling enteri a
shall not exceed 20 feet in width or the width
of the garage, whichever is greater. Upon a showing of necessity
and public convenience, the elty manager building official may
authorize a greater width.
(2) Off-street parking areas on private property serving a one
family or two family dwelling shall not exceed 20 feet in width.
Upon a showing of necessity and public convenience, the building
official may authorize a greater width.
Renumber the existing (2) and its subsequent sections.
E. Add the following as a new (8) to 4.04, old Subd. 8:
(7) Vehicle turnarounds are permitted on private property- serving
one family or two family dwellings which are located on arterial
streets. Vehicle turnarounds shall be a maximum size of 10 feet
by 20 feet. Upon a showing of necessity and public convenience,
the building official may authorize greater dimensions. Parking
is prohibited on vehicle turnarounds.
(2) "Vehicle Turnaround" means a paved surface in a front yard of
a one family or two family home, contiguous with a driveway or
parking area, used for turning vehicles.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 21
July 6, 1987
Issue Statement:
Discussion of Part 150 Study Review submitted to Metropolitan
Airports Commission
Background:
David Braslau completed a review of the Part 150 Study, and a
summary of his comments is included in this council letter. Mr.
Braslau will be present at the July 6 Study Session to review the
comments in more detail. In addition, we have contacted some of
the people who have expressed an interest in attending this
meeting.
"The following issues have been identified following a review of
the FAR Part 150 submittals and discussions with staff of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission. They are not intended to be ranked in order of
importance, but are included here because of their potential
impact on Richfield or because insufficient information is
available upon which to make a thorough evaluation.. Some
background and supporting materials for selected issues will be
provided at a later date. As noted below, further evaluation of
Runway 4-22 related issues will be needed after the Environmental
Impact Statement is available.
1. Distribution of Homes Impacted in Richfield
Based upon contours contained in the Part 150 Submittals,
contours for selected measures have been sketched on an aerial
photograph of Richfield to show the areas impacted and benefiting
from these measures. A comparison of some noise abatement
measures which affect the use of Runway 22 and Runways 29R/L has
been made for the City of Richfield which shows, for example,
that the capacity use of the PRS (in 1985-1986) would increase
the number of homes in Richfield impacted under Runway 22 by 640,
while reducing the number under Runway 29R/L by only 208. A
similar result is obtained for the relocated Runway 4-22. This
type of analysis permits a detailed evaluation of the benefits of
each measure and clearly shows the trade-off of using Runway 22
and Runway 29.
However, the comparisons are made with 1985-86 contours, and not
1987 or 1992 contours. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the measures in the future (when they will be implemented - not
in 1985 or 1986), contours must be developed to enable such
comparisons. A comparison of the contours WITH noise abatement
measures with those for 1987 or 1992 actually show an INCREASE of
• homes impacted in Richfield. Since the assumptions used in the
evaluation of noise abatement measures may not be applicable with
other 1987 or 1992 assumptions, an objective comparison is not
possible with the information provided.
• A detailed evaluation should be prepared for each runway and
community impacted by aircraft noise and a methodology developed
to ensure that the trade-offs of shifting or reducing noise are
weighed with respect to impacts not only on the region, but upon
each community.
2. Flight Tracks off Runway 29R/L
Actual flight tracks were observed by HNTB as part of the Part
150 analysis. Three tracks demonstrate a wide dispersal pattern
covering most of the City of Richfield. The spread in actual
flight tracks emphasizes the difficulty in ensuring that exact
ground tracks can be followed by aircraft, as well as the
implausibility of assuming these tracks when developing noise
impact estimates. It is critical in the development of the
contours that this dispersed data be accurately reflected in the
program input, since otherwise the present impact on Richfield
will be understated. Also, since a spread of this type can be
anticipated off Runway 22, the assumptions as to the Cedar Avenue
and 1494 turns may not be accurate.
3. Wind Rose and Flight Directions
The examination of a wind rose from MSP clearly suggests that
Runway 04 should receive more than its present share of landings
• and takeoffs. The use of Runway 04 could provide some relief to
southeast Richfield although the impact of noise behind departing
aircraft should also be taken into account. The Part 150
Submittal fails to address increased use of Runway 04. The
impact of increased Runway 04 operations on noise levels as well
as the PRS capacity should be addressed.
4. 40/60 Split Off Runway 22
As noted in Item 2 above, this particular split as well as exact
ground tracks will be difficult to enforce as assumed in the
contour development (see comments on 4-22 EIS below).
5. Runway 4-22
Specific comments on Runway 4-22 must wait until the detailed
analysis of runway operations and assumptions are available from
the EIS. Contact with HNTB suggests they are examining at least
six different options (directional splits) off Runway 22, which
would be variations of the ones previously evaluated. It is
essential in the Runway 4-22 EIS that the detailed community
impacts for EACH alternative be evaluated, and compared with the
time period in which the changes will be made (i.e. 1992).
6. Full Length Parallel Runway 4-22
• Based upon the contours, a full length parallel Runway 22 appears
to have a smaller impact on Richfield than the relocated Runway
4-22. The reasons behind this is that no turns to the west are
assumed in these contours. It is not clear why under the
relocated Runway 4-22 option, turns along the 1494 corridor are
assumed while under the new parallel they are not. The
information on this alternative therefore appears to be
inconsistent and insufficient upon which to make an evaluation.
7. Community Land Use Plans
Richfield is prepared to develop land use plans based upon the
Part 150 contours. However, the City is fully developed and,
therefore, funding sources would be required to purchase and
modify existing land uses. This alternative, which would be
especially advantageous to certain parts of Richfield and to
potential airport-oriented businesses, should be evaluated in
more detail. However, the City is also concerned that some
assurance be provided that flight paths and their associated
contours will not change so as to negate the objectives of land
use plans and redevelopment.
8. Retrofit
For communities where the most severe impact is on private
residences rather than public buildings, residential rather than
public buildings should receive funding priority. Perhaps
retrofit priorities should be established by each community in
• cooperation with the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
9. Equitable Distribution of Noise
As discussed in Item 1 above, this concept has not been
thoroughly considered in the Part 150 study. It is recommended
that some type of an objective community measure be developed so
that flight operations could be selected to optimize the measures
for each community as well as the Metropolitan area as a whole.
The approach used in the Part 150 study is regional in scope and
will lead to relatively greater impacts in some communities than
in others.
10. Agreement with Bloomington
The City of Richfield agrees with the comments made by the City
of Bloomington in their letter to the MAC on May 19 and
supporting memorandum.
11. Data and Assumptions
Detailed assumptions as to the number of operations by type of
aircraft and operation of each flight track should be made
available to permit an accurate assessment of the impacts from
Runway 22 Runway 29R/L on Richfield. Access to the INM database
• used for the analysis would provide such information and would
clearly indicate the assumptions made.
12. Land Use Issues
Richfield would like to see a higher priority assigned to land
acquisition for compatible redevelopment and would like to have
the opportunity to retrofit homes rather than public buildings if
deemed more appropriate by the City. As noted in Item 7 above, a
more comprehensive evaluation of the land acquisition option
should be included in the Part 150 study.
13. Preferential Runway System Use and Capacity
The capacity of the PRS is estimated to be 80 operations per
hour. However, nowhere in the Part 150 is the actual functioning
of the PRS or a definition of its capacity and how it is reached
included in the documentation. Since the PRS use can
significantly affect noise levels in Richfield,, the City would
like to see a detailed explanation of the operating rules
followed by the tower and how priorities have been assigned for
takeoff and landing under the PRS.
14. PRS Brainstorming Task Force
The City would appreciate further information on the newly
established "brainstorming" task force on PRS use. The existence
of this task force could be seen as a potential threat to the
assumptions made and incorporated into the Part 150 Study, if
is operational procedures or rules are developed that are different
from those included in the plan. If, in fact, decisions or
recommendations on operations that could affect Richfield or
other communities are to be made by this group, then Richfield,
as well as all other affected communities, should be represented
in this group.
15. Support of the Part 150 Concept and Willingness to
Cooperate
The City of Richfield generally supports the efforts of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission in reducing noise levels around
MSP. However, the City will be providing additional information
and review of those measures associated with Runway 4-22, and
would like to be informed as to progress and findings of the
Runway 4-22 Environmental Impact Statement and the MSP Master
Plan. The City would like to express its willingness to
cooperate in the evaluation of alternatives to minimize noise
impacts in Richfield as well as the entire Metropolitan Area."
Recommendation:
Discuss the Part 150 Study at the July 6, 1987 City Council Study
Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
• It is obvious that additional detailed information regarding the
Environmental Impact Statement from Runway 4-22 will be required
before a definitive statement regarding the impact of the runway
extension can be made. This won't be available until early to
mid-August. At that time, a public information session should be
scheduled.
Respectf ly submitted,
i
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 20
Agenda July 6, 1987
Issue Statement:
Discussion of Richfield Human Services Advisory Commission,
serving Seniors and Disabled, 1986 Accomplishments/Activities and
1987 Goals and Objectives.
Background:
The former Senior Citizen Advisory Commission changed its title
in 1986 to the Richfield Human Services Advisory Commission,
(Serving Seniors and Disabled), to more accurately reflect its
scope of responsibility for the disabled population. While the
staff support is provided by the Community Services Department
and the Commission deals with matters such as recreation
programming and transportation which are a responsibility of this
department, the Commission also reflects on subjects that are the
responsibility of other departments; i.e., housing, safety and
voting. Attached is a complete summary of those items the
Commission believes are their 1986 accomplishments and activities
and their 1987 goals and objectives.
In particular, the Commission members would like to discuss with
the city council the following 1986 Accomplishments:
1. Transfer "Access to Vote" project
2. Participate in Community Center ten year anniversary
3. Support Fraser project
and the following 1987 Goals:
1. Smoke alarm safety program
2. "Defensive Walking" program
3. Review report from Task Force on Aging
Recommendation:
The Human Services Advisory Commission is looking forward to
meaningful dialogue with and feedback from the city council.
Basis of Recommendation:
As the members of the Commission serve in an advisory capacity,
it is in the best interest of the community to coordinate efforts
and share concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Should the city council feel the Human Services Commission should
enter into more, less or different endeavors, such should be made
. known to the members of the Commission.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion is anticipated to fill a thirty minute time period on
Monday, July 6, 1987. No formal actions are anticipated.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
Attachment
0
0 July 6, 1987
The Richfield Human Services Advisory Commission, serving seniors
and disabled, has summarized their accomplishments and activities
for 1986 and has identified their 1987 goals and objectives:
1986 ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ACTIVITIES
1. Complete transfer of "Access to Vote" project to the City
Clerk and the VFW.
2. Participate in ten year anniversary of Community Center.
3. Serve on Task Force on Aging committee.
4. Examine moderate to low income housing.
5. Review Needs Assessment Survey.
6. Support Fraser building project.
7. Address the Governor at the Minnesota Board on Aging public
hearings.
8. Sponsor Metro-Mobility education programs.
9. Serve on Social Service Funding Committee.`
1987 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Educational Projects
• A. Implement a smoke alarm safety program.
B. Work with Public Safety on "Defensive Walking" program
for area of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue South.
C. Provide informational programs on Metro-Mobility.
D. Provide a seminar on housing options.
E. Annual Report to city council.
2. Ongoing Committee Participation
A. Member on H.O.M.E. Advisory Board
B. Member on Social Service Funding Committee
C. Members on Task Force on Aging
3. Speakers at Commission Meetings
A. Cornerstone: Battered Women and Men
B. H.O.M.E.
4. Monitor Ongoing Programs
A. Access to Vote
B. Fraser apartment project
C. Senior housing development
D. Clip articles pertaining to Commission concerns
E. Write Thank You letters to businesses and people
providing services for senior citizens
F. Nominate and recognize people for community awards
5. Research Projects
A. Conduct survey of needs at the Community Center.
B. Investigate methods for finding employment opportunities
CJ
D. Review report from Task Force on Aging.
for senior citizens.
C. Identify a clergy person to serve as liaison to the
Commission.
11