03-26-1984 Study SessionCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
Study Session
March 26, 1984
Mayor Hamilton called the Study Session to order at 6:00 P.M.
Council members present were Hamilton, Ludeman, Kirsch, Priebe and Bunce
(who arrived later in the meeting).
Mayor Hamilton noted that this study session had been called for the
purpose of reviewing and discussing alternatives for the possible construction
of an interchange at the intersection of Hwy. 77 (Cedar Avenue) and 76th Street.
City Manager Cartwright noted that council members had previously discussed
the concept of an interchange at this intersection and had requested additional
information on the design alternatives.
Community Development Director Dennis Kraft reported on the various
alternatives that have been formulated for the interchange and reviewed the
Council Letter concerning the specific aspects of the four alternatives that
had been identified.
Mr. Dick Wolsfeld from the BRW consulting firm was introduced. Mr.
Wolsfeld reviewed overall plans for this project, entitled "Airport South".
The project encompasses an area from 494 south to 86th Street along Cedar
Avenue. He said this plan has been approved by all property owners in Bloom-
ington, including the City of Bloomington. The project has not been approved
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, or the
Federal Highway Administration. In response to questions by the City Council,
Mr. Wolsfeld said that the estimated cost of these improvements south of 494 is
approximately $18 million. Further, no additional right-of-way will need to be
acquired to the west of the Cedar Avenue frontage road, but substantial new
right-of way will need to be made available to the east.
Council Study Session ~ -2- March 26, 1984
(Councilman Bence arrived at this time.)
With the use of visual aids, Mr. Wolsfeld described the four design
alternatives or the potential interchange at Hwy. 77 and 76th Street. The
four alternatives are:
1) Interchange that provides access to the east only with a collector/
distributor system.
2) Future upgrading to provide access to the west with a collector/
distributor system.
3) Access to the east only without a collector/distributor system.
4) Ftizture upgrading to provide westerly access without a collector/
distributor system.
In describing the first alternative, Mr. Wolsfeld said this,.would realign
the frontage road on the west side and would involve acquiring tiro apartments
in that vicinity. He said the frontage road on the east side would be elimi-
nated and Trunk Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue) would be-moved approximately 75 feet
closer to the Golf Course.
Mr. Wolsfeld said a later upgrading of the interchange to provide a
connection for 76th Street to the West would require additional right-of way
west of the frontage road (Cedar Avenue in Richfield). He said an additional ~
to 4,000 vehicles per day is the estimate for increased traffic on 76th Street
if this connection for access to the west is made. He noted that under this.
alternative, the frontage road (Cedar Avenue) is diverted at 75th Street to 18th
Avenue to allow sufficient room for the entrance ramp.
Concerning the third alternative, which would also provide access only to
the east, provision is made for a continuous frontage road on both sides of
Trunk Highway 77. This would involve taking the two apartment buildings on the
LJ
west side of the frontage road. He also noted this alternative would not move
Council Study Session -3- March 26, 1984
Cedar any closer to the Golf Course.
The fourth alternative provides for an upgrading of the interchange to
provide access to the west on 76th Street. This would involve realigning the
frontage road to the local street network, perhaps along 18th Avenue.
Councilman Ludeman asked why the interchange would need to be located at
76th Street instead of 75th Street? Mr. Wolsfeld said this is proposed in
order to avoid affecting the Golf Course, but would require the apartment_
buildings to be taken. He said Federal regulations make it easier to acquire
apartment buildings for right-of-way than the Golf Course or other public
property.
Councilman Ludeman also asked if the westerly connection was made, how
traffic might be prevented from using the local street, 18th Avenue? Discussion
followed concerning the specific design of an interchange involving a connection
to the west on 76th Street, the need for grade changes, retaining walls, etc.,
which would place constraints on the location of frontage road connections and
exit ramps.
Mr. Wolsfeld noted that the west side hook-up provides better overall
access, but does have traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood.
Mayor Hamilton summarized the concensus of the Council regarding its
current assessment of the need for this interchange construction, based on
present conditions, as follows:
1) The Council prefers that there be no connection for 76th Street to the
west;
2) That 18th Avenue not be used for a frontage road in order to avoid
traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood; and,
3) That any interchange which might be constructed minimize right-of-way
acquisition and effects on the Richfield Golf Course.
Council Study Session
-4-
March 26, 1984.
The City Manager was directed to confirm the Council consensus in writing
to the Metropolitan Council staff and BRW engineers.
The study session of the City Council was ad~ourp~ed at,~,~51?I P .M. '
Date Approved: April 23, 1984
Ronald Rankin Acting City Clerls
1