01-28-1997CITY OF RIOFIFIELD
Knnnm OOf i1mission
nGEnDFI
January 28, 1997
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -
Special Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1996, and joint study session with
Community Services of January 14, 1997.
PUBLfC HEARING
ITEM #1 95 -CUP -4 7608 Knox Avenue - Minnesota Taxi
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #2 PC Ltr #1 Ice Arena Expansion
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #3 PC Ltr #2 Tattoo /Blight
ITEM #4 PC Ltr #3 Comprehensive Plan Update
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
H RA
City Council
ADJOURNMENT>
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made
at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
December 10, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela
Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Kristal Stokes and Paul Wasko.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON
David Gepner
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Kirchoff, Staff Planning Assistant
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M /Erlander, S /Hadley to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission regular
meeting of November 26, 1996.
Motion carried: 6 -0
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #1 PC Letter 915
Tattoo Ordinance
Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report.
December 10, 1996
Page 2
Commissioner Stokes asked if tattoo establishments require a license. Ms. Urban stated
that businesses do not require a state license but that the tattooing would be licensed in the
Advisory Board of Health's proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Wasko questioned if the ordinance would deal with blight issues, such as a
tattoo business located adjacent to a gunshop. Commissioner Erlander stated that the purpose of
distancing requirements is to prevent neighborhood decay.
Chairperson Linnihan questioned if their have been any applicants for adult uses since the
ordinance was adopted. Ms. Urban stated that there was one inquiry.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that the Commission shall direct staff to further study the
issues relating to tattoo and other similar establishments and blight.
Commissioner Stokes suggested the Commission explore adopting a separate blight
ordinance should be adopted as an "umbrella" over the tattoo and adult uses ordinances.
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #2
1997 Study Session Schedule
Ms. Urban stated that topics for further study may include infrastructure and geographic
information systems. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the area of 66th Street /Penn Avenue
needs attention and previous studies /plans should be reviewed, as well as the results from the
traffic calming test sites. Community Development Manager Melin stated that tax increment
financing could be presented. Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that legislative issues affecting
the City should be brought to the attention of the Commission. Commissioner Stokes mentioned
the Metropolitan Council's growth documents as a study session topic.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:00 p.m.
Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
0-1, PLANNING COMMISSION MIN ES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON:
Joint Planning Comm ission/Community Services
Study Session
January 14, 1997
Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David
Gepner, Mitchell Hadley and Kevin Hansen.
Dan Linnihan
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Cheryl Jacobson, Community Development Technician
Cynthia Kirchoff, Staff Planning Assistant
The joint Planning Commission/Study Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #1 Addendum to the I -35W Environmental Impact Statement
City Engineer Mike Eastling presented the Council letter which detailed the addendum to
the I -35W Environmental Impact Statement. He stated that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) is proposing to extend the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on I-
35W from I494 to 46th Street. Mr. Eastling stated that the I -35W -Hwy 62 Commons Area is
congested and the proposal would sort the traffic. He stated that the proposal would eliminate
access to 35W from Lyndale Avenue and 5 homes located in that area. Commissioner
Dmytrenko asked if new noise walls will be installed. Mr. Eastling indicated that an overall.
design scheme would have to be developed.
ITEM #2
76th Street East of I -35W Study Update
January 14, 1997
Page 2
City Engineer Eastling presented the proposal for the downsizing of 76th Street. He
stated that the proposal included eliminating 2 of the 4 traffic lanes and constructing a walkway
and parking bays on the south side of the street and a two -way bituminous bikeway on the north.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. and the Community Services
Commission continued with their agenda.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #97- ACUP -1 Date: January 28, 1997
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Minnesota Taxi, Inc.
Location: 7608 Knox Avenue South
Type of Request: Amended Conditional Use Permit to allow additional cars to be parked in
the front parking lot and require that a contract for off -site parking of
vehicles be maintained.
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Land Use: commercial
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the amended conditional use permit would give the applicant
increased flexibility in parking vehicles in the front parking lot and require
that a contract for additional off -site parking be maintained.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the amended conditional use permit request with stipulations.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on January 28,
1997.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date
of February 10, 1997.
ANALYSIS
Background: In December, 1995 the City Council granted a conditional use permit to
Minnesota Taxi to conduct automotive repairs at 7608 Knox Avenue.
Two regular parking spaces are available in the front of the building. The
building is built on the property line so the only way to access the rear of the
property is to go through the building. The applicant did not use the parking in
the rear of building but proceeded to park up to 12 cars in the front parking area.
In addition, several taxis were observed on the boulevard in front of the property
and along Knox Avenue.
Staff sent three notices to the business informing the owner that he could not park
on the boulevard, that the street is not to be used for storing taxis, and that the
front parking lot is designed for two regular parking spaces. The business owner
failed to comply with staff's warnings, so staff recommended that the City
Council revoke the CUP.
The City Council tabled action on the revocation for two months to determine if
Minnesota Taxi would stay in compliance for that period of time. Staff continued
to observe four and-five cars in the parking lot so continued to recommend
revocation to the City Council. The Council decided that limiting the business to
two parking spaces in the front of the building is too strict and requested that the
Planning Commission review the possibility of providing greater flexibility to the
business.
Proposal: Staff recommends that two additional parking spaces, in front of two of the
service bays, be available for parking for the business. This additional parking
should only be utilized between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. to prevent use of
the lot as a storage facility. There is limited space available in the front, allowing
any additional cars would limit the function of the site. Allowing the business to
park a car in front of the third bay would limit access to the rear parking lot.
The business was using the street and the property to store taxis. After staff
informed the business owner that the Council would consider revoking the CUP,
the taxi business contracted with a property owner in Burnsville to store taxis on
that property. As a condition of the CUP, the taxi business should be required to
maintain such a contract to store taxis at a separate location.
The owner of the property has actively monitored the property for the past few
months and has made a commitment to tow vehicles that are inappropriately
parked in the lot. He has worked with staff to develop the recommended changes
to the CUP.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for an amended
conditional use permit, allowing four regular parking spaces in the front of the
building, with the following stipulations:
1. That the business not park more than two regular (non - handicapped)
vehicles in front of the building between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m.
2. That the business maintain an arrangement to provide off -site storage of
vehicles and that evidence of the arrangement be kept on file with the
Community Development Department:
3. That the third service bay remain empty to allow access to the parking in
the rear of the building.
Basis: 1. The City Council has directed staff and the Planning Commission to
consider increased parking flexibility for the business.
2. The building has little parking available and options for improving the
function of the site are limited.
3. The business has abused the CUP in the past and should not be given
unlimited flexibility.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact that
the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the
City as a whole.
3f1N3Ad XONH
za
x000 obis --wroo
I
W
I a
W
Z
WW
G O
I i i nl
I
301 16 S3 Dvds t 1,
3Nil Al!l3d0!!d
I U 0
N
O
30Vds
J
1
dV010NVH 1
z I 1 11 1
uj
W
C/)
a
X
O O
CL
CL
Z
O
Q
d
m
CL
U
0o
o
z
i Z
W
J
i
N
aZ z
J
D
0OW
x000 obis --wroo
I
W
I a
W
Z
WW
G O
I i i nl
I
301 16 S3 Dvds t 1,
3Nil Al!l3d0!!d
O
J
IL M
w W
uj
W
C/) X
O O
CL Z
O d
m
CL 0o
o
N
II
r
W
J
i
N
aZ z
0OW
v
z
oz
gud
Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #1 Date: January 28, 1997
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Proposed expansion of the ice arena; lease of the space to Hat Trick Hockey for
retail sale of hockey - related equipment.
Type of Request: Review and discuss proposed expansion as it relates to zoning and land use issues;
provide a recommendation to the City Council.
ANALYSIS
Issues: Several months ago, the City was approached by the owner of Hat Trick Hockey
609 East 66th Street) about the possibility of moving their retail skating business
into a space adjacent to the ice arena.
A 2,000 square foot addition would be constructed on the southeast side of the
arena near the main entrance. The space would be leased to Hat Trick Hockey.
The business would have a separate entrance from the outside. It would also be
accessible from inside the ice arena. Adequate parking is currently available for
the ice arena and would accommodate the additional space.
The ice arena is located in the R (single family residential) district. Government
facilities are permitted uses in the R district. A commercial business, as a
principal use, is not permitted. The proposed retail business could, however, be
considered incidental to the principal use of the ice arena. The business would
take up a small portion of the total ice arena and would provide a. service
complementary to the function of the ice arena. As the landlord, the City would
have significant control over the operation of the business to ensure that its
operation is consistent with the primary function of the ice arena.
Because the Zoning Ordinance does not anticipate this type of use in a
governmental facility, in a residential district, the City Council needs to determine
whether or not this proposal is consistent with the Ordinance. Although Planning
Commission review of this type of issue is not normally required, staff thinks it's
important to provide the City Council with the additional perspectives of the
Planning Commission and the Community Services Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council make a determination that a skating -
related retail business would be an accessory use to the existing ice
arena.
Basis: 1. The proposed use will take up a small portion of the total ice arena
and is incidental to the primary function of the ice arena.
2. The retail sales are limited to skating - related goods.
3. As the landlord, the City has significant control over how this
commercial business operates and can ensure -its operation is
consistent with the principal use of the property.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council make a determination that a skating -
related retail business would not be an allowable accessory use to the
existing ice arena.
I
I I
1
t 1
aI _
I
I
C
I
II
I
I;
I
II
Li
XI
c
I
I
Oo Z.
O O
Q
i !
IdJ
4
a0
00t
r
Z
0
0
Z
X
w
LLJ
U
O ~owW
Y <zUWt
iRaGo
u 10
W
E;,
I
3
z
0
a
WJW
o
L:
W
0
a
J
W
o
o
kE
yl!
Al
LIE
E4
ce
R" All
Lu
CITY OF R10HRELD
PonninG commission
Lettat
Item: #3 Agenda Section: Old Business
PC Letter: #2 Date: January 28, 1997
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Tattoo Ordinance
Type of Review and discuss proposed ordinance language regulating the location of tattoo
Request: establishments.
References: • Draft ordinance language
Letter from Assistant City Attorney Thomson responding to Planning Commission
comments at December 10, 1996 study session
ANALYSIS
Proposal: - At the December 10, 1996 study session, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft of a
proposed tattoo ordinance. The Commission suggested that tattoo businesses also be
restricted from locating near the City's "gateways ". The revised ordinance adds language
requiring that tattoo businesses locate 100 feet from the City's "gateway" streets
Lyndale, Penn, Nicollet, Portland, 12th and Cedar Avenues).
The Commission also suggested that staff consider the combined impact of the restrictions
imposed on tattoo parlors gun shops, pawn shops and adult uses. There may be a
potential for blight in areas where more than one of these types of businesses could
locate. A map will be available at the Planning Commission meeting showing the
potential areas for blight in the City.
The Advisory Board of Health is planning to have their portion of a tattoo ordinance
completed in February, which would allow a first reading of both tattoo ordinances at the
second City Council meeting in February. The Commission may want to consider acting
on the tattoo ordinance at this time and designating future study sessions to study blight
issues. A letter from Assistant City Attorney Thomson (see attached) suggests that
further study be undertaken by the Commission before acting on a blight ordinance. The
Commission may also determine, after, looking at the map of potential blighted areas, that
blight from these types of uses is of limited concern and does not warrant further study.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Review and discuss the proposed draft ordinance amendment regarding tattoo
establishments; recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the City Council.
Basis: 1. A study of the issues by the Advisory Board of Health indicates that there is a
need to regulate tattoo establishments. The Board recommends that zoning
regulations, as well as licensing requirements, be adopted.
2. Tattooing is an activity restricted to adults; tattoo establishments should not be
located in close proximity to areas where children are commonly: present.
3. Tattoo establishments cannot give tattoos to persons under the influence of
alcohol or drugs; tattoo establishments should not be located in close proximity
to businesses that serve alcohol.
4. Concentration of businesses such as tattoo establishments can have a negative
impact on the aesthetics and image of a neighborhood.
5. The location of businesses such as tattoo establishments near entry streets to the
City can have a negative impact on the image of the city as a whole.
Alternative: 1. Direct staff to conduct further study of the issues relating to tattoo businesses.
2. Direct staff to conduct further study of a potential blight ordinance.
3. Recommend that the City Council not adopt an ordinance amendment regulating
tattoo establishments.
Bill No. 1996 -
Amendment to the City Code
of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
A. Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning:
Commercial Districts" is amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 20-to read as follows:
Subd. 20. Tattoo Establishments, provided the following conditions are met:
a) such uses shall be licensed under Section XXX of the City Code;
b such uses shall be located not less than 100 feet from any residential zoned
property;
c) such uses shall be located not less than 350 feet from any school, church,
park, day care center, or public library;
d) such uses shall be located not less than 350 feet from any establishment
selling and /or serving alcoholic beverages.
e) such uses shall be located not less than 100 feet from the right -of -way of an
entry street to the city. For purposes of this subdivision, an entry street is
defined as Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portland
Avenue Cedar Avenue and 12th Avenue.
f) such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from other tattoo
establishments:
B. The remaining subdivisions of subsection 526.27 are renumbered accordingly.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,
1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF R10HAELD
PLAnrnnG commission
Item: # 4 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: # 3 Date: January 28, 1997
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Status of Comprehensive Plan update
Type of Request: Information, no action requested
References: Volumes 4 and 5 of the new Comprehensive Plan
BACKGROUND
In 1993 ( ?) the Planning Commission, City staff and consultants began working on updating the City's 1980
Comprehensive Plan. As you know, this has been a lengthy and complicated task.. It is, however, nearing
completion.
In August of last year staff submitted a draft of the updated 1996 Plan to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary
review and comment. In October Metropolitan Council staff provided City staff with a list of items which they
felt needed further attention. In some cases information was lacking, but most of their comments dealt with items
which were minor in nature or were already addressed elsewhere in other city documents. Since that time City
staff and Don Brauer, the City's Comprehensive Plan Consultant, have been working to address these issues. The
information requested by the Metropolitan Council has been included as Volume Four, Implementation, and
Volume Five, Addendum. The Addendum includes information on the following:
Additional base data
Infrastructure
Housing
Policy issues and growth options
Aviation
The most recent schedule had anticipated formal submittal of the Plan to the Metropolitan Council on January 10
with City Council approval and adoption on April 14. Unfortunately we were unable to meet that schedule. Staff
now anticipates submitting the Plan to the Metropolitan Council during the first week of February. They then
have 60 days to review the Plan. Staff also plans to initiate a 45 day comment period (not required) so that those
residents who attended the various planning meetings can review and comment on the finished product.
Assuming that the Metropolitan Council takes the full 60 days to review the Plan, and also that there are no
additional issues, staff anticipates bringing the Plan to the City Council for approval and adoption in May.
Approval could come sooner if the Metropolitan Council takes less than 60 days to review the Plan.)
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended No Action Requested
Action
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FOUR Implementation 1/8/97
VOLUME FOUR ... .................Implementation
of the
1996 comprehensive plan update
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN
FOUR -1
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FOUR Implementation 1/8/97
Table of Contents
PART ONE Annual Process
1.1 Overview
1.2 Annual Review
PART TWO Update Zoning
2.1 Recent Ordinance Review and Update
2.2 Rezoning Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
PART THREE Development Review
3.1 Historical Perspective
3.2 196 PLAN Proposal Function
PART FOUR Capital Budgeting
4.1 Current Practice
11:2 `96 PLAN Recommendations
FOUR -2
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FOUR Implementation 1/8/97
1.0 PART ONE .................Annual Plan Review Process
1.1 Overview
The City has a long history of dealing with complex and contested zoning and
redevelopment projects including staff and consulting professional evaluations as well as
opportunities for citizen input, but the 1983 Comprehensive Plan was not intended or
developed to be a useful tool in that process. The primary intent and purpose of the 196
PLAN update is to adopt a plan that can and will be a useful tool in future zoning and
redevelopment decisions. For this reason the plan is focused on concepts described as
goals and objectives, and the Subarea Plans are looked upon as examples of how those
areas of the City might be redeveloped by applying those concepts and goals, rather than
the more typical view of the plan as the objective, or a "blueprint" for development.-
The Planning Commission, with the assistance of City staff, will prepare a working
document...... a workbook ......... to be used by staff and each member of the Commission as..
a reference for background information
a process outline for review of rezoning or redevelopment proposals,
a guide for the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan.
A workshop process will be used to develop the workbook so that it will grow out of the
perceptions and needs of the Commissioners and staff,
1.2 The Annual Review of the Comprehensive Plan
The Planning Commission will set aside one complete agenda, most likely a special
meeting in a location other than the usual City Hall meeting room, to deal with a complete
review of planning and development activities for the year. Staff will prepare a summary
report of activities and updated basic information, with recommendations for revisions,
additions, or deletions to the PLAN documentation and to the illustrative graphics.
The Commission may elect to involve citizens in the process through surveys, task groups,
civic organizational feedback, and formal or informal public meetings
A formal report including recommendations for updates and revisions to the PLAN will be
presented to the City Council for review and action. The Council will then submit the
updated PLAN to the Metropolitan Council for review.
FOUR -3
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FOUR Implementation 1/8/97
2.0 PART TWO ..................Revise /Update Zoning
2.1 Recent Ordinance Review and Update
The Richfield Zoning Ordinance was completely revised and updated in 1996, taking into
account some of the considerations that were being discussed in the comprehensive plan
update process at the time. The updated ordinance is, for all intents and purposes, quite
suitable to use as a basis for administration of the concepts and objectives outlined in the
96 PLAN. Some further changes may be needed after the `96 PLAN has been formally
adopted, in order to facilitate, for instance, proposals to encourage more single family -
attached housing. It is important to consider that the long and successful administration of
development and rezonings under this ordinance have established a confidence that
should not be discarded.
2.2 Rezoning Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
The City does not intend to rezone currently inconsistent sites to conform to the `96 PLAN
proposals. This rezoning would create a plethora of non - conforming use situations that
compromise at least, and seriously hurt at worst, current owners and occupants for no
good purpose. Specific sites will be rezoned as a result of a participative and logical
redevelopment planning and development process for each specific area as the opportunity
presents itself.
3.0 PART THREE ..............Development Review
3.1 Historical Perspective
The City has developed and practiced a formal development review process as well as
redevelopment project management over a period of more than 30 years, that allows for
professional and citizen participation and has served the City well. There is no need to
invent" a new process, since consideration of the consistency with, or implications from
provisions of the comprehensive plan is one of the subjects covered by the staff reports and
included in the conditions or terms of the modifications suggested, approval or denial.
3.2 196 PLAN Proposal Function
The `96 PLAN provides very extensive and clearly stated goals and objectives that can
serve as criteria by which to evaluate requests for rezoning or redevelopment. They are
not, however, substitutes for complete and effective site planning and structural design.
FOUR -4
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FOUR Implementation 1/8/97
4.0 PART FOUR ................Capital Budgeting
4.1 Current Practice
The City has annually updated, adopted, and implemented a five -year Capital
Improvement Budget /Capital Improvement Plan (CIB /CIP) for more than 20 years. The
Current Plan (1996 -2001) was adopted in March, 1966, and proposes a total appropriation
of slightly more than $11 million for the budget period. The Budget is divided into three
major catagories ....... Recreation and Open Space, Right -of -Way Improvements, and
Public Facilities. In addition to the program of capital expenditures that preserve and
enhance City infrastructure and provide natural and recreational amenities , the plan also
recommends initiatives to assist the City in its strategic goal of creating economic
development.
4.2 `96 PLAN Recommendations
The CIB /CIP is incorporated by reference into the `96 PLAN.
FOUR -5
RICHHELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOL UME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE ............................ .....................Additional Base Data
1.1 Information Summary for Comprehensive Plans (Form)
1.2 Additional Transportation Data
1.3 Additional Land Use Data
PART TWO ............ ............................... .................Infrastructure
2.1 Wastewater
2.2 Water Supply
2.3 Surface Water Management
PART THREE ........... ............................... ........................Housing
3.1 Additional Data and Information
PART FOUR ... .........................Policy Issues & Growth Options
4.1 Policy Issues
4.2 Growth Options
PARTFIVE ................ ............................... .......................Aviation
5.1 Overview
5.2 Aviation Development Guide Requirements
5.3 Mitigation Measures for Expanded MSP Operations
5.4 Summary and Conclusions
FIVE 1
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WI:
VOL UME FI VE Addenda 12/10/96
1.0 PART ONE ..................... .....................Additional Base Data
1.1 Information Summary For Comprehensive Plan Revisions
The Information Summary Form is submitted as part of the cover letter together
with the PLAN documents.
1.2 Additional Transportation Data .................as requested in he preliminary review
letter of October 15, 1996
a) Regional Context .... is described under 2.4a in Volume One, as dominated by
transportation concerns and considerations. The city is "walled in" by freeways with
THE on the east, 1-494 on the south, TH62 on the north, and bisected by 135W. An
updated and revised Exhibit B -1, shows 1995 traffic volumes and year 2000
projections consistent with the PLAN proposal.
There are no confirmed, programmed, major improvement or upgrading projects on any
of these regional freeways that should be shown in the PLAN graphics or discussed in
the document text. The PLAN document, as well as the planning process
acknowledges the likelihood of future changes to these freeway structures, but the
spectrum of possibilities is too broad, and the timing too speculative to warrant specific
consideration. We believe that MnDOT agrees. Two changes that will most likely
result from expansion of the MSP airport are described in the PLAN graphics but not
defined or discussed in detail. The first is a proposed tunnel connection under TH77 at
76th Street, and the second is a likely upgrading of the interchange of TH77 at 66th
Street. The city is aware of concept proposals for these two improvements, and is in
the process of negotiating mitigation highway concerns are covered in the AVIATION
ADDENDUM which follows as Part 5.5.
b. Land use and density ... is shown on each of the eleven PLAN Subareas, and
has been used as the basis for traffic generation estimates presented in Exhibit B -1.
While the proposed land use changes along TH77 and in the 1-494 West subareas will
have some minor effect or he major freeway interchanges, these arterials carry such
large volumes of regional destination trips, that the impact of the land use changes will
not even register on the broad scale of measures of 24 -hour adt, or even peak hour
measures. All of the other changes are local and improvements are described under
each of the sub area proposals.
FIVE 2
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOL UME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
c. Transit.... services and routes are not altered in the PLAN, but proposals to
increase residential densities and commercial service areas may provide demand for
revised routes or additional services. Exhibit B -2 shows existing transit routes. The city
will continue to support experimental high speed commuter bus services with circulator
busses between transit hubs at the Crosstown and 61 st Street and at Richfield Lake,
when the demand can be demonstrated and supported; and will encourage metro to try
additional east -west service between Southdale and The Mall of America through
Richfield. Effective travel demand management together with provision to more jobs in
the city, are supported in the PLAN, but may reduce demand for transit services.
d. Traffic calming .... is recommended for neighborhoods where rush hour traffic on
arterials and collector streets uses the local streets as relievers. No details or specifics
are included in the PLAN because neighborhood participation is an important part of
the planing and development process in Richfield. The PLAN recommends a program
of analysis, design and participation in the process, rather than specific projects.
1.3 Additional Land Use Data.... is presented below in tabular format to illustrate
comparisons of the current and future conditions resulting from the PLAN proposals.
No major land use changes are projected, but additional commercial development will
generate more tax revenues and jobs, and the housing changes are intended to
provide broader choices in housing that will tend to at least retain or possibly increase
the school age population.
Land Use Designation Current 96 PLAN
acres acres
Single Family Housing 2,193.3 47.8 2,183.5 47.6
Multiple Family Housing 175.5 3.8 146.8 3.2
Commercial 209.2 4.7 292.3 6.4.
Public & Quasi - Public 208.8 4.7 205.9 4.5
Airports and Railroads 11.5 0.3 11.5 0.3
Parks and Recreation 466.4 10.2 475.8 10.4
Roads and Streets 1,286.9 28.1 1,270.1 27.6
Water (non -park) 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
Vacant 18.0 0.6 1.8 0.0
TOTALS 4,587.9 100.0 4,587.9 100.0
FIVE 3
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFIF
VOL UME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
2.0 PART TWO ....... ............................... .................Infrastructure
2.1 Wastewater.... while the PLAN revision calls for the net addition of up to 1,000
residential units, future sewage flow will never equal the actual flow from a population of
47,000 in he 1970's. Flows from enlarged commercial areas will not be significant and
are fairly well distributed around the City. The PLAN graphics indicate areas where
land uses will change, and exhibit A shows changes in tabular form. Because the
proposed changes are small in relation to the total City flows, and because they are
spread throughout the city, existing sewers are more than adequate to accommodate
potential sewage flows. Exhibit C -1, is a map of the City of Richfield showing the
distribution of changes in future wastewater flows as a result of the '96 PLAN land use
proposals.
Worksheet D follows:
WORKSHEET D
Projecting Richfield's Future Wastewater Flows
Projected Households and employees
Year First Service Area
Households Employees
Second Service Area
Households Employees
Third Service Area
Households Employees
2000 110 N/A 120 N/A 90 N/A
2005 100 N/A 110 N/A 120 N/A
2010 90 N/A 120 N/A 140 N/A
2020 120 N/A 75 N/A 115 N/A
Projected Flows
Year First Service Area Second Service Area Third Service Area
2000 22,000 GPD 24,000 GPD 18,000 GPD
2001
2002
2003
FIVE 4
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
VOL UME FIVE
DRAFT
Addenda 12/10/96
2004
2005 42,000 GPD 46,000 GPD 42,000 GPD
2010 60,000 GPD 70,000 GPD. 70,000 GPD
2020 84,000 GPD 85,000 GPD 93,000 GPD
Please Show your calculations)
Total Flow= Housing units x 2.6 persons /unit x 80 GPD /person
Infiltration and Inflow control efforts are described in worksheet E., following:
WORKSHEET E
Preventing and Reducing Infiltration and Inflow
into the Metropolitan Wastewater System
1. Please state Richfield's policies and strategies for preventing and reducing
excessive infiltration and inflow into the metropolitan wastewater system.
It is the intent of the City of Richfield to limit inflow and infiltration as much
as possible. City ordinances prohibit footing drains and sumps, and private
and public storm sewers from draining into the sanitary sewer system.
2. Please identify the extent and sources of existing inflation / inflow problems and
what can reasonably be removed.
None are known to exist today, but if found will be promptly removed.
3. Please describe Richfield's program for reducing and preventing infiltration /inflow.
The consulting firm of SEH has been retained to perform a system -wide 1/1
study that will identify and quantify sources and compare costs for reduction
as compared to costs of treatment.
2.2 Water Supply.... official controls section of the Water Supply Plan has been
submitted under separate cover and the complete document is incorporated in the
PLAN by reference.
FIVE 5
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOL UME FI VE Addenda 12/10/96
2.3 Surface Water Management Plan .... was completed .in early 1996 and is
incorporated into the PLAN by reference. A complete copy of the surface water
management plan was submitted to the Council in 1995 and has been partially
reviewed.
2.4 Parks and Recreation.... Rich Acres Golf Courses.... record the highest
volume of plan of any golf facility in Minnesota nearly every year, and clearly support
the PLAN recommendation to improve and acquire additional facilities in this part of the
metro area where golf courses are scarce and population is most dense. The city
believes, and the question surely is not finally decided, that the loss of the golf facilities
is clearly an impact of the MSP expansion because only one of the three basic
alternatives requires the "north - south" runway that displaces the golf facilities. It would
be a different matter if the Legislature had ordered this option for the expansion or if
there was no other feasible, viable alternative. The PLAN update presents the city's
evaluation and conclusions, and not the flawed and biased choices of others.
3.0 PART THREE .. ............................... ........................HOUSING
3.1 Additional Data and Information Requested.... is summarized in
WORKSHEET C, following:
WORKSHEET C
Housing Units and Households
A. Total number and percent of dwelling units and housing types.
FIVE 6
1990 census 92 Met Council
housing type units units -
Single Family 10,366 64.7 10,385 64.5
Mobile Homes 62 0.4 67 0.4
Townhomes 0 0.0 0 0.0
Duplexes & Attached 350 12.2
Multifamily 16,010 100.0 16,090 100.0
FIVE 6
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOL UME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
B. Number and percent of owners and renters (1990 census).
Owners 10,406 67%
Renters 5,145 34%
C. Value of owner occupied units and rent ranges of rental units.
Owner occupied Rental units
Description
50,000 71 250 240
50,000 ....... 99, 900 8,214 250........499 3,325
100,000 ... 149, 900 1,034 500........ 749 1,381
150,000 ... 199, 900 62 750........ 999 117
200,000 ... 299,900 7 1000 4
Median ... $84,000
14
Median ... $438 .
Young Seniors
D. Number and types of public- assisted housing units
Elderly and handicapped (Richfield Towers) .. ............................150
Vouchers...................................................... ............................... 250
Certificates........................ ............................... ............................150
E. Households by age of householder... number and percent .
Age Range Description Number
Age 0 -19 Students living with Parents 7,798 22
20 -24 Renters 2,819 8
25 -34 Fist Time Homebuyers 7,140 20
35-49 Move -up buyers 6,790 19
50-64 Empty Nesters 5,111 14
64 -74 Young Seniors 3,849 11
75+ Older Seniors 2,203 6
F. Current housing densities, number of acres developed as single - family and
multifamily.
Housing Type area units Density
ac) (u /ac)
Single Family Detached 2,193.3 10,385 4.73
Multifamily Units 175.5 5,644 32.16
G. Land potentially available for residential use in various densities.
Nil to None
FIVE 7
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOL UME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
H. Age of Housing .... (1990 census data)
Years built number of units of Total
1989 -1990 15 0.3
1985 -1988 357 2.2
1980 -1984 437 2.7
1970 -1979 1,341 8.3
1960 -1969 2,828 17.5
1950 -1959 7,042 43.7
1940 -1949 3,379 21.0
pre 1939 695 4.3
TOTALS 16,094 100.0%
Number and percent of units needing rehabilitation or improvement.
Available Data are Out of Date
J. current and forecasted employment in Richfield (Council Data)
1990 1996 2000 2010 2020
Unknown Unknown 10,700 11,600 12,000
4.0 PART FOUR..... POLICY ISSUES & GROWTH OPTIONS
4.1 Policy Issues........
are describe in the the PLAN as goals and objectives and are consistent with, and
supportive of the five fundamental policies of the Council for the development of first -
ring suburbs.
4.2 Growth Options......
outlined in the Council's Regional Blueprint are supported by PLAN proposals to
expand commercial development areas by 84 acres (a 40% increase), encourage
increased transit service, add 1,000 housing units, and continue the very successful
neighborhood replacement and rehabilitation program that has been actively promoted
and supported by the City for several years.
5.0 PART FIVE ....... ............................... .......................AVIATION
FIVE 8
RICHFIFID COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
5.1 Overview..... Though Richfield is impacted much more per capita or per acre by
regional highways than any other metro area city, by far the greatest per capita or per
acre imposition on the city comes from the current and proposed expanded regional
aviation facilities at Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport (MSP). On the other
hand, the combined effect of ALL of the proposals in the Richfield Comprehensive Plan
Update ('96 PLAN) will have no detectable, comprehensible, or -significant effect or
influence on the the expansion and development MSP.
Losses..... while many communities and thousands of residents are, and will continue
to be affected by aircraft aloft noise, Richfield is singularly and significantly impacted by:
1. Loss New Ford Town and Rich Acres developments (current and future tax base,
over 350 residential units, businesses, a church, future industrial development, two
parks and all existing urban infrastructure).
2. Loss of Rich Acres Golf Courses (27 holes), club house, shop and yard.
3. Loss of East Richfield softball and little league fields.
4. Loss of an excellent site for Public Works shop and yard
5. Exposure of existing residential areas west of TH77 (Cedar Avenue) to ground and
take off activities and noise that will be much more severe than is the case for any of
the existing runways at MSP or for that matter, at any other major aviation facility in
this country.
More Information and Cooperation ...... the city has consistently and persistently
requested more information, better analysis, and comprehensive mitigation proposals
for the impacts on Richfield and other surrounding cities, in the planning and the EIS
documentation for the expansion of MSP. As of the date of submission of these PLAN,
most of these questions remain unresolved and for that reason, were not covered in the
basic PLAN documentation. The questions and concerns are outlined in this
ADDENDUM. The `96 PLAN document does state the City's position on the expansion
of MSP under GOAL 8.:
continue to support the long -term operation of the existing (MSP) airport in the metro
area and Richfield, working with federal agencies to provide a quality living environment.
for those residing near the airport.
The Cedar Avenue Subsector Proposals..... in the he '96 PLAN for the area along the
west side of TH77 (Cedar Avenue) anticipate the need to alter land use and circulation
in that area as a form of mitigation of the noise, lights, and other impacts resulting from
FIVE 9
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
the activities and operations on the new north -south (actually south - south) runway and
continued expansion of groundside activities.
5.2 Aviation Development Guide Requirements .................There are no existing or proposed
structures over 500 feet above ground level, and no structures over 10 stories that
require emergency evacuation by helicopter, no aviation support facilities, no private
airfields, no seaplane designated water bodies, and no Runway Protection Zones in
the city, so nothing is said about these subjects in the '96 PLAN
Land acquisition .......... for MSP expansion in Richfield has for all intents and purposes
been accomplished for the affected residents and owners of property in the NEW FORD
TOWN and RICH ACRES subdivisions of Richfield to be acquired by MAC, and the'96
PLAN graphics show the areas as "PUB" (MAC). These areas are not included in the
current or the projected PLAN land use calculations since this property is part of the airport
site. The loss of some 300 residential units was taken into account by proposals to add up
to 1,000 new units in the city.
Water supply....... for the expanded MSP development within and adjacent to the former
New Ford Town and Rich Acres could come from City of Richfield water mains already in
place. However, the MSP DRAFT EIS states that water supply will come from wells on the
MSP site, so the enlarged MSP operation will have no effect on the city water system.
Wastewater .......... flows to "Richfield" are shown to increase from about 0.2MGD to
0.27MGD, but since the wastewater discharges directly into a metro interceptor sewer
downstream from city connections, rather than through city trunks or laterals. There will be
no impact on the city system.
Public safety .......... is handled by MSP special services that have mutual aid arrangements
with city departments much the same as with other surrounding cities.
Surface water runoff..... from the city does not flow through the MAC site, and MAC will
accommodate all surface water runoff on site, so no coordination is required.
Future "West Terminal" Access...... possible after 2010, will affect the configuration, and
may affect the timing of the TH77 -West 66th interchange. The '96 PLAN recognizes the
fact that the interchange will most likely be upgraded in any event, and shows the local
street intersection (Cedar and W66th) moved one block to the West. Because of this move,
the north -south minor arterial designation is also moved one block to the west.
FIVE 10
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
Airport noise impact... Zoning overlay zone....... will be created using the final adopted
noise contour map, and added to the zoning ordinance. Ordinance amendments will also
designate those areas eligible for sound insulation, and will include requirements for
acoustic design standards for new construction. Special consideration will be required for
the area west of the proposed north -south runway.
5.3 Mitigation Measures for Expanded MSP Operations ......... include mitigation for loss of
city tax base, public works infrastructure, two neighborhood parks, 27 holes of golf together
with clubhouse and maintenance facility, softball and little league fields, site for a combined
MnDOT -city public works maintenance facility and yard, and for the exposure of additional
residential and non - residential areas to noise impacts from the new north -south runway
and the 4/22 extension.
Loss of city tax base......... from the removal of residential and commercial properties in
order to relieve residents of noise from the existing airport, amounts to about $177,000 per
year according to a study prepared for the city and MAC in 1992 (prior to selection of the
north -south runway option). The same study demonstrated the potential for
commercial/industrial redevelopment that would have eliminated the loss, and perhaps,
even increased future tax revenues.
Loss of public works infrastructure ..............such as sanitary and storm sewers,
watermains and appurtenances, street and alley pavements, curb and gutter, signage and,
lighting totals about $3.6 million. While future MAC development could utilize portions of
this infrastructure, current plans as described in the EIS propose complete replacement
with MAC systems.
Two neighborhood parks .....................will be lost along with the neighborhood itself, but
the '96 PLAN calls for the addition of over 1,000 new residential units in various locations in
the city. These new (or "replacement ") residents will need additional or expanded parks
and recreation facilities. Acquisition and development will cost at least $350,000 an acre for
about 3 acres, or $1.05 million.
A complete 27 -hole golf course.... driving range...club house... maintenance
facility...... will be completely displaced by the north -south runway and related airport
development under the selected Option Six. the Rich Acres golf complex is the most
heavily used golf facility in the state, and increasing demand is more than adequate to
support an additional nine holes. The'96 PLAN includes the recommendation that an
additional nine holes of golf be added to Rich Acres or another 9 -hole facility be acquired or
developed. The MAC plans for and expanded MSP airport facility can and should include
provision for complete replacement of the existing golf facilities and another nine holes
FIVE 11
RICIIFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT
VOLUME FIVE Addenda 12/10/96
within the area of acquisitions and primary impact of the expanded facility. Clear zone and
noise mitigation land acquisitions both on and off of the MSP site can provide the required
site or sites. It should be remenbered that the existing courses provide a very effective
noise buffer for the existing neigborhoods, and that the expanded MSP facility can, and
should inccude this kind of environmental buffer as well.
The little league and softball fields....... can be replaced on existing or expanded city
parks and school district sites. The MSP mitigation plan should include funds to cover the
costs of the additional land and the improvements. The city is in the he process of
preparation of speck acquisition and development plans, but at least $1.5 million should
be included in the MSP mitigation budget fore replacement of these fields.
A public works building and yard......... uses are completely consistent with the peripheral
activities on the airport site itself, or in the approach zones, and can be easily
accommodated in the planning process and documentation. Unlike all of the other
surrounding communities, the City of Richfield has no industrial development area in which
to site a maintenance facility. The New Ford Town area being acquired by MAC is the only
possible location, the logical location, and MSP airport planning can easily accommodate
that use.
Noise and other activity intrusions parallel to the North -South runway .... will expose
the neighborhoods in east Richfield along Cedar Avenue to ground and takeoff noise
greater than at any existing airport facility in this country. It is important to remenber that
the Rich Acres Golf Course has served as a very effective environmental buffer for this
neighborhood from the curent airport activities and noise, and will be most difficult to
replicate. The'96 PLAN proposes to replace residential uses in the first two blocks with
non - residential uses, and MSP plans must include planning and fiscal participation in this
redevelopment and relocation project. The MSP plan must also include intensive and
effective operational and structural mitigation on and off -site.
5.4 Summary and Conclusions ... ...............................
Impacts .............of the '96 PLAN proposals on the metropolitan aviation planning or on the
MSP expansion plan itself are insignificant. The impacts of the expanded MSP facility on
the city, on the other hand, are substantial and quite significant by any measure. Perhaps
the most significant impact will be the substantially increased, ground level, low - fregquency
noise generated by the new runway, without the benefits of the enviornmental buffer the
golf courses provided for the current operations.
FIVE 12
RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
VOLUME FIVE
III]7
Addenda 12/10/96
Coordination and Cooperation .......... between adjacent entities is required as a logical
basis for any king of planning. To this point MAC has refused to cooperate, much less
coordinate, through administrative or policy procedures, and has unilaterally withdrawn from
the mediation process on the 4/22 extension initiated by the Metro Council. The city has
then taken the only alternative left... litigation... in an attempt to require MAC to cooperate
and coordinate MSP planning as it affects the city. Without the full cooperation and
participation of MAC in the Richfield Comprehensive Planning process, proposals in the
eastern part of the '96 PLAN are unrealistic or meaningless.
FIVE 13