05-948r
122
HRA RESOLUTION NO. 948
RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(Cedar Point Development)
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield (the "Authority") did on or about June 14, 1993 originally adopt the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"), and has
subsequently modified the same thereafter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the HRA Act the Authority proposes to modify the
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has caused to be prepared a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Point
Development Area) (the "Modified Plan"), and has received the written opinion of the
Planning Commission of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council hold a public
hearing on the proposed Modified Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on June 13, 2005, based on such reference and
following notice as required by law, hold its hearing on the approval of the Modified
Plan, and has provided the Authority with its findings regarding such modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered the Modified Plan at its regularly
scheduled meeting of June 20, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Authority as follows:
I. The Authority makes the following findings:
1. the land in the project area would not be made available for
redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought;
2. the Modified Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the needs of the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of the areas
by private enterprise; and
3. the Modified Plan conforms to a general plan for the development
of the city as a whole; and
4. based on the information contained in Exhibit A and information
presented at the hearing and otherwise known to the Authority, the
portion of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area comprising the
proposed Cedar Point Development is blighted within the meaning
of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 469.028.
II. The Authority hereby approves the Modified Plan and makes all of the
findings stated therein. The approved Modified Plan is on file in the
Richfield Community Development Department, and is available for public
inspection during regular business hours.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 20th day of June, 2005.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
~tR ;)WJ/V
Kristal Stokes, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
BLIGHT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA MODIFICATION
CEDAR POINT AREA
Blight Assessment Report
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification
Cedar Point Area
Richfield, Minnesota
June 3, 2005
Prepared for:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota
Prepared by:
Dan Cornejo
CORNE.JO CONSULTING
COMMUNITV PLANNING + DESIGN
1657 Saunders Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430
Blight Assessment Report
Cedar Point Area
Richfield, Minnesota
Table of Contents
1. Il1tr()cllIc:ti()11 ........~...................................................................... :3
Purpose of Report and Definition of Blight
Study Methodology
2. Area Overview and Description .. ..a........... ... .................111.......... ........ 3
Area Description
Natural Environment
Land Use and Development Pattern
Transportation
Surrounding Context
3. Relevant Public Policy. ill..".. ....... ..... III. ........ "... _..".. ... ..,a. ..... ........ e. ..1111 IU 5
Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force
Final Report - January 15, 2000
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report - August 10, 2000
City of Richfield
4. Summary of Findings and Conclusions ........................................10
Attachments
A. Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification - Cedar Point Development Area
B. Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification - Assessment Area
C. Cedar Point Area Blight Assessment Criteria Chart
D. Detailed Analysis of Blight Conditions
E. Photos
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
2
1. Introduction
Purpose of Report and Definition of Blight
The purpose of this report is to analyze the Cedar Point Area, located in the northeast comer
of Richfield, south of Highway 62 and west of Trunk. Highway 77, to determine if it meets the
following definition for "Blighted Area" according to the criteria defined in Chapter 469,
Section 469.002, Subd. 11, of Minnesota Statues:
"Blighted area" means any area with buildings or improvements which, by reason of
dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of
ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use,
or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the
safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
Also, Section 469.028, Subdivision 3 further defines and explains that blighting conditions
include:
open, undeveloped, unused, or inappropriately used lands with unusual and difficult
physical characteristics of the ground, the existence of faulty planning characterized
by the subdivision or sale oflots laid out in disregard of the contours or of irregular
form and shape or of inadequate size, or a combination of these or other conditions
which have prevented normal development of the land by private enterprise and have
resulted in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and
valuable for contributing to the public health, safety, and welfare.
This report describes the physical conditions within the Cedar Point Area and evaluates the
level of and degree to which blight exists.
Study Methodology
The Blight Assessment Report - Cedar Point Area of Richfield. Minnesota includes a detailed
field survey and investigation of all of the parcels in the area, observation of the exterior
conditions of all buildings and public improvements, and review of building permits over the
past ten years. Qualifying blight conditions throughout the study area were identified and
analyzed on a parcel-by-parcel basisto produce a chart showing blight conditions present in
the study area. Photo documentation of each property is also included as well as a review of
relevant prior studies of this area and.its physical context.
2. Area Overview and Description
Area Descrintion. Located in the northeast comer of Richfield, the Cedar Point Area is made
up of nine full or partial city blocks, comprising one hundred (100) properties, bounded by
63rd Street to the north, 66th Street on the south, 17th Avenue on the west, and Trunk. Highway
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
3
77 on the east. See Map of Cedar Point Development Area in Attachment A and Map of
Assessment Area in Attachment B.
Natural Environment. This area is generally flat, with a gentle downhill slope northward
toward Taft Park. Soils appear stable. Drainage ofthis area is to the north. There do not
appear to be conditions that give rise to ponding or other drainage difficulties. There are
many mature trees throughout the area.
Land Use and Development Pattern. This area, as with most of Richfield, consists of
single-family detached houses that were built in the 1940s and 1950s for returning World War
II veterans. Currently, within the Cedar Point Area, sixty-two (62) properties are vacant, a
majority of which have been cleared, thirty-three (33) are occupied by single-family
residential uses, three (3) are occupied by residential apartment buildings, and two (2) are
occupied with buildings andlor operations used for commercial purposes (landscaping
business and freight handling business). The properties that front 17th and 18th Avenues
comprise a uniformly platted area characterized by approximately 10,000 sq. ft. lots. The lots
that front the west side of Cedar Avenue are irregularly-sized (ranging from approximately
7,150 square feet to 27,500 square feet), and are generally larger because they accommodate
apartment developments, or did so in the past, as well as commercial businesses. The lots that
front the east side of Cedar Avenue are also of irregular-size; approximately half are around
6,000 sq. ft., with the remainder from 12,000 to 19,000 sq. ft.
Transportation. As in most of Richfield, the Cedar Point Area has a grid street pattern. The
southern boundary is 66th Street, an east-west arterial road. Regional access is facilitated by
Trunk Highway 77, which also functions as the eastern boundary to this area. Metro Transit
service is provided by the 515 bus route along Cedar Avenue and along 66th Street.
Surroundine: Context. To the north lies Taft Park, a 42-acre community playfield and
athletic complex, with Highway 62 as the park's northern boundary. To the south are
commercial properties (municipal liquor store, multi-tenant office building, dental office, and
one single-family home, all fronting onto 66th Street, with single-family homes extending
southward). To the west are single-family homes, and to the east are Trunk Highway 77 and
the western boundary of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP).
Of considerable note, the. Cedar Point Area is located extremely close to the new North/South
(17/35) Runway (approximately 1,350 feet, or about two blocks, from the eastern boundary of
the Cedar Point Area) - believed to be the closest that any similar runway has been built to an
existing residential area in the country. It is scheduled to become operational in late 2005.
The placement and configuration of this new runway provide no room to establish a buffer or
transition zone.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
4
3. Relevant Public Policy
Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force
Final Report - January 15, 2000
The Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force was created by the
1999 Minnesota Legislature in response to the need to identify and recommend funding
sources to implement noise mitigation measures resulting from the expansion of MSP. The
Task Force was organized by the then Minnesota Deparbnent of Trade and Economic
Development (DTED) (now the Deparbnent of Employment and Economic Development) in
June and July of 1999. The Task Force included representatives from the Governor's Office,
DTED, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Minnesota Department of Finance and the
cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, and Bumsville. Task Force
membership also included two at-large members representing the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the Metropolitan Council.
The Task Force Report noted that the City of Richfield is located in unique proximity to the
new North/South (17/35) Runway which at that time was already under construction at the
Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport (MSP).
The Task Force RepOrt stated that during the 1999 legislative session,.the MiImesota
Legislature created an Airport Impact Zone in East Richfield running parallel to the new
North/South (17/35) Runway. This zone encompasses roughly 50 blocks of residential and
light commercial uses along Richfield's eastern border. See map on page 6 which shows the
87 db portion of the Airport Impact Zone.
In 1999. the Minnesota Legislature adopted Chapter 243. . Laws of 1999. which stated "The
legislature fmds that the area included within the airport impact zone defined under this
section will exl'Crience significant and unique adverse environmental and socioeconomic
impacts directly associated with the optfration of the Minneapolis-St. Paullntemational
Airport. "
The Task Force Report stated that it anticipated that the new North/South (17/35) Runway
will c~use low frequency aircraft noise onto adjacent communities. Low :frequency noise can
be characterized, the Task Force Report explained, as the rumbling sound associated with
powerful engines caused by acceleration of aircraft during take-off and use of reverse thrust
for deceleration on landing. Aircraft on the runway during take-offs and landings generate
significantly more low frequency noise, or low rumbling sounds, than do aircraft in flight.
This low frequency noise is capable of causing rattling, shaking, and vibrations in windows,
walls, and objects in homes. The Task Force Report further stated that low frequency energy
is radiated more strongly to the rear and side of the aircraft and can propagate over
considerable distances without being reduced as much as higher :frequency sound energy.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
5
At the time of the release of this Task Force Report, the City of Richfield and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) were working with the Low Frequency Noise
Policy Committee to measure the impact of low frequency noise on the City of Richfield and
that their report was not yet completed. Therefore, the environmental impact data and
conclusions that were discussed in this report were based on information gathered at other
airports and extrapolated for MSP.
Airport Noise Impact Area
- .:.;.
..
;\
-~
Ii
~ ~
I
il
)'
I
I
I
I
!
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :'
l '.;: ;~
.. ~-....-'. ..
,- __._.n I
LEGEND I
I
,-I
";dC.ZDn,,1
.:..
.
lej,: .
-'.:'\. (
--
The Task Force Report noted that the increased noise levels produced by the operation of the
new North/South (17/35) Runway (300-400 jet operations daily (or one every 3.6 minutes,
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
6
lasting as long as 30-45 seconds per flight) are expected to create audible rattling inside
residences in eastern Richfield, including some residences that had undergone acoustical
insulation treatments for overflight noise. Further, this Report stated that "Studies have
shown that there is no meaningful difference in low frequency noise reduction in homes that
have received standard over-flight acoustic treatment vs. homes that have received no sound
insulation." The Report concluded that "it is clear that low frequency noise cannot be
mitigated in the same fashion as higher frequency noises."
The City of Richfield expressed concern that the residents and businesses that are located near
the new North/South (17/35) Runway would find the increased noise to be intolerable and
would eventually want to move. The City was concerned that the more annoyed residents
became from the increased noise, the faster they would leave the area in search of quieter
neighborhoods elsewhere. As a result, degradation of the neighborhood seemed inevitable:
maintenance and home improvements would become a low priority and residents would begin
selling their homes realizing they would likely have to sell at a loss (See Attachment D for
Review of Building Permits issued over the past ten years in the Cedar Point Area). As the
quality of life and the values of the homes in the area continued to decline, more and more
residents would sell their homes at even lower prices in hopes.ofleaving a rapidly
deteriorating neighborhood before it would be too late.
In order to prevent the above-described scenario from occurring, the Task Force Report stated
that the City of Richfield proposed to buyout the residential and business properties within
the Airport Impact Zone to redevelop the area into commercial and residential uses that would
be more compatible with the neighboring airport. By doing so, the City might be able to
control the types of development that occur within the Airport Impact Zone and ensure that
the redevelopment of the area is consistent with airport use. More importantly, the City might
prevent the area from further deterioration. This change in land use is consistent with
Metropolitan Council Aviation Guide land use guidelines. Sound insulation was discussed in
only a limited manner in the Governor's Task Force Report. However, the issue of utilization
of advanced construction technology for newly-constructed buildings to address the
mitigation oflow frequency noise is considered in the Low Frequency Noise Policy
Committee Report in the next section.
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report - August 10, 2000
The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee was formed as part of a December 18, 1996
agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).
That agreement arose out of the City's concern. regarding the potential impact of low
frequency noise from the new North/South (17/35) Runway on the established residential
neighborhoods in east Richfield. It revealed that the North/South (17/35) Runway is part of
MAC's 2010 expansion plan, the new runway is scheduled to become operational in late
2005, and that the new runway is 8000 feet long, carrying up to 300 to 400 daily operations.
The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee reviewed previous noise studies pertaining to
operations at other airports around the country, conducted their own studies, convened an
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
7
expert panel to provide technical input, and presented recommendations regarding the
appropriate noise metric, compatibility standards, and recommended mitigation programs,
measures, or techniques.
The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report (the "LFNPC Report"), noted that both
the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) identified the >75 decibel noise level as the "level above which
residential use is not compatible."
With respect to the Cedar Point Area, the LFNPC Report found that the average exterior Low
Frequency Sound Level (LFSL) would be >87 decibels. The LFNPC Report indicated that
available treatment methods to reduce rattle were not adequate, and that treatment methods to
decrease interior LFSL by at least 10 decibels were "probably not economically feasible" for
existing residential development. For those areas in the >87 decibel contour, the LFNPC
Report recommended that this area not be developed for residential use (Table 3 and
Recommendation # 4 of the LFNPC Report). Recommendation # 7 of the LFNPC Report
stated that "land use conversion be used as the preferred method of mitigation in residential
neighborhoods inside of the 87 dB contour." Furthermore, recommendations # 8 and # 9 of
the LFNPC Report called for the adoption of the Policy Contour Runway map and a map
illustrating the blocks depicted to be impacted by three levels of noise decibels, wherein these
designations were to be used in the application of the proposed mitigation measures.
In summary. the LFNPC Report concluded that treatment to reduce rattle from the >87 dB
noise level was "probably not fully adequate" and recommended that "land use conversion be
used as the preferred method of mitigation in residential neighborhoods inside of the 87 dB
contour."
City of Richfield
Based on the previous decibel level studies that concluded that the noise from the proposed
North/South (17/35) Runway would be incompatible with the adjacent predominantly
residential land uses, the City of Richfield adopted a modification to the redevelopment plan
in 1999 that expanded its redevelopment project area boundary to include the airport noise
impacted area at Highway 62 to the north and Trunk Highway 77 to the east. Since that time,
additional studies were completed in 2000 by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, as
outlined above. These studies produced a revised low frequency sound level contour map
(see map on page 6 of this report) that indicates a >87 dB level for the easternmost area of the
Airport Impact Zone which includes the Cedar Point Area.
In February, 2004, the Richfield lIRA contracted with JLG Architects to prepare anew land
use master plan based on these new parameters. The Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment
Concept Master Plan was officially supported by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority on October 18, 2004, by the Planning Commission on November 22, 2004, and by
the City Council on January 25,2005. The Master Plan will take 12-15 years to be fully
implemented. The first phase of the Plan is the Taft Park Greenway, bounded by Taft Park on
"
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
8
the north, 66th on the south, 16th Avenue to the west, and Highway 77 to the east. This area
includes the Cedar Point Area. See map graphic below of the Taft Park Greenway concept
and detailed development plan.
~
.
-
I!Ln .~), ',. f.;,,), (w; taft park
i !lrOJ~ ~~ f /---'~)j;;} ~~ .l~)familY~
:) ~~ i~~T::~n~ ((.\~~\ ~';;::[j't ~ Crl~' ~
::,~;,~~foc:~J~'~'-.":'..'~.'.~j l~B~;eeiltiYo:.:.~:,,,-"~.i:.:";::'::=-':::7:'~ ! .
'..J ."~:.'C"_.-."-.'~'OJu'..)c==l ~"I~a)~create'---i Ii
,'n 11l.----cii~-~.,r. t)try poi~ L~ e
-. Hi .it .. :,--T;..j . dilalfllltlllllflllHUhl i'
-;.\' F~l Olilntllllllllllllllllll!l!..1lfJ .
:: i : , ~lImllllllllllHHltHtHO ·
;,: rnmp,l\\ll\llln\ll\lll~f{l ,
~.!1 ~~
';:1 retail OlIlIllI\llliilllllllllUlII\IO: .
~:q G1II\HIIIIIIIlllIUmmHO ,
O:TIIIlnllUllHllIlRHIU :
llllJlHlIIlHlllllllllH-ffI
OllllIlIlHllllllJlllIUIHO '
IlIlUll\lI!llmlllllfiTi!l(!
, Il!IBIDllH:llJIil iHfll1{/
llBffilUJffilliIlHllIIHlQ
DISTRICT A
~
Greenway
RICHfiELD, MINNESOTA
ti6Ii street
page 16
In the Cedar Point Area, the JLG plan continues to identify regional retail as the preferred use.
Based on these recommendations, the Richfield Planning Commission and City Council
adopted resolutions, on July 26,2004 and September 16,2004, respectively, to amend the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the Cedar Point Area to "Regional Commercial/Office"
to accommodate a retail center.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
9
The Ryan Companies US, Inc. submitted a proposal to redevelop the Cedar Point Area as a
regional retail center. Subsequent to two work sessions between the HRA and the City
Council to discuss the planning for the Cedar Corridor in general terms and the specifics of a
regional retail center in the Cedar Point Area, HRA staff, legal counsel, and representatives of
Ryan and their legal counsel have cooperatively drafted a contract which has been approved
by the HRA. This contract includes provisions for Ryan to complete the acquisition of the
remaining 33 single-family home properties.
In 2000 a $5.0 million grant (representing over 6% of the required acquisition funds) was
provided by the Minnesota legislature. Richfield also received a $10.0 million grant from the
MAC (at the instruction ofthe federal government) to acquire homes in the low frequency
noise area. In 2005, the City of Richfield received $2.0 million grant from Hennepin County
to continue acquisition of properties on Cedar Avenue north of 66th Street. Through all of
these funding sources, the City of Richfield has acquired 52 single-family homes, 5 apartment
buildings (72 units) and 28 commercial buildings.
4. Summary of Findings and Conclusions
Summary of Findings
All of the one-hundred (100) properties in the Cedar Point Area exhibit two or more of the
nine criteria for a finding of blight. Attachment C portrays this assessment in chart format.
Attachment D presents the detailed verbal analysis of these properties. And, lastly,
Attachment E provides photos of these properties.
1. Dilapidation
Ten (10) properties (six single-family homes, two apartment buildings, and two
commercial operations) exhibit deferred maintenance.
2. Obsolescence
The thirty-eight (38) properties that have improvements on them exhibit a combination
of functional obsolescence (not able to be adequately soundproofed to mitigate airport
noise) and economic obsolescence (decline in relative desirability in the residential
marketplace).
3.. Overcrowding
There is no evidence of overcrowding.
4. Faulty Arrangement or Design
The two (2) commercially-used properties exhibit faulty arrangement or design,
exemplified by the overflow of parking, storage, and other operations onto the public
rights-of-way.
5. Lack of Ventilation. Light. and Sanitary Facilities
There is no evidence of lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
10
6. Excessive Land Coverage
The two (2) commercially-used properties exhibit a deficiency of land area to
accommodate off-street parking of vehicles and adequate loading facilities.
7. Deleterious Land Use
There is no evidence of deleterious land use.
8. Obsolete Layout
All one-hundred (100) properties exhibit inappropriate platting for new commercial or
residential uses that could be constructed and laid out to meet the required higher
noise mitigation standards.
9. Other - Environmental
All one-hundred (100) properties exhibit degradation from the current operations of
the MSP Airport. The remaining residential properties cannot be physically and
economically soundproofed to mitigate the low frequency noise to be generated from
the operations of the new runway.
Conclusions
Viewed as a whole, the several blighting conditions documented, including the environmental
degradation from the current operations of the nearby Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport, and the physical and economic impracticality of further soundproofing to mitigate the
expected low frequency noise from the new North/South (17/35) Runway, act together to
undermine any livability or economic value perceived to exist in the Cedar Point Area. These
blighting conditions retard a normally functioning market for transactional activity, Le.,
reinvestment is unlikely without government intervention and assistance.
While most of the lot sizes can be considered standard for single-family residential
development, this factor is considered a significant impediment for redevelopment to new
uses that could be laid out and constructed with the configuration and sound mitigation
measures required for this location. Simply put, these lots are too small for commercial
activity, and the multiplicity of ownership makes private purchase and consolidation difficult
if not impossible. Piecemeal rezoning of these lots over time is also unrealistic.
Contemporary development practices favor larger sites to vary and mix uses and activities.
Although each lot or potential redevelopment site may be buildable, in the aggregate these
lots are largely economically dysfunctional because they simply do not meet contemporary
site design or investor requirements.
Some of the homes in the Cedar Point Area exhibit deferred maintenance. However, most of
the remaining residential structures are not dilapidated or poorly maintained. The remaining
two commercial structures are deteriorated, and their operations require more land area to
function properly and without negative impacts to adjacent and nearby properties.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3. 2005
11
Therefore, the overall conditions within this larger setting near the new airport runway
combine to create a physical and economic context that is not viable for long term viability
and stability.
It would be difficult for private interests, acting alone, to acquire sufficient property to alter
the established patterns of development and use. Aggressive intervention is needed to
assemble parcels such that the larger community is evidently committed to changing the study
area's social, physical, and economic character.
In conclusion. the evidence of qualifying blight conditions found in the study area and
documented by this study provide a strong basis for finding that the Cedar Point Area meets
the statutory definition for a "Blighted Area." as defined in Minnesota Statutes.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
12
I I-I
~
63RD ST.
.-- . ,
-..
. .
II .
.- m , i
. I .
8.. .
I- t I
. I r. I
....
.- I . ...
64TH ST.
. I . . . I
.. ~~ -. E ........
, .
.
. . ~ .... m .1 ~ ~
. -
-. ~ .. .1
:E: ~
.. . :E: . m I I- _.
iii I:: co
- . ... W --
-. II ... . .t (.)
-... .. - '-
I --
. . . .. L-- _
65TH ST. ~'.'.-
I III I . I 1m-
. . ~
. .1 . .. h~
. ~ -
.- I I '---
_I -. . .- .
-.. '--
I I.. 'S. ~.. -
II
~=/j
. '.. .1
I
.. . .,'
L--- -
I" · .......,..:.L..., . ....H'1lI~'[~....
I . [11.1 .- .. ~.
I -'" -I ,
Db
- IIIil . IlIl .
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 F t
~--- ,
IIGIS/COMDEV/STAFFIBIWPROJECTSlCEDAR PT REDEV ASSESSMT. APR
....
....
~.
~.
C)
5:.
~
Z
:::J
~
I-
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF
RICHFIELD
RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
MODIFICATION
legend
D Cedar Point
Development
Area
~
N
JUNE, 2005
---.--- .------.------L___ ___
2$24110046 2602824110057
6315._6314.__.
2flO2824110047 2602824110056
6321 6320
2flO2824110046 2802824110055
6327.. _ 6326 _
2802824110048 2602824110054
_ 6333_ 6332 ___
2802824110050 2602824110053
6339 6338
2flO2824110051 280282411005
_ 6340 _ 6344
-~-----
2flO282..........41.40038. 2802824140053
6401 6400
-~-- ----
2802824140039 2802824140052
6409 6408
~94004
2802824140051
6414
~ ~~40041 ~J40050
<( 2802tl24140042 2802824140049
~ ~~40043 ~~
- 6433 6432
2602824140044 2602824140047
6439 6438
2flO2824140045 2602824140046
6445 6444
2602824140026 2802824140037
6501 6500
2802,824140027 2802824140036
6509 6508
2602824140031 26028241400
653L 6532
N ~ ~ ~
~o ~ II) ~ '<t ~ 0
i~ i ~ i E is
~ ~ ~
I
---I
-.-
100 0
~---
jL_=:=
----L_.__
63RD ST.
280282411 1
2802824110063 ..6300
6315
~280282 4110064 280282411
6321 6320
-- .----
2802824110065
6327 280282411 9
2flO282411
6333
6328
280282411
6345
64TH ST.
2802824140065
6409
2802824140068 28028241
6401
2802824140070
6415
6412
. 2802824140071
~ 6421
<( 2602824140072
6427
~ ~~;40073
_ _ 6433 ._
2802824140074 2flO28241
6439 6444
2flO2824140075
6445
65TH ST.
2802824140065
28028241
6501
6500
2802824140059
6509
6515
28028241
6520
2802824140061
6521
2802824140062 28028241
6527
2flO2824140083
6533
~ Of 2802824140054
llio
..II)
.i....
100 200
2502824220001
6301
250282422000
6311 __
2502824
_ 6315__
2502824230084
6405
250282423OOCl5
6409
~~
~~
U=I
250282423000
6501
280282423000
6509
2502$2423000
6511
.....
.....
~
~
::J:
e>.
:E
~
z
:)
~
300 400 500 600 Feet
,
I/GIS/COMDEV/stAFF/BILUPROJECTSlCEDAR PT REDEV ASSESSMT. APR
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF
RICHFIELD
RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
MODIFICATION
legend
D
Assessment
Area
~
N
JUNE, 2005
ATTACHMENT C-1
Cedar Point Area Blight As essm nt
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT
~Strong Evidence
Moderate Evidence
. . Little or No Evidence
CD
II In
'0
i z
c 'u ~
at .! c
i ~ ::s
CIS CD ~
" - OJ
... '2 1!
0 II.
ftI CD CD ~
- ~ ~ In
C ::s
CD
E .c Co) " ...J
CD ~ -
Co) Cl) CD " c ::s I
- c .!! g,
c C l:D ...; .!! e
CD c CD i c C In .!! .s
Q. 0 (.) ~ CD ~ ::s
" ~ i I > 0 CD Co)
ftI e ftI '0 'c - J!
3! '0 In CD
CD ~ ~ !l I s '0 ...
- c. !
In .-: CD CD
CD CD .!! ~ ::s Co) Co) In .c
E Q. is 8 ftI CIS >C 'i) .Q -
e II. ...J W Q 0 0
Add res PIN #'s Current USE 0 Area , N cwi ..; .0 cO ...: 00 en
:E: I),. ...
6315 17th Ave S 2602824110046 SF RES H R 10,170
632117th Ave S 2602824110047 SF RES H R 10,385 ..
6327 17th Ave S 2602824110046 SF RES H R 10,050
6333 17th Ave S 2602624110049 SF RES H R 10,326
633917th Ave S 2602624110050 SF RES H R 10,074
6345 17th Ave S 2602824110051 SF RES H R 10,545
6401 17th Ave S 2602624140038 SF RES H B 10,945
6409 17th Ave S 2602624140039 SF RES H R 10,119
6415 17th Ave S 2602624140040 SF RES H R 10,276
6421 17th Ave S 2602624140041 SF RES H R 10,312
6427 17th Ave S 2602624140042 SF RES H R 10,036
643317thAve S 2602624140043 SF RES H R 10,456
6439 17th Ave S 2602824140044 SF RES H R 10,033
6445 17th Ave S 2602824140045 SF RES H R 9,942
6501 17th Ave S 2602624140026 SF RES H R 10,919
6509 17th Ave S 2602624140027 SF RES H R 10,444
6515 17th Ave S 2602624140026 SF RES H R 10,551
6521 17th Ave S 2602624140029 SF RES H R 10,430
6527 17th Ave S 2602624140030 SF RES H R 10,369
6533 17th Ave S 2602824140031 SF RES H R 10,060
631416th Ave S 2602624110057 VAC N lR 10,073
6320 16th Ave S 2602624110056 VAC N lR 10,235
632618th Ave S 2602624110055 VAC N lR 9,970
633216thAve S 2602624110054 VAC N lR 10,136
6336 16th Ave S 2602824110053 SF RES H R 9,953
634416th Ave S 2602624110052 VAC N lR 10,431
6400 16th Ave S 2602624140053 VAC N lR 10,745
640616th Ave S 2602624140052 VAC N lR 9;922
641416th Ave S 2602624140051 VAC N lR 10,013
6420 18th Ave S 2602824140050 SF RES H R 10,067
6426 18th Ave S 2602624140049 SF RES H R 9,641
6432 16th Ave S 2602624140048 SF RES H R 10,288
6436 16th Ave S 2602624140047 SF RES H R 9,994
ATTACHMENT C-2
C dar Point Area Blight Assessment
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT
~Strong Evidence
Moderate Evidence
.. Little or No Evidence
II)
= ,!
0
~ z
c 'u ~
Q J! c
';; ~ II)
=
II) ~ II) c:r
"0 Q e
... c I!
0 LL.
lIS ~ II) ~
- ~ II)
c
CD 0 =
E .c u "0 ..J
~ -
II) Q II) "0 C = I
U Q - c .!! 0 !
CD c c c c ,J !! }'
j c '" .s
Q, 0 CD I! ~ CD =
"0 ~ i u ... > 0 t u
lIS "0 = e lIS 'S '; 'C J!
.s ~ 'a '0 e a- '" .s '0 ...
'" '5 ~ CD II)
CD II) .!! ! ~ (,,) ~ 'i ! .c
5 Q, Q lIS lIS 0
e 0 0 LL. ..J W 0 0
Address PIN #'s Current Use :J: Q.. Area .... N C"i .- .0 cO ,.,: cO cD
644418th Ave S 2602824140046 SF RES H R 9,839
6500 18th Ave S 2602824140037 SF RES N R 10,750
6508 18th Ave S 2602824140036 SF RES N R 10,368
651418th Ave S 2602824140035 SF RES H R 10,376
6520 18th Ave S 2602824140034 SF RES H R 10,334
652618th Ave S 2602824140033 SF RES H R 10,264
6532 18th Ave S 2602824140032 SF RES H R 10,010
6315 18th Ave S 2602824110063 VAC N LR 10,125
632118th Ave S 2602824110064 VAC N LR 10,124
632718th Ave S 2602824110065 VAC N LR 10,084
6333 18th Ave S 2602824110066 VAC N LR 10,149
6339 18th Ave S 2602824110067 VAC N LR 9,917
6345 18th Ave S 2602824110068 VAC N LR 10,270
640118th Ave S 2602824140068 VAC N LR 10,556
6409 18th Ave S 2602824140069 VAC N LR 10,126
641518th Ave S 2602824140070 VAC N LR 10,105
6421 18th Ave S 2602824140071 VAC N LR 10,151
642718th Ave S 2602824140072 VAC N LR 9,975
643318th Ave S 2602824140073 VAC N LR 10,297
6439 18th Ave S 2602824140074 VAC N LR 10,060
6445 18th Ave S 2602824140075 VAC N LR 9,815
6501 18th Ave S 2602824140058 SF RES N R 10,220
6509 18th Ave S 2602824140059 VAC N LR 10,025
651518thAve S 2602824140060 VAC N LR 10,258
6521 18th Ave S 2622824140061 VAC N LR 10,063
6527 18th Ave S 2602824140062 VAC N LR 10,026
6533 18th Ave S 2602824140063 VAC N LR 9,906
6300 Cedar Ave 2602824110061 COM-I NO N I 15,736
6320 Cedar Ave 2602824110060 VAC N LI 7,149
6328 Cedar Ave 2602824110059 VAC N A 15,169
6344 Cedar Ave 2602824110058 VAC N A 17,191 ~
6400 Cedar Ave 2602824140067 MF RES H A 11,266
6412 Cedar Ave 2602824140066 VAC N A 27,206
ATTACHMENT C-3
C dar Point Area Blight As essment
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT
~Strong Evidence
. Moderate Evidence
Little or No Evidence
CD
0 0
CD 'S
:e z
c '(3 ~
,SIP J! c
CD
I ~ :::l
co CD r
'C - c:J)
.. '2 I!
0 u.
co CD CD ~
.... ~ > I)
c
~ 8 :::l
.c "0 -'
C>> -
CD C>> CD 5 "0 C 5 I
C .!!
(,) c C>> .!! ~ e
CD a c j c c I) ~
Q. CD ~ ~ CD :::l
'C ~ ~ (,) > 0 !
J I e co '0 'j 'C J!
~ 's. '0 ~ ~ S '0 ..
I) ~ ~ CD CD
CD CD .!! 0 CD = (,) a; .! .c
E Q. is .Q ~ co co (5
e 0 L\. ...I W Q 0
Address PIN#'s Current Use 0 Area N cw) "4i .,; ui t.: 00 en
::J: D. "I!'"
6444 Cedar Ave 2602824140065 VAC N A 27,486
6500 Cedar Ave 2602824140057 COM N C 14,217
6520 C dar Ave 2602824140056 MF RES-VAC N A 18,463
6528 Cedar Ave 2602824140055 MF RES N A 15,726
6301 Cedar Ave 2502824220001 VAC N C 6,198
6311 Cedar Ave 2502824220002 VAC N C 6,429
6315 Cedar Ave 2502824220003 VAC N C 6,243
6325 Cedar Ave 2502824220004 VAC N C 19,223
6333 Cedar Ave 2502824220060 VAC N C 12,635
6341 Cedar Ave 2502824220007 VAC N C 6,329
6345 Cedar Ave 2502824220008 VAC N C 6,386
6405 Cedar Ave 2502824230064 VAC N C 13,535
6409 Cedar Ave 2502824230065 VAC N C 12,665
6417 Cedar Ave 2502824230066 VAC N LC 6,618
6421 C dar Ave 2502824230067 VAC N C 6.253
6425 Cedar Ave 2502824230142 VAC N C 12.902
6429 Cedar Ave 2502824230143 VAC N LC 6,495
6437 Cedar Ave 2502824230069 VAC N LC 6,193
6441 Cedar Ave 2502824230070 VAC N LC 6,299
6445 Cedar Ave 2502824230071 VAC N C 6,431
6501 Cedar Ave 2502824230001 VAC N C 13,212
6509 C dar Ave 2502824230002 VAC N LC 6.349
6511 Cedar Ave 2502824230003 VAC N C 9,013
6521 Cedar,Ave 2502824230004 VAC N C 10,142
6525 Cedar Ave 2502824230005 VAC N C 6,284
6529 Cedar Ave 2502824230006 VAC N C 6.237
6533 Cedar Ave 2502824230007 VAC N LR 5,440
6537 Cedar Ave 2502824230008 VAC N C 5,224
1700 66th Street 2602824140121 VAC N LR 8.006
1708 66th Street 2602824140120 VAC N LR 7,923
1714 66th Street 2602824140119 VAC N C 8,149
1720 66th Street 2602824140118 VAC N C 7,769
1800 66th Street 2602824140064 VAC N LR 8,993
1820 66th Street 2602824140054 VAC N C 25.990
ATTACHMENT D
Detailed Analysis of Blight Conditions
Cedar Point Area
Richfield, Minnesota
Statutory Definition of Blighted Area
Chapter 469, Section 469.002, Subd. 11, of Minnesota Statutes defmes "Blighted Area"
as follows:
"Blighted area" means any area with buildings or improvements which, by reason
of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of
ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land
use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are
detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
Also, Section 469.028, Subd. 3 further defmes and explains that blighting conditions
include:
open, undeveloped, unused, or inappropriately used lands with unusual and
difficult physical characteristics of the ground, the existence of faulty planning
characterized by the subdivision or sale of lots laid out in disregard of the
contours or of irregular form and shape or of inadequate size, or a combination of
these or other conditions which have prevented normal development of the land
by private enterprise and have resulted in a stagnant and unproductive condition
ofland potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety,
and welfare.
Building Permit Review
The review of building permits issued over the past ten years for properties in the Cedar
Point Area revealed that a total of 536 permits were issued over that period. The majority
of these permits (365 or 68%) were for upgrading and repair of utilities (electrical, air
conditioning, furnaces, plumbing, etc.), roof/siding replacement, or airport noise
soundproofing, all items required to ensure proper functioning of the homes and
commercial premises. The next largest category was for demolition and/or moving a
house or garage (as part of the City of Richfield purchase and clearance initiatives). Only
4% of the permits were for remodeling or additions to improve the quality and/or size of
the home or business. See table on page D-2.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
D-l
Suildin Permit Review - Cedar Point Area
Number
277
147
49
39
24
536
%-a e
51.6
27.4
9.2
7.3
4.5
100
Blight Evaluation
1. Dilapidation
Dilapidation can be defined as:
(a) Deterred maintenance of structures and improvements. Specific evidence of
deferred maintenance includes:
· Poorly maintained exterior building surfaces including masonry, stucco,
wood clapboard/vinyl/metal siding.
· Windows and doors which are cracked or patched.
· Cracked, rutted paved surfaces, or poorly maintained gravel surfaces.
· Unkempt yard areas with overgrown or "wild" vegetation.
· Unscreened trash or mechanical equipment or storage, or other site
maintenance issues.
· Abandoned vehicles, debris, graffiti or the presence of other forms of
vandalism.
(b) Buildinfs and paved surfaces in disrepair. Specific evidence of buildings and
paved surfaces in major disrepair includes:
· Structural deficiencies (foundation, roof) or major operational
deficiencies (electrical, plumbing, HVAC).
· Masonry surfaces broken and in need of replacement and/or tuck-
pointing.
· Broken windows, missing panes, boarded-up windows, inoperable
windows; doors or windows which are inoperable.
· Entry/exit stairways and service/loading docks which are broken or
failing.
· Severely cracked, broken and crumbling paved surfaces requiring
replacement.
· Poorly-constructed and/or failing building additions or alterations.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
D-2
(c) Deterioration of the public realm and utilities. Streets, alleys, sidewalks, public
parks and parking areas are in need of major repair and replacement. Sewers,
water mains, power [meso etc. need mqjar repair and/or replacement. Poor
drainage. .
Ten (10) properties exhibit dilapidation. As indicated in Attachment C of this report, two
(2) of the parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterio~ while another eight (8)
exhibit "moderate" evidence. All ten (10) of these properties suffer from one to several
deferred maintenance issues. The six (6) single-family homes (6315,6321, and 6439 17th
Avenue and 6432,6526, and 653218111 Avenue) exhibit roof and/or siding repair deferral.
6315 17th Avenue also exhibits unkempt outside storage. The two (2) brick apartment
buildings at 6520 and 6528 Cedar Avenue need repair or replacement of their decorative
siding. The two (2) commercial properties (6300 and 6500 Cedar Avenue) have
unscreened storage of trucks and other vehicles and a deficient area for vehicle parking
on site. 6500 Cedar Avenue also lacks adequate outside storage area for materials and
area to efficiently carry out the scale of its operations, with pallets, sod, equipment, and
vehicles spilling out onto the sidewalk and adjoining streets. Finally, even though 6320
Cedar Avenue is deemed vacant, it nevertheless is used temporarily for overflow trock
parking and storage for 6300 Cedar Avenue, on a large unpaved surface area.
2. Obsolescence
The criterion of obsolescence has three categories:
· Functional obsolescence~ which means that the property/improvements can no
longer be used efficiently or effectively for the use that was originally intended,
because. of changes in normal use/operations, nor can the property or buildings
be physically adapted to 'a new use without extTaordinary measures.
· Economic obsolescence. which is the impairment of desirability or use.fullife
arising from factors external to the property, such as economic forces which
affect supply-demand relationships in the market.
· Age or DatedAppearance. which, in the absence of intrinSic hiStoric or
architectural significance, or unique building technology, serves to contribute to
the decline in reinvestment or market attractiveness.
The thirty-eight (38) properties that have improvements on them exhibit a combination of
functional and economic obsolescence. Even though 32 of the 33 single-family homes
have been soundproofed through the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) program
in the 19908, these properties and the three apartment buildings are obsolete for continued
residential use, because the new low frequency noise levels created by jet airplane flights
using the new Noith/South Runway is not able to be mitigated by soundproofing
techniques, and consequently the properties are declining in resale values, as well. The
two commercial properties, now isolated uses, exhibit obsolescence as well.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
D-3
3. Overcrowding
Overcrowding means that there is an overly high density of population relative to the size
and design qf residential structures.
No properties exhibit overcrow~g.
4. Faulty Arrangement or Design
Faulty arrangemerit or design usually means that there is an inadequate or deficient
design of the building or site arrangement that inhibits the normal use or Junction of the
property, or negatively impacts the use ~d enjoyment of adjacent properties.
The two commercially-used properties exhibit faulty arrangement or design. 6300 Cedar
Avenue, used for an air freight operation, has inadequate space around the building for
proper parking of trucks and loading operations, and is using a gravel area on an adjacent
lot at 6320 Cedar Avenue for overflow parking and vehicle storage. The sod business at
6500 Cedar Avenue clearly overflows onto the adjacent sidewalks and streets for its
operations and storage of vehicles.
5. Lack of Ventilation, Light, and Sanitary Facilities
This means that buildings lapk adequate windows or air circulation, garbage storage is
inadequate, or buildings lack hot water or adequate bathrooms for the intended uses.
No properties exhibit lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities.
6. Excessive Land Coverage
Excessive land coverage, or overcrowding of structures, means that one or more
buildings are crowded onto a piece of land that is deemed too small in size, including
deficiency of land area to accommodate adequate off-street parking orloadingfacilities.
Two properties exhibit excessive land coverage, namely the two properties noted above
for faulty arrangement ()r design, i.e., 6300 and 6500 Cedar Avenue.
7. Deleterious Land Use
This criterion refers to land uses that have harmful effects on the land itself, in terms of
toxic, noxious, or otherwise dangerous substances, and includes those uses and
operational characteristics that have harmful impacts to arfjacent imd nearby properties,
residents, businesses, or users of an area.
There are no properties that exhibit deleterious land uses.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3,2005
D-4
8. Obsolete Layout
Conditions typically associated with defective street layout include poor vehicular
access, egress and/or internal circulation; substandard driveway definition and parking
layout (e.g. lack of curb cuts, awkward entrance and exit points); offset or irregular
intersections; substandard or nonexistent pedestrian circulation/sidewalks. This
condition can also mean faulty lot layout (obsolete subdivision platting, faulty lot shape,
or poor access). This criterion can also include unimproved, but platted, vacant land
that is not lilrely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital without
government intervention or assistance, financial or otherwise.
All one~hundred (100) properties exhibit inappropriate platting for new commercial or
residential uses that could be constructed to the higher noise mitigation standards
required because of the proximity of the new North/South Runway. A consolidated plat
pattern would be required to facilitate a site layout and access pattern to ensure proper
building placement, adequate auto access, parking loading provision, and transit services.
9. Other Factors
Environmental
In some special cases, only one factor may be necessary to qualifY properties as blighted,
such as: vacant land that is an abandoned railroad yard, unused quarries or mines,
areas of chronic flooding, polluted soils, or an area degraded by ambient environmental
factors such as smells, noise, illumination, or vibrations.
Undesirable Nearby Land Uses
Some types of nearby or adjacent land uses are not compatible with each other, such as
heavy industrial next to residential uses, or major transportation uses such as an airport;
bus terminal, or railroad activity very near residential uses, without extraordinary
building design or site layout measures.
Financial
Properties have a tax and/or special assessment delinquency that exceeds the fair market
value.
All one-hundred (100) properties exhibit environmental degradation from the existing
operations of the nearby MSP Airport. Also, the Low Frequency Noise Policy
Committee Report - August 10. 2000 concluded that the >87 dB noise level to be
experienced by these properties from the operations of the new North/South (17/35)
Runway would be incompatible with existing residential uses. The continued use of the
few remaining commercially-used properties is questionable, as well, given their isolation
and limited prospects for expansion.
Blight Assessment of Cedar Point Area - Richfield, Minnesota
CORNEJO CONSULTING
June 3, 2005
D-5
ATTACHMENT E-l
Cedar Point Area Bli2ht Assessment
ATTACHMENT E-2
Cedar Point Area Blie:ht Assessment
ATTACHMENT E-3
Cedar Point Area BUmt Assessment
ATTACHMENT E-4
Cedar Point Area Bli2ht Assessment
ATTACHMENT E-5
Cedar Point Area Blie:ht Assessment
'Y'~- .-...,.-
( . ...r1l'\. '.;;.'"
.~, ,~. ~~
~.,~ :,/~~~
--... ., ,
,~~:..;r;~ -Jli'_l'
d,!",", .'
..--~
.~
>'~;1~~;'
""'>t~
'{~i..);i!~
ATTACHMENT E-6
Cedar Point Area Bli2ht Assessment
ATTACHMENT E-7
Cedar Point Area Blie:ht Assessment
6320 Cedar Ave
6500 Cedar Ave
6300 Cedar Ave
6400 Cedar Ave
ATTACHMENT E-8
Cedar Point Area Blieht Assessment
6520 Cedar Ave
6520 Cedar Ave
ATTACHMENT E-9
Cedar Point Area Blif!ht Assessment
'i"Jlili.. i;:".:'I"~'
"~'''}. .. ;
il .~ ';'
, .
< :: ~ ...Jt'
St. NE view of 1700-1708-1714-1720 66 St.
SEviewof6509-15-21-3318 AveSouth
ATTACHMENT E-IO
Cedar Point Area Blight Assessment
NE view of6401-09-15-21-27-33-39-45
ISth Avenue South
,."
" <..:.:.:....>:.:.".;
SE view of 6401-09-15-21-27-33-45
lSth Avenue South
SE view of6315-21-27-33-39-45 1St Ave NW view of 6344 ISth Ave South
ATTACHMENT E-ll
Cedar Point Area Blie:ht Assessment
SW view of 6412-44 Cedar Avenue
SE view of6301-11-15-25-33-41-45
Cedar Avenue
NW view of6412-44 Cedar Avenue
4
SE view of 6405-09-17-21-25-29-37-41-45
Cedar Avenue
ATTACHMENT E~12
Cedar Point Area Bli2ht Assessment
NE view of 6405-09-17-21-25-29-37-41-45 SE view of 6501-09-11-21-25-29-33-37
Cedar Avenue Cedar Avenue
c,..../
NE view of 6501-09-11-21-25-29-33-37
Cedar Avenue