Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-12-03 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Public informational meeting regarding street light service fee Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of July 22, 2003 PRESENTATIONS Presentation regarding street light service fee Notes: 2. Consideration of acceptance of 70th Street Traffic Calming Report Staff Report No. 178 Notes: COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Karen Shragg, Wood Lake Nature Center Manager Recreation Services Department staff for pool renovation efforts Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 4. City Manager's Report • NWA-efforts to limit federal funding for airport mitigation beyond 65DNL Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of stipulation for settlement and settlement agreement and release for workers' compensation claim S.R. No. 179 B. Consideration of approval of CSM request to enter into proposed Consent and Agreement with CSM and its lender as part of refinancing of Shops at Lyndale S.R. No. 180 C. Consideration of approval of resolution granting off-street parking permit for Southdale Square, 2900-3020 West 66th Street S.R. No. 181 D. Consideration of approval of re-allocation of 2003 capital improvement budget funds from completed Wood Lake Nature Center roof replacement project to Wood Lake Nature Center gate replacement project. S.R. No. 182 E. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and itinerant food licenses for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 Lake Shore Drive, allowing outdoor service at 50th anniversary celebration on August 29 and 30, 2003 S.R. No. 183 F. Consideration of approval of multi-animal residential kennel license renewals: • 7144 Oliver Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 184 • 7308 Sheridan Avenue; five dogs and one cat S.R. No. 185 • 6834 Knox Avenue; four dogs S.R. No. 186 • 6430 Logan Avenue; four cats S.R. No. 187 Notes: 7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 8. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance directing study conducted and establishing moratorium for firearms related uses Staff Report No. 188 Notes: RESOLUTION 9. Consideration of resolution awarding sale of $4,965,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A, fixing form and specifications, directing execution and delivery, and providing for payment; Lyndale Gateway West Project Staff Report No. 189 Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 10. Public hearing and consideration of resolution approving preliminary plat for Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place redevelopment project by The Cornerstone Group Staff Report No_ 1.90 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 11. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 12.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA SECTION: public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 1 ~ REPORT # 190 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution approving the preliminary plat for the Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place redevelopment project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the preliminary plat for the Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place redevelopment project by The Cornerstone Grou II. BACKGROUND • The Cornerstone Group has submitted a preliminary plat for the Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place mixed-use redevelopment project in the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. • The City Council approved the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place project on December 10, 2002. • The area to be replatted covers one city block, bounded by Lyndale Avenue on the east, Aldrich Avenue on the west, 76th Street on the north, and 77th Street on the south. 081203-Plat-LGW.doc • The area contains 3.428 acres and is currently platted as "Lots 1-15, Glenn's Addition". All of lots 1 through 6 and 9 through 15 and those portions of lots 7 and 8 that were not taken for 77th Street Addition lie within the project area to be replatted. • The City Council approved the vacation of the alley on January 14, 2003 by Bill 2003-1 and Transitory Ordinance 18.18. This ordinance will be effective after The Cornerstone Group owns all of the properties. • The Cornerstone Group is proposing to replat the property using a Registered Land Survey (RLS). The RLS will create 12 tracts. A RLS is being used because the tracts are not only separated from each other _horizontally (as with traditional .plats) but they are .also separated from each other vertically. (The Market Plaza development also uses vertically separate tracts in an RLS.) A RLS is the most appropriate method for designating parcels in a mixed-use project such as this one, where residential uses are located over commercial uses and where these parcels will not be under common ownership. • Use of an RLS requires that all of the properties are registered or torrens properties as opposed to abstract properties. The properties are currently abstract, and a condition of approval is that the developer complete a torrens registration proceeding. • Tracts will be developed as follows: • Tracts A, B, and C will be developed with 14 townhouse-style condominium units along the south two-thirds of the block on Aldrich Avenue. ' • Tract D will be developed with 38 residential condominium units in the northwest corner of the project. • Tract E will contain amixed-use building in the northeast corner of the project and including 56 residential condominium units, some of which are located over retail-commercial space (the commercial space will be in Tract F, see below). • Tract F will be developed as commercial property, limited to a portion of the first floor of the mixed-use building. • Tract G will be developed as a commercial building along Lyndale Avenue. • Tract H will be developed as a commercial building at the corner of Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street. • Tract I is the interior surface parking area that will serve the commercial development and provide guest parking only for the residential properties. • Tract J is the below-grade parking garage located below Tracts F and K and a portion of Tracts D, E, and I. The garage will serve the condominium units in Tracts D and E. • Tract K is a stairwell in the mixed-use building connecting Tracts E and F. • Tract L is required to be conveyed to the City and will be used for street right-of-way and a sidewalk along Lyndale Avenue. The final development will also require filing of a Common Interest Community Plat (CIC plat) that will include Tracts A, B, C, D, E, and J and that will establish the boundaries of the individual condominium units within the buildings on those tracts. The CIC plat is filed after the units have been constructed, but prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Easements and covenants governing the use and maintenance of common areas for both the residential condominiums and the commercial center will be filed at the time the CIC plat is filed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City Council approved the Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit on December 10, 2002. A stipulation of that approval is that the property be platted. • Section 500.23 of the City Code outlines procedures necessary for review and approval of preliminary plats. • It is important for plats to be filed when new developments are constructed to establish appropriate legal descriptions, dedicate the appropriate right-of-way and utility easements, create parcels that apply to the new buildings and associated parking, and to assist the County Assessor in assigning property value. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The Building Inspector has reviewed the proposed RLS and has approved of the proposed division of land and proposed development. The developer will provide covenants and restrictions necessary to effectuate the Final Development Plan for the project area as determined by Community Development staff. • Easements cannot be dedicated in a RLS as they can be in a plat. Therefore, by separate instruments the developer will grant easements necessary to provide public utilities and drainage for the site, as determined by the Public Works staff. A stipulation of approval wilt be that the developer must provide an as- built survey showing the location of easements and utilities. The developer will convey Tract L to the City for right of way purposes along Lyndale Avenue. • Submission of a final plat is a stipulation of the final development plan. A final plat will need to be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Because the project area does not abut MnDOT or County right-of-way, no reviews were required from MnDOT or .Hennepin County. • The planned streetscape and landscaping along Lyndale Avenue will be maintained by the City. The developer/property owner will be assessed a fee based on commercial square footage for this landscaping and streetscape maintenance. • The current plans for the reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge are accommodated in the proposed property and right-of-way lines along Lyndale Avenue. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current on July 31, 2003. • Approval of the final plat will be dependent upon the developer submitting title evidence, and the proposed declaration of covenants to the City Attorney for review and approval. • TIME FOR APPROVAL: Under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subdivision. 3b, the City has 120 days to approve or deny a request for preliminary approval of a subdivision, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. The completed application was received on July 21, 2003. The City must either provide the applicant with a decision by November 18, 2003 OR obtain the applicant's agreement to an extension. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Approve the preliminary plat with revisions. • Do not approve the preliminary plat. ~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~ Resolution granting preliminary approval of a Registered Land Survey subdivision Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place Registered Land Survey VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Colleen Carey, Cornerstone Group. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION Lyndale Gateway West/Kensington Place WHEREAS, The Cornerstone Group has requested preliminary approval to combine and subdivide several tracts of land generally bounded by 76th Street on the north, Lyndale Avenue on the east, 77th Street on the south and Aldrich Avenue on the west; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as Kensington Place; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat of Kensington Place was held on August 12, 2003 at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The proposed plat of Kensington Place satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Preliminary approval is granted to The Cornerstone Group for the plat of Kensington Place, subject to the following conditions: • That the developer will register title to all of the properties in the Registered Land Survey. • That the developer will provide covenants and restrictions necessary to effectuate the Final Development Plan for the project area, as determined by Community Development staff. • That in a separate document the developer will grant easements necessary to provide public utilities, and drainage for the site, as determined by the Public Works staff, and that the developer will provide an as-built survey showing the location of easements and utilities. • That the developer will convey fee simple title to Tract L to the City for public right-of- way use. • That easements and covenants be established governing the use and maintenance of common. areas and that the easements and covenants be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney; • That the developer shall submit title evidence to the City Attorney for review and approval; • That final subdivision approval will not be granted until all of the properties in the area to be replatted are under the control of the applicant. "Control" shall mean that the developer has an interest in the property by deed or non-contingent purchase agreement. • That after the development is substantially constructed, the developer will file a Declaration of Common Interest Community plat. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 081203-Plat-LGW.doc an s ~ R R ar ~~nw~ .o e a ~~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ arlarir ~ ~ ~~R~~€ ~ ~ R ~~~ ~{ l~ bimub:barwr ~91Oie1N1Oi S <i'III ~ ^ 266d~6$ ~. ° aya6apbyp6vy n ---:::;:~ ---- § C~.'~2.:Ct'.~.' ~~ ~ ~ ~I~4.idJtA~,q,R`~ ~'r~ ~ RS.~%RR~~~$~ d YNUtiuwCYryYJ ~_.,~ ~ ~ I I -----~ - I -l I ~~ ~'~ a~ ,~ y ~ a i F ~ =I e ~~ ~~ i 1 I '-- I '-- 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~- I --~----- I I r_ __ rrsi ri lYn n~ ri' p~ ~~ -~T~mw~ n If"' ;; ___ i arf~ p n - ---~----~---~li~1V-~A-~--'-N-~3 3-6~-----'---------'--R ''~ ia: E g~ ~ - a e' °= fi ; ' '-3a 3 y •~s~~- .~~~ ~ ~ i~~~~~ ea;~ ~k~iit i:~:~f~~~~~ ~~ f~~~~~ ~ a ~ ~Idx'S ~ add F e ~~ ~ ~ a ; ~ ~ g ~ ~ # t# } §a # #; ~a ~ !•r Et _j(~~ ~ ~ r I s s s P s x iR Fes BY ~F 3$ ~ t#Yl~~~~~f4#3~ ~#~e'¢~ E#!F ~ 1 "~ 3i f~~-Y~ ~ ~ z ~ F ~(g ~y gFg 8 R: spa.: ~3 S ~'p{ ~j 7€ jg! a£P£ €q z z! y{Y J 1 ~` '~#~ i 8k~ ~ ~ ~ (j f 3,R"t f } F#; 2~ ;€€3~~~~=; biz:§~~L~*~A~~#~~~=21~~f~=~ti~e ~iE~; ~~~sE ~ ~~ ~ 4 i ~ ~€3 # ~ t as ?~ $~ ~# ."' ~ a'~$a~~~~~~~~~~~~a's~a~~$~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$$a~~~~~ ~1~1! .: :~: :_ ~$ is #~ k ~x-~ a 2 ~ ~z i ~ FR 2k i it al F~ z~~y ag#g Kf y ((z J S 5~ ~t ~' s- s- 8:3 a&~ E 66~58~osE$F¢i3s3Yait~:Y~~~i..Ye.e~Y4:eE~ afa~4~ ~~ 3RA a d p ~L a :--f x t ,' Y- x Yak Y Y #i~j'#i 4~ ~!~~ s ~~ ~ aY ~ t y~ !# 9~ 9d 1~ 9~ = N = ~ ~1~~~~~ ~ ~~~~;~ ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~# ~~ ~~ ~ ~g ~~ gg pp a= 2 R ~°i~ ~•z ? 2 F ~~L$ #2$ 8 °a°= ~ ~ ~~a , y i i s 3 i 3 # 3 3 a' i $ i 3 's i $ ~ t gse"s_ ~5 ° R Y R a A P ~ ~ ~ ~ A A ~ ~ R A ~ A ~ ~ ~ E g g s ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ : ° 3 35s~ ! E 2 E f ! ! 2 2 2 t 2 B 2 F @ e t zRR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~3 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~6~~ a a a a a a a a~ a j a s a a a a a a ~~ ~§~F ~~-~-Q R € € ~§ ~ , ,~aa • _ e # s # ee a ~ a z a z ~ s a ~ z a ~ a y ~ -zz 3§ ~* 3"s a-s a~ • d ~~ as A ~-s s§ a§ "s • § ~§ a§ # ~e• a~FI ~Y~## AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RESOLUTION 9 189 CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution awarding the sale of $4.,965,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A; fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution awarding the sale of $4,965,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A; fixing. their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment. III. BACKGROUND I On April 22, 2003, the City Council adopted a resolution providing for the sale of $6,000,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003, (G.O. TIF Bond) to help provide funding to fulfill the financial. commitments of the Kensington Park Project. Since that time, however, the bond has been restructured and temporarily reduced to an amount of $4,965,000. The purpose of the restructuring is to advance site assembly funds on an interim basis until the private development financing is available. A second bond issuance will be sought when the current developer (The Cornerstone Group) or a new developer, in the event that the current developer is unable to secure private construction financing, secures their private financing. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 0326awardbond.doc • This second bond issuance would be in an amount necessary to provide a total of up to $6,000,000 in bond funds as was approved on April 22, 2003. • The level of bonds to be issued now includes approximately $4.59 million in bond proceeds plus $406,000 in interest and issuance fees. • The source of funding for the debt service on these bonds is to be the tax increment generated by the project and proceeds from the sales of housing units. • On April 21, 2003, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement (Pledge Agreement) with the City for this bond issue. The Pledge Agreement provides the HRA with the authority to transfer to the City the tax increment from the Kensington Park project to pay debt service on the bonds. At the August 18, 2003 HRA meeting the pledge agreement approved Apri121, 2003 will be amended to reflect the new bond amount. • The City's resolution awarding the sale of the bonds also includes language that authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to execute and deliver the Pledge Agreement on behalf of the City • Bids on the bonds are due in the offices of Ehlers & Associates on Tuesday August 12. Mr. Sid Inman will be at the City Council meeting to recommend the successful bidder, review the attached documents, and provide information that is absent from the resolution and available only after the bidding on the bonds has closed. • Following Mr. Inman's recommendation, it would. be appropriate for the City Council to award the bond sale to the qualified buyer and undertake other related actions as necessary as delineated in the approving resolution. The closing on the G.O. TIF Bonds is scheduled for September 2, 2003. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA signed a Contract for Private Development with Lyndale Gateway LLC for the Lyndale Gateway West area on August 5, 2002 and has made financial commitments, a component of which includes the issuance of G.O. TIF Bonds. • The City Council approved the. issuance of G.O. TIF Bonds on Aprif 22, 2003. • The HRA approved execution of a Pledge Agreement relating to the G.O. TIF Bonds on April 21, 2003. The Pledge Agreement is to be amended at the August 18, 2003 HRA meeting to reflect the new amount of the bonds. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In order for the development to move forward, the bond financing is critical to the success of the project. • The closing on the bond sale is scheduled for September 2, 2003. C. FINANCIAL • The bond sale will help make it possible to meet the financial commitments needed for the project to proceed. • The funding for the debt service on the G.O. TfF Bonds is to be the tax increment generated by the Kensington Park development and proceeds from the sale of housing units. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has been involved in the bond sale transaction as bond counsel to the City. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • The City Council may decide to not proceed with awarding the sale of the bonds or delay action until a future City Council meeting. However, both of these alternatives would jeopardize the Kensington Park project and make it impossible for the developer to honor purchase agreements with property owners calling for a September 2, 2003 closing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Awarding the Sale of $4,965,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A; fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $ TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2003A; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Sale of Bonds. 1.01. It is hereby determined that: (a) the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (Authority) previously established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 (Act); (b) the City has duly established the Lyndale Gateway West Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District) within the Project Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (TIF Act); (c) the City is authorized by section 469.178 of the TIF Act to issue and sell its general obligations to pay all or a portion of the public redevelopment costs (Costs) related to the Project Area as identified in the plan (Plan) for the TIF District. (d) the Plan authorizes the following Costs to be financed by the general obligations: SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 Public Redevelopment Cost Amount Land acquisition, demolition, site work And related costs Project Costs $4,559,224 Contingency 1, 848 Discount Allowance 49,650 Finance Related Expenses 45,000 Capitalized Interest 309,278 Total Uses $4,965,000 (e) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $ Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A (Bonds) to provide temporary financing for the Costs; (fj the Authority has requested the City to issue and sell its general obligations to provide temporary financing for a portion of the Costs. (g) the Amended Tax Increment Pledge Agreement between the Authority and the City (Pledge Agreement) is approved in substantially the form on file with the City, and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute such agreement on behalf of the City. 1.02. The proposal of (Purchaser) to purchase $ Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A (Bonds) of the City described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest at the rate of % per annum. True interest cost: 1.03. The sum of $ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in excess of $4,915,350 will be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City Finance Manager is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City. 1.04. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (Act), in the total principal amount of $ ,originally dated as of the date of delivery, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and maturing serially on February 1, 2006. 1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2004, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on February 1, 2006. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 6 hereof] of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. Section 2. Registration and Payment. 2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued as a single typewritten bond, only in registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. The Bond will be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2004, to the registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day. 2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so made to a registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. 2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints U.S. Bank Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Finance Manager must transmit to the Registrar monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, such signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. SJB-235672v1 RC145-506 2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled. Section 3. Form of Bond. 3.01. The Bond will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form: No. R-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF RICHFIELD TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY TAX INCREMENT BOND, SERIES 2003A Date of Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP February 1, 2006 , 2003 Registered Owner: Cede & Co. The City of Richfield, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2004, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 The City may elect on February 1, 2004, and on any day thereafter to prepay the Bonds. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify The Depository Trust Company (DTC) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $ all of like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on August 12, 2003 (the Resolution), for the purpose of providing money to aid in financing public redevelopment costs in a redevelopment project (Project) in the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are payable primarily from tax increments resulting from increases in taxable valuation of real property in a tax increment financing district (TIF District) within the Project as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to issue and sell definitive or additional temporary bonds to redeem the Bonds and to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency of tax increments pledged, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denomination of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary. SJB-235672v1 RC145-506 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness. This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Manager Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By Authorized Representative SJB-235672v1 RC145-506 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -- as tenants in common TEN ENT -- as tenants by entireties UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and Act . . not as tenants in common (Gust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts or Transfers to Minors (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program ("MSP") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Registrar SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held by joint account.) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below. Signature of Date of Registration Registered Owner Officer of the Registrar Cede & Co. Federal ID #13-2555119 3.02. The City Manager is directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and will cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond. SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 Section 4. Payment; Security. 4.01. The Bonds are payable from the Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A Debt Service Fund (Debt Service Fund) hereby created. All tax increments (Tax Increments) received by the City from the TIF District pursuant to the Pledge Agreement described in Section 1.01 hereof are pledged to the Debt Service Fund. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Manager will pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for those advances out of the proceeds of Tax Increments when received. There is hereby appropriated to the Debt Service Fund: (i) capitalized interest financed from Bond proceeds, if any, and (ii) any amount over the minimum purchase price of the Bonds paid by the Purchaser. 4.02. Net proceeds of the Bonds will be applied in accordance with the terms of the Pledge Agreement. 4.03. In accordance with its statutory duties under Minnesota Statutes, Section 478.178, Subdivision 5, the City covenants and agrees with the holders of the Bonds that if the Bonds cannot be paid at maturity from tax increments pledged or from other funds appropriated by the City Council, the Bonds will be paid from the proceeds of definitive or additional temporary bonds that will be issued and sold prior to the maturity date of the Bonds. 4.04. It is hereby determined that the estimated collection of Tax Increments for payment of principal and interest on the Bonds, together with proceeds of any definitive or additional temporary bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds and that no tax levy is needed at this time. 4.05. The City Manager is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. Section 5. Authentication of Transcript. 5.01. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 5.02. The Mayor, City Manager and Finance Manager are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of .the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement. 5.03. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts payable to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered as Bond Counsel) to U.S. Trust Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota on the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's financial adviser, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Section 6. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City. 6.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC). Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. 6.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (Participants) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,) of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books SJB-235672v1 RC145-506 kept by the Bond Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent. 6.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which shall govern payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation letter with respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times. 6.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof. 6.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter. Section 7. Continuing Disclosure. 7.01. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section. SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 7.02. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly made by Member and seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SJB-235672v1 RC 145-506 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on August 12, 2003 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $ Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A of the City. WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 2003. City Clerk Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) SJB-235672v1 RC145-506 STATE OF MINNESOTA DIVISION TAXPAYER SERVICES MANAGER'S CERTIFICATE AS TO COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AD REGISTRATION WHERE NO VALOREM TAX LEVY I, the undersigned County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on August 12, 2003, relating to Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2003A, in the amount of $ ,dated September 2, 2003, has been filed in my office and said obligations have been registered on the register of obligations in my office. WITNESS My hand and official seal this day of , 2003. (SEAL) 1 QX1JQyG1 JGl V11:G5 L1V1S1V11 1V1cU1Qb'Gl Hennepin County, Minnesota By Deputy SJB-235672v1 RC145-506 STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 Public Hearing 8 188 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding the attached Transitory Ordinance directing that a study be conducted and establishing a moratorium for firearms related uses. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached Transitory Ordinance directing that a study be conducted and a moratorium be established for firearms related uses. II. BACKGROUND I A request for zoning approval for a Firearms Safety Training Center was submitted to the City in June of this year. Because no zoning regulations currently exist for such a land use, the City Council adopted a resolution at its July 8, 2003 meeting establishing a moratorium on firearms related uses and directing that a study be conducted to create recommended land use regulations for firearms related uses. State Statute requires that an interim ordinance be passed to establish such a moratorium on land uses. A first reading of the attached Transitory Ordinance was also approved at the July 8 meeting. If approved, the attached Transitory Ordinance establishing a moratorium and study will supersede the July 8 resolution 081203-FiringRanges-Final.doc (No. 9357). (The July 8 resolution was a temporary measure until the State required interim ordinance can take effect.) Community Development staff has already begun compiling information on regulations for firearms related uses in other communities. The Planning Commission will take up the issue at a study session in September and staff from the Public Safety Department will be consulted for that study session. Once the Planning Commission has developed recommended land use regulations, they will be presented to the City Council for consideration and adoption. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State Statute 462.355 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. • The Planning Commission serves to advise the City Council in zoning and land use regulation matters such as this one. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Recently enacted State legislation may lead to a greater number of requests for firearms related businesses. As a result,. zoning regulations for such uses should be created. • The Richfield Public Safety Department should work with the Planning Commission and Community Development staff when formulating a recommendation for the City Council's consideration. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • State Statute 462.355 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. • The City Attorney has reviewed this matter and recommends that the. Planning Commission and Public Safety Department develop recommended regulations for firearms related uses for the City Council's consideration. I 1 V . ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) I ~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~ • ~ ransitory ordinance • State Statute 462.255 I V1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I BILL NO.2003- TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED PERTAINING TO FIREARMS RELATED USES OF LAND IN THE C-2 AND I ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City of Richfield regulates land use activities throughout its official controls, which include the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations and subdivision regulations. 1.02. A request has been made fora "Firearms Safety Training Center" on a parcel zoned C-2, General Commercial. 1.03. The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota ("City") currently has regulations for Gun and Ammunitions sales/repair in Zoning Code Section 526.27, Subdivision 19. 1.04. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355 Subd. 4 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning. process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Section 2. Findin s. 2.01. The City finds that a "Firearms Safety Training Center" is part of a broader use category to be called "Firearms Related Uses". 2.02. The City finds that existing regulations under Section 526.27, Subdivision 19 do not apply to "Firearms Related Uses", and that rules and regulations guiding the use of land for firearms related purposes need to be developed. 2.03. The City finds that it is necessary to conduct studies to determine the types of uses to be included in a "Firearms Related Uses" category and appropriate and reasonable regulations for such uses and to adopt the appropriate amendments to the City's zoning regulations. 2.04. The City finds that there is a need to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens regarding such matters. Section 3. Planning and Zoning Study; Moratorium. 3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff to determine whether the City's official controls need to be modified as they relate to "Firearms Related Uses" described in Section 2.01. above. 081203-FiringRanges-Final.doc BILL NO. 2003- -2- 3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's official controls, it shall be unlawful, except as provided herein, for any person to establish, expand, or rebuild any "Firearms Related Use" in the City. Section 5. Enforcement. The City may enforce any provisions of this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 6. Term. Unless earlier terminated by action of the City this ordinance shall be effective until July 31, 2004, and may be further extended for such additional periods as the City may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. Section 7. Resolution Repealed. Resolution No. 9357 is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 12th day of August, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk MN Statute 462.355 Prepare, adopt, and amend comprehensive municipal plan. Subdivision 1. Preparation and review. The planning agency shall prepare the comprehensive municipal plan. In discharging this duty the planning agency shall consult with and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal plan. In its planning activities the planning agency shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. The planning agency shall periodically review the plan and recommend amendments whenever necessary. Subd. 1a. Plan update by metropolitan municipalities. Each municipality in the metropolitan area, as defined in Section 473.121, Subdivision 2, shall review and update its comprehensive plan and fiscal devices and official controls as provided in Section 473.864, Subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Procedure for plan adoption and amendment. The planning agency may, unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent with the municipal charter, recommend to the governing body the adoption and amendment from time to time of a comprehensive municipal plan. The plan may be prepared and adopted in sections, each of which relates to a major subject of the plan or to a major geographical section of the municipality. The governing body may propose the comprehensive municipal plan and amendments to it by resolution submitted to the planning agency. Before adopting the comprehensive municipal plan or any section or amendment of the plan, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days before the day of the hearing. Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. A proposed comprehensive plan or an amendment to it may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment proposed by the governing body has been submitted to the planning agency for its recommendation. Unless otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may by resolution by atwo-thirds vote of all of its members adopt and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof as the official municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordinance. Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in Section 462.352, Subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and .the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision, which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6 F REPORT # 18 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Linda Kollman, 6430 Lo an Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Linda Kollman, 6430 Lo an Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2003, Linda Kollman submitted an application for the renewal of her multi-animal residential license. She owns four cats. Ms. Kollman's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Animal control staff received one phone call in reference to this multi-animal residential license request. The caller left a message stating that he is opposed to the multi-residential license. In the previous year at the time of renewal, we received one letter and one call regarding the cats roaming around the neighborhood. They requested at that time that the cats be confined to her yard. It is unknown if this caller is the same person who previously had concerns about the cats roaming. 0812Kollman MultiAnimal Residential Kennel A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 18, 2003. There were no apparent problems found at that time. There have been no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for this address in the past year. The complaint was regarding a garbage can being left out. The property owner was notified and no further complaints have been received. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license. Staff received one call regarding this application indicating that they are opposed to the residential license. It is unknown if this caller is the same person who previously expressed their concerns about the cats roaming. • Although this application is for four cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Linda Kollman AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 6 F REPORT # 18 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Cheryl Scam , 6834 Knox Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Che I Scam , 6834 Knox Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2003, Cheryl Scamp submitted an application for the renewal of her multi-animal residential license. She owns four dogs. Her application is complete and contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff did not receive any letters or phone calls regarding this multi-animal residential license request. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 18, 2003. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Environmental Health Division has no history of receiving complaints for this address for the past year. 0812Scamp MultiAnimal Residential Kennel There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMI~~NDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license. Staff did not receive any letter or phone calls regarding this request. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA I~. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Cheryl Scamp. This would mean that the applicant would have to decrease the number of animals she has from four to two. The Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACFIMENTS • None VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Cheryl Scamp STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 Consent 6F 185 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~ ~~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue Southo II. BACKGROUND On May 1, 2003, Reeta Lincoln submitted an application for the renewal of her multi-animal residential license. She owns five dogs and one cat. Ms. Lincoln's application is complete and contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on May 28, 2003. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Environmental Health staff has no history of receiving any complaints for this address in the past year. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. 0812Lincoln MultiAnimal Residential Kennel III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license. Staff has not received any calls regarding this application. Although this application is for five dogs and one cat, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Reeta Lincoln; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 Consent 6F 184 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CIIRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Cre SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1 __ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2003, Suzanne and Thomas Erickson submitted an application for the renewal of their multi-animal residential kennel license. They own three dogs. Their application contains the signatures of three nearby property owners. According to the applicant, an incident took place a few years ago involving one of their dogs "nipping" at a neighbor. The animal did not break any skin and no reports were filed with the Public Safety Department. This neighbor is a contiguous property owner to Erickson's property and has not signed the application in previous years, as well. A privacy fence has been constructed between the two properties, which appears to be in very good condition. Therefore, the signatures on the application are not all contiguous property owners. It should also be noted that the 0812Erickson MultiAnimal Residential Kennel neighbor involved in the incident did not respond either way to the City's letter of notification regarding this license request. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on May 24, 2003. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The exterior of the property appeared to be in good condition. with no odors or feces present. Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints for this address in the past year. The most recent complaint received was in 1997 regarding the need to obtain a residential kennel license. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff did not receive any calls regarding this application. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson; however, the Public Safety. Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Suzanne and Thomas Erickson AGENDA SECTION: ('nncant AGENDA ITEM # ( E REPORT # 183 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ .... SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for temporary on-sale 3.2 malt liquor and itinerant food licenses for activities scheduled to take place outdoors on August 29 and 30, 2003 for the. Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive, in celebration of their 50th anniversary. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and itinerant food licenses for the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive, allowing the out-door service of these items for their 50th anniversary celebration, August 29 and 30, 2003. II. BACKGROUND On July 21, 2003, the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 submitted a request for a temporary license to serve on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor outdoors and an itinerant food license for their 50th anniversary celebration. The required licensing fees have been received. The event is scheduled to occur on August 29 and August 30, 2003 from 7:30 to 10:00 p.m. each evening with a band and a dance. This request is in conjunction with the VFW's 50th anniversary celebration. The VFW plans to serve refreshments and 3.2 malt liquor. Their food menu will consist of items such as hamburgers, hot dogs and pork chops. 0812VFW Anniversary Licenses Their current liquor license is only valid for the serving of intoxicating alcohol within the interior of the establishment and does not cover any exterior serving. It also does not allow for the service of intoxicating liquor to anyone other than one of their members or a guest of a member, as per State Statute. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage to cover the exterior of their property, for the serving of 3.2 malt liquor only, has been provided showing Insurance Corporation of Hanover as affording the coverage. The applicant has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. As this is a first time event, it cannot be compared to a previous year's event in terms-of the number of calls received by the Public Safety Department. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to the temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for the outdoors area of the premises. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the service of on-sale intoxicating liquor or strong malt liquor will occur only on the interior of the establishment and only to members of the VFW or their guests as per State Statute requirements. • That per the State Statutes and if approved, the only liquor sold on the exterior of the VFW will be the 3.2 percent malt liquor, and it can be sold to non-members. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS} • Deny the request for a temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning the temporary sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor, in conjunction with their 50th anniversary celebration. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for denial. V. ATTACHMENTS VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ m Ng, vrw manager AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 Consent 6D REPORT PREPARED BY: .11M TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ n ~ ~.I~iYr~ /~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~''~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of re-allocation of 2003 capital improvement budget funds from the completed Wood Lake Nature Center Roof Replacement project to the Wood Lake Nature Center Gate Replacement project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the re-allocation of 2003 capital improvement budget funds from the completed Wood Lake Nature Center Roof Replacement project to the Wood Lake Nature Center Gate Realacement project. III. BACKGROUND ~ In 2002, the Council approved the allocation of capital improvement funds to replace the Wood Lake Nature Center roof. Now, with that project complete, staff is recommending re-allocating the remaining $5,383 to fund the replacement of the front gate at Wood Lake Nature Center.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0812 Wood Lake Gate A. POLICY Recreation Services staff hired Dakota Fence to perform the work, which was completed in June 2003. The work needed to be done and was going to be funded as an operating expense. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The fence was in dire need of repair and was regularly requiring temporary repairs by staff, which used staff time and operating funds. • The broken fence created safety concerns and its location at the front of Wood Lake Nature Center makes it extremely visible and accessible to the public. C. FINANCIAL • By re-allocating these unused special revenue funds, Wood Lake Nature Center will not have to find a way to fund the replacement out of the operating budget. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS} • Do not approve the fund re-allocation and suggest an alternate source of funding for the project. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # h C REPORT # i Q i ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Nn~rc, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ " ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution granting an Off-Street Parking Permit for Southdale Square located at 2900-3020 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an Off-Street Parking Permit at Southdale Square, located at 2900-3020 West 66th Street. III. BACKGROUND ~ In the spring of 2003, Madison-Marquette Realty, property managers of the Southdale Square Shopping Center located at 2900-3020 West 66th Street, approached the City of Richfield with a proposal to vacate the 6500 block of Xerxes Avenue on the municipal border between the cities of Richfield and Edina. The purpose of the proposed street vacation was to allow the redevelopment of the former Richfield Bank and Trust property in the northwest corner of Xerxes Avenue and 66th Street in Edina. Madison-Marquette proposed razing the existing bank building and replacing it with a new retail development with approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of space and 88 parking spaces. Richfield staff reviewed the proposed redevelopment and street vacation and recommended that the City Council approve the street vacation to allow the proposed redevelopment to proceed. City staff informed Madison-Marquette Realty that because the proposed redevelopment 081203-0 S P-Soutdale. d oc would significantly alter the parking configuration of the Southdale Square shopping center, an Off-Street Parking Permit would also be required. The Richfield City Council approved the requested vacation of the 6500 block of Xerxes Avenue at a public hearing on May 27, 2003. On July 18, Madison- Marquette Realty submitted their request for an Off-Street Parking Permit for Southdale Square. The request showed the proposed redevelopment on the Edina side of the project, including changes to driveways and curb-cuts onto Xerxes Avenue and 66th Street west, and a reconfiguration of the internal circulation patterns and parking stalls in the existing Southdale Square parking lot. Parkins The portion of the parking lot that will be reconstructed currently includes 287 parking stalls. Due to improved use of this space, the reconfigured parking lot will include 41 additional parking stalls, for a total of 287 stalls, and landscaping as described below. Circulation The proposed modifications to the parking lot for Southdale Square will improve internal circulation patterns as well as improve safety for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The vacation of Xerxes Avenue and the proposed driveway entrances and parking lot will eliminate several confusing and poorly placed driveways that currently exist and replace them with fewer and more appropriately placed driveways. Public Works is supportive of the proposed changes. Landscaping. Community Development Department staff have proposed the addition of a significant amount of landscaping for the reconstruction of the Southdale Square parking lot. As a result, the plan calls for the addition of nine landscaped and irrigated islands in the parking area. Four of these islands will include ground cover and two ash trees each. The remaining five islands will be landscaped with bush honeysuckle or spires plants. The proposed landscaping reflects a balance between the City's desire for the addition of as many trees and landscaping as possible and the visibility concerns of the retail tenants. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Procedures for issuance of an Off-Street Parking Permit are outlined in City Code section 800.1.7, which authorizes the City Council to issue a permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have~an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the community. • The City's Landscape Standards state; "In addition to perimeter landscaping, parking lots for more than 50 cars must have landscaped islands planted with shade trees." B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed changes will increase the number of parking stalls, improve safety and circulation, and improve the appearance of the parking lot through the addition of landscaping. • The City is actively requiring landscaping improvements in new developments and when changes are made at existing properties. • The applicant has indicated that the new development (at the site of the former bank building) will be `seamless in appearance' with the existing Southdale shopping center. C. FINANCIAL • The applicant will be required to provide either a cash escrow or a letter of credit equal to the value of the new landscaping prior to receiving permits forthe parking lot improvements. This escrow or letter of credit will be held until the landscaping is established. D. LEGAL • 60-DAY RULE: The 60 day clock `started' when a complete application was received on August 4th, 2003. A Decision must be given to the applicant by October 3, 2003 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • City Council resolution • Parking Lot Site Plan • Parking Lot Landscaping Plan • Plans and details for the proposed new retail building VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Wendy Aaserud and Lee Hoffman, Madison-Marquette Realty, applicants. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 2900-3020 66th Street West (Southdale Square) WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an Off-Street Parking Permit for the parcel of land located at 2900-3020 66th Street West, legally described as: Lots 9 and 10, "Richfield Gardens", Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the requested Off-Street Parking Permit has been reviewed by staff and meets city requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the Off-Street Parking Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That an Off-Street Parking Permit for 2900-302066th Street West is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in the plans entitled "Dimensioned Site Plan-C1.02" and "Landscape Plan-L2.00", dated 8/01/03, and drawn by the Architectural Alliance. 2. Approval is granted subject to the following condition: • That the applicant shall submit a signed landscape agreement and an accompanying letter of credit or cash escrow equal to the value of the landscaping to be installed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 2003. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk I m =p I 1 °p ~ I !'1 I =~ I I ' gN ~ ~ I ~ ~._-.~-... ~ ,I. I ti 1 m 1 33 ~ I I F I > ~y I Ng. ~ ~ u, ~ I f I O vim I i'^ g ~ i a t'=~: b u ~ .._ . ~~ ,QoO= I '"STD I zz I ~ov^yi 1 u I mmm I ~''z'O I c .J ~ ~ I ~~. \ w t ' ~ i I z 1. I -• 1 z I°I ~ O Z I N' i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~i II le t„ ~ i t 31 o ~ I vi _ I y~ $ N ~ ~ ~ I I -'I rn 1 0 l I 33 ~~ 37 ~ I I ~ f a I i I I I \I Z i I i ~ i~ -- I I ' I I I I ~ ~ ( _ I ~~_e_e ~ ! I t I ~ I i I ~ ~ I / i i i ~ ~ 'I ~ 'I ' 11 ~ ,I ~I ;1 II ,, ., ;, II I '~. I I 1 1 i I I I I 33 I I I 1 I I I I 1 i i i i ~~ 33 I I ~. o I 1 ,, I I `, 'I I :I .' :. I ~ it I \ ~ ~ 232.20 .% I I I I • I ~ I I I ~m I "T1 A -~ I ~ ~ I < g$ I r*I ~ ~ i i it p •~ I - ~ _ I CA (A fN ~_ , ; ~~° ;, ~~ ,, m , ~o, oZ ~ n I ~ ~ •.I I O • 1 :. Y' I ~z I ;C7 1 ~ I 'n ~ I I N I I m I ~ I I 1 ,~* , M1... I ~e< 1 ` I f~ I ~. I I I t 1 4 I STREE -p~, -~:- u ,,, S ~ . - --"--- - ~~ BI TUM IN OU 5 t ,Si S U R F A C E ~'•\', m m °mC 0 ~ N qA .T1 m E ----~~~ • '~G "ro~aa- .~ - - - _"LINE 1' DESCRIBED IN DDE:. N0. 1679152 @ DDE:. NO. 1820433 BITUMINOUS ~, ENTRANCE ~`• k UTILITY MENT P 0. 1620435 - .- -~ - -- - o. SIN'S OUTLOTS" o a a -- 57 A -----A ---- n'-- z ~. ~ i ~ o aK ~^ ~ ~ L z N s ~2 ' R °s v ~ rn L :I o ~ ~ ~ e o~ 'I ~ It 10 =~ ~I III --- . ? ~ T i~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ \ I~ I 7 I ?5 I ~ _ __ _ I n I I k i I $ 1 ii ~___________J 1 I l ~___________:___==:_.r:=~ t~~ t Ea ~~ .~ -, o0o N e o¢ ~m I 0'~7 ~ F $~m yy 9i ~ ~ ~ ° 3 '-,~!_r FOI~ ~~ .___ __ _~OR_ __ ROAO' U7LITY ~- >,,.x t ..... .._.. -- - -- - -- - -- ---- - r tl I i ~~ 16 SPA 9' 0 OPENING I ~ ~ I i I I I I~ I I I io 3o I ~°pp°a m'~~ °o g m~ ~~~ F~ x bm 9 s~ Fa 0 ~3~ ~~ ~O ~g S, I I i I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I ' I I ~7 I m I ~ I I I I I 1 i I I j ~ I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I ' I 30 j I I ' t I 1 I ' I I I I I I I ' I I 1 I 1 i `. `____________~_____ X______y_-___~______________~ L_ _ ` .`.± jr_____________________________________________________ I '"_.,..........."."..... ~~:~._:______ .:=":="z.zn___ ____________:..z~:z~:=:=_____ _==:z::==-_:______"____"_~:a:_z::=:.:==_=z==.=srr .~______ _____________________________ "' I I ~ YINC~NT A UFNUF. dSO1lTfl 11 ~ ~ O N ~ b d v m N a u N D a a' as ~ ~ I x ~oQF ~z A~ .~<"g R'~~~ ~~ ".z ~`^. A,m~ A 6m 3 ~ Xa ~ c ~ ; Tim Qi ~o oz 8 z ~ u; v. r ~ ~z~, ~ m c ^ ~~ m^ rti ~~ 0 0 '^ Noi~$C~i a ~~~~ ~ ~ A~F ^i o~nc~s ~~ ° mi N~ oD ~ ~ ~am > 3 5b ~z°.~Z ~~ ~ x A~~~ ~ ~ ~~ om ~'" 8~ ~ rn ~ o ~~m ~ ¢~ ~ §~ ~~ ~ ~~~ aY ~ ~ a m a m to ~ ¢ ~ 4'$ ~ $ L~ _~ arzfJ o ~~ ~ ~ }g o a _ rn ~ ~ I I I~ I~ ~ ! } r ~ _ _ ~ ~„ .99•..I ^'~• '~ '' e+~ I € c ~ `fir. I ~~~ 1 a _ r 1 i i I I .J ~~\` 1 1 1 4 ~ ~ : a ti' m Vr ~ VINCENT AVENUE SOUTH L----~----------- _ r. ~~ A ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 .~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ a~ ~~ V ~ ~~ j a ~ ~mo ~ ~ z° -°~- ~a o ~ ~ v D Z ~ ~~a ~ ~ ~, ~mrm -TI ~ o ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~, c Z °z ~ ~ ~, m ~ ~. ~'! lliiiii~~~ P P T `~ P - 4' N ~~~ ~ ~~g ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~s m ~~ y ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ i~~a ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ T A s ~ ~ `~~~ ~ ~# ~ u ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a i~i ~- 5 ~ Rt a n ~ i s ~f~ r s~~ a `. ~. fpm o0 ~~ ZC ~~ ov ~r ~ = m ~cn mtn r~ vc Zm ~a ~Z zm z~ m a~ Om z a~ m r O m Z -i 'O O n II c S o ~ A O ~ ~_ j N W~ • ~ ~ w ~ j , ~ ~ i m ~ r Z m C7 N D S v W O T ~~ ~ r O T ~ N ~ C7 A ~i o _~ r C ~ Z ~ ~O T Z o 9 D m Z x y r- ~ 9 m t~ N v~ Z ~~ ~ C ~ ~ m ~ W y a v ~ o Z m -I C~ N .o = IT7 I I i ' 18'-2" i N I I I I I I I N ~ I 0 o v M Z C7 rn Z i I m ~ I ~ I -,,,~ I I ~ I I ~ I , I = I ~ I I rn I m I ~ I I I I 1 I I I I 11 I ~ u I I N ~ I 11 I 11 I 1]~ I I I I j . Nz ~ ~m ~ c ~ ~ 11'1 ~ -v'i n ~ ( ' 111 ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ I ~ y, -n ~ ~. I D r I '~ I ~, Z j ~ ~ I m m I 1 ~ ~ ~ . r Z ~ ~ III it o ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~, '; G7 C I ~ j ~ .'I ~ v I I <-,I I I I I m yl ~ I I I ~ I I I I I j II N II u 11 II 1 I N N ~1 I j I a ~~ 12'-4" m r m C7 I I I I I ~ i f 1 f I ' ' j l I ~' ~ N ' 0 Z e ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 0'-6" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ z~ a -i ~ 9~ I ~v ', az ~~ Can ^Z J 2 m z z -~ O .• ~~ ~~_ _ EDINA _ RICHFIELD ~ ~ ~ o ~rX o0 ~a=_ Zc s"L ~ ^a " r ~~~ Tm n ~ mm ~c mz ~~ zm ~~ m~ as ~v Zoe ~m '~ < am r rn ~ a m ~ Z ~ ~ O m n W w~ ~ O W N C N ~i i °rn r m C -~ O Z ~ g 3 3 oz o O ~ ~ N A~ w ~ r Z ~ A ~ CA O Z ~ _~ xr m m D ~ ~ °o ~ ^ •~ rn ~ ~ r C ~~ D x ~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ n y ~ (1N r IU `" Z _~ ~ ~ zv ~ ~ w y a ~ ~ ~ b~ o a e~ N m = R1 O w -p wr N .Z j t o Z rn Z --~ -c v I. ''~' •I :~ ~ F .~ 1 ~ ~f J..~ m .. D 70 C7 ~_ m r v I ~~ r =z ~ ~m v N-1 - 3 ~yy-~~1 N-1 ~ ~ -1 ~ V ~ Q ~D r ~D ~~ (~ I~ I~ -c 0 wm N : (n M 1 ~rn or rn ~_ O Z X~ ~~ Z N -" ~ ~v~~~ _ ~ D~ 77pp N ~ D ~m ~ ~ zv ~ N .. r ~ 7 ~ elm i8 N_ -1 1 O ~_ '7T ,. ~~ r ~_ I m v W V Q ! m ~ ~ J - ~ L S ~ Q _ m M J O z _ ~ v ~ ~ ~'~' ~ ~ _ ~ ¢ ~- L - ~ ~ C y~ ~ ~ m 3: a ~ cn ~ o~ W ~~p ' c a Q T ~ ~ ~ € ~ o ~ W O//~~ 'C~// 1~~ ~~ d a N Q `~ ry ry V/ VJ LL W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ylnog anuany ~uaoui~ --~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u C - - - J Ol31jH~R1 VNI03 W a 0 w Q 0 0 w i_-- ~ ---f --- _ __ __ _ -' --_' _. __ I- v Q W __ N I - _-_.... - _- y ~- ~ f o ~ ~ [V LL ~ ~ ~ Y ' .Y O ~ OO U ~- O. - `l ~ ~ ~ y j ai o. a i v ~ ` m ~ - ~ N ~ co o ~- a`~ ao ~ 3 .~ °' ~ --- ~ E °~ rim " N - - - ~ ~ -O ~ a ~ x kC U ~ t` ° ° ~ a h ~ ~ a } ~ ~ ~ co ~ t n ~ ~ ~ a ~ o _ ~ o d ~ O O N O ~ ~ N ~ O Q m O O ° ~ t+ J ~ W ~ c a_ ~ N ~ _ ° O O ~ N ~ C r ~' m Q ~ A cn oa ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ } > ~' ~ Z ~ O U O]. c o N ~ ~ ~ O Q~ m o~ d ~ lv ~ Q w c N N `o Q y U .~ ~ N ~ > N O z °c' Q C7 °' E 0 c7 (~ Y Y~ a s c_ ~ rn Y ¢ ¢' i ¢' E m ~ c m m „ ~E H v1C n t ie ~ ~i p,a\ \ ~ "~ \ ,: ~, \ `. \ J \ U t0 N C \ o> Q 0 m~ a` I. I I a, O Im ~ i m a~ w T I r,~ 3~ ~ ~I. Ala a I I, ~ i I ~I I ;~ ~ ~~ ~~ I I ~PEV12S ~ , P ~+a I I I "~.o-,5z I. II I ~i- I ~' J l~l l ~ ~ .vl .Lt I Zt Zt I . I mEa .< `L U L Cfl N ,~ O Z Q J ~.~..~ ~_ ~ • f AGENDA SECTION: COriSOrit AGENDA ITEM # 6B REPORT # 1 g ~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nan~c, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Sr TuRE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of request by CSM to enter into the attached proposed Consent and Agreement with CSM and its lender as part of the refinancing of Shops at Lyndale. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached proposed Consent and Agreement and direct the Chair and Executive Director to execute and deliver the same, contingent upon developer reimbursement of staff and legal costs associated with such action.. III. BACKGROUND ~ CSM, the developer of the Shops at Lyndale, is seeking to refinance its loan on the shopping center. As part of the refinancing, the lender is requiring that the City, CSM, and the lender enter into a Consent and Agreement. This document merely makes the lender, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, a party to various agreements that the City of Richfield has with CSM, and under certain circumstances allows the lender to step in and assume the role of the developer under the terms of those agreements. 081203 CSM III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This is a standard lender requirement. • The request does not place any additional obligation on the City, nor does it create any additional risk for the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Unless the City agrees to the Consent and Agreement, CSM will be unable to refinance its development. Refinancing frequently provides additional capital, which can be used to maintain the high quality of the development. C. FINANCIAL • The proposed Consent and Agreement does not alter the existing agreements, it merely adds a new party. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the attached Agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue the discussion on the item to a future meeting if additional information is needed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed Consent and Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Legal Counsel CONSENT AND AGREEMENT This Consent and Agreement is made as of August , 2003, by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (the "City"), TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, whose address is c/o Aegon USA Realty Advisors, Inc., 4333 Edgewood Road N.E., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-5443 (the "Lender") and CSM INVESTORS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, whose address is 2575 University Avenue West, Suite 150, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (the "Developer"). WHEREAS, the City and the Developer have entered into an Agreement dated as of August 9, 1994, as amended by Resolution dated January 23, 1995 (the "Emerson Agreement") relating to that portion of Emerson Avenue South which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Emerson Portion"). WHEREAS, the City and the Developer have entered into an Agreement dated February 28, 1995 (the "Colfax Agreement") relating to that portion of Colfax Avenue South which is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Colfax Portion"); the City has completed vacation of the Colfax Portion, and that pursuant to Section 8.b of the Colfax Agreement said Agreement has terminated and is of no further force and effect. WHEREAS, the Lender has agreed to make a loan of $13,250,000 (the "Lender Loan"} to the Developer upon the condition, among others, that the Developer grant the Lender a Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing (as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time, the "Lender Mortgage") and an Absolute Assignment of Leases and Rents (as the same maybe amended and supplemented from time to time, the "Lender Assignment of Rents"), as security for repayment of such financial accommodations, covering certain real estate, including without limitation, the real estate legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto (the "Land") and the City is willing to execute this Consent and Agreement to induce the Lender to provide such financing to the Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: _ ~l . Amendment of Agreement. The Developer and the City hereby acknowledge that the Emerson Agreement was amended by Amendment dated January 23, 1995 to delete as a basis for terminating the Emerson Agreement, a default by Developer under that certain Contract for Private Development dated April 29, 1994 between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA"), and CSM Corporation as amended by Resolution No. 529 dated November 21, 1994, Resolution No. 530 dated ::ODMA\GRPWISE\CSM_DOMI.CSM_POI.Finance/Acquisition:2967.3 7/23!03 (#2) November 21, 1994, and Resolution No. 543 dated February 28, 1995 (the "Development Contract") in connection with Phase II Property (as defined in the Development Contract). 2. No Defaults Under Emerson Agreement. To the best of the City's knowledge and to the best of the Developer's knowledge, no default has occurred under paragraph 8 of the Emerson Agreement, and no event, which with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would be such a default, has occurred and is continuing under the Emerson Agreement as of the date hereof. 3. Assignment of Agreement and Rights Thereunder to the Lender. The Developer hereby assigns to the Lender, as security for the Lender Loan, all of the Developer's right, title and interest in and to the Emerson Agreement , as amended by this Consent and Agreement, and to the rights of the Developer under the Emerson Agreement The City hereby consents to this assignment. 4. Emerson Agreement Estoppel Letter. The City acknowledges that (a) that certain estoppel letter dated August _2003, from the City, and (b) that certain opinion letter dated August , 2003, from counsel for the City relating to the Emerson Agreement, are valid, legal, binding and enforceable obligations, and, as of the date hereof, have not been modified, supplemented or amended. 5. Colfaz Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that the City has completed vacation of the Colfax Portion, and the Developer has completed construction of the new entryway in accordance with Exhibit D to the Colfax Agreement. 6. Design of Main Access. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Colfax Agreement, the City previously consented to the modified design layout for the new entryway in accordance with the design layout shown on Exhibit D attached hereto, and acknowledges that Developer has completed construction of the new entryway in accordance with the design layout shown on Exhibit D. 7. Consent to Lender Mortgage and Lender Assignment of Rents. The City hereby consents to the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents covering the Land. 8. Obligation of Citv to Make a New Emerson Agreement with the Lender. If the Developer's interests under the Emerson Agreement or in the Emerson Portion shall be terminated as a result of the rejection or disaffirmance of the Emerson Agreement pursuant to bankruptcy law or other law affecting creditor's rights or shall be terminated by the City because of a Default or for any other reason other than the City's providing to the Developer an alternative parcel of real estate for access and parking in lieu of the Emerson Portion in accordance ::ODMA\GRPWISE\CSM_DOMI.CSM_POI.Finance/Acquisition:2967.3 7/23/03 (#2) with paragraph 8(b) of the Emerson Agreement, the City will enter into a new agreement with the Lender, or any party designated by the Lender, not less than 10 nor more than 30 days after the request of the Lender, effective as of the date of such rejection, disaffirmance, or termination, which new agreement shall be upon the same terms and conditions as are presently contained in the Emerson Agreement, except that such new agreement shall not include any right by the City to terminate the new agreement under the circumstances set forth in paragraph 8(a) of the Emerson Agreement. The provisions of this paragraph 11 shall survive the rejection, disaffirmance or termination of the Emerson Agreement or the rights of the Developer thereunder and shall continue in full effect thereafter inasmuch as this Consent and Agreement is a separate and independent contract made by the City and the Lender. From the effective date of such rejection, disaffirmance, or termination of the Emerson Agreement to the date of execution and delivery of such new agreement, the Lender may use and enjoy the rights and privileges created by the Emerson Agreement without hindrance by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the new agreement entered into between the City and the Lender pursuant to this paragraph shall not constitute a waiver of any rights which the HRA may have pursuant to that certain Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note (Phase I) dated August 9, 1994, the amount of $2,196,358 9. Exemption from Assignment Restrictions. The City and the Developer agree _ that the assignment: restrictions .contained in paragraph 12 of the Emerson Agreement shall not prevent the Lender from further assigning all of its right, title and interest in and to the Emerson Agreement and the rights thereunder or to any new agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Consent and Agreement, to any assignee;. provided that the Lender is also assigning all of its right, title and interest in and to the Land to such assignee. 10. No Amendment to AEreements. Without the written consent of the Lender, the Emerson Agreement shall not be amended by the City or the Developer, and the City shall accept no voluntary termination or surrender of the Emerson Agreement, , or the Emerson Portion by the Developer. 11. Option to Purchase. The City will provide written notice to the Lender simultaneously with any written notice provided to the Developer informing the Developer that the Developer may exercise its option to purchase the Emerson _ ~ Portion pursuant to paragraph 8(c) of the Emerson Agreement. If for any reason the Developer fails to exercise the option to purchase the Emerson Portion, the City agrees that the Lender may exercise the option to purchase the Emerson Portion on behalf of the Developer. 12. Remedies Cumulative. The Lender's rights hereunder are cumulative and not exclusive. ::ODMA\GRPWISE\CSM_DOMI.CSM_POI.Finance/Acquisition:2967.3 7/23/03 (#2) 13. Benefit Phase L The Lender acknowledges that the Emerson Agreement, ,any new agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Consent and Agreement and the Emerson Portion which Lender may acquire pursuant to paragraph 10 of this Consent and Agreement shall benefit the Phase I Property (as defined in the Development Contract). 14. Termination of this Consent and Agreement The Lender agrees that if the Lender Loan is fully paid by the Developer, the Lender will execute and deliver a termination of this Consent and Agreement simultaneously with. the Lender's execution and delivery of a satisfaction with respect to the Lender Mortgage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF 1\/IlNNESOTA ) }ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 2003, by and respectively, the and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public By: _ Its By: Its of 4 ::ODMAIGRPWISE\CSM_DOMI.CSM_POI.Finance/Acquisition:2967.3 7/23/03 (ft2) TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 2003, by and respectively, the and Transamerica Life Insurance Company, an Iowa corporation,. on behalf of said corporation. By: _ Its By: Its Notary Public of ::ODMA\GRPWISE\CSM_DOMI.CSM_POI.Finance/Acquisition:2967.3 7/23/03 (#2) CSM INVESTORS, INC: Its V . ~. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) T foregoi g instru ent was acknowledged before me this 28th day of July, 2003, by Oll~ ~~ CGV`~4 ~ the Vice-President of CSM Investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. of Public i ~ /`'~ JOAN M. KUSCHKE P!OTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA '~-= " rJ:y Ccmrn. Expires Jan. 31, 2005 •wavw ~ 6 :ODMA\GRPWISEICSM_DOMI.CSM_POI.Finance/Acquisition:2967.3 7/23!03 (#2) • EXIHBIT A TO CONSENT AND AGREEMENT " The real estate described in the referenced instrunnent and referred to as~the Emerson Portion is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: That part of the West 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies South of the North 240 feet thereof except part taken for highway. and The East 30 feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for highway purposes. - and The West 30 feet of the North 24Q feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section ~3, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota EXIIlIBIT•B TO CONSENT AND AGREEMENT The real estate described in the referenced instrument and referred to as the Colfax Portion is located in Hennepin County, Min,~esota, and is legally described as follows: The North 255 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and The South 90 feet of the North 345 feet of the East 30 feet of the West320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and ~- The South :89.92 feet of the North 434.92 feet of the East 30 feet of the West -- - 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and All that part of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the North 434.92 feet thereof and the parts thereof taken for highway purposes, and That part of Colfax Avenue South as dedicated. in the plat of STRAND- BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies northerly of the center line of _ West 77 1!2 Street as dedicated in said plat and which lies southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 11, Block 1, in said plat, and That part of Colfax Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of STRAND- , BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies southerly of the centerline of West 77 I!2 Street as dedicated in said plat. EXHIBIT ~ PARCEL 1 The North 240 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 except the North Thirty (30} feet as described in Book 1957 of Deeds, Page 432, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PARCEL2 The East 160 feet of the South 50 feet of the North 255 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 except the East 30 feet, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PARCEL 3 The North 255 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, except the East 30 feet thereof and except the West 130 feet of the East 160 feet of the South 50 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PARCEL 4 The South 90 feet of the North 345 feet of West 320 feet ofthe South One-half (S1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4} of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-four (24), West of the 4th Principal Meridian, except the East 30 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PARCELS All that part of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 except the. North 345 feet thereof and except the parts thereof taken for highway purposes and except for Colfax Avenue South and Market Drive according to the United States Government Survey. thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property ::ODM A\GRPW ISE\CSM_DOM 1.CSM_PO 1.Acquisition/Development_Lib:2828. I - PARCEL6 That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, which lies South of the North 240 feet thereof, except that part taken for highway, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PARCEL 6A Lot 8, except the Easterly 4.5 feet thereof, Block 1, Lots 9 through 11, inclusive, Block 1, The North 48.0 feet of Lots 8 through 11 inclusive, except the Easterly 4.5 feet of said Lot 8, Block 2, Strand-Bowen Second Addition. That part of vacated West 77 1/2 Street as dedicated in the plat of Strand-Bowen Second Addition which lies Westerly of the. Southerly extension of the West line of the East 4.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, to the centerline thereof and the Northerly extension of the West line of the East 4.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, to said centerline all in said addition. That part of vacated:.Colfax Avenue South, as dedicated in the plat of Strand-Bowen Second Addition which lies between the Westerly extensions of the South. line of Block 2 and the North line of Block 1, all in said plat. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 861179 PARCEL 7 The North 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PARCEL 8 That part of the following described properties: The South 85 feet of the West Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND ::ODMA\GRPWISE\CSM_DOM LCSM_POLAcquisition/Development_Lib:2828.1 Lot 8, NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND Vacated or unvacated 77th Street West, as dedicated in the plat of NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, being described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of-Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter 86.58 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence Northwesterly 187.04 feet along anon-tangential curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 17 degrees 33 minutes 32 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 63 degrees 29 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 38 degrees 06 minutes 35 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, 32.47 feet; thence Southerly along a tangential curve concave to the East having a radius of 120.00 feet to the South line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 41 nunutes 41 seconds East along said South line to the point of beginning. PARCEL I The North 255 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section-33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL J The South 90 feet of the North 345 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL K The South 89.92 feet of the North 434.92 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL L All that part of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the North 434.92 feet thereof and the parts thereof taken for. highway purposes. Abstract Property :ODMA\GRPWISE\CSM_DOM I.CSM_POI.Acquisition/Development_Lib:2828.1 . ,~ ,%- s itiPts~ .......;.:' _~ ~ ,,.._. Y, • :- BAST BUY ~, 60 S.F. N ._ _~ - ~• i~;_ = . •EXHIBIT n . MODIFIED 11~AIN,ACCESS DRIVE . . j ~ i ~ s.s : t v i i ~ 1/ 2t.o - r . ~ ~ t _ t ti~ ~~' f'•' PHASE II ' i ~'J ' I + ~ s •t : ; W •~ t •K i . .: e' =z i ~ ' w - ~ :. ~~ o .. l • ~+ i :~ Y= ~ ~ s ., ' ' ~ C' ~ Y_ ~~ - ~- ~ f F ~_ ~ ~ ~ BLfK, F:`_ O.< PEST WEST 1 ' ~ ~+ Of PROPERTY UrtE. _ ~_~ ~ '.t .. ,.~-~. ' - i . ;, ~. . , , r Y"'f"* i ~ ~ ~ t t7 17 ~ 1 4 •+~ ~ . r + F444~ ~~ ~ F <i = S7 . r"`~ 1 WEST 771!2 S'IZtEET AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar AGENDA ITEM # Fi p REPORT # ~ ~ 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAn~, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of Workers' Compensation claim settlement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Stipulation For Settlement and Settlement A reement and Release for workers' compensation claim. II. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2001 the claimant was hired by the City to work as a Public Works Worker. The employee claimed work-related injuries were sustained on June 25, 2001. As a result of these injuries, the employee was unable to continue to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position and was subsequently terminated on August 28, 2001. A stipulation for settlement has been negotiated between representatives of the City and the employee. The settlement provides for an $11,000 lump sum payment to the employee and the employee's attorney, $5,434.40 to reimburse the employee's attorney for taxable costs and $2,918.33 for settlement of intervenor medical claims. This stipulation represents the full, final and complete settlement of all claims unrelated to claimed occupational injury including future medical expenses. As part of the settlement, the employee also waives any and all present and future employment claims. 081203 WC Settlement D ~l-' III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This settlement fairly represents the interests of both the former employee and the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City staff and legal counsel consider this settlement to be reasonable and recommend accepting it. • This item has been scheduled for August 12 so that this claim may be concluded as soon as practical. C. FINANCIAL • The payments agreed to in this settlement would be paid from the Self-Insurance Fund. • The settlement includes $11,000 in payments to the employee and the employee's attorney, $5,434.40 for expenses to the employee's attorney and $2,918.33 to intervenors for medical claims. D. LEGAL • The settlement avoids the additional time, expense and ill will of pursuing this matter in litigation or continuing negotiations on this claim. TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ The City Council could disapprove this settlement package, however, it is doubtful that either the former employee or the City's best interest would be heightened by protracting negotiations further or pursuing litigation. V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: Pr.e s ent a t ian AGENDA ITEM # 2 REPORT # U R STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ /~/J ~~ ~~ !! SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Acceptance of 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report. III. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2000 the City began a traffic calming study using a mediation process for the neighborhood west of Penn Avenue from 69th Street to 72nd Street in west Richfield. The mediator formed a Focus Group consisting of residents from different streets to meet regularly to discuss various options for traffic calming. The results of this planning exercise are documented in the attached 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Study. The report contains a detailed history of efforts to date to address neighbors' traffic concerns on 69th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street west of Penn Avenue. Highlights of the report describe efforts to divert traffic from 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street, the testing of speed humps on 70th Street and an evaluation of origin and destination patterns of motorists who use 70th Street. The report will serve as a reference guide for monitoring any changes in future traffic patterns. 0812-70th St Calming III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Comprehensive Plan supports traffic calming on residential streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The trafFc calming measures that shifted traffic from one street to another generated opposition by residents on the streets where traffic would increase. Some residents also opposed it if access to their homes was made increasingly difficult. C. FINANCIAL • A pair of speed humps may cost $4,500 or more to install. The study showed their precise location was critical to community acceptance. Before a final decision is made on installing speed humps, liability issues and identifying financing for them must be resolved, especially if an assessment of adjacent property owners is considered. D. LEGAL • .The City Attorney will be available to comment on the recommendations. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Based on the recent traffic calming study east of Penn Avenue, several members of the Neighborhood Focus Group still advocate the installation of additional stop signs on 69th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street to reduce traffic speeds. City staff is not opposed to stop signs on residential streets if community support for them can be demonstrated. Also, stop signs still can be considered on a case-by-case basis according to the City's Stop Sign Policy, although their impact on speed is limited. • Two alternatives required traffic diversion at 70th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Diversion proposals generated some opposition and were not supported by the focus group. If traffic monitoring reveals that problems are getting worse, diversion measures may be reconsidered. • The installation of speed humps can still be considered when agreement on a source of funding for them has been reached with residents and the City has researched any liability issues. V. ATTACHMENTS •. 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Members of Neighborhood Focus Group ~~ __ - ~~ y.. ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ p{r„s.~~t~ z;..- tit';fi ~y x-••:i~ ~'~°~~iS/„' t r~t~'Y' •~ f1 4 ~- ~" „~, '' a.'~~` r `i 1~4 .+~ tea- .. ~`.,-~'~r %yy` ~~ir *t ~.ap -- j ofi Sc'rf.~ .g,~a _- Jar~ge`~~~4,~ ~~.F._ ti ~ -K?^ Ms .may'' ~-y.~+•g R Sss~ ..ar-{'~'_ .t`!^ yy}~i+ea ~T~ tom. a~ Vf~. ~( V Y )~'' y V. _ ~- _ f~1 fi" it ~5"Y. '.; Y ` ,r ~~ _ ` ~., ~,, , ` ~ t ~~ .$:,~ ~ Y ~ ~~ k ~~.b: a~~Y SPEED - ~ ~$~ -.LIMIT ~. __,: . ~ .. . .. . } _, _ _ . . ,~ :,~ ~ _ .~ a YOUR-, .: ~, ~ '~~~i `~ `5 PEED ~,~~~ =t _ ~, r ~~,. _ ..~~ ,. :~ . . ~,w . G ~v ~~ : f ~~~~~ = ~,> ;~ - tt.`g_. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EL.Z per ~ 4 .4: _ ,,,.,. ~:' rr.; v t ~, • '~' K +~- - • . I -• t. • .. ~ r ua~~i.. _ . T _ __ i '~ 'x~. .. ... .. r fi:.. .tr ,, . w ~. ~:~ a f".: -' ~W ~;}~ ~_ -r +~~ Y~ y ` r--1 *_...~~ ~~~ . ~.-, ,_ .,. ~ •. -~~ +v rip°3, ° t ~ ~y x_ ,yx - 70th Street Area Traffic Calming Report I. Executive Summary Over the years residents have complained about too much through traffic, high traffic volumes and excessive speeding on 70th Street and nearby streets between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue in Richfield. In response, City officials undertook this traffic calming study to address the issues residents had raised. Study Purpose The study area is shown on Figure 7 and is bounded by Penn Avenue on the east and York Avenue on the west, and 69th Street on the north and 72nd Street on the south. The intent of this report is: Figure 1 StudyArea with Existing Trathc 1/o/umes for 1998 70TH STREET AREA TRAFFIC COUNTS IN 1998 PRIOR TO TRAFF IC CALMING STUDY ~. 3-1 ~- !; Q 68th z = o ' 3650 3900 __ $_ _ =__ $ -69th ~ 2330 230 . 560 . 220 . ~ 120 180 ~ 120 j 27000 - 30. ~0 2200 ~ 70th 10 ~ ~ 100 ~ 70th 1/2 370 590 1~ ~ 840 71st I 'i ~ I j 71st 1/2 ..;: 460 ~ '~. ~- 72nd ~ ~ Y W m Z Z Q Z J ~ W Z ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U ~ O W ~ W Z w x 3 ? a > > 2 i-- 2 ~ cn Q ~ _/ PtiEPMEDev RICHFIELD EMGG~'fEPoHG D~Y.SiDN (1) To present the traffic calming recom- mendations of the neighborhood focus group for City Council consideration. (2) To describe other traffic calming techniques that were considered but not supported; (3) To measure the effectiveness of the portable speed humps and their public acceptance by both residents and motorists; and, (4) To discuss possible future traffic calming measures to consider. Study Process Diverse opinions on identifying problems and possible solutions led the City to use a neigh- borhood focus group involving residents who agreed to represent the differing interests of the neighborhood. This approach enabled residents of differing opinions to negotiate compro- misesthat tried to reflect the competing interests and concerns of the entire neighborhood. The City hired a mediation specialist, Aimee Gourlay of Hamline University's Mediation Center for Dispute Resolution, to convene the focus group consisting of neighborhood residents who would oversee the study. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, engineering consultants, were hired to develop alternative traffic calming options for the neighborhood focus group to consider. City Public Works staff reviewed the work performed by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates and attended meetings of the focus group. City staff conducted a tracing survey to determine the origins and destinations of cars using 70th Street, and collected traffic and speed data for the study. Neighborhood Focus Group Recommendations Existing traffic control is shown in Figure A-1 ofAppendixA. The neighborhood focus group supported the following actions shown in Figure A-2 ofAp- pendix A. ^ Speed Humps to be Installed on both 70th Street and 70th 112 Street. They were installed only on 70th Street on a temporary basis to ascertain public reaction to them. ^ All-Way Stop Signs at 70th 112 Street and Xerxes Avenue. This was done in response to residents' concerns about excessive speeding on 70th 1/2 Street. ^ Opposition to Any Traffic Diversion Measures. The focus group considered several measures to divert traffic away from 70th Street but, after surveying resident opin- ion, decided against traffic diversion based on resistance by residents on neighboring streets to accept any increase in traffic that would divert from 70th Street onto their streets. ^ Opposition to Financing by Residents of Physical Improvements for Traffic Calming. Most neighborhood residents thought that through traffic on a local street was a citywide issue. In fairness to residents, the issue of how to finance traffic calming, espe- ciallythe proposed speed humps, was only raised near the end of the study. ^ Traffic Calming on 70th 112 Street. Residents along 70th 1/2 Street wanted traffic calming on their street because they believed that it was an alternative route in the event traffic was diverted from 70th Street. PAGE Z ^ Traffic Calming on 69th Street in Conflict with its Function as a Collector Street. Residents on 69th Street supported traffic calming on their street. However, according to the city's Comprehensive Plan, Sixty-ninth Street serves as a collector funneling neighborhood traffic to arterial streets, i.e. Penn Avenue and York Avenue. Therefore, city staff determined that traffic calming on 69th Street was not consistent with its function as a collector. ^ Traffic Enforcement. The Police Department should stringently enforce the traffic laws in the area and monitor the type of violations. ^ On-Going Evaluation. Some residents are concerned that traffic on 70th Street will increase when the Best Buy Company opens at the end of 2002. Therefore, regular monitoring of traffic volumes on 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street will be necessary. If traffic patterns do change significantly, additional traffic calming measures may need to be taken. Possible additional measures to consider are discussed in the next section of this report. Other Traffic Calming Measures Considered but Not Supported. Other possible measures were presented to the neighborhood and are shown on Figures A-3 to A-5 ofAppendix A. The first two alternatives were prepared by Sheldon Johnson of Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik & Associates. The last two were generated by the city of Richfield engineering staff. The first three alternatives involved diverting traffic away from 70th Street and provoked opposition from residents who lived on streets .including those living on the north-south avenues that would experience increased traffic. Some diversion proposals resulted in longer trips for residents to get into or out of the neighborhood. For this reason some members of the neighborhood focus group opposed these traffic diversion proposals. ^ Left Turn Only Weekdays in the Evening Rush Hours for Eastbound Traffic on 70th Street at Xerxes Avenue. A sign is placed on eastbound 70th Street at Xerxes Avenue that restricts traffic to the left-turn only movement during the period of 3-6 P.M. on weekdays. This restriction eliminates the through traffic during evening rush hours of the work week from penetrating the neighborhood using Xerxes Avenue south of 70th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street. Some of the diverted traffic would use the north-south avenues but much of the through traffic would be shifted to 69th Street or 76th Street. Refer to Figure A-3 in Appendix A. ^ Intersection Blockers at 70th Street and Xerxes Avenue. A choker, or blocker, is placed on both Xerxes Avenue and 70th Street. The choker would restrict traffic from PAGE 3 traveling north on Xerxes Avenue from the south of 70th Street. The blocker on 70th Street would prevent westbound traffic from leaving Richfield to enter the City of Edina. Refer to Figure A-4 in Appendix A. ^ Choker on 70th Street in Edina. A choker would prevent eastbound traffic on 70th Street in Edina from entering Richfield as shown on Figure A-5 in Appendix A. Of all the traffic diversion proposals, this one produced the least disruption to local traffic while attempting to reduce through traffic on 70th Street. City staff had discussed this proposal with the city of Edina engineering staff. They expressed a willingness to try it if the City of Richfield wanted it. Nevertheless, it would still require approval by the Edina City Council if the Richfield City Council chose to support it. ^ Raised Median on 70th Street Just West of Penn Avenue. While this is not a measure that directly diverts traffic, it could discourage eastbound motorists who want to make left turns onto Penn Avenue and through movements. The raised median would reduce the road width that currently allows two exiting lanes on 70th Street. Vehicles making left-turns or through movements would experience increased delay at the intersection resulting in some motorists shifting to alternate routes. The raised median also would convey a subtle message that 70th Street is not a through street. II. Background Information In the 1930's and 40's, State Highway 100 was built as a belt line route around the western and southern suburbs of Minneapolis. 70th Street in Edina provided the east-west arterial feeding traffic onto Highway 100. In the late 1950's, 69th Street served as the southern boundary of the Southdale Shopping Center carrying Richfield traffic to and from the mall. In 1958, the City of Richfield designated 69th Street as a .Municipal State Aid. Street from Penn Avenue to the west. By the early 1960's, it was identified as a collector. A collector street is supposed to carry traffic from local residential streets to arterial streets such as York Avenue and Penn Avenue. By the mid 1970's, 69th and 70th Streets in Richfield were paved as two-lane roads. As a collector 69th Street was built wider and stronger than 70th Street. The paved surface width of 69th Street was 37 feet 4 inches. Also, parking was banned on the south side of 69th Street to improve traffic flow. The pavement width on 70th Street and 70th 1 /2 Street was only 34 feet wide. None of these streets has sidewalks although 69th Street as a collector should have a sidewalk on one side according to city policy. The terrain and a large retaining wall make a sidewalk on 69th Street expensive to install. Richfield's neighborhood west of Penn Avenue has only two east-west streets that provide access to York Avenue in Edina, i.e. 69th Street and 70th Street. Consequently, east-west PAGE 4 traffic tended to funnel onto these two streets producing heavier traffic volumes than residential streets such as 70th Street normally-carry. In 1982 and again in 1997, the City's Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed 70th Street west of Penn Avenue as a local street and 69th Street west of Penn Avenue as a collector. In the 1980's the City built a traffic signal at 69th Street and Penn Avenue so traffic on 69th Street could have improved access to Penn Avenue. Traffic volumes for 1998 are shown for all the streets in the study area of Figure 1. Traffic volumes on both 69th Street and 70th Street have steadily increased over the years. Traffic counts taken in recent years show the following: Table 7 69th Street (Designated as a Neighborhood Collector) Average Daily Traffic Volumes Location `91-`92 `93-`94 `95 `96 1997 1998 W. of Penn Av. 3,000 3,800 3,500 3,350 3,900 E. of Xerxes Av. 2,600 3,300 3,500 3,350 3,650 E. of York Av. 4,200 4,000 5,100 5,500 N. A. Note: Two-lane collector streets can carry 1,000 or more vehicles per day. Table 2 70th Street (Designated as a Local Residential Street) Average Daily Traffic Volumes Location '91-'92 `93-`94 `95-`96 1997. 1998 W. of Penn Av. N. A. 1,900 2,500 2,400 2,200 E. of Xerxes Av. N. A. 2,800 3,000 2,850 2,700 E. of York Av. 5,100. .4,600 6,800 6,700 N. A. Note: Residential streets in Richfield typically carry 300 to 1,000 vehicles per day. The data shown in Table 2 indicates-that the traffic volume on 70th Street was high for a local residential street. Residential streets in Richfield typically carry 300 to 1,000 vehicles per day. Data for more recent years was not shown due to the amount of road construction in the area that could distort traffic volumes on 69th and 70th Streets. PAGE S During discussions with neighbors 70th 1 /2 Street was added to the list of routes to be stud- ied. Residents on that street felt that any shift in traffic from 70th Street could adversely affect them. For this reason traffic counts and speed studies were done to determine traffic condi- tions on 70th 1/2 Street. Traffic counts declined on 70th 1/2 Street in 2002 as a result of con- struetion on 76th Street reducing it to two lanes of traffic and removing the traffic signal at 76th Street and Penn Avenue. Table 3 70th 1/2 Street (Designated as a Local Residential Street) Average Daily Traffic Volumes Location 1998. 2001 2002 W. of Penn Av. 590 650 N.A. E. of Xerxes Av. 370 350 300 ~_ Note: Residential streets in Richfield typically carry 30~ to ~,uuu verncies per Uay. Site Information The following table .describes the physical characteristics of 69th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street that enter into the discussion of possible traffic calming measures. Table 4 Physical Characteristics of 69th Street, 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street Physical Characteristics 69th Street 70th Street 70th 1/2 Street Functional Class' Collector Local Street Local Street Right of Way Width 60 Feet 63 Feet 60 Feet Road Width2 37.33 Feet 34 Feet 34 Feet On-Street Parking One side Both sides Both sides Load limits 4-Ton 4-Ton 4-Ton Sidewalks None None None Notes: 'Functional classification is used to describe how roads are used. A couector runnels tramc rrvn i local streets to minor arterials. Collectors are designed to offer both mobility and land access. Local streets function primarily to provide land access and do not emphasize mobility. ZDimensions are measured from back of curb to back of curb. 69th Street Environment From Penn Avenue the street is fairly flat. As it approaches Xerxes Avenue the street rises to a hill that reaches its peak at Washburn Avenue. Beyond this point the street continues level to Xerxes Avenue. In Richfield the street is lined with single-family homes that are oriented to the north-south avenues. The street is stop sign controlled at Washburn Avenue and at Xerxes PAGE 6 Avenue. There is a traffic signal at Penn Avenue. On-street parking is allowed only on the north side of the street. The limited on-street parking and the traffic signal at Penn Avenue are intended to support the street's designation as a collector according to the city's Comprehen- sive Plan. Large retaining walls on both sides of 69th Street limit the boulevard area for use as a sidewalk with the north side having retaining walls of considerable size extending from Xerxes Avenue to Vincent Avenue. 70th Street Environment The street gradually rises from Penn Avenue and reaches its peak elevation at Xerxes Avenue. There are four stop signs along 70th Street located at Russell Avenue, Thomas Avenue, Upton Avenue and Xerxes Avenue in Richfield west of Penn Avenue. In Richfield, houses usually face the north-south avenues; however, 70th Street is unique, in that most of the houses on the south side of 70th Street face the street. It is designated as a local residen- tialstreet in Richfield, although it becomes a minor arterial west of York Avenue in Edina. A good deal of the traffic on the local residential portion of 70th Street in Richfield travels to and from Highway 100. This is a major cause of high traffic volumes on the residential section in Richfield. 70th 1/2 Street Environment From Penn Avenue the street is fairly flat and adjoins a cemetery to the south. As it ap- proaches Xerxes Avenue the street rises to a hill that reaches its peak at Washburn Av- enue. Beyond this point the street continues level to Xerxes Avenue. The street is stop sign controlled at Upton Avenue and, as of late fall 2001, at Xerxes Avenue. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Many of the houses on the both sides of 70th 1/2 Street face the street. This is fairly unusual for an east-west street in Richfield. III. Previous Actions Taken to Calm 70th Street Traffic Over the years residents have complained about too much through traffic, high traffic vol- umes and excessive speeding on 70th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. In response, City officials took the following actions: Two-Way Stop Signs and Yield Signs In 1996, the City of Richfield initiated a traffic calming process for 70th Street by adding atwo-way stop sign on 70th Street at Tho- mas Avenue, and three yield signs on avenues that form T-intersections with 70th Street. Since 1996, significant construction occurred on York Avenue and 66th Street that delayed an evaluation of the effect of these traffic-calming measures on 70th Street. Leading Left-Turn Arrow on Traffic Signal at 70th Street and York Avenue In the spring of 1998, a leading left arrow was added to the eastbound traffic signal at 70th PAGE 7 Street and York Avenue in an attempt to encourage through traffic to turn north on York Avenue instead of staying on 70th Street. Traffic counts taken since the new left turn arrow was installed indicate that traffic volumes on 70th. Street have not declined. IV. Actions Taken in 2001 Based on the Current Traffic Calming. Study. In response to the recommendations of the neighborhood-focus group, two additional steps were taken to address traffic calming. • Three-Way Stop Signs at 70th 1/2 Street and Xerxes Avenue. The Council accepted the three-way stop signs and they were installed on November 6, 2001 on Xerxes Avenue at 70th 1 /2 Street. • Two Speed Humps Were Installed on 70th Street on a Temporary Basis. While the neighborhood focus group supported temporary speed humps on both 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street, the Richfield City Council decided to place two temporary speed humps only on 70th Street because it had the higher traffic volume. The test ran for one month before the speed humps were removed. V. Evaluation of Temporary Speed Humps Residents on both 70th Street and 70th 1/2 Street supported speed humps to address both excessive speeding and cut through traffic. For this reason two temporary speed humps were installed for one month on 70th Street. The speed humps were limited to 70th Street by the City Council based on traffic volumes being much higher on 70th Street than on 70th 1 /2 Street. Description of the Speed Humps The first portable speed hump was installed on Monday, October 22nd, 2001 and the second was installed on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2001 on 70th Street. The two portable speed humps were rented from the City of Saint Paul for an amount of $500 per month per speed hump. The advantage of the portable speed hump was that it was temporary. The locations of the speed humps were spaced so that motorists would be forced to reduce their speed in combination with existing stop signs (i.e. in the middle of a block and as far away from the existing stop signs as possible). Based on these criteria there were two pos- sible locations for the two speed humps on 70th Street. One was between Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue. The other was between Vincent Avenue and Washburn Avenue as shown on Figure A-6 ofAppendix A. According to the manufacturer, the design speed for a speed hump can vary depending on whether or not two flat top panels are installed as part of the. speed hump. The design speed PAGE 8 for a speed hump with the two flat top panels was between 30 mph to 35 mph and without them the speed limit would be 25 mph. Since the speed limit on 70th Street was 30 mph, the two flat top panels were included with the installed speed humps. City staff chose the higher design speed for speed humps as a precaution in concern for liability in the event accidents resulted from the introduction of speed humps. Findings This study recognized that speed humps would generate considerable public discussion. Therefore, it was important to measure (1) the effectiveness of the portable speed humps, and (2) the public acceptance of the speed humps by both residents and motorists. De- tailed information on the speed humps is contained Appendix A of this report. • Effect on Traffic Speeds. The speed humps did have an effect on traffic speeds, defined as the 85th percentile speed. With the speed humps in place, the 85th percentile speeds measured between Washburn and Vincent Avenue, and Sheridan and Thomas Avenue on 70th Street were 24 mph and 25 mph for eastbound traffic, and 26 and 25 mph forwestbound traffic, respectively. (Speed studies on Richfield's residential streets rou- tinelyproduce 85th percentile speeds in the range of 25-28 mph.) Traffic speeds were then measured in 2002 five months after the speed humps were removed. Eastbound traffic speeds on 70th Street increased to 31 mph at both locations. Westbound traffic speeds jumped to 37 and 31 mph, respectively. The speed humps produced a 6 to 11 mph reduction in speeds, or a 19% to 30% drop in speeds. Refer to Table A-7 and A-2 of Appendix A It was possible that the temporary speed humps might have been more effective in reducing speeds because they were used in combination with three sets of existing stop signs along 70th Street. • Traffic Diversion Impacts While the temporary speed humps did significantly reduce speeds on 70th Street, surprisingly, they also shifted 19% of the traffic from 70th Street to 69th Street. Based on research findings elsewhere, it is not certain that the amount of traffic diverted would remain over the long term if speed humps were made permanent. Data indicated that the speed humps reduced the traffic volumes on 70th Street by 19% west of Penn Avenue and 8% east of Xerxes Avenue on 70th Street. In addition, the speed humps also reduced traffic to a lesser extent on 70-1/2 Street. Traffic volume on 70-1/2 Street dropped by 12% west of Penn Avenue but increased by 3%, a small amount, east of Xerxes Avenue. Traffic volumes on 69th Street west of Penn Avenue increased by 20% while there was a 19% increase in traffic volume just east of Xerxes Avenue. The data PAGE 9 indicated that some through traffic on 70th Street had probably been diverted to 69th Street. Refer to Tables A-3 and A-4 of Appendix A. Citizen Reaction to the Speed Humps A phone line was established to receive and record public comments on the speed humps. The phone number was posted on two signs on 70th Street adjacent to each speed hump. It was believed that motorists who had an opinion would call and leave a message. Resi- dents were also encouraged to comment. The phone line provided the name and phone number of a City Engineering staff person to .contact if they wanted to speak with someone. Public comments received can be summarized as follows: • Public Response Was Fairly Positive Most residents agreed that the speed humps had lowered speeds and reduced the traffic, and that the changes were noticeable. A majority of the 28 citizen phone calls were positive (i.e. 57% agreed with the speed humps and 43% opposed them.) • Temporary Speed Humps Were Much Noisier Than Permanent Ones. The panels. of the temporary speed humps produced a thumping noise and vibration. The noise generated considerable discomfort for one family living next to the speed hump located between Washburn Avenue and Vincent Avenue. Their reaction was so severe that several members of the family were unable to sleep because of the noise and it af- fected their health. The nearby speed hump was removed two weeks early due to the family's complaints. This experience led City staff to recommend consultation with all residents living closest to a proposed speed hump location before any permanent speed hump is installed. • Financing of Speed Humps Unresolved. While support for speed humps appeared favorable, the question of residents financing the speed humps was not discussed and could have a significant affect on people's opinions. From early discussions with resi- dents on 70th Street, there was resistance to having residents pay for any traffic calming measures on 70th Street. One way to overcome this resistance would be to install speed humps when the street is in need of majorrepair. However, this may not occurforten years or more. Permanent speed humps cost about $4,500 for a pair. City staff believes that permanent speed humps will not cause the thumping sounds that were generated by portable speed humps. Nevertheless, vibrations will occur with permanent speed humps. • Motorists May Object to Speed Humps. Other cities that have speed humps have: reported motorists honking their horns to express their displeasure with them. It is unclear how permanent speed humps would be received by motorists over time on 70th Street or 701 /2 Street. • Traffic Violations Mostly Involve Not Obeying Stop Signs. According to Richfield Police Officer Tom Blair, city police provided concentrated traffic enforcement in this area PAGE ~ O for three months in the fall of 2001.OfficerBlair reported that most violations in this area were not for speeding, but rather for drivers who were not obeying the stop signs. Police patrolled the area during peak periods (i.e. morning, lunch or dinner) for half an hour and wrote approximately two tickets and four warnings per period. • New Technology May Improve Speed Humps. New technology may offer a greatly improved speed hump that reduces the noise and does not impose any discomfort to motorists who abide by the speed limit. This new speed hump only becomes an impedi- ment to vehicles exceeding the speed limit. Refer to Figure C-1 ofAppendix C. • Liability of Speed Humps. The city needs to be aware of the liability associated with speed humps. Issues need to be considered on the design speed of speed humps to avoid: their visibility by motorists; possible injury to motorists; motorists losing control of vehicles traversing speed humps; the impact. on ambulances carrying patients; their place- mentnear homes and hills; and, the attractive nuisance they pose for children who want to use them for skateboarding. • Through Traffic Identified. A tracing survey in 2000 showed that about 70-80% of the traffic on 70th Street came from the Richfield neighborhoods or had destinations in the Edina commercial area, east of France Avenue. VI. Possible Future Calming Measures If traffic continues to increase on 70th Street, there are still additional measures the City can consider doing to reduce the effect of traffic on this neighborhood. They are: ^ Post 25 Mile Per Hour Speed Limit Signs on both 70th and 70-1/2 Streets between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. The signs will not be effective, however, without regular traffic enforcement. The most recent speed studies show traffic traveling at fairly high speeds. ^ Post "Not a Through Street" Signs on both Ends of 70th and 70-1/2 Streets as away toconvey tonon-residents that long-distance trips should use other routes. These can replace a "Welcome to Richfield" sign for eastbound traffic on 70th Street near Xerxes Avenue. As one resident pointed out, the current sign may convey the wrong message to motorists making long-distance trips. ^ Financing of Speed Humps There is support for speed humps on both 70th Street and 70 1/2 Street. However, the financing of the speed humps still needs to be resolved. The City can choose to incorporate speed humps when both streets are reconstructed at some time in the distant future, or insist that the cost be specially assessed to the residents located along both streets. ^ Speed Feedback. New technology is available to inform motorists of their actual speed. Cost of one sign ranges from $3,000 to $7,000. The lower cost is pos- sible where a source of power is readily available and the higher cost is for solar PAGE 11 powered signs. Two signs, one in each direction, would be needed on 70th Street to reduce speeds. In order to justify the cost, the signs would need to be moved to other streets periodically. Refer to Figure C-Z in Appendix C. ^ Motion Imaging Detection. Technology is available to pinpoint motorists who are exceeding the speed limit and issue traffic tickets. However, the Minnesota Legislature has not approved its use as a traffic enforcement tool due to concerns of privacy. The City can continue to support efforts to use this technology on 70th .Street as a way to reduce speeds. ^ Basketweave Stop Signs. Install basketweave stop signs from 66th to 71st 1/ 2 streets between Penn and Xerxes Avenue. ^ Northbound Left-turn Arrow for Penn Avenue and 69th Street Traffic Signal With the opening of the Best Buy Campus this December 2002, it is pos- sible. that traffic using 70th Street, and to a lesser extent 70 112 Street, may have a difficult time making left turns to and from Penn Avenue. This may occur if traffic during rush hour periods reduces_the number of acceptable gaps for motorists northbound on Penn Avenue to make left-turns onto 70th Street and 701/2 Streets. If .this occurs, the City may want to consider adding alert-turn arrow at the traffic signal at 69th Street and Penn Avenue for northbound traffic attempting to turn left onto 69th Street. This would require approval by Hennepin County because Penn Avenue is a county road. ^ Capacity Improvements to Arterial Streets. Improvements scheduled for 2002 on 76th Street at both Penn. Avenue and York Avenue may encourage some through traffic to stay on 76th Street rather than use 70th Street. This is an effective method to reduce through traffic on residential streets. ^ Reconsider Traffic Diversion Options. Residents living on side streets opposed. several traffic diversion alternatives that might result in additional traffic on their streets. In spite of this, some of the diversion proposals had merit and .could be reconsidered if traffic volumes on 70th and 70th 1/2 Street continue to increase in the near future. Refer to Figures A-3 to A-5 in Appendix A. PAGE ~ 2 Appendix A PAGE 13 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1997 ADTs 1~ - 5,500 ® - 6,700 1998 ADTs Q - 3, 650 ® - 2,700 ® - 3,900 © - 2,200 - TRAFFfC SIGNAL - - STOP SIGN - YIELD .SIGN ti~ ~~~ j ~: ~ i~ .! I ~~ ,~ ,~ ~' ~~~~ = - ~ =' I~I = i _~ =~ II ~I O ' el _® ~M ~~ ~„' ~- ~i ' ~ X ~^J -~ x I ~, I ~, r_r.. i~ ( ~I ~ .v i ~~_ ~ , I _~ ~:- ~ - ,,.; -~ ~~ =~ ,. ~~ ~11:~ J~ Figure A -1 ~ Bonestroo Rosene EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL - RICHFIELD SUBAREA ° Anderlik & Associates RPTFIG01.DWG 3/01 673-00-101 Engineers & Architects PAGE ~ 4 APPENDIX A 11 ~ ~:: . )~ ~i I ;~ - ~ EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL -, - TRAFFIC SIGNAL - - STOP SIGN i I ~-, - YIELD SIGN PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL ~ } - SPEED HUMP ~' - - STOP SIGN -'; +~ ~ =rte ~~,~ ~, ST. ~c u -` vJ, ~' -cr. ~ I y, z v: ~_ ~~ ~ z I W ~r I 1J ~ i --+ ~ ~ ~ ~ J 7 ~tl" O ~~,. f -~~~ ~~ ~~ Figure A - 2 ~ Bonestroo Rosene 0 Anderlik & TRAFFIC CALMING OPTLONS - ~ Associates SPEED HUMPS ON 70TH STREET & 70 1 ~2 STREET E~gineeis & Architects RPTFIG02.DWG 3/01 673-00-101 APPENDIX A PAGE 'I cJ ~'~ E SIXE SIX TING TRAFFIC CONTROL) TRAFFIC SIGNAL STOP SIGN ~ ~-, - YIELD SIGN PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL } - SPEED HUMP - - STOP SIGN i Figure A-3 TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC REGULATION AT XERXES AVE/70TH ST INTERSECTION AND SPEED HUMPS ON 70 1 /2 ST RPTFIG03-A.DWG 3/01 673-00-101 8onestroo Rasene ~ Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects PAGE ~ G APPENDIX A .... i~ ,,, ,__ __ - . ~ ---- - '' it i I~ I , '~ !i / j it I ~.~ I ~ ~ I i ' '~ i ~ I i I \~ ~~ ,I~ I EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL' '; ~ ~~ i j ~. ~- TRAFFIC SIGNAL _ ! I I ;, j I I i ~ ~ ' -- STOP SIGN ii ~ I ' ~ c ~ - YIELD SIGN _~ i I \~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~` PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL ; ~ --~' ~. ~ ,~~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~- ~ ~~-' i } - SPEED HUMP ~ O I ~ ~ ~ e ~ _ ~ ~ ~ < ~ c i - - STOP SIGN '~ ~ ~`~ ' f!"' i .-~ ~. ~ ': ,X ~.,~. 71srt ~ l 1 - ~ ~ I ~ ~W~ -- -- - i l 1 _, i i ~-- - DIRECTION OF '-~ VEHICULAR TRAVEL = ~ ~; j ^ + h c~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ST. ~ u - ~' I I ~`--"~° _ (~^~ I ~ ~ ~~ W ~ ' = W ( '--~ i ,~ ~ ~ I G 6th ~.ti%, ,_ Figure A-4 Bonestroo Rosene TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS - o Anderlik & LNTERSECTION BLOCKERS AT 70TH ST & XERXES AVE ~ Associates Engineers & Architects RPTFIG03-B.DWG 3/01 673-00-101 APPENDIX A PAGE ~ T 70TH STREET TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY Option A: Choker Prevents Eastbound Traffic Entering 70th Street at Xerxes x ,, _~_`~ ~ ,\-~-_' x _-~ m Retail Shops i ~ `, ~_ ~- 70th STREET Z Ili ~ ~ m Z ~ O D ', '.. Library ~~ rr~ Figure ASV PREPARED BY ENGINEERING DIVISION 6/21 /00 PAGE 'I $ APPENDIX A Determining the Effectiveness of Speed Humps To evaluate the effectiveness of speed humps as a traffic calming device, it was necessary to measure speeds on 70th Street with and without the speed humps installed. Also, traffic volumes on 70th Street, 70th 1/2 Street and 69th Street were measured with and without the speed humps on 70th Street. The comparison of traffic counts could detect any shift in traffic away from 70th Street and on to the two nearest parallel roads, 69th Street and 70th 1/2 Street. Due to limited time there was no speed data collected before the speed humps were installed. Speed Test Area The test area consisted of an 8-city block long section of 70th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. The street was 1/2 mile long and contained three sets of stop signs on 70th Street combined with two temporary speed humps spaced as far away from the stop signs as possible. This pattern was created to slow traffic as much as possible. Figure A-6 70th Street Area Speed Hump Locations 31 ~! a = 6stn ~ I' ~ ' ' ~ Z SPE H PS ~ ' _ ~ ~._., `'- 69th ~~ ~, ~, j _ ''- 7QUt ~I 70th 112 !i ii i' -'~ i" 71st -" I ~_ ~ ~', -'-' 72nd - z ~nnnr~~ z Y W m Z Z Q ~ W Z ~ x= W o~~ ~, w Z ~ U w Z X ~ 7 70TH STREET AREA SPEED HUMP LOCATION n .~~- ;~~; APPENDIX A PAGE 19 Test Procedure Two speed humps were installed on 70th Street west of Penn Avenue .One was placed just west of Sheridan Avenue and the other was placed between Washburn Avenue and Vincent Avenue. Refer to Figure A-6. Spacing of 800 feet or less is recommended between speed humps for effective speed reduction. The placement of the two speed humps was compli- cated by the presence of three sets of stop signs controlling traffic on 70th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. These stop signs. in combination with the speed humps had a significant impact on traveling speeds. Speed Hump Installation The portable speed. humps were manufactured by Recycled Technology, Inc. from Tualatin, Oregon. The City of Richfield only rented the portable speed humps; however, each portable speed hump costs about $10,000 to purchase. The speed humps were a combination of 2 foot by 4 foot flat top panels and 2 foot by 7 foot approach panels. According to the manufac- turer, the design speed for a speed hump with the two flat top panels was between 30 mph to 35 mph. The design speed for a speed hump without the two flat top panels was 25 mph. Each speed hump required approximately 4 hours for a crew of six to install and approximately 2 hours to remove it. Signs were posted along 70th Street to notify drivers of the speed humps. Refer to Figures A-7 & A-8. Figure A-7 PAGE 2O APPENDIX A Figure A-8 Installation ofa speed hump. Speed Profile in the Vicinity of a Speed Hump Speed humps influence speeds over a limited area. Therefore, it was determined to collect speed data at three different points: 200 feet upstream from the speed humps; just prior to the speed hump; and, 100 feet downstream from the speed hump. These three points were se- lected based on research done about the influence of stop signs on speeds. It was reasoned that speed humps would have a similar influence on speeds as stop signs do. To perform the test a sample size of 30 vehicles was obtained as sufficient to establish rea- sonable results. The tests were done at the three locations for both speed humps and in both directions. In total twelve speed tests were done to create a speed profile for traffic traveling in both directions on 70th Street. A laser speed gun was used to measure speed at the three locations by each speed hump. Two technicians were situated at a location approximately 300 feet to 500 feet away from a speed hump. A technician with the laser speed gun would measure the traveling speed of the targeted vehicle at three different locations in the vicinity of the speed humps: APPENDIX A PAGE 21 ^ Beginning speed location was approximately 200 feet before approaching the speed hump. ^ Approaching speed location was at the speed hump. ^ Departing speed location was approximately 100 feet downstream from the hump. The other technician would write down the speeds, which were called out by the technician with the laser gun. This procedure was repeated to gather data for each speed hump and in both directions (east and west.) The results of the speed profile study are presented in Tables A-1 and A-2. The 85th percen- tilespeed is a commonly used measure of traffic speeds on a road. Traffic Speeds Without Speed Humps Speeddata was taken on 70th Street after the speed humps were removed. No speed data was collected prior to installation of the speed humps due to -time limitations in the fall of 2001. The speed data for the period following removal of the speed humps. was obtained using traffic counters. Used in combination with two hoses placed ten feet apart, the traffic counters were able to measure speed and direction of traffic. Speed data without speed humps was collected in the spring and summer 2002 for comparison. Speed Comparisons with and without Speed Humps on 70th Street The comparison of speeds with and- without speed humps is shown below in Tables A-1 & A-2. Table A-7 __ _ Effect of Speed Hump on 70th Street Speeds __ ___ Between Washburn & Vincent Avenues - 85th Percentile S eds MPH Location Direction Without Speed Humps With Speed Humps Reduction in Speed 200 Feet Upstream Eastbound N.A. 28 from Speed Hump Approaching Speed Eastbound 31 24 -7 (-23%) Hump 100 Feet Downstream Eastbound N.A. 26 from Speed Hump 200 Feet Upstream westbound N.A. 30 from Speed Hump Approaching Speed westbound 37 26 -11 (-30%) Hump 100 Feet Downstream Westbound N.A. 27 from Speed Hump PAGE 22 APPENDIX A Table A-2 Efifect of Speed Hump on -70th Street Speeds Between Sheridan & Thomas Avenues - 85th Percentile S eels MPH Location Direction Without Speed Humps With Speed Humps Reduction in Speed 200 Feet Upstream Eastbound N.A. 27 from Speed Hump Approaching Speed Eastbound 31 25 -6 (-19%) Hump 100 Feet Downstream Eastbound N.A. 26 from Speed Hump 200 Feet Upstream Westbound N.A. 30 from Speed Hump Approaching Speed Westbound 31 25 -6 (-19%) Hump 100 Feet Downstream Westbound N.A. 25 from Speed Hump The data indicates that drivers did slow down as they approached the speed humps. The 85th percentile approach speed at the speed humps ranged from 24 to 26 mph. The 85th percen- tileapproach speed at the speed hump was very consistent for both speed humps and in both directions. The extended impact ofthe speed humps could be seen in both the upstream and downstream locations where speeds were measured. Speeds dropped 2 to 5 miles per hour from a point 200 feet upstream compared to the approach speed at the speed hump. Simi- larly, speeds 100 feet downstream from the speed hump ranged from 0 to 2 miles per hour faster Comparing the traffic speeds with speed humps to the speeds without the speed humps showed an even greater difference. The speed humps produced a significant drop in the 85th percentile speeds compared to the 85th percentile speeds without the speed humps. The speed humps led to speeds dropping by 7 to 11 miles per hour, representing a reduction in speeds of 23 to 30 per cent compared to 70th Street without speed humps. Speeds were also influenced by the presence of three sets of stop signs on 70th Street. The combination of speed humps and stop signs probably increased the effect that speed humps had on the speed of traf'Fc. Traffic Counts To test the possibility that traffic might divert away from 70th Street with the speed humps installed, traffic volumes were obtained before and during the speed hump test by using traffic counters. Traffic counts were taken on both ends of the study area for all three streets, 70th APPENDIX A PAGE 23 Street, 70th 1 /2 Street and 69th Street. An evaluation of traffic volumes immediately after the removal of the speed humps was not possible because the closure of the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 and reconstruction of 76th Street west of I-35W severely distorted traffic patterns. The counters were placed at specific locations for a period of 48 hours. The data was con- verted to Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes by dividing the total vehicles count after 48 hours by 2 and multiplying by an adjustment factor that took into account both the day and the month that the data was taken. Table A-3 Average Annual Daily Traffic Between Xerxes & Washburn (vehicles per day) Location Before During Difference % Change 69th 3710 4560 850 18.6% 70th 2870 2650 -220 -8.3% 70th 1 /2 350 360 10 2.8% Table A-4 Average Annual Daily Traffic Between Penn & Queen (vehicles per day) Location Before During Difference % Change 69th 3820 4790 970 20.3% 70th 2160 1820 -340 -18.7% 70th 1 /2 650 580 -70 -12.1 Comparing traffic volumes with and without the speed humps shows that the speed humps did divert traffic from 70th Street to the two other parallel streets, 69th Street and 70th 1 /2 Street. On both the east and west ends of the study area, traffic from 70th Street generally shifted to 69th Street. Interestingly, some traffic from 70th 1/2 Street also appeared to shift to 69th Street or some other route during the time the speed humps were placed on 70th Street. 70th 1/2 Street Speeds A speed test was conducted just west of a steep hill located on 70th 1 /2 Street between PAGE Z4 APPENDIX A Washburn Avenue and Vincent Avenue. It was determined that this offered the highest speeds possible on the street. Routinely, speed studies on Richfield's residential streets produce 85th percentile speeds in the range of 25-28 mph. The results of the speed test on 70th 1/2 Street showed eastbound traffic traveling at fairly high speeds with an 85th percentile reading of 42 miles per hour. This compares to only 26 miles per hour for the 85th percentile speed of west bound traffic. Clearly the steep hill had a great effect on travel speeds. Table A-5 TrafiFic Speeds on 70th 7/2 Street Between Vincent and Washburn Avenue without Speed Humps 85th Percentile Speed Direction (MPH) Eastbound 42 Westbound 26 Even though eastbound traffic travels at higher speeds than normally found on residential streets, there are only a few vehicles doing so because of the low traffic volumes on the street. Speed humps are not recommended for installation on streets with grades in excess of 5%. Therefore, a periodic speed enforcement effort is recommended as the most appropriate traffic calming solution for 70th 1 /2 Street. E-mail notes from Wayne Houle, Edina City Engineer: According to Wayne Houle, there definitely was a noise when driving over the humps. He stated that the nose on the speed humps is more abrupt than a permanent speed hump would be, such as the ones in Minneapolis. The following were his observations: • The car rode well over the speed hump for speeds between 5 mph to 19 mph and did not feel out of control when traversing the hump. • The car rode poorly over the speed hump for speeds between 20 mph to 35 mph and felt out of control when driving over and left indentations on rear seat ceiling. • The car rode almost as good as the 5 mph to 19 mph range for speeds over 35 mph. He would suspect that as people grow accustomed to the speed hump, they would have a tendency to drive faster. • He believed that the speed humps actually would slow traffic down at the speed humps. APPENDIX A PAGE 25 Other Observations • It was difficult to gain neighborhood support for any measure that diverted traffic away from 70th Street. Of all the traffic diversion proposals, a choker placed on the Edina side of 70th Street preventing traffic leaving Edina appeared to produce the least disruption to local traffic while attempting to reduce through traffic on 70th Street. City staff had discussed this proposal with the Edina Engineering staff that expressed a willingness to try it if Richfield wanted it. Refer to Figure A-5 ofAppendix A. • Another diversion proposal with some promise was presented to the residents: a choker on 70th Street east of Xerxes Avenue preventing traffic entering Richfield at Xerxes Av- enue; and, a choker on Xerxes Avenue to prevent trafficflowing south on Xerxes Avenue. Residents who lived on the north-south avenues that would receive additional traffic re- sisted this proposal similar to their reaction to other traffic diversion proposals. • Some residents are concerned that traffic on 70th Street will increase when the Best Buy Company opens at the end of 2002. Regular monitoring of traffic volumes on 70th Street will be necessary. PAGE 26 APPENDIX A Appendix B PAGE 27 Determining the Percentage of Through Trips on 70th Street Residents living on 70th Street expressed their concern that too many motorists were using 70th Street as a through street. In response, City staff performed a trace survey to determine the percentage of motorists on 70th Street who are using it for long-distance trips. Trace Survey A survey form was designed with the assistance of Glen Van Wormer, a Transportation Engineer with SEH, Inc., to determine the destination of motorists on 70th Street west of Penn Avenue. Destinations were identified on a map by zones 1 through 13 in the Southdale Shopping Area in the City of Edina and by exit routes 100 through 109 for trips that went beyond the Southdale Area. Refer to Table B-1 & Figure B-1 ofAppendix B. Table B-1 Zones Used for Traffic Trace Survey • Zone 1 Commercial shopping area-Cub Foods, Yorkdale Shops • Zone 2 New commercial business- Walgreens and eye clinic • Zone 3 Southdale Library & Hennepin County License Bureau • Zone 4 YMCA, Edina Fire Station and Multi-family housing • Zone 5 Fairview Southdale Hospital, Medical Building &multi-family apartments • Zone 6 Southdale Shopping Center • Zone 7 Galleria Shopping Center • Zone 8 Target Greatland, Brandon Square shopping center north of Hazelton Road • Zone 9 Centennial Lakes, shopping center, movie theater, Marshall Fields furniture store, and high density residential area to the south • Zone 10 Office buildings and residential area west of France Avenue • Zone 11 Residential area west of France Avenue • Zone 12 Office buildings and retail area west of France Avenue • Zone 13 Office buildings, industrial uses, multi-family housing and low density residential area south of 70th Street and west of France Avenue • Zone 100 Vehicles traveling on 62 Crosstown Highway via Xerxes Avenue ramp. • Zone 101 Vehicles traveling north on Xerxes Avenue beyond 62 Crosstown Highway • Zone 102 Vehicles traveling north on France Avenue beyond 62 Crosstown Highway • Zone 103 Vehicles traveling north on Valley View Road beyond 62 Crosstown Highway • Zone 104 Vehicles traveling on 62 Crosstown Highway via Valley View Road ramp. • Zone 105 Vehicles traveling west on 66th Street beyond Zones 10 and 11 • Zone 106 Vehicles traveling west on 70th Street beyond Zones 11 and 13 • .Zone 107 Vehicles traveling south on France Avenue beyond Zones 9 and 13 • Zone 108 Vehicles traveling south on York Avenue beyond Zones 4 and 9 • Zone 109 Vehicles traveling east on 66th Street beyond Zone 1 PAGE 28 APPENDIX B Figure B-1 Trace Survey DESINATION ZONES ~~ N '{'' 1 1 100 ~~ w a __ ~ 104 _ d 5 a `10 _ _-_ . 109 sstn _ .- ,,. 11 _ -. 69th. St. 106 7 2 __ -70th St. __. I i6 3 __ _ _ Hazelton Rd. ~ a' 9 ~~ ,, 4 13 ~ a _ __ _ C 10 , Y i ~ Li. ~ of ~ , 76th St. ~~ , ; _ I ~ ~T ' - 1 , - -_ 10/15/02 i:\gislpublic works\staffltom flprojects\trace survey\traces survey.apr ~~ APPENDIX B PAGE Z9 City staff followed cars on 70th Street until they reached their destination in the Southdale Area or passed through it. The staff person then returned to 70th Street to follow another vehicle. The trace surrey was done both for the morning rush period of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and for the evening rush period of 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. The survey was done in May 1999. In each period 100 vehicles were surveyed to obtain representative samples. City staff recorded the license plate of the vehicle being traced to determine the trip origin. The license plate numbers were checked following the survey to determine the home address of the vehicle's owner City staff recognized that relying on license plates to determine trip origins could introduce a certain percentage of error in the sample set. Frequently, the home address for a license plate listed with the Driver and Motor Vehicles Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety might not be current. To reduce this possible error, trips with distant home ad- dressesthat clearly appeared to be incorrect were eliminated from the survey analysis. Trace Survey Results The results of the trace survey for both the morning and evening rush hour periods are shown in Tables B-2 and B-3 ofAppendix B. From a review of the information obtained in the trace survey, it appears that the through traffic using 70th Street is comprised of traffic having either a destination along 70th Street (in the Southtown Shopping Area) in Edina or an origin in Richfield. In the morning period, 54 percent of the vehicles followed were from Richfield. Of those from outside Richfield, 52 percent had a destination in the Edina area just west of the Richfield city limits. Therefore much of the traffic, over 70 percent, had a somewhat local origin or destina- tion relative to 70th Street. In the evening period 30 percent of the vehicles followed were from Richfield. Of those from outside Richfield, 68 percent had a destination in the Edina area just west of the Richfield City limits. Therefore much of the traffic, about 78 percent, had a somewhat local origin or desti- nation relative to 70th Street. Most through trips use 70th Street to travel west to highway 100 or to travel south on France Avenue to 1-494. PAGE 3O APPENDIX B Table B-2 Traffic Destination Survey 70th Street at Xerxes May 25 & 26, 1999 Destination Zone Number of Cars Percentage Number of Cars Percentage AM AM PM PM 1 2 2% 2 2% 2 0 0% 3 3% 3 9 10% 6 7% 4 0 0% 0 0% 5 5 5% 2 2% 6 4 4% 10 11% 7 6 7% 6 7% 8 10 11% 13 15% 9 3 3% 4 5% 10 0 0% 0 0% 11 1 1% 9 10% 12 0 0% 0 0% 13 8 9% 5 6% Subtotal 100 48 0 52% 0% 60 0 68% 0% 101 0 0% 0 0% 102 0 0% 0 0% 103 0 0% 0 0% 104 0 0% 0 0% 105 1 1% 1 1% 106 33 36% 19 22% 107 6 7% 6 7% 108 4 4% 2 2% 109 0 0% 0 0% Total 92 100% 88 100% APPENDIX 8 PAGE 3'I Table B-3 Traffic Origin Survey 70th Street at Xerxes Ma 25 & 26, 1999 Origin Zone Number of Cars Percentage Number of Cars Percentage AM AM PM PM In Richfield West of Penn 27 29% 17 19% East of Penn & West of I-35W 11 12% 3 3% East of I-35W 12 13% 6 7% Subtotal 50 54% 26 30% Outside Richfield Minnea olis 20 22% 15 17% Edina 2 2% 15 17% Bloomin ton 14 15% 16 18% Other 6 7% 16 18% Total 92 100% 88 100% PAGE 32 APPENDIX B Appendix C ~~"'~ ~opnr,, Figure C-1 a Collapsible Speed Bump Rewards Careful Drivers ®~ -_ ~~ . , An air-filled speed bump developed by British researchers features a valve that allows it to collapse and give an unobstructed path to drivers who do not exceed the speed limit ~~T bile spud bumps c:an br rtlcrtn'r in detrrrmg dnt - V V rn fmm sprrdin};. thrs• rte also add tc, actor an,{ cause gruuud cibr.utuns, and these nrt~ weaken nr.uby structures. In addition, the action can uu rr tsr erhiclc• ruu.- stons. Now, a nesv kux} of speed bump, called the 1r:nu- ealm. ntay redact thrx prohlrnt< by blocking the each of speeding automobiles ss'hilr allosvingslowrr driyrn nt },a<. without hindrance. Thr Transcalm is a drHatahlr tout that rcai t..trc online to the impact of a vehicle's src•ight :utci sprcd ag:nest it, sas`, Graham Hreks, the British inventor who crcurd the sy,- trm. if a vehidr passe. Derr it at ur below the speed linut, air ruaprs through .t yalvr and the unit giycs w:n uudrr thc• svright of thc• tier., prrnutting uuobstructcd pass,tge•. "I hc• unit rhea rrindates and chi. pattern i. rrpc•atrd until thc• applied prrss~ur bout a vehiear rxc'rrds a prrdca•r- mined lieut. When this occurs, thc• vahr doe, not allosc air to c•srape•. In addition, the vahr can br set so s•c•hiilcs that cause a sttbsauuial annntut of pressure on the bump. such as rntrrgrncy vehicles. ian Gros. it undctrnrd. Accunling w Hc•eks, the ban'irr of the'Transcalm is » tads of a rubber snni- lac to that used in tirr+ and is ntoldrd so that it retains its shape. Whc•n cunt- . prc•ssrd, the nthbrr nu•ithranr nirasurrs 1.1 nun in thickness, and it regain, it. shape inunediaa•I}' afire the pressure is rrieasrd. Thr material is difficult to pierce, which protects it from.. sharp roadway objects and makes it less likely ut be• vandalized. Additionally, save Heeks, the rubber binds nt itself svhcn heated, so char a drill would have trou- hlr breaking through the ruhbrr brran<c• it would crean• brat."The ntb- brr is also nintitrced with a fabric to add strength. Thr rubber componrnr rest. ut a c uni retc• shell, schich is placed into the roadway. Because the rubhc•r absorbs sound sv:nrs and vibrations and briausr the ronirra• puruou oLthc unit is inserted into the road, noisi• and vibrations .tee reduced. In addition, driyrrs sron•t nerd to use the extra titrl that rtpid slowing :unl acceler:uion requires. thercbv reducing thc• :unount of carbon dioxide chat e•ntrrs the annosphcrc. The Trans- calm system is currently bring tested in London. -~ulit• Harnnarr (;iri! 1in~irnrri qt Noventnru 2oi>t PAGE 34 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C PAGE 35 Figure C-2 Speed Feedback Sign in St. Paul