Loading...
12-11-00 agendaCall to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2000 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE . . AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Approval of, minutes of -(1) Special Joint City Council /Richfield School Board Meeting of November 27, 2000; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 27, 2000; (3) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of November 27, 2000; (4) Special City Council • Meeting of December 4, 2000; and (5) Special City Council Meeting of December 4, 2000 PRESENTATIONS Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Presentation to outgoing Ward 2 City Council Russ Susag 2. Presentation to outgoing Ward 3 City Council Member Kristal Stokes 3. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes.) Speakers are asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Additional opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda will be at the end of this meeting. Notes: 18 AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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 resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety Department to enter into agreement with Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, and acceptance of.$3000 mini -grant for Safe and Sober Challenge S.R .No. 308 B. Consideration of approval of bid minutes /tabulation, rejection of all bids received for fire pumper and authorize readvertisement for bids S.R. No. 309 C. Consideration of approval of temporary parking permit for Steven Jensen, 7200 Cedar Avenue S.R. No. 310 D. Consideration of approval of cancellation of City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 26, 2000 S.R. No. 311 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of Year Two of Landscape Partnership Agreement between MnDOT and City of Richfield to fund plantings at Wood Lake Nature Center S.R. No. 312 F. Consideration of approval of City Manager's appointment of Connie Murray to two - year term as Hearing Examiner S.R. No. 313 G. Consideration of approval of City Manager's appointment of Paul Wasko to two -year term as Hearing Examiner S.R. No. 314 H. Consideration of approval of resolution approving Business Subsidy Agreement between Richfield HRA and CSM Investors II S.R. No. 315 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearings to consider the following 2001 Liquor License renewals: A. On -Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Liquor and Tavern for Chi - Chi's, Inc., dba Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 316 B. On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC dba Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 317 C. On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Don Pablo's Operating Corp., dba Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 318 D. On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Americana Dining Corporation, dba • Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street S.R. No. 319 E. On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Paisan Incorporated, dba Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 320 F. On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for GR of Minn., Inc., dba The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 321 G. Club On -Sale and Sunday Liquor for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, dba Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive S.R. No. 322 H. Club On -Sale and Sunday Liquor for Minneapolis - Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 323 I. -On-Sale Wine and 3:2 Percent Malt Liquor for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., dba Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 324 J. On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street S.R. No. 325 K. On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor for Kiang's Red Pepper Inc., dba Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street S.R. No. 326 L. On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor for Subeck Incorporated, dba Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 327 7. Public hearings to consider the following 2001 Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer License renewals: A. Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 328 • B. Plaza Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 329 RESOLUTION 8. Consideration of resolution determining adequacy of Environmental Impact Statement and approving Record of Decision for Best Buy Campus Notes: Staff Report No. 330 PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance to adopt City's Comprehensive Plan with amendment to Guide Plan and change designation of property in Interchange West area from high density single family residential and neighborhood commercial to regional commercial /office (Continued from November 27, 2000) Notes: Staff Report No. 331 10. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning property located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues to planned general commercial and approve planned unit development plan for Best Buy Campus project (Continued from November 27, 2000) Staff Report No. 332 Notes: 11. Public hearing and consideration of resolution approving final development plan and conditional use permit to allow construction of Best Buy Campus :Project located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn-and Knox Avenues (Continued from November 27, 2000) Staff Report No. 333 Notes: 12. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way in Best Buy Campus project area 0 Staff Report No. 334 Notes: 13. Public hearing and consideration of resolution granting preliminary approval of subdivision for Best Buy Co., Inc. Notes: Staff Report No. 335 RESOLUTIONS 14. Consideration of resolution approving Business Subsidy Agreement between Richfield HRA and Best Buy Co., Inc. 0 Notes: Staff Report No. 336 15. Consideration of resolution authorizing staff to submit application for Municipal Cooperative Agreement and Access Management Program funds provided by MnDOT for adding fourth leg to proposed new intersection on Penn Avenue with entrance to Best Buy Campus and extending West 78th Street frontage road to connect to new intersection Notes: Staff Report No. 337 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 16. Consideration of consultant agreement/work order with WSB & Associates, Inc. for design services associated with new 1- 494 /Penn Avenue pump station in amount not to exceed $53,500 Staff Report No. 338 Notes: 40 PUBLIC HEARING 17. Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding housing program and joint powers agreement relating to multifamily housing development and related housing program on behalf of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc. and issuance of revenue bonds therefor under Municipal Housing Programs Act Notes: Staff Report No. 339 RESOLUTION 18. Consideration of resolution approving negative declaration and Record of Decision for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for City Bella project Staff Report No. 340 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning land located in southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue from single family residential and general commercial to planned general commercial and approve planned unit development plan for City Bella project Staff Report No. 341 Notes: 20. Public hearing and consideration of resolution approving final development plan and conditional use permit for City Bella project to allow construction of mixed use residential /retail /office complex in southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue Staff Report No. 342 Notes: 21. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way in City Bella project area Staff Report No. 343 Notes: 22. Public hearing and consideration of resolution granting preliminary approval of City Bella subdivision for Gramercy Corporation Notes: Staff Report No. 344 ORDINANCE 23. Consideration of transitory ordinance authorizing 2001 recreation and open space capital improvements, right -of -way improvements, public facility capital improvements and direction to conduct public hearing prior to authorizing work to proceed on projects included in transitory ordinance (Public hearing conducted and closed on November 13, 2000; action on second reading of ordinance tabled to December 11, 2000) Staff Report No. 345 Notes: RESOLUTION 24. Consideration of 2000 Revised /2001 Proposed Budget and tax levy and related resolutions Notes: Staff Report No. 346 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 25. Consideration of conducting Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 if unable to finish items on tonight's agenda 0 Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS 26. Airport status report Notes: 27. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes.) COUNCIL CHOICE Notes: 28. Claims and payrolls 29. 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. • 0 AGENDA SECTION: &5o `UAI or) AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 34(,o J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAW; TITLE CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the 2000 Revised /2001 Proposed budget and final tax levy and related resolutions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2000 Revised /2001 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. Ill. BACKGROUND In September 2000 the City approved and certifies a preliminary tax levy of $8,414,500 to Hennepin County. The final tax levy must now. be considered and approved by the City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy amount. Taxpayers have received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation of the truth -in- taxation hearing. The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 2000 truth -in- taxation hearing on December 4, 2000. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing. Since the initial publication of the 2001 City of Richfield proposed budget document, • more up to date information with regards to the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) has become available. This new information relates directly to planned right of way projects. The effect of this new information on the 2001 CIB is an increase of budgeted costs of $28,400,120. It should be noted that this increase in no way increases or affects the proposed General Fund tax levy. Any changes in project cost estimates must also have concurrent increases in funding for the respective projects. There are two projects contained in the CIB right of way project category that make up the largest proportion on the increase. The first project is the Penn Avenue Bridge replacement. This project has increased in scope since the initial budget process. The second project is Phase III of the 77th Street. This project was initially budgeted for 2000, however, most of the project is planned for 2001. These two projects account for approximately $24,000,000 of the increase. Other projects contributing to the increase with either new project cost estimates or the project being moved from 2000 to 2001 include the reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue, Richfield Lake Storm Sewer Retention Pond and the widening of 76th Street from 35W to Penn Avenue. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A revised 2000 budget and final 2001 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 20, 2000. • Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than December 28 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue. • A proposed 2001 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. • Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These related resolutions are itemized in the attachment section of this staff report. B. CRITICAL ISSUES A resolution has been attached that relates to the 2001 Specialized pay plan. The resolution eliminates Step One, (creating a four -step plan), and allows the City to remain competitive in today's job market. C. FINANCIAL • The gross tax levy for 2001 reflects a 2.97 percent increase over the previous year and the local 2001 tax levy represents a 4.69 percent increase over 2000. • The local tax capacity rate for 2001 reflects a 3.45 percent decrease over the previous year. D. LEGAL • A truth -in- taxation public hearing for the 2001 proposed budget and tax levy has been conducted in accordance with state law. • There are two resolutions attached that relate to the General Services and Specialized pay plans. The resolutions increase the pay rates in these plans by .5% effective the last full pay period in 2000. This minor pay adjustment is done to ensure the City of Richfield's compliance with the Pay Equity Act. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council could adopt a final 2001 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the preliminary levy of $8,414,500. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2001. • Resolution authorizing budget revisions. • Resolution authorizing revision of 2000 budget of various departments. • Resolution authorizing annual adjustment to City's mileage reimbursement rate to conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate. • Resolution authorizing cancellation of certain ad valorem tax levies on the improvement bonds of 1980. • • Resolution establishing wastewater service rates and charges, water rates and charges, special water service charges, storm sewer rates and charges, and 6.5% penalty on past due accounts. • Resolution adopting the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. • Resolution adopting the 2002 -2006 Capital Improvement Program. • Resolution establishing policies, procedures, and fees for the assessing division. • Resolution relating to the 2000 General Services Salary compensation plan. • Resolution relating to the 2000 Specialized Pay Plan. • Resolution relating to the 2001 General Services Salary compensation plan. • Resolution relating to the 2001 Specialized Pay Plan. • Resolution relating to the 2001 Management Salary compensation plan. • Resolution establishing 2001 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 0 40 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2001 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation taw provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2000 and then recertified before December 31, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2001 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Leg islative /Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 748,710 1,152,950 6,969,090 2,089,040 278,710 3,179,490 1,521,260 15,000 $15,954,250 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2001 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2001 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 15,954,250 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2000, payable in 2001 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $ 28,414,500 Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution and HACA amounts. 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2001 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2000, payable in 2001 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $ 208,000 5. A certified copy of this resolution shell be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City u Ci Clerk p • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and /or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk U Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2000 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8827 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2000; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2000 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2001 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2000 appropriations for each department of the General fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Legislative /Executive $ 688,780 Administrative Services 1,018,950 to Public Safety 6,702,420 Fire 1,968,210 Community Development 252,380 Public Works 3,309,620 Recreation Services 1,468,150 Transfers 66,540 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $15,475,050 INCREASE $ 383,110 2. Estimated 2000 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2001 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $ 383,110 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service annually adjusts the business mileage reimbursement rate; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is in conformance with the Internal Revenue Service business mileage reimbursement rate; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to annually adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. 2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue Service guidelines. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 . WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 provided for the sale of $6,100,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 2000 of $449,800 for payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1980; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 2001, due to substantial prepayment in previous years of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there are presently funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1980 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 2000, collectible in 2001 on Resolution No. 6310 in the amount of $449,800 is hereby cancelled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 8832: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 2001 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 2001 A) Residential per unit $ 45.90 8) Commercial - For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 45.80 More than 10, less than 16 84.00 More than 15, less than 21 118.00 More than 20, less than 26 156.80 C) Institutional - For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 2001 For each 100 grade school students or fraction $ 55.30 in excess thereof For each 100 junior high school students or high 138.90 School students or fraction thereof D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this Resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For alt residential premises the rate shall be based on The actual use, or less of water for the preceding Winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum 2001 of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 2000, for each customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 2.29 For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter Quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other Premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water effective January 1, 2000, shall be as follows: $ 2.29 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice Rendered effective January 1, 2000 as follows: $ 3.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary Sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the Preceding winter quarter was not. normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be $1.67 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2001 shall be at this rate. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 0 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account. 3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.50 per installation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected to typical single - family residential use within the City during a standard one year rainfall event. The REF'S for the following land uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows; LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION Cemeteries .25 1 Parks and railroads .75 2 Two - family residential 1.00 3 Single- family residential 1.00 4 Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple- family residential uses and churches 3.00 6 Commercial, industrial, and Warehouse uses 5.00 7 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $44.00 per acre of land. $8.80 is the quarterly rate for a single - family residence, which is considered to have an acreage of one -fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate. 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount. 2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for each fund. Adopted by the City Council'of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2001 has been prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter requirements; and . WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of $63,547,120 is hereby approved as amended and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 h day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2002 -2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2002 -2006 has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2002 -2006 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Pity Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk ;J Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND FEES FOR 0 THE ASSESSING DIVISION WHEREAS, the City Assessing Division provides a variety of services to the public, to title companies and to realtors, relating to information necessary for sale and purchase of property; and WHEREAS, special assessment searches are requested when closing on purchased properties; and WHEREAS, listing information is requested when there is an interest in property sales or purchases; and WHEREAS, residential property records are requested when comparing properties for market values; and WHEREAS, certain specific information, such as special assessment searches, property listing information, comparable residential property records and homestead information are regularly sought by realtors, title companies and homeowners in the sale and transfer of property within the City; and WHEREAS, the above list of requests for information constitutes a large portion of the work load of the City Assessing Division; and WHEREAS, said policies, procedures and fees must be reviewed and modified as needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the following policies, procedures and fees for dissemination of certain information in the City's Assessing Division. 1. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES Provided, upon receipt or written request for multiple searches or phone request for same day pickup of a single search, by City Assessing Division identifying levied and pending assessments PROCEDURES Provide written request and $12.00 fee per Property Identification Number (PID). Searches are normally in the mail 24 hours after receipt. FEES $12.00 per Property Identification Number (PID). The search is a billing statement. Provide verbal update by Provided the same day if a Provided free of charge is phone of previously single certified or if a certified City search requested certified City non - certified search is is not requested. special assessment requested and if picked up at searches. the City. L. (con't) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT_ PROCEDURES FEES SEARCHES Do not provide additional billing statements for assessments. Provide, upon written request, a report (or run) of all properties affected by a levied or pending special assessment. 11. LISTING INFORMATION Provide, upon multiple written or a single phone request printouts. Printouts include: PID number Estimated Market Value Tax information Owner /taxpayer Legal Description Special assessments (levied and pending) Provided the following work day for multiple certified or non - certified search requests and will be available for pickup after 3:00 p.m. Verbal verification (update) of City certified levied and pending assessments before closing. After identifying self, caller will provide property address, PID number, date and receipt number of search. Provided within a minimum of 48 hours if there is an existing program, additional hours if more than one report is requested. A non - existing program would require additional time. A program would be created on a priority basis and then printed. Requesting party would be notified as to fee and date report(s) can be picked up at the Assessing office prior to printing. PROCEDURES A phone or written request and receipt of $3.00. Allow 1/2 hour before pickup for a single property request to prevent waiting for information. Allow 24 hours from receipt of request for pickup of listing information on multiple properties. Homeowner may request a $12.00 search for closing. An initiation fee of $30.00 for each requested report. Plus, $.05 for each Property Identification (PID) Number. A requested new program would require a minimum fee of $25.00. Fees would be based on time and materials to create and print the program. FEES $3.00 per RID number or per printed sheet. Homeowners may request a free printout. Provided free of charge if printout is not requested. • • II (con't) LISTING INFORMATION Lot size Year built Square footage PROCEDURES Give name, firm, address of property and PID number (if available for requests). Provide verbal updates by Three listing inquiries on the phone of previously following accessible requested City printouts. information will be provided by phone by the City: PID number Year built Lot size School district Legal description Taxes Square footage Mill rate for Richfield Estimated difference between homestead and non - homestead tax amounts. Fee owner /taxpayer Market value Homestead status Inquiries by phone for square footage of buildings will be limited to two properties. Additional properties will require obtaining information in person at the City Assessor's office. Net rentable areas for income properties are protected under the Data Privacy Act; and therefore, will not be given as listing information. Special assessments will not be given by phone. However, they will be given the City office when requested. FEES L1. (con't) LISTING INFORMATION PROCEDURES FEES Exception: Homeowners will be given special assessments by phone if they provide their social security numbers. Otherwise, the owner can request a free complete listing printout. Give name, firm, property address, PID number, date of printout and receipt number when updating printouts. Requested complete listing information, without a requested printout, will be partially supplied verbally by the Assessing Division. The Division will orally supply special assessments, next year's market value (when available), and homestead status. Requesting party will be allowed to use the County's terminal screen for additional information (only screens 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 120, 275 and 282). Interruptions will occur for City use. Time limits on the County's terminal will be set based on City's immediate needs. III REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORDS Provide a field card record of a Request for more than subject property and five properties must be comparable properties. submitted in writing and include individual property addresses FEE May request $1.00 per copy for up to five comparable properties. Certified copies $5.00. Ill. (cont.) copy. comparable properties. submitted in writing and REVIEW ,OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY numbers will help cut our ' RECORDS response time). personally writes (PID numbers will help Free of charge when supplied by the cut response time). The personally writes property field cards will individual must allow the information supplied by City to set the time the Assessing Division. convenient for the City to supply information on a one -on -one basis. More than five comparable properties, will be allowed to view and record information under strict supervision of the Assessing Division. The City will not assemble or analyze data. Certified copies will state: "This is a true and correct reproduction of the original on file at the City Assessor's office" IV REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND APARTMENT PROPERTY RECORDS Provide partial field card record Request for more than May request $2.00 per of a subject property and five properties must be copy. comparable properties. submitted in writing and include individual Certified copies $5.00. property addresses (PID numbers will help cut our Free of charge when response time). personally writes information orally Because of the data supplied by the privacy act, viewing the Assessing Division. property field cards will be prohibited. IV. (con't) PROCEDURES FEES REVIEW OPARABLE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND APARTMENT PROPERTY RECORDS Confidential , private or nonpublic data is protected under the data privacy act. The following confidential data is recorded on the property field cards: a. Detailed income and expense figures: b. Average vacancy factors; c, Verified net rentable areas or net usable areas; d. Anticipated income and expenses for the current year; and e. Projected vacancy factor for the current year. The above confidential information will be blocked out when photocopying field cards. The individual must allow the City to set the time convenient for the City to supply information on a one-on-one basis. The City will not assemble or analyze data. Certified copies will state: This is a true and correct reproduction of the original on file at the City Assessor's office". Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2000 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time -to -time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2000 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2000 the following pay plan, which is to be effective December 3, 2000, the last full pay period in 2000 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: STEP 1 GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 23,067.20 24,440.00 25,812.80 27,206.40 28,808.00 29,681.60 MO 1,922.27, 2,036.67 2,151.07 2,267.20 2,400.67 2,473.47 BW 887.20 940.00 992.80 1,046.40 1,108.00 1,141.60 HR 11.09 11.75 12.41 13.08 13.85 14.27 GS2 YR 25,396.80 26,707.20 28,017.60 29,452.80 30,908.80 32,489.60 MO 2,116.40 2,225.60 2,334.80 2,454.40 2,575.73 2,707.47 BW 976.80 1,027.20 1,077.60 1,132.80 1,188.80 1,249.60 HR 12.21 12.84 13.47 14.16 14.86 15.62 GS3 YR 28,017.60 29,452.80 30,950.40 32,489.60 34,112.00 35,984.00 MO 2,334.80 2,454.40 2,579.20 2,707.47 2,842.67 2,998.67 BW 1,077.60 1,132.80 1,190.40 1,249.60 1,31Z00 1,384.00 HR 13.47 14.16 14.88 15.62 16.40 17.30 GS4 YR 30,950.40 32,489.60 34,153.60 35,859.20 37,648.00 39,603.20 MO 2,579.20 2,707.47 2,846.13 2,988.27 3,137.33 3,300.27 BW 1,190.40 1,249.60 1,313.60 1,379.20 1,448.00 1,523.20 HR 14.88 15.62 16.42 17.24 18.10 19.04 GS4E YR 33,259.20 34,902.40 36,691.20 38,563.20 40,497.60 42,556.80 MO 2,771.60 2,908.53 3,057.60 3,213.60 3,374.80 3,546.40 BW 1,279.20 1,342.40 1,411.20 1,483.20 1,557.60 1,636.80 HR 15.99 16.78 17.64 18.54 19.47 20.46 GS5 YR 34,153.60 35,859.20 37,648.00 39,603.20 41,600.00 43,680.00 MO 2,846.13 2,988.27 3,137.33 3,300.27 3,466.67 3,640.00 BW 1,313.60 1,379.20 1,448.00 1,523.20 1,600.00 1,680.00 HR 16.42 17.24 18.10 19.04 20.00 21.00 GS5E YR 36,691.20 38,563.20 40,456.00 42,556.80 44,678.40 46,904.00 MO 3,057.60 3,213.60 3,371.33 3,546.40 3,723.20 3,908.67 BW 1,411.20 1,483.20 1,556.00 1,636.80 1,718.40 1,804.00 HR 17.64 18.54 19.45 20.46 21.48 22.55 GS6 YR 37,648.00 39,603.20 41,600.00 43,680.00 45,884.80 50,627.20 MO 3,137.33 3,300.27 3,466.67 3,640.00 3,823.73 4,218.93 BW 1,448.00 1,523.20 1,600.00 1,680.00 1,764.80 1,947.20 HR 18.10 19.04 20.00 21.00 22.06 24.34 GS6E YR 40,456.00 42,556.80 44,699.20 46,904.00 49,275.20 54,412.80 MO 3,371.33 3,546.40 3,724.93 3,908.67 4,106.27 4,534.40 BW 1,556.00 1,636.80 1,719.20 1,804.00 1,895.20 2,092.80 HR 19.45 20.46 21.49 22.55 23.69 26.16 a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 - One year since last increase. .An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 5. f. Step 6 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. Employees whose competency level and /or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2000. Martin J. Kirsch ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk r� Mayor GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Clerk Typist Non - Exempt Data Entry Operator Non- Exempt Switchboard - Receptionist Non- Exempt 2 Community Development Technician Non - Exempt Community. Service Officer Non- Exempt Custodian Non - Exempt Finance Clerk Non- Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non- Exempt Licensing Clerk Non- Exempt Police Cadet Non- Exempt Senior Clerk Typist Non- Exempt Senior Clerk Typist/Investigative Clerk Non - Exempt Special Projects Aide Non - Exempt Transportation Specialist Non - Exempt 3 Accounting Clerk Non - Exempt Arena Operations Assistant Non - Exempt Code Compliance Officer Non- Exempt Community Development Technician II Non- Exempt Forestry Inspector /Operations Assistant Non - Exempt Health /Licensing Specialist Leased Housing Assistant Non - Exempt Non- Exempt Secretary Non- Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non- Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor Non- Exempt Information Technologies Technician Non - Exempt Housing Inspector I Non- Exempt 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Communications /Special Projects Assistant Exempt Enterprise Facilitator Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Project Assistant Exempt Records Supervisor Exempt 5 Assistant Building Maintenance Supervisor Non - Exempt Engineering Technician Non- Exempt Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non- Exempt Housing Inspector II Non- Exempt C. • • • GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 5E Administrative Assistant Exempt Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist Exempt Community Center Programmer Exempt Community Development Accountant Exempt Community Development Specialist Exempt Human Services Planner /Coordinator Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt Naturalist Exempt Planning and Research Specialist Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt Redevelopment Specialist Exempt Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt Youth Resource Specialist Exempt Zoning Administrator Exempt 6 Electrical /Building Trade Inspector Non- Exempt Network Administrator Non- Exempt 6E Accountant Exempt (Rev. 7 -00) • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2000 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2000 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2000 the following pay plan which is to be effective on December 3, 2000, the last full pay period in 2000, and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 SP1 -E /NE HR 5.58 5.87 6.12 6.44 SP2 -E /NE HR 5.90 6.17 6.47 6.78 7.12 SP3 -E /NE HR 6.36 6.65 6.99 7.34 7.70 SP4 -E /NE HR 6.85 7.19 7.56 7.92 8.33 SP5 -E /NE HR 7.39 7.74 8.16 8.55 8.98 SP6 -E /NE HR 8.00 8.41 8.82 9.24 9.71 SP7 -E /NE HR 8.65 9.03 9.51 9.98 10.47 SP8 -E /NE HR 9.34 9.78 10.27 10.78 11.31 SP9 -E /NE HR 10.04 10.54 11.10 11.64 12.21 SP10 -E /NE HR 10.87 11.43 11.99 12.60 13.23 SP11 -E /NE HR 11.74 12.29 12.94 13.59 14.24 SP12 -E /NE HR 12.65 13.31 13.95 14.64 15.40 SP13 -E /NE HR 13.58 14.26 15.03 15.81 16.62 Instructor's Range: $5.15 - $50 Election Judge: $7.25 Election Assistant Chair Person: $7.50 Election Chairperson: $8 Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher -grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year from last increase d. Step 4 - One year from last increase e. Step 5 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk s • I E Pool Attendant E Student Intern 2 NONE 3 NE NE Bike Patrol Officer Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, Vet's & Taft) NE Scorer/Timer NE Recreation Attendant I E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) E Facility Rental Attendant 4 NE Arena Attendant NE Dance Coordinator & Skate Coordinator NE Recreation Attendant 11 (Men's Open Gym & Sports Attendant) E Concession II E Facility Cashier E Mini Golf Attendant E Recreation Attendant II (Parks Water Slide Attendant) 5 NE Adaptive Assistant NE Professional Intern NE Substitute Van Driver NE Survey Crew Person NE Winter Sports Attendant E Warming House Attendant NE Adaptive Leader /Specialist �6 NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Receptionist E Concession III E Lifeguard E Outdoor Skating Supervisor E Playground Leader E Warming House Supervisor E Mini Golf Supervisor 7 NE Accounting Clerk NE Adaptive Program Supervisor NE Building Attendent NE Concession Supervisor (all sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Construction Specialist NE Liquor Sales Associate NE Maintenance Laborer NE Naturalist I NE Zamboni Operator NE Video Production Assistant E Concession Supervisor E Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator NE Administrative Services Clerk NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator NE Publication Supervisor E Maintenance Technician E 9 NE E 10 NE NE E E 11 NE 12 13 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE E E E E E Tennis Coordinator Community Development Tech. Special Facilities Coordinator Adult Sports Coordinator Engineering Aide Pool Supervisor Playground Coordinator Community Relations Coordinator NONE 911 Dispatcher Instructors Building Inspector Figure Skating Hockey (Arena) Housing & Redevelopment Tech. Sports Official Substitute Naturalist Dance Cross Country Ski Golf Professional Hockey (outside) Tennis WS OTHER Election Judge $7.25 Election Chair Person $7.50 Election Chairperson $8 NE= Non - Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per week without overtime pay. E- Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week without overtime pay. All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Golf positions, except Concessions /Pro Shop positions, are exempt. All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and Maintenance positions are non - exempt. (Revised 7 -00) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2001 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time -to -time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2001 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2001 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2001, the first full pay period in 2001 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR MO BW HR YR MO BW HR YR MO BW HR YR ,MO BW HR YR MO BW HR YR MO BW HR YR MO BW HR YR MO BW HR YR MO BW HR GS2 GS3 GS4 GS4E GS5 GS5E GS6 GS6E 23,753.60 1,979.47 913.60 11.42 26,166.40 2,180.53 1,006.40 12.58 28, 849.60 2,404.13 1,109.60 13.87 31, 886.40 2,657.20 1,226.40 15.33 34, 257.60 2,854.80 1,317.60 16.47 35,172.80 2,931.07 1,352.80 16.91 37,793.60 3,149.47 1,453.60 18.17 38,771.20 3,230.93 1,491.20 18.64 41,662.40 3,471.87 1,602.40 20.03 25,168.00 26,582.40 28,017.60 29,681.60 30,576.00 2,097.33 2,215.20 2,334.80 2,473.47 2,548.00 968.00 1,022.40 1,077.60 1,141.60 1,176.00 12.10 12.78 13.47 14.27 14.70 27,518.40 28,849.60 30,326.40 31, 844.80 33,467.20 2,293.20 2,404.13 2,527.20 2,653.73 2,788.93 1,058.40 1,109.60 1,166.40 1,224.80 1,287.20 13.23 13.87 14.58 15.31 16.09 30,326.40 31,886.40 33,467.20 35,131.20 37,065.60 2,527.20 2,657.20 2,788.93 2,927.60 3,088.80 1,166.40 1,226.40 1,287.20 1, 351.20 1,425.60 14.58 15.33 16.09 16.89 17.82 33,467.20 35,172.80 36,940.80 38, 771.20 40,788.80 2,788.93 2,931.07 3,078.40 3,230.93 3,399.07 1,287.20 1,352.80 1,420.80 1,491.20 1,568.80 16.09 16.91 17.76 18.64 19.61 35,942.40 37,793.60 39,728.00 41,704.00 43,825.60 2,995.20 3,149.47 3,310.67 3,475.33 3,652.13 1,382.40 1,453.60 1,528.00 1,604.00 1,685.60 17.28 18.17 19.10 20.05 21.07 36,940.80 38,771.20 40,788.80 42, 848.00 44,990.40 3,078.40 3,230.93 3,399.07 3, 570.67 3,749.20 1,420.80 1,491.20 1,568.80 1,648.00 1,730.40 17.76 18.64 19.61 20.60 21.63 39,728.00 41,662.40 43,825.60 46,009.60 48,318.40 3,310.67 3,471.87 3,652.13 3,834.13 4,026.53 1,528.00 1,602.40 1,685.60 1,769.60 1,858.40 19.10 20.03 21.07 22.12 23.23 40,788.80 42,848.00 44,990.40 47,257.60 52,145.60 3,399.07 3,570.67 3,749.20 3, 938.13 4,345.47 1,568.80 1,648.00 1,730.40 1, 817.60 2,005.60 19.61 20.60 21.63 22.72 25.07 43,825.60 46,030.40 48,318.40 50,752.00 56,035.20 3,652.13 3,835.87 4,026.53 4,229.33 4,669.60 1,685.60 1,770.40 1,858.40 1,952.00 2,155.20 21.07 22.13 23.23 24.40 26.94 a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 5. f. Step 6 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. Employees whose competency level and /or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2000. Martin J. Kirsch ATTEST: �eborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk • Mayor U • GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Clerk Typist Non- Exempt Data Entry Operator Non- Exempt Switchboard - Receptionist Non- Exempt 2 Community Development Technician Non - Exempt Community Service Officer Non- Exempt Custodian Non- Exempt Finance Clerk Non- Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non- Exempt Licensing Clerk Non- Exempt Police Cadet Non- Exempt Senior Clerk Typist Non- Exempt Senior Clerk Typist/Investigative Clerk Non- Exempt Special Projects Aide Non- Exempt Transportation Specialist Non- Exempt 3 Accounting Clerk Non- Exempt Arena Operations Assistant Non- Exempt Code Compliance Officer Non - Exempt Community Development Technician II Non- Exempt Forestry Inspector /Operations Assistant Non- Exempt Health /Licensing Specialist Non- Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non- Exempt Secretary Non - Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non - Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor Non- Exempt Information Technologies Technician Non- Exempt Housing Inspector I Non - Exempt 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Communications /Special Projects Assistant Exempt Enterprise Facilitator Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Project Assistant Exempt Records Supervisor Exempt 5 Assistant Building Maintenance Supervisor Non - Exempt Engineering Technician Non - Exempt Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non- Exempt Housing Inspector 11 Non- Exempt GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 5E Administrative Assistant. Exempt Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist Exempt Community Center Programmer Exempt Community Development Accountant Exempt Community Development Specialist Exempt Human Services Planner /Coordinator Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt Naturalist Exempt Planning and Research Specialist Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt Redevelopment Specialist Exempt Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt Youth Resource Specialist Exempt Zoning Administrator Exempt 6 Electrical /Building Trade Inspector Non- Exempt Network Administrator Non - Exempt 6E Accountant Exempt (Rev. 7 -00) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2001 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2001 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2001 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 1, 2001, the first full pay period in 2001, and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 SP1 -E /NE HR 5.75 6.05 6.30 6.63 SP2 -E /N E HR 6.36 6.66 6.98 7.33 SP3 -E /NE HR 6.85 7.20 7.56 7.93 SP4 -E /NE HR 7.41 7.79 8.16 8.58 SP5 -E /NE HR 7.97 8.40 8.81 9.25 SP6 -E /NE HR 8.66 9.08 9.52 10.00 SP7 -E /NE HR 9.30 9.80 10.28 10.78 SP8 -E /NE HR 10.07 10.58 11.10 11.65 SP9 -E /NE HR 10.86 11.43 11.99 12.58 SP10 -E /NE HR 11.77 12.35 12.98 13.63 SP11 -E /NE HR 12.66 13.33 14.00 14.67 SP12 -E /NE HR 13.71 14.37 15.08 15.86 SP13 -E /NE HR 14.69 15.48 16.28 17.12 Instructor's Range: $5.75-$50 Election Judge: $7.25 Election Assistant Chair Person: $7.50 Election Chairperson: $8 Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher -grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year from last increase d. Step 4 - One year from last increase e. Step 5 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk • I E Pool Attendant E Maintenance Technician E Student Intern E Tennis Coordinator 2 NONE 9 NE Community Development Tech. 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer E Special Facilities Coordinator NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, 10 NE Adult Sports Coordinator Vet's & Taft) NE Engineering Aide NE Scorer/Timer E Pool Supervisor NE Recreation Attendant I E Playground Coordinator E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator E Facility Rental Attendant 12 NONE 4 NE Arena Attendant 13 NE 911 Dispatcher NE Dance Coordinator & Skate Coordinator Instructors NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open NE Building Inspector Gym & Sports Attendant) NE Figure Skating E Concession II NE Hockey (Arena) E Facility Cashier NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech. E Mini Golf Attendant NE Sports Official E Recreation Attendant II (Parks Water NE Substitute Naturalist Slide Attendant) NE Dance 5 NE Adaptive Assistant E Cross Country Ski NE Custodian E Golf Professional NE Professional Intern E Hockey (outside) NE Substitute Van Driver E Tennis NE Survey Crew Person E WSI NE Winter Sports Attendant OTHER 106 E NE Warming House Attendant Adaptive Leader /Specialist Election Judge $7.25 Election Chair Person $7.50 - NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) Election Chairperson $8 NE E Receptionist Concession III NE= Non - Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per E Lifeguard week without overtime pay. E Outdoor Skating Supervisor E- Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week E Playground Leader without overtime pay. E Warming House Supervisor All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Golf positions, except Concessions /Pro Shop positions, are E Mini Golf Supervisor exempt. 7 NE Accounting Clerk All Playground All Community and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and NE Adaptive Program Supervisor Maintenance positions are non- exempt. NE Building Attendent (.Revised 7 -00) NE Concession Supervisor (all sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Construction Specialist NE Liquor Sales Associate NE Maintenance Laborer NE Naturalist I NE Zamboni Operator NE Video Production Assistant E Concession Supervisor E Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator NE Administrative Services Clerk NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator NE Publication Supervisor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2001 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time -to -time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2001 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. The.City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2001 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2001, the first full pay period in 2001 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City. MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID -RANGE MAXIMUM M -NE YR 37,814.40 45,240.00 52,956.80 MO 3,151.20 3,770.00 4,413.07 BW 1,454.40 1,740.00 2,036.80 HR 18.18 21.75 25.46 M -1 YR 40,851.20 48,942.40 57,158.40 MO 3,404.27 4,078.53 4,763.20 BW 1,571.20 1,882.40 2,198.40 HR 19.64 23.53 27.48 M -2 YR 46,155.20 55,203.20 64,480.00 MO 3,846.27 4,600.27 5,373.33 BW 1,775.20 2,123.20 2,480.00 HR 22.19 26.54 31.00 M -3 YR 52,624.00 63,003.20 73,881.60 MO 4,385.33 5,250.27 6,156.80 BW 2,024.00 2,423.20 2,841.60 HR 25.30 30.29 35.52 M -4 YR 58,676.80 70,158.40 82,118.40 MO 4,889.73 5,846.53 6,843.20 BW 2,256.80 2,698.40 3,158.40 HR 28.21 33.73 39.48 M -5 YR 68,078.40 81,390.40 94,972.80 MO 5,673.20 6,782.53 7,914.40 BW 2,618.40 3,130.40 3,652.80 HR 32.73 39.13 45.66 I�..I 0 0 O N (D a) U a) 0 0 co co ca 0 N CD C c_ a) U_ 0 U a) t 0 •U C O U U a) () U U co IL L O ca U Y _c (o Y (D U U 0 Q a) a) L 7 a o aS N_ •tn C co > F. = Z 0 a 't? o o o .C6 o o o o W LL o co O o� i U � + i co D) CO) 0 ,; � 'a ,C a) C e-000Q ' O a) a) () a) 0) 0) 0) W a a > a cu a o - 0wII� o a LU co O E Z Q Q. E a) o =,C i'ZC)U� 0 V Co N M r c oC: QO 0 m -ja.00 N 2 C.0 � > M' � O 0- ca Z� + + 0 cu O QQQ mm ciao �o 0)0)rn0)0) a� �= OuiCUCUCUCU0 a) c: O-Mwwww a E H (o Q U O c .N o cu U _Z LO o U') V M 0 a)� a000 a IL CU M CO N O) Cl) Cl C E cu o + + + a) ����� cu Z a) co 0 2'000Q a) = W 0) 0) rn 0 c acccc•- Z co co co m O m w w w w z > Q C In iu- ui = -0 W _ o Z E.S Q0 c Q a) z o a) co CU a) O� >�' W 0 a) O 0) O c a C � o a)� -0 a) a) N > •� co coo 0. n c�—o i c 0 0 O N (D a) U a) 0 0 co co ca 0 N CD C c_ a) U_ 0 U a) t 0 •U C O U U a) () U U co IL L O ca U Y _c (o Y (D U U 0 Q a) a) L 7 a o 9 • RANGE M -N E M -1 M -2 M -3 M -4 M -5 (Rev. 11 -00) MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE POSITION TITLES CLASS Assistant to the City Manager Exempt Building Maintenance Supervisor Exempt City Clerk Exempt Facility /Program Manager Exempt Supervisor Exempt Health Administrator Exempt Liquor Store Manager Exempt Asst. Fire Chief /Fire Marshal Exempt Chief Building Official Exempt Community Development Manager Exempt Deputy Fire Chief . Exempt Information Technologies Manager Exempt Engineering Supervisor Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Manager Exempt Superintendent Exempt Transportation Engineer Exempt Finance Manager Exempt Human Resources Manager Exempt Operations Coordinator Exempt Utility Coordinator Exempt Liquor Operations Director Exempt Recreation Services Director Exempt Department Director Exempt RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2001 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8836 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5;7, 8 and 9 of this resolution. C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31 st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license. D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE (1) Building 400.03 - 400.09 $1 to $500 $21.00 Permits $501 to $2,000 $21.00 for the first $500 plus $2.75 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000. $2,001 to $25,000 $62.25 for the first $2,000 plus $12.50 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 $349.75 for the first $25,000 plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. $50,001 to $100,000 $574.75 for the first $50,000 plus $6.25 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000. $100,001 to $500,000 $887.25 for the first $100,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $2,887.25 for the first $500,000 plus $4.25 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000. 1,000,001 and up $5,015.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof. • • • SECTION 2 CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours) (b) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 (c) Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revision to plans (minimum charge - two hours) FEE $42.00 per hour $42.00 per hour $42.00 per hour *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, (10) Structure Demolition 400.00- 400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $ 21.00 (b) Dwelling 1. One or two story $ 22.00 2. Residential - Garage and lesser structure $ 8.50 (1 1) Excavation in 800.01- 800.15 For each transverse excavation and $100.00 Public each 100 feet or portion thereof longitudinal Right of way excavation and for each curb and gutter section installed or driveway apron installed, except when survey and grade stakes are set by City overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of he employee involved. (2) Driveway, Parking Area Permits 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 25.00 (3) Fire Extinguishing System Permit 400.03- 400.09 Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a minimum of $ 21.00 (4) Swimming 420.00 Permanent above or below ground pools are based Building Permit. Portable Pools $ 21.00 (No fee shall be charged for construction or erection of any pool 24 inches or less in depth at its deepest part and not exceeding 177 sq ft in water surface) (5) Public Swimming 420.10 1 st Pool $ 85.00 Pool Inspection Each Additional $ 45.00 (6) Plan Review Fee 400.03- 400.09 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: and State Building Code (a) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable area is not enlarged. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. (d) Residential garages and storage buildings. (7) Contractors License Verification Fee $ 5.00 (8) Moving Dwellings 845 Pre- inspection Fee: IN Richfield $ 35.00 and Buildings other than Dwellings OUTSIDE Richfield $ 70.00 Moving Permit Fee: WITHIN Richfield $ 35.00 INTO Richfield $ 70.00 Moving Out of City $ 35.00 (9) Garage 845 Pre - inspection Fee: Moving (if relocated in City) $ 23.00 Garage Moving Permit Fee $ 16.00 (10) Structure Demolition 400.00- 400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $ 21.00 (b) Dwelling 1. One or two story $ 22.00 2. Residential - Garage and lesser structure $ 8.50 (1 1) Excavation in 800.01- 800.15 For each transverse excavation and $100.00 Public each 100 feet or portion thereof longitudinal Right of way excavation and for each curb and gutter section installed or driveway apron installed, except when survey and grade stakes are set by City 0 SECTION 2 CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (12) Utility 700.05 (a) Sewer $ 20.00 Abandonment 710.01 (b) Water $ 20.00 (13) Certification Charge 705.03 - 705.21 (Delinquent) $ 25.00 (14) (a) Sewer 700.05 Residential $ 35.00 Construction Industrial /Commercial $ 50.00 (b) Water Service 715.01 As per Ordinance - To connect to existing Service Connection water service leads at the curb box $ 35.00 To connect to main where a curb box and service lead is not installed the fee is the actual cost of material and estimated cost of labor. To turn on water after discontinuance of service $ 35.00 For raising or lowering stop -box tops to correspond with ground level change made by property owner. Cost plus 30% material and labor. (15) Plumbing Permit 400.03- 400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee 2% of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 30.00 (b) Work required to comply with minimum . Housing Code Provisions $ 18.00 (16) Plumbing Permit 400.03- 400.09 Commercial - Based on Total Job cost 2% of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00 (17) Electrical Permit 400.03 -.400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee $ 30.00 (b) Complete Wiring Fee: Single Family Residence $ 55.00 Two Family Residence $106.00 (c) New Service - up to 200 amps $ 13.50 (d) Temporary Service - (for construction) $ 19.00 (e) Installation or replacement of each major appliance during or after completion of building $ 9.00 (f) Swimming Pools $ 25.00 (g) Wiring of Addition or rewiring: First Room $ 13.50 Each Additional Room $ 6.50 (h) Furnace or Air Conditioning: Per Unit $ 9.00 (i) Electrical Heating System: 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 19.00 (j) Electric or base board (Infrared Heaters): Per Circuit $ 9.00 (k) Work required to comply with minimum Housing Code provisions other than new service - 2% of contract cost with minimum of $ 18.00 (18) Electrical Permit 400.03400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings Commercial (more than two units) Minimum Fee $ 40.00 (a) Based on total job cost - 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00 -Over $50,000 - Fee/ $1,000.00 plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000.00 (b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $185.00 0 SECTION 2 CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED) Sign Installer TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION (3) Electrical Installer 00.03 - .400.09 OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (19) Electrical Permit 400.03- 400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer State License Required with a minimum of $ 40.00 Signs (separate electrical permit required for signs) (20) Heating, 400.03- 400.09 Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs Ventilating, Air 1 1/2% estimated cost with a minimum of $ 30.00 Conditioning and Refrigeration (21) Heating, 400.03- 400.09 (a) Fuel storage Tanks (Underground or Enclosed) Ventilation, Installation to be used with oil burner only. Air Conditioning, Refrigeration Per tank not exceeding 1,000 gal. $ 10.00 Storage Tanks Per tank exceeding 1,000 gal $ 20.00 (b) Fuel Storage Tanks (Above ground or not enclosed) Installation to be used with oil burner only. Per tank $ 10.00 (c) Other Tanks (Installation modification, removal, abandonment) Each above ground tank $ 30.00 Each below ground tank $ 80.00 For installation or alteration of piping $ 15.00 (22) Benches 805.01 - 805.27 First Year $ 50.00 Renewal $ 25.00 (23) Fire 400.21- 400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 25.00 Prevention Code For each additional fee required under code Per year $ 10.00 If not renewed within 2 months of notification add penalty of $ 15.00 (24) Sign 415.01-415.11 50 sq. ft. or less per sign $ 25.00 Installation Each additional 50 sq. ft. or less - per 50 sq. ft. $ 15.00 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 25.00 (b) Sign support structures based on building permit fee schedule (25) Parking Areas 800.15- 800.23 $ 8.00 (26) Housing 400.11- 400.17 First Unit $ 75.00 Inspection Fee Additional Unit $ 25.00 This fee should apply to each inspection when: 1. Seller calls for minimum housing inspection 2. Homeowner calls for minimum housing inspection 3. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection 4. Government agencies call for minimum housing inspection 5. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Heating and 400.07 Ventilating Installer (2) Sign Installer 16.01- 416.13 (3) Electrical Installer 00.03 - .400.09 State License Required (4) Plumber 400.03- 400.09 State License Required (5) Well Driller 620 State License Required FEE 1 Year $ 60.00 1 Year $ 60.00 • c: • SECTION 4 ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1)* Planned Unit 536 (a) $450 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a Development maximum fee of (2)* C -3 Zoning District 526.39 Site Plan Review Transitional Activity permit 526.63 (3)* Variance 546.09 Variance Appeal (4)* Conditional 546.05 Use Permit (b) PUD Plan Amendment fee (a) $400 plus $5 / $1,000 of project value to a maximum fee of (b) Plan Amendment Fee $300 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a maximum fee of Residential Non Residential Residential and Non Residential (a) change in use (b) new construction or building addition up to 20,000 sq. Ft. (c) new construction or building addition over 20,000 sq. Ft. $550 + $.50 /$1,000 of construction value up to a maximum fee of FEE $3,000.00 $ 500.00 $3,000.00 $ 500.00 $3,000.00 $ 225.00 $ 400.00 $ 75.00 $ 350.00 $ 550.00 $3,000.00 (5)* Zoning District SECTION FEE 1 Year Change 546.07 $ 450.00 (6)* Subdivision 1 105 $ 15.00 Approval 500.01- 500.05 $ 500.00 Subdivision Waiver 500.05- Subd.2 $ 300.00 * Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to the applicant. (7) Off - street Parking Permit 541.07 (a) As part of conditional use permit process No Fee 800.15- 800.23 (8) Street Vacation 820 (9) Forestry Permit 810 (10) Conditional Activity Permit 521.103 (1 1) Nonconforming Use Permit 521.105 (12) Boulevard feature 811.07 Permit (b) In conjunction with permitted use (a) Application to place a privately owned feature in the boulevard SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION FEE 1 Year OR LICENSE REQUIRING 1 Year DESCRIPTION (1) Arcade 1 105 $ 15.00 (2) Amusement 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) Device (b) Mechanical Music Box (c) Video Games $ 300.00 $ 350.00 $ 20.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 20.00 FEE 1 Year $ 300.00 1 Year $ 15.00 1 Year $ 15.00 1 Year $ 15.00 SECTION 5 AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) with option to purchase a multi -year license. (b) Animals (Not Spayed or Neutered) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION Duplicate Animal License (d) Late Penalty OR LICENSE REQUIRING 1 year DE SCRIPTION Residential Kennel 1 year FEE (3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13 Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs Pigeons 1 year (i) Non- domestic Animals (Temporary Permit) (a) Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from State Licensure) 1 year $ 100.00 (State Statute 349.213) (b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee 1 year $ 100.00 (State Statute 349.16) STATE LICENSE REQUIRED (4) Itinerant Place 1100.05-1100.11 1 day $ 160.00 of Amusement (5) Public Dance 1110.03 For each day dances are held - $2 1 month $ 25.00 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. (6) General 1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 year $ 15.00 Amusement 1. Coin operated 1 year $ 15.00 (b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 year $ 25.00 (c) Circus 1 year $ 129.00 (d) Dance Hall 1 day $ 129.00 (e) Golf 1. Miniature 1 year $ 30.00 2. Driving Tee l year $ 30.00 (f) Mountback 1 day $ 124.00 (g) Rides, mechanical /animal of any kind (ea) 1 year $ 15.00 (h) Shows, any kind 1 day $ 124.00 (i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 year $ 14.00 (j) Other games 1 day $ 15.00 (7) Musical Concert 1 1 10.01 (8) Theatre Cinema 1 120 (9) Roller Rink 1 1 15 (10) Commercial Adult- 605 Oriented Enterprises (11) Masseur /Masseuse 605 (12) Public Baths 610 (13) Fortune Teller 1130.05-1130.07 and related trade Per event $ 25.00 Plus a notice publication fee 1 year or portion thereof Investigation fee Certificate fee Investigation fee Investigation fee (actual cost minimum) (14) Adult Establishments 1196 Annual license Investigation fee (new license) SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION 1 year $ 124.00 $ 6.50 $ 124.00 1 year $1,500.00 1 Year $1,500.00 1 year $ 50.00 1 year $ 124.00 1 year $1,737.00 $1,737.00 1 day $ 100.00 1 week $ 300.00 1 month $ 600.00 1 year $1,000.00 1 year $1,500.00 $1, 500.00 OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Animals 905.01- 905.29 (a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) 1 year 905.31- 905.33 905.37- 905.39 905.41 FEE $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 5.50 $ 5.00 $ 150.00 $ 85.00 $ 150.00 $ 30.00 $ 20.00 with option to purchase a multi -year license. (b) Animals (Not Spayed or Neutered) 1 year (c) Duplicate Animal License (d) Late Penalty (e) Commercial Kennel 1 year (f) Residential Kennel 1 year (g) Veterinary (h) Pigeons 1 year (i) Non- domestic Animals (Temporary Permit) FEE $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 5.50 $ 5.00 $ 150.00 $ 85.00 $ 150.00 $ 30.00 $ 20.00 • • 0 SECTION 6 ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) 905.01- 905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1 st time 2nd Time 3rd time (each impound after) SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Bicycle 1335 Minnesota State Registration (2) Aircraft 1340 (3) Food Vehicle 615 (a) Bakery vehicle (4) Garbage and Refuse Collection 601.01- 601.33 (5) Motor Vehicle Dealer 1 155 (6) Motor Bicycle Business 1 160 (7) Sound Truck 1165 (8) Taxicab 1170 (9) Taxicab Driver 1 175 (10) Rental or Utility 1 185 Trailers and Trucks (b) Catering - for first food vehicle Second vehicle Each additional vehicle (c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above) Commercial and Residential First vehicle Each additional vehicle Per place of business Each additional place of business Per place of business Per place of business to sell, rent or lease Per vehicle Per vehicle First vehicle or auto livery Each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license period Each place of business SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01- 920.05 (2) Itinerant Food 615 Establishment $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 75.00 FEE 1 day $ 30.00 1 year $ 75.00 1 year $160.00 1 year $ 65.00 1 year $ 35.00 1 year $150.00 1 year $ 32.00 1 year $225.00 1 year $ 85.00 1 year $129.00 1 year $ 65.00 1 year $129.00 1 day $ 20.00 1 year $325.00 1 year $ 40.00 1 year $ 30.00 1 year $ 65.00 FEE 1 year $1,000.00 1 year (3) Retail Candy 615 First facility 1 year Shop Each additional on same premises 1 year (4) Food Establishment 615 (a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales (Grocery) 1 year (b) Restaurant (Prepackaged food only sold for consumption) 1 year (c) Restaurant (Prepared food sold for consumption) 1 year (d) Plan Review Fee (New /remodeled food preparation facility /veterinary clinic /daycare facility /public swimming pools) (e) Additional Food Facilities (Baked goods, meat, produce, microwave ovens) Each $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 20.00 $210.00 $210.00 $395.00 $200.00 $ 1.00 • SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (5) Vending Machine 615 (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token (6) Automobile Washing Establishment 1125 (7) Scavenger 600.25 (8) Incinerator (9) Tobacco (10) Soft drink (1 1) Transient Merchant (12) Wagon Peddler (13) Christmas Tree Sales (14) Motel (15) Outdoor Merchandising (16) Storage Enclosure (17) Pawnbroker (18) Secondhand Goods Dealer 600.01- 600.23 1 146.01(MS 461.12) 1145.01 (excepting those machines dispensing bottled 1 year or canned soft drinks) 1 year $ 15.00 (b) Other food vending machines (excepting $ 140.00 those dispensing bottled or canned $ 9.00 soft drinks) 1 year $ 15.00 (c) Ice vending machine 1 year $ 15.00 Per calendar year or fraction thereof 56.00 $ 100.00 Each vehicle 1 year $ 30.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping $1,500.00 contents of each cesspool into City sewer 1 year $ 15.00 1 year $ 30.00 Retail Sale and Distribution - License issued on $ 250.00 calendar year (cigarette vending machines prohibited) (Bill No. 1998 -19) (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, fountain service $ 25.00 (b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or cans -0- (c) Other vending machines Per year or fraction thereof $ 25.00 Per each additional machine $ 25.00 1181.01 - 1181.09 1 day $ 60.00 in 1 year $ 150.00 1130.03 1 year $ 80.00 1 190 First Unit $ 140.00 Per year each additional unit $ 9.00 1135 Permit $ 65.00 1135 Per Enclosure $ 56.00 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 year $2,500.00 (b) Owner investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $1,500.00 (c) Manager investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $ 500.00 (d) Employee investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $ 50.00 (e) Transaction fee - per transaction $ 1.50 1 186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 year $ 300.00 (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) $1,200.00 actual costs in excess of above with total not exceeding Applicant shall deposit $1200.00 with Licensing Clerk along with application. Amount in excess of actual application costs shall be refunded. SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) (19) Auto Detailing 1195.01 Establishment 1 year $ 225.00 (20) Tattoo, Body Piercing, 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting Body Painting or Body or body branding 1 year $ 500.00 Branding (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $1,500.00 (21) Temporary Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body 630 per booth $ 30.00 Branding and Body painting events (22) Massage 1188 Annual license 1 year $ 500.00 Therapy Enterprise Investigation fee (new license) $ 500.00 License (Business license) Massage Therapist Annual license 1 year $ 50.00 License (Individual license) Investigation fee (new license) $ 50.00 Temporary Massage Per temporary location $ 100.00 Therapist License SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor 1210 (a) On -Sale 1 year $ 550.00 (b) Tavern (dance) 1 year $ 450.00 (c) Wholesale 1 year $ 21.00 (d) Off -Sale 1 year $ 160.00 (e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 year $ 365.00 (2) Liquor 1200.01 - 1200.25, 1200.29- 1200.39 (a) On -Sale 1 year $11,200.00 1215 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 year $ 200.00 1225 (c) Wine 1 year $ 800.00 1200.01- 1200.25 (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex- Sunday) I year $ 520.00 1200.29 - 1200.39 (3) Employee License 1200.01 - 1200.25, Effective 10 /1 /95 all licenses issued shall be valid On -Sale Liquor 1200.29 - 1200.39 for a period of two years from the date of initial Establishments application $ 21.00 (4) Investigation 1200.01- 1200.25, (a) On -Sale liquor including Veterans' Organization Fee 1200.29 - 1200.39 each person shown on application $500.00 and actual costs in excess of above. Each additional investigation for each person not listed on original or renewal application. $ 150.00 1225 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee $275,00 and actual costs in excess of above with total fee not to exceed $2,107.00 Renewal Application Initial Fee $62.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total cost not to exceed $2,107.00 1200.09 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd. 3 $124.00 and not to exceed $2,107.00 Investigation of substitute manager $ 62.00 11 SECTION 10 -MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Registration 1 181 (2) Permit to reside 1 190 (3) License for 405.25 Apartment Houses and Rental Homes (4) Certificate of 405.26 Housing maintenance Compliance (5) Permit Fee for DESCRIPTION (a) State hawker or Peddler license 6 month /per person covered (b) Canvasser or Solicitor 6 month /per person covered In motel for more than six months (a) Apartment House (includes first 4 Units) l year each additional unit in excess of 4 (b) Rental Home - single family dwelling 1 year (c) Duplexes /double bungalows, triples and quads First unit 1 year Each additional rental unit 1 year (d) Late Fee 10% penalty for each month or portion thereof during which said fee remains unpaid. (e) License Transfer Fee (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50% of license fee (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license 100% of license fee (a) Single family home or owner /occupied portion of a 2- family home Rooming House 405.19 (6) Permit to Carry Mn Uniform Crime Bill (a) Processing Fee a Gun Chapt 636 Article 3 (7) Seasonal Load Limit Exemption (8) Antenna 426 (a) CWTS antenna permit application fee Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Service (b) Antenna permit fee for additional antennas (CWTS) added to an existing antenna location Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11 th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk FEE $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 15.00 $ 60.00 $ 8.50 $60.00 $60.00 $21.00 $10.00 $60.00 1 year $75.00 $10.00 Per load $20.00 $75.00 $25.00 Martin J. Kirsch Mayor n • W-1 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT ## STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 ordtr*W(!.e Q3 345 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a transitory ordinance relating to proposed capital improvements 2001 for the City of Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1.) Approve a transitory ordinance to authorize, in 2001, recreation and open space capital improvements, right -of -way improvements, public facility capital improvements, and 2) Direct staff to conduct a public hearing prior to authorizing work to proceed on projects included in the transitory ordinance. III. BACKGROUND I A public hearing regarding proposed 2001 capital improvement projects was conducted and closed on November 13, 2000. Action on the proposed transitory ordinance was tabled at the close of the public hearing. The proposed transitory ordinance at the first and second reading was as comprehensive as possible at the time to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on improvements scheduled or pending in 2001. The transitory ordinance now before the Council includes only four projects that are identified as Exhibit A. Consistent with Council direction, the four proposed capital improvements identified in the proposed 2001 Capital Improvement Budget as meeting the criteria set forth in the City's Charter for 1211Trans0rdCIB a public hearing will also require another public hearing prior to Council authorizing work to proceed. As other projects, noted in Exhibit B of the first and second reading of the transitory ordinance, come before the Council for consideration, there is an additional opportunity for Council to comment and take action. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A Charter provision mandating an ordinance to authorize certain City projects over $500,000, or with design and /or engineering fees over $75,000, took effect on July 21, 1998. • Notice of the November 13, 2000 public hearing and second reading was published in the Richfield Sun - Current on October 25, November 1 and November 8, 2000. Additional notice was provided by an announcement in the November Your City. • A public open house from 5:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. on November 13, 2000 preceded the public hearing. At the open house maps and brief project descriptions were available and City staff was present to answer any questions from residents. • Residents were encouraged to submit their comments in writing or orally to City staff by November 20, 2000. The one comment received by City staff is noted below. • A new funding source is included in the 2001 Capital Budget. For the first time the Public Utility Commission is planning to allow cities to recover their costs for undergrounding utilities through a fee on electrical utility ratepayers. One resident opposed the use of this fee to place utilities underground. She did not think the work was needed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is the desire of the City to provide the public with an opportunity to comment in a timely manner on proposed improvements scheduled or pending in 2001. • Preparation and execution of Capital Budgets and Capital Improvement Programs are an on -going process. Public input and comment adds definition and clarification to the process. Early consideration enhances the City's chances when applying for certain federal grant programs where Council approval of the Capital Improvements Budget is a requirement. C. FINANCIAL • As noted on the attached summary of proposed 2001 capital improvements and studies, there are a variety of funding sources. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to discuss the Charter provision and the proposed transitory ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may request additional information prior to final consideration of a transitory ordinance. If this option is chosen, the Council should identify the specific additional information requested. • Council may decide that each improvement or proposed improvement must have its own public hearing and transitory ordinance. A public hearing and transitory ordinance for each individual improvement or study may add 60 to 90 days to the approval process needed before a project can be built. As the ordinance is proposed, the November 13, 2000 public hearing complies with the City Charter requirement for those four projects identified as meeting the criteria for a public hearing contained in the City Charter. Pursuant to Council direction an additional public hearing will be provided prior to authorizing work to proceed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed transitory ordinance approving certain improvement projects pursuant to Richfield City Charter Section 8.04. The transitory ordinance considered at first and second reading included Exhibit A, proposed 2001 capital improvement projects and studies related to possible future improvement projects requiring public hearing related to Charter provision, and Exhibit B, proposed 2001 capital improvement projects and studies related to possible future improvement projects (no public hearing required related to Charter provision). The attached transitory ordinance for Council consideration includes only Exhibit A. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING CERTAIN 2001 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background, findings. 1.01 Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on City -owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000 or expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. The City's Department of Public Works has identified capital improvement projects to be constructed in the year 2001. Each project requiring a public hearing to meet the Charter requirement is identified on the attached Exhibit A, together with the location of the project, and the estimated total cost of the project. 1.02 The estimated costs for each of the capital improvement projects listed on the attached Exhibit A include estimated costs for land acquisition, design, engineering, and /or construction. 1.03 The four projects listed on the attached Exhibit A have design and engineering and /or construction costs that exceed the amounts specified in Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter. 1.03 A public hearing was held on November 13, 2000 after due notice as required by Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter. 1.04 The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that these capital improvement projects be approved. Section 2. Approval, effective date. 2.01 The listed capital improvement projects are approved. Land acquisition, planning, design, and /or construction for and of these projects may proceed according to the procedures required by law; provided, that for each project listed on Exhibit A, the City Council must hold and conduct a public hearing prior to entering into a contract that would commit the City to expenditures in excess of $75,000 in design and engineering costs or $500,000 in total estimated costs for that project. Only one public hearing for each project is required. 2.02 The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter and to provide additional notice to Richfield residents regarding other capital improvement projects that are not governed by said Section 8.04. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed with the capital improvement projects; nor does it vest any rights in the listed capital improvement projects to any individual or entity. The City Council reserves the right to abandon any or all of the listed capital improvement projects or to modify elements of the listed capital improvement projects, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest. The funding sources listed in the attached Exhibit A are for informational purposes only; the City Council reserves the right to finance such projects with other or additional funding sources, in accordance with applicable law. 2.03 This ordinance is effective the day following its publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2000. • ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor EXHIBIT A PROPOSED 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND STUDIES RELATED TO POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO CHARTER PROVISION Improvement/Study Title Funding Source(s) Est. Total Location Cost 1. City Maintenance Facility * User Fees $1,050,000 East side of Highway 77 at 66th Street (Total Cost $7,000,000) 2. Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System * Police & Fire Fund $500,000 6700 Portland Avenue 3. Airport Service Pipe * User Fees $650,000 From Water Plant at 6221 Portland to Metropolitan MAC $650,000 Airports Commission in vicinity of 66th Street and Highway 77 4. Richfield Lake Area Stormwater Retention Pond MnDOT $800,000 Approximately bounded by 65th Street, Emerson User Fees $50,000 Avenue, Mildred Drive and Aldrich Avenue * 2001 Proposed Capital Improvement Budget *� The 800 MHz radio system consists of needed equipment used to service the City's 9 -1 -1 communication center. The equipment costs are currently estimated at $466,000 However, the City may hold a hearing for this item in the event costs exceed $500,000 some time in the future. 17-j • • AGENDA SECTION: R1.0 iC' L4car AGENDA ITEM # aC0. REPORT # Z J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a preliminary plat of City Bella. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution granting preliminary approval of a City Bella subdivision for Gramercv Corporation. II. BACKGROUND Gramercy Corporation is proposing a mixed -use development for the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. After general revisions to the plans which modified the amount and type of uses, the development now consists of an apartment, retail and office building at the corner of 66th Street and Lyndale, a mixed use building of cooperative housing units and retail space on Lyndale Avenue, a 1.4 acre urban plaza, a building with cooperative housing units on Lake Shore Drive and underground parking with parking for all uses. The general revision converted the office building on Lyndale Avenue to additional cooperative housing. 1211 CBplat The area currently consists of several small parcels and rights -of -way that are proposed to be vacated. Gramercy is proposing to replat the property and create parcels appropriate for the new development. Four lots would be created: • Lot 1 — apartment, office and retail building and surrounding land area • Lot 2 — cooperative housing and retail building and surrounding land area • Lot 3 — urban plaza • Lot 4 — cooperative housing building and surrounding land area Underground parking would be divided among the uses in the plat with cross access and shared parking agreements. Currently, easements are provided for parts of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. All streets and public sidewalks would be dedicated in the plat as right -of -way. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is important for plats to be filed when new developments are constructed to establish appropriate legal descriptions, dedicate the appropriate rights -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. • Any necessary utility easements will be established in the final plat. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A cross access and shared parking agreement will be necessary to address shared use of the underground parking structure and urban plaza. • Submission of a final plat is a stipulation of the final development plan approval. • A copy of the preliminary plat was submitted to Hennepin County for review. The County Transportation Department reviews all plats adjacent to county roads; 66th Street is a county road. No comments have been received to date. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 29, 2000. • Approval of the plat is contingent upon the developer submitting title evidence and a cross access agreement to the City Attorney for review. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve the plat with revisions. • Do not approve the plat. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving a preliminary subdivision • City Bella, Preliminary Plat VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from Gramercy Corporation will be at the meeting to answer any questions. 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION FOR GRAMERCY CORPORATION WHEREAS, Gramercy Corporation ( "Applicant ") has requested preliminary approval to combine and subdivide several tracts of land located generally southwest of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as CITY BELLA; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed plat of CITY BELLA was held on Monday, December 11, 2000, at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of CITY BELLA satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Preliminary approval is granted to the Applicant for the plat of CITY BELLA, subject to the following conditions: • The developer shall submit title evidence to the City Attorney for review • The developer shall submit cross access and shared parking agreements 40 to the City Attorney for review. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • • • AGENDA SECTION: PLLbIrL kCCLnf1QS AGENDA ITEM # 02 REPORT # '3 =' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Ef REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: [if JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way in the City Bella project area. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Conduct second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way in the City Bella project area. III III. BACKGROUND Gramercy Inc. is proposing to construct a mixed -use development in the Southwest Quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. There are streets, an alley, and a public walkway underlying the development area that need to be vacated for the development to proceed. These right -of -way areas separate the land uses that have existed for several years. The Lyndale Hardware building was built in 1942. The Trestman and Checker Auto buildings have existed since 1952. Through developer acquisition of existing uses and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) redevelopment, seamless connections can occur within the quadrant. The HRA's 1983 Lake Shore 1211 CBvacations Drive Condominium, 2000 Gramercy Park Cooperative and the proposed City Bella can share common boundaries and connections with the vacations. is There is general agreement by adjacent landowners that the right -of -way can be vacated if development occurs; however, ownership of the compensation for the vacated right -of -way is an ongoing discussion topic between the HRA, developer, and adjacent owners. Generally, each half of vacated right -of -way belongs to the property owner on either side of the right -of -way. In the case of the City Bella development, Lake Shore Drive Condominiums and Gramercy Park Cooperative are also adjacent to the right -of- way and may be entitled to half of the right -of -way. The developer, however, needs to use both halves of all vacated right -of -way to provide adequate space for excavation, construction, landscape buffering and pedestrian connections. The Lake Shore Drive Condominiums have expressed a desire to retain half of the right -of -way adjacent to their property, although the open space for the condominium has been approved based on present lot lines since 1983. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the developer would pursue the acquisition of all right -of -way for the project and provide compensation to the appropriate landowners. City Bella is being designed so that no buildings encroach in either half of the right- of -way. There will be no internal roads or alleys. Once construction is complete, a substantial fence (the developer is proposing a brick base with metal railing) would be installed within the right -of -way of Auto Lane and Lake View Walk. Lake Shore Drive Condominiums could be granted a permanent easement to use any open space created by the setback to the fence subject to Gramercy also having sufficient space to maintain the fence. The remainder of the right -of -way south of the fence would be used to provide a landscape buffer between the project and the condominium property. Gramercy Park Cooperative may also be entitled to the portion of Auto Lane and Lake View Walk adjacent to that property. Auto Lane is necessary for the Cooperative and the VFW tenant to provide space for the parking and drive aisle located to the north of the building. Upon completion of construction, Gramercy Park Cooperative would be given an easement to continue to use Auto Lane for parking purposes. If vacated, Lake View Walk would continue as an improved pedestrian connection to the Wood Lake Nature Center. There is also a small portion of Lake Shore Drive to be vacated. The actual right -of- way for Lake Shore Drive curves further to the north than the paved roadway. When Gramercy Park Cooperative was approved, a portion of Lake Shore Drive was vacated in favor of the Cooperative. This additional vacation will continue the right - of -way line that was established with this vacation. A 12 -foot boulevard is maintained behind the street curb. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • With the City Bella development, the rights -of -way would no longer be needed for their existing public purpose. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The developer needs to use both halves of the vacated right -of -way for construction activities and to prevent encroachment on adjacent property. • The developer has agreed to provide a fence and a landscape buffer between the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums and the City Bella. development. The vacated right -of -way between City Bella and the condominiums would be used for this purpose. • Upon completion of construction, City Bella would provide the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums as easement to utilize right -of -way no longer needed for construction activities as open space. City Bella would retain the right to maintain the north side of the fence. • Upon completion of construction, City Bella would provide Gramercy Park Cooperative with an easement to use both halves of Auto Lane for parking purposes. • If the right -of -way spaces are not vacated, it effectively prevents the seamless redevelopment and connection of uses that are desirable. C. FINANCIAL • Both halves of all right -of -way are needed by Gramercy to construct the City Bella development. Compensation would be provided to Lake Shore Drive Condominiums and Gramercy Park Cooperative for use of the portion of the rights -of -way of which they may be entitled. D. LEGAL • The following stipulations would be attached to approval of the right- of -way vacations: • That Gramercy Corporation obtain control over all property within the development area; and • That Gramercy Corporation submit title evidence indicating they have an interest in the right -of -way to be vacated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the vacations. • Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission for further review although the Planning Commission is not required to review vacations. The Commission did review the planned unit development plan and voted unanimously to recommend approval. • Delay the vacation until the compensation and the final fence /landscape plan are determined with adjacent owners; however, these are issues separate from the vacation matter and will be dealt with by the HRA. Gramercy and the Lake Shore Drive Condominium is working cooperatively and expect an agreement by the end of December. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Attachment A: Illustration of easements to be vacated VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative from Gramercy Corporation will be at the meeting to answer any questions. • BILL NO. 0 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY (Portions of Lake Shore Drive, Lake View Walk, Graham Avenue, Circle Place, and Auto Lane) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: The following described land ( "Area to be Vacated ") is subject to an easement for public right -of -way purposes ( "Right -of- way Easements ") That part of Lake Shore Drive and Lake View Walk, as dedicated in the plat of "FAIRWOOD SHORES ", Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northeasterly of a line beginning at the most westerly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, GRAMERCY PARK RICHFIELD, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 17, Block 3, said "FAIRWOOD SHORES ", distant 42.31 feet northwesterly, measured along said southwesterly line, from the most southerly corner of said Lot 17, and which lies southwesterly of Graham Avenue as dedicated in said "FAIRWOOD SHORES ". That part of Auto Lane, as dedicated in the plat of "FAIRWOOD SHORES ", Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southeasterly of the southeasterly line of Lot 15, Block 3, said "FAIRWOOD SHORES" and its northeasterly extension. That part of Graham Avenue and Circle Place, as dedicated in the plat of "FAIRWOOD SHORES," Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies easterly of a line beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, said "FAIRWOOD SHORES ", to the southwesterly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, said "FAIRWOOD SHORES" and its extensions northerly and southerly, excepting that part previously vacated, described as follows: That part of Circle Place as platted in "Fairwood Shores" described as follows: Beginning at a point in the southerly line of Lot 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" therein distant 47 feet westerly from the southeast corner of the said Lot 14; thence southerly, parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 14 and its southerly extension, a distance of 26 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 14 and its westerly extension, to the intersection with a line drawn from the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, to the southwesterly corner of Lot 11, Bock 1, "Fairwood Shores "; thence northeasterly, along said line so drawn, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 11; thence easterly, along the southerly line of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" to the point of beginning. Sec. 2: The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Area to be Vacated. Sec. 3: The Council finds that the proposed vacation of the Right -of -way Easements over the Area to be Vacated will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to is maintain, repair or replace any utility facilities that may be located within the Area to be Vacated. Sec. 4: The Council finds that, at such time that Gramercy Corporation holds title to all property adjacent to the Area to be Vacated, there will no longer be a public need for the Right -of -way Easements. Sec. 5: The Right -of -way Easements over the Area to be Vacated, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, are hereby vacated. Sec. 6: The vacation will be effective 30 days following publication. The City Clerk is directed not to publish this ordinance until Gramercy Corporation has produced evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that Gramercy Corporation owns all of the properties adjacent to the Area to be Vacated. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 • AGENDA SECTION: PC J I I G 4eo-Y'L AGENDA ITEM # ao REPORT # 3(4-2- STAFF REPORT =Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Uf JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME; TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a final development plan (FDP) and conditional use permit (CUP) for the City Bella project located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution approving a final development plan and conditional use permit for the City Bella project to allow construction of a mixed use residential /retail /office complex in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lvndale Avenue. III. BACKGROUND I Gramercy Corporation is proposing to develop City Bella: a mixed use project with housing, office and retail uses surrounding a central plaza. The development includes the following components: • 19 -story building with 251 apartment units over 33,250 square feet of office - retail- restaurant, and private health club at the corner of 66th and Lyndale • Seven -story building on Lyndale Avenue with 48 units of cooperative housing units and approximately 11,800 square feet of first floor retail space and housing management office space; 1211 citybellaMP • Two -level underground parking structure with 663 parking spaces to service the housing and retail /office needs, and an additional nine surface stalls; Three -story building with 34 units of cooperative housing on Lake Shore Drive with 55 parking spaces, primarily below ground; • A 1.4 acre urban plaza; • A pedestrian connection to Wood Lake Nature Center; and • Accommodation for future skyway connections to Woodlake Centre and Market Plaza. The seven -story building on Lyndale Avenue was originally proposed to be an office building; however, further refinement of the financial component has indicated that housing instead of office would be a better fit for the development. For this reason, 48 cooperative housing units (general occupancy) are proposed for this building with first floor service retail space and space for the housing management office. Access: Access to the development will be off of 66th Street, Lyndale and Lake Shore Drive. Right -in, right -out only access points will be provided on 66th Street and on Lyndale Avenue, between the two buildings. A full, signalized access will be provided on Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street. Access on Lake Shore Drive will be to the cooperative housing units only. Turn - around areas will be provided for all three buildings which will also provide access for emergency vehicles. Traffic: An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the project. A traffic study is a part of that document. Overall operation of the intersections in the vicinity will continue to operate at Level of Service D and above (the standard for urban intersections). The change in the proposed uses from office to 48 cooperative housing units reduces the traffic generated by the development and slightly improves levels of service. Parking: 663 total parking stalls will be provided for the apartments, co -ops, and retail /office /restaurant components. Parking assumptions for the uses are as follows: Office: 4 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 17,916 s.f. = 71 stalls Retail (co -op): 4.5 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 11,836 s.f. = 53 stalls Retail (19 -story tower): 4.5 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 9,439 s.f. = 42 stalls Restaurant: 20 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 3,750 s.f. = 75 stalls (150 seats max.) Housing: 1.75 stalls per unit @ 299 units = 524 stalls Because the office /retail and housing uses have opposite peak demand times, shared parking can be utilized. During the day, the office, retail and restaurant will have peak demand for approximately 226 stalls (restaurant demand will be 60 because lunch is typically 80% of peak). This leaves 437 stalls for the housing components. During the evening, the housing and restaurant and retail uses will require 641 spaces leaving 22 surplus spaces. Retail uses in the cooperative building are proposed to be service uses without evening hours and demand for parking. There will be no charge for use of the parking. Fifty -five parking spaces will also be provided for the senior cooperative building, at a ratio of 1.6 stalls per unit. Connections are proposed between the cooperative building on Lake Shore Drive and the Gramercy Park Cooperative for visitors to access the main parking structure as well. Building Height: The proposed building height of the apartment/office /retail building at the corner of 66th and Lyndale is 19 stories. There will be two "wings" of the building at the ground level that will be six stories in height. The 19 -story portion of the building will step back from these "wings." This height is several stories taller than the other condominium and apartment buildings in the area (Lake Shore Drive, 11 stories; Market Plaza, 9 stories; Woodlake Point, 13 stories; Gramercy, 12 stories). A review of the building height issue (written at a time when the proposed height was 21 stories) by the Hoisington Koegler Group (HGKi), authors of the Lakes at Lyndale plan, is included as Attachment I. The key points HKGi makes is that this intersection is the best place within the downtown area to have such a building and that the first two levels need to be at a pedestrian scale. The proposed tower plan accomplishes the second point with the office, retail and health club space being proposed on the first two levels. The cooperative housing and retail building on Lyndale Avenue was originally proposed to be five stories (63 feet) in height. Seven stories (75 feet) are proposed for the housing component to provide a sufficient number of units while maintaining the same building footprint. This housing would not be age restricted. The height of the three -story cooperative housing has also been a concern for the Lake Shore Drive condominium residents and the design of the building's roof has been modified to further reduce the building's height. The cooperative will be approximately 11 feet higher than the residential house that currently sits on the property. Plaza, Landscaping and Streetscape: A primary focus of the development is the central plaza area. The plaza provides open space for all components of the development as well as the 160 -unit Gramercy Park Cooperative. Pedestrian connections will also make this an open space which will benefit Lake Shore Drive Condominium residents. Because a parking structure exists underneath the plaza, large shade trees are not possible throughout much of the site. Ornamental trees and other landscaping will be provided throughout the plaza area. A wrought iron fence will be provided between the development and the Lake Shore Drive condominiums, at the request of the condominium residents. Access to the plaza for condominium residents will be controlled through a gate. The streetscape design (e.g. sidewalk, pedestrian lighting, boulevard landscaping) along Lyndale and 66th Street will complement the streetscape at Woodlake Centre. The goals of the plaza space include the following: creating a destination, developing an inviting place to gather, strengthening connections to surrounding uses, creating a green place, creating a year -round space, conveying a sense of safety and security, enhancing visual /physical accessibility, accommodating a mix of uses, exploring opportunities for public arts projects. SPedestrian Connections: Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the development among the various uses. A connection to the Woodlake Centre development will be provided on the street level at 66th and 67th Streets. The corner tower will be constructed to accommodate a skyway at some time in the future. A street level connection will also be provided to Wood Lake Nature Center at a designated crosswalk. Pedestrian access to the plaza from the Gramercy Park Cooperative and the Lake Shore Drive condominiums will also be provided. Adjacent Land Uses: Gramercy has worked extensively with representatives from the Lake Shore Drive condominiums to address concerns raised by the condominium residents. Attachment H details concerns the plan and responses by the developer and staff. IIL BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. • The proposal is consistent with the 1999 Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan. The project components consistent with the Master Plan include providing housing opportunities, minimizing the appearance of parking, and creating pedestrian - friendly spaces and connections among uses. • The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan references the Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan as the vision for the area. The Comprehensive Plan also designates the area between the Gramercy Park Cooperative and 66th Street as Community Commercial and the area on Lake Shore Drive as High Density Multiple Residential. Mixed use development is encouraged in the Community Commercial designation. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the project. The EAW process will be completed on December 11. A final decision on the planned unit development plan and rezoning can be made after consideration of the EAW. • City parking standards require four stalls per 1,000 s.f. for retail and office space and one stall for every two full service restaurant spaces. Multi- family housing requires two stalls for each unit; however, the Council can reduce that requirement to 1.25 stalls per unit if factors such as transit availability, shared parking and pedestrian orientation are present. Adequate parking is proposed for the development; proposed parking meets or exceeds City standards. • Trash removal will take place at a central location at Lyndale Avenue and the rear access to the VFW and Gramercy Park Cooperative. A trash enclosure will be designed in the same architectural style as the principal buildings. Trash will be brought from the apartment and co- op buildings through the parking structure to the enclosure for removal. This central enclosure will also serve the VFW, which currently has a temporary enclosure located in the rear parking area. • The proposed plaza provides a significant amenity to the development and the community. The amount of open space provided by the plaza is significantly greater than other high density multi - family developments in the area. INANCIAL • The HRA will consider providing financial assistance to the development through the use of tax increment financing at their December meeting. D. LEGAL A final decision cannot be made on the FDP and CUP until the EAW is found to be adequate. • On October 24, 2000 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning and PUD plan. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun- Current on November 29, 2000. Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. • The City Council must approve the FDP and CUP by two- thirds vote of the full Council. • Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a tree protection plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 3. That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 6. That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 7. That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 8. That a plan for an odor control system for any restaurant be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 9. That a final plan for trash storage and removal be approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 10. That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 11. That the developer submit a final plat. 12. That a plan for parking during construction be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. 13. That a left turn arrow be installed at the traffic signal at 66th Street and Lake Shore Drive. 14. That a landscaped center median be installed in Lake Shore Drive. 15. That a final determination regarding traffic impacts be made and any necessary improvements needed to maintain adequate levels of service be made, subject to the approval of the Community Development and Public Works Directors. 16. That an interim parking plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors for the 2001 to 2003 construction period. 17. That a resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, subdivision 1. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Deny the FDP and CUP with the finding that the proposed development would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. • Deny the FDP and CUP with a finding that the EAW was found to be inadequate. • Continue action on the FDP and CUP until final action is taken on the EAW. • Return item to Planning Commission for further review of Land uses. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Attachment A: Current and proposed land uses • Attachment B: Existing conditions • Attachment C: Proposed site plan • Attachment D: Building elevations (3) • Attachment E: Landscape concept plan (2) • Attachment F: Floor plans (2) • Attachment G: Comments and responses to public comments • Attachment H: Letter from HKGi re: building height VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Gramercy Corporation will be available for a brief presentation and to answer any questions. • RESOLUTION NO. 0 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY BELLA PROJECT WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a final development plan and conditional use permit for a mixed use development on land generally located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, legally described in Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request for a final development plan and conditional use permit on October 24, 2000 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. WHEREAS, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, for the project has been found adequate. WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on November 29, 2000. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the final development plan and conditional use permit on December 11, 2000. WHEREAS, the proposed mixed -use development is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: A. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." B. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to "Maintain and enhance Richfield's image as a distinct and livable community." C. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "maintain and provide quality amenities and a safe living environment for all residents." D. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "develop pedestrian and bike facilities that are functional, attractive, safe and accessible." E. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "promote the development of housing stock that is available to all income levels." F. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "minimize the impacts of parking." G. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." H. The development is consistent with the description of the Lyndale -HUB- Nicollet subarea plan that states as follows: "Mixed use projects incorporating high density single and multiple family housing and commercial uses would be encouraged throughout the Lakes at Lyndale area." I. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the master plan, The Lakes at Lyndale: the Richfield Lake Area Plan, and the proposed development is consistent with the following objectives of the master plan: take advantage of opportunities to provide more and varied housing and use redevelopment to provide new commercial investment and upgrade commercial /retail. WHEREAS, The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The design is also consistent with the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale plan. The proposed project is consistent with the tax increment financing plan for the area. WHEREAS, The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Adequate provision has been made for lighting, traffic, parking, landscaping, utilities, exterior treatment of buildings, screening mechanical equipment, dumpster enclosures and stormwater management. WHEREAS, The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: There are adequate facilities, utilities and services to support the development. WHEREAS, The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. WHEREAS, There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. The area has been identified for mixed use development in the Lakes at Lyndale plan. The Lakes at Lyndale plan calls for increased housing densities in the downtown area. WHEREAS, The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Office, retail and multi- family housing are allowable uses in the PC -2 district. WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. A final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for a mixed -use development as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described in Exhibit A. 3. , The final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to completing the following conditions before a certificate of occupancy will be issued: • That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That a tree protection plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a plan for an odor control system for any restaurant be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a final plan for trash storage and removal be approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That the developer submit a final plat. • That a plan for parking during construction be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. • That a left turn arrow be installed at the traffic signal at 66th Street and Lake Shore Drive. • That a landscaped center median be installed in Lake Shore Drive. • That a final determination regarding traffic impacts be made and any necessary improvements needed to maintain adequate levels of service be made, subject to the approval of the Community Development and Public Works Directors. • That an interim parking plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors for the 2001 to 2003 construction period. • That a resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 4. The final development plan and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or-more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk MEN D� j ` 0 0 1 0 i j I j 11 f \lqa •F" ; rt L� `P � `yam � I ! � / 1 ,��, / I ` � j � i � N1, 1 ��g lip'�S • / Wit% o ®� t i /A.4 ' � r..j. �X/4,° �\ �t \\�•i �� / /�� w•oQ.g�88$i" �- 1 ` �\ yY' � i 88a�dad r+f' ;1 Y 4 J\ l ' i�?aT, ao&kt KID! �♦ r ?;, \�A •ri" .� " ��. a � • \`� �� � � aj � �x ,j:1.h1�- �'� ,'r � � t - � �; ., lF F F / j r Au sx tA1l- ift `�`'�+��� t �ItF 1. ,s-f .'` � \ ��•� � � � " �i.s_ � - � �.`k � rluf - i ! ` \`" �, •' l (rry�rs �'�^ \ t � �! F t A F iI �''�'.. *- ,•::L?. A ti -!` %.\ !�i' -s:� �� \ � Vi i1J. `- � � !yh ..Y �f i �a 5��� i �•,® \V — 1 - -DTs F i yH j a r I ! °.M.v �` f �.1' -� j•. /`tj• ..,1 ��. ?jr ..li \. "a41. !�° 11.m`°�F •t i. ( �- /`4y i •;g � ,yam f�j S t !. � � " r r � F j� I F�pg� IQ / ! � _ t 1 ! t It � j � i �¢�� "'�! �•...$8� `y I! •�v j f'RI��E �� ] Ig�igl � � .., tq;!FJ 1 it T t �: j F i ! 1 ..1 1} 11-b gpi 111001 1 i, �� '�� ;,�°':, � \-::�. tea,. _ ; 7 \r. f x�~ � :.. � '• F � I. — ', - • .� 84 �{ t tot ` � --� � j F�<�, t �� � !�j` � ���TTT /fit V. M+, 4 �t� • T A a -- ti • j� I I i I 1 ,) 'Y 1 F' 9 I 1 A 1 g 4 e! Ili. t I > t j` �il 11 g m0 a' I. 1 �r Li I _ Icy a i C7 H w 3 I3lN > t j` �il 11 g m0 a' I. 1 �r Li I _ Icy a i C7 H w b o u e O r 0 is r I Z t I D t r f rn I� D � I � I rn Z , 1 c I rn I I I N I ' I O � I c ( I i . I _ � I r� I I I I I I 0 I • 0 0� rn N X09 � ygS A zn Z or mm m 1 5 r a a 3 m z L �mm ML-' i \! m _ SON) � I�'il�� 1111111 L'Ilall �Illllll lullllllfllll '�� _ .. lilt► i!IUIr iiimu ililu►I►111i111 ®�� - ��i�� U('lllllllUlll ll'llllillllllll 011!IIIUI!IIII III'IUIIIUIIIIi . IiIIIIIIIIIIUIIII I Ip� I �r• I� I I I; i� �=_ • ,� -- `I�IIIIIt ��i1�!LIIIIiiiilA�tunlll+I111 �. I by Gramercy Corpora Richfield, Minnee, ■�� \�I` III X111111 "!� III! I � i � -_' '�IIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�II � /II!`'l;itji;�l[�� 1 I I I � I � _'�'�' ■li�,``f►\\` ■�� ,�dlll illl I' illllillllllllll I IiIIIIIII�I�III i�� I VIII' ►11�Ilillll � h ����� �� Ilia _ f_ go �,�� 111 ■I =t �[ :�Ililf ' � tl .I FRANA AND SONS I :CI GENERAL CONT12ACT Mhllhllllllllll �81111111h�����iilii i�111111111�I�il�lii�IIIIIIIIIIIF � A` ` o / �� ��' ''I'� "'1 °'' ►������iii` III �'lllllllllllllli' Il i�!II,!11�;1�;�i� ►, 1�i��i'►4'��0j�l� III r ■attri'Iv �'i��l;'�,����is,,4; �I! IIIIIIIIIIIIII ►;�!II�I�I� \�;''!►�Mi14I liIm Ij ' III "��IIN', III'""""" IIU�I(► I''°" �'° hlVllllll11U111'''[ 1alIIUIIIIIIINI�illlilpllllhlllllllli�j�a 'IWr l -nip, 11011 101111 lfi ( J iW �Illllll lllf�;Il;illl�;l!iO�i�'' ;%� III ilia 1 IIIIII�IIIIII ► ��, ►,,,,,' , NIINIIIIII( �i ANN k .�,, it ire �� z O rn rn 1 6 z rn Nj rn lit Ln ql O rTT r m I m z 0 91 w ro-- - ------ - 0 z Q P DD Im BE � tz V 2T tz NH- z 0 [D C J fD ¢¢4�f r"! Q.. (D A �D G7 a 0 . 0 d r It D z c m i 1 � Lo i• s I I I I I I I � I� v � i� �p�� O rn��om�m h r N Q °� ° S ° 0 m_om 7 e vp � � �7 # � i I I�•I3 p{ 1� l 1 p o Q / �.�. sa, Ohm ?�ma�saam7 O Al n m° 00 C � till i ?^ • A � � a � a b E ��V, 1 14 R G O y c fir. a o _ ire B fig y CD A d IQL Z _ a 3. u fD b r o pr O o � OVWvPNA WN- v O rn��om�m h r N Q °� ° S ° 0 m_om 7 �3n�m' m ten °�>>a vp p o Q / �.�. sa, Ohm ?�ma�saam7 O Al n m° 00 C � N�,gnQ <c�sm oC, I C o o' .5��•« 2�47Nv °gig s 7C <�om °ma.oa m�y� mo��o ®. ? 0 , a LD o n c < 3 oq jQ w�N�'n � p� ° m �.. 0 3 7 N ° °fig In z F 0 f° �m y CD A d IQL Z _ a 3. u fD b r o pr O o � 1'11 i O N y CD A d IQL Z _ a 3. u fD b r o pr O o � • a G gg g z EIS ix8g� �,9Ci i C fluff I fill I? . kit 11 110 YSYYStA T V• 1 W �rw> M n n r _'.t I. Q m 1�Y-J., _. i ILI ?'fly • a G gg g z EIS ix8g� �,9Ci i C fluff I fill I? . kit 11 110 YSYYStA T V• 1 W �rw> M n n r _'.t I. Q m d o�x IF YOU GAN READ THIS ON A HARD DOPY DRAWING YOU ARE NOT USING THE KKE PEN SETTING STAPLE LINE I ' � .i. l •.000- •/- •l0000. P� 8�� m ~f m N.oN >.. e3 K IRI o r— rn Fly rm n pr Z r. ►� pr I H H n H ftJ a as IF YOU GAN READ THIS ON A HARD COPY DRAWING YOU ARE NOT USING THE KKE PEN SETTING STAPLE LINE I _ o >7� ° n 7 6$ c g 4 > s S N m'm0 m rr pr Q� d r s OgR O+ H 9 tTJ z H rrJ Attachment G 0 Citizen Comments and Responses by the Developer and Staff regarding City Bella December 4, 2000 Fred Moore— Lake Shore Drive (LSD) Condominium -- Gramercy — was a mistake to allow it without enough guests parking -- Others will use the LSD parking deck -- Gramercy allows pets. Where will they go with their pets? Responses: • Gramercy has sufficient parking. However, construction vehicles and visitors choose to park at Woodlake Nature Centre rather than behind the Gramercy building. In a couple of instances, special events at Gramercy have overwhelmed the Woodlake Nature Centre parking across the street. The developer is working on modifying habits and staff is evaluating the conflict to determine options. Allowing parking on Lake Shore Drive Street is one of the options. • There is no reason to use LSD's parking deck. • Only 4 of 160 households have dogs. City Ordinance regulates leashing and clean up if there are individual concerns. A similar ratio of dog owners in the proposed cooperatives would result in one additional dog, respectively. Carl Cornell — LSD Condos -- Villas 20 feet from LSD building -- Wooden trash enclosure for the VFW -- Shouldn't use TIF -- West side of Gramercy- electrical boxes — where will these be for the villas? Responses: • The proposed Villa is 83 feet from the LSD building. • The wooden trash enclosure is constructed and located in the parking area behind the Cooperative. The plan for City Bella provides a permanent trash structure to replace the fenced one. If City Bella doesn't proceed, a permanent structure that matches existing conditions is required to be built. • TIF is used in those instances where redevelopment has been proposed and could not occur without those resources • Electrical boxes west of Gramercy provide for emergency standby power generation. This type of generation is not required for the Villa. The exact location and screening of any exterior utility services at the Villa have not been finalized yet, but are anticipated to be located near the front of the building. Connie McDonald -- Concern with 19 -story building — going to block views -- Questions regarding apartments: size, cost -- Questions regarding size and price of co -ops - -Plaza area — steps in plaza — need to consider accessibility for seniors -- Visitor parking for co -op needed Responses: • The Planning Commission discussed the height of the building. If the height is lowered, it creates a larger, albeit lower height building mass and the building foot print increases. As a result, views are blocked and the size of the plaza and open space significantly reduced. • The placement of the tower is designed to minimize the blockage of views. • Planning Consultant Hosington- Koegler determined that this may be the best downtown location for a tower. More important to design is the treatment of the first three floors so that they have a connection to the street. • The design, cost, and price of units is still being worked on. The cooperative building and rental units are being designed with market pricing. The developer continues to analyze the affordable housing element and this will be discussed further with the HRA on December 18. • Steps and alternative, more accessible, pedestrian connections will be included. Jeanne Kauth — LSD -- Concerned about parking - -Is WLNC considered overflow parking? Need to make policy clear. - -VFW is unhappy about their parking situation -- Thinks underground parking is pay parking -- Drawing of the tower isn't accurate - -Too tall - overpowering effect -- Appreciates lower pitched roof - -They want to see a footprint of the building — too close to the lot line — will be taller than three stories if underground parking sticking up above grade Responses: • Woodlake Nature Centre has been used for parking during construction and move -in. Visitors continue to park there. It is proposed that a temporary parking area be developed within City Bella during construction to ensure improved on- site parking for construction and overflow needs. Staff is also evaluating off - street parking policies at Woodlake Nature Centre to respond to concerns. • The VFW has not indicated there is a parking problem. However, they are working with members to advise where parking is available. • Public parking within the City Bella ramp will be free. Mary George — LSD -- Inaccurate colored pictures - -How close is co -op to the LSD condo building - -Honor LSD property line -- Promises are only verbal — want the following in writing: - -no road • - -won't destroy gardens alleys and roadways -- elevation between LSD condos and new coop — needs to be attractive - can't visualize the results 2 - -wants to save trees — wants to be reimbursed for them - -Lynch parking area is leased to them by LSD condos. What happens to that area? -- concerned about risk to their garage structure (bond to protect interest) - -Where will ice skating rink be? - -How close can structures be? - -Still don't understand setbacks Responses: • Revised drawings, the closeness of the buildings, and setbacks were shared with the LSD Association task force on November. 29. • No roads are included in the City Bella proposal • LSD property and their gardens will not be affected by the proposed plans. • LSD trees will not be affected by the proposed plans • Gramercy is not interested in continuing the land lease that LSD Condominium may have with the Lynch property. It is anticipated that Gramercy could restore the open space if LSD requests this. • The construction company, Franna and Sons would like to work with the Condominium on protecting the existing ramp from construction effects. This would include a bond or other form of security. Ray Johnson -- LSD - -LSD shares easement of the alley -- They're taking over LSD's share of this property S- -Don't want to share LSD parking - -Who will maintain the public plaza? -- Gramercy wants LSD to perform a soil test and survey (in purchase agreement for Lot 17) Responses: • LSD may have misinterpreted the purchase agreement Gramercy has offered concerning soil testing and survey. The LSD was encouraged to clarify this issue directly with Gramercy. • The public plaza will be maintained by the developer or their designated agent. (The plaza is actually the roof of the parking ramp.) • The entire right -of -way is needed by Gramercy for excavation, construction, landscape buffering and fencing, and development of pedestrian connections. The agreement for the shared use of the vacated right -of -way is being worked on by Gramercy and LSD during December. Larry Wozniczka - -Too dense for the area maintain suburban provision of adequate parking per property - -Need room to walk dogs -- Paying for parking is not acceptable - -Use of WLNC for private development — should come before City Council go - -On -site drainage — need a holding area? - -Vote against it -- Haven't seen enough specifics for FDP 3 • 0 Responses: The PUD process allows for this density. The Master Plan for Lakes at Lyndale encourages this density. • Adequate parking is proposed, both during construction and after construction. • The public plaza would not have pet restrictions. • Public parking is free in the ramp. • Storm water is directed to Richfield Lake as further discussed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Planning Commission Comments Donna Drummond - -Good project - -The open space plaza will be an asset for everyone Bill Kilian - -It's possible we may have too much parking because the retail and office space will be used by residents too. -Hopes that agreements can be reached without using eminent domain David Gepner - -Add bike racks Response: Bike racks will be added. Terry Ahlstrom -- Appreciate the efforts made to accommodate the neighbors Gordon Hanson , -- Chooses the larger plaza over having a shorter building Brenda Biorklund -- Appreciates the plaza and the pedestrian features -- Impressed by the valuable citizen comments and by the efforts the developer and residents have made to work together General Planning Commission Comments /Questions: Questions: • Building materials? • Exact location of fence? • Status of purchase agreements? • Phasing of construction? • What's the agreement with the Nature Center 4 Responses: Brick and stucco proposed Within the vacated right -of -way Agreements with Lynch and Lyndale Hardware. Offers to LSD Condominium and Trestman. Checker indicates condemnation maybe necessary because of leasing. Villa; April 2001 to April 2002 Tower; April 2001 to April 2003 Lyndale Avenue Cooperative; April 2002 to April 2003 Plaza; by 2003 Staff is reviewing the present situation to regarding parking? provide the City Council with feedback. • Will there be parking issues with Champp's? Should be heavy along the edges None are anticipated. Plantings are proposed plantings • Will the Fire Department need new No equipment/facilities to deal with a 19 -story building? • How does the architecture relate to other Final design still underway. City Bella is buildings in the area? more similar in design to Gramercy Park than LSD. • Need more detail on the crossing to Woodlake A crosswalk with a center median pedestrian Nature Center island and traffic control . signals are being discussed as ways to quiet traffic and make a safe pedestrian crossing. ATTACMENT H Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. IMIN fn I September 2000 Mr. Bruce Nordquist City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Review of City Bella Concept 66' Street and Lyndale Avenue Dear Bruce, As requested, we have summarized our insights about the proposed City Bella development for your records in this letter. Our comments are based on the review of the project on 17 August 2000. Our understanding of the project is as follows: • The proposed development will eliminate all existing development north of Grammercy and east of Lake Shore Drive condominiums • The previous development proposal for this site (by the salve developer) demonstrated an 18 story building; the current proposal shows three additional stories that accommodate co -op apartments that have been very successful at Grammercy • The proposed development includes a 21 -story tower at the comer of 66's Street and Lyndale Avenue, with lower "wings" (approximately 5 stories) generally along 66's Street and Lyndale Avenue; a separate 6 -story building is proposed south of the larger - building along Lyndale Avenue • Parking for the project is accommodated in an underground garage that basically extends across the entire site • The tower will be largely residential, with commercial uses at street level; the "wings" may include office and residential uses and a health club • The separated 6- story building will include retail and office uses Our review of the proposal will deal with three broad areas: • . Development context and conformance with Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan • Site and building design • Context within the City of Richfield • References and examples Development Context and Conformance with Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan The critical issue in terms of the city review of the concept proposed by the developer is the height of the building and a determination if it is out of context with other development in the area or in conformance with the master plan for Lakes at Lyndale. Nearby development in generally in the range of 12 stories west of Lyndale Avenue; the Richfield Bank Building on the east side of Lyndale Avenue is 6 stories. Woodlake Center (adjacent to the Richfield Bank Building and the Woodlake Clinic) is three stories. At 21 stories, the proposed development is considerably taller than any other buildings in the area. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1659 Ph (612) 33&0800 Fx (612) 33 96838 Mr. Bruce Nordquist Review of City Bella Concept 1 September 2000 Page 2 The master plan suggests that taller buildings be located within the "core' of the master plan area (an area bounded by Lake Shore Drive on the west, 67b Street on the south, the railroad on the east and 650' Street on the north). While - taller buildings are suggested, the plan does not indicate how tall these buildings might be, and the guidelines do not specifically restrict a building of this size. The master plan indicates the K -Mart site will be redeveloped with office, housing and entertainment uses. It should be considered likely that any development on that site will be quite tall (for certain, it will be taller than most surrounding development). Having another tall building at the intersection of 66' Street and - Lyndale Avenue will balance the height of the City Bella proposal. Site and Building Design The proposed development seems appropriately sited, with buildings that address the public sidewalk and a significant open space element at the center of the block. The exact setback from the rights -of -way at 660' Street and Lyndale Avenue could not be determined from the concept sketches. It would seem appropriate that setbacks similar to Woodlake Center be used (approximately 15 to 20 feet). A similar setback might be used at other developments in the area to maintain a more consistent pedestrian experience along 66h Street and Lyndale Avenue. Wherever possible, the design of the site should invite people on the public sidewalks into the open spaces at the center of the site. Where this occurs following entry drives or parking areas, the experience should be separated to the greatest degree possible so that the focus remains on the site features and not on parking. The ways in which the building "breaks down is important. The lower scaled "wings" and the separated building form reasonable transitions to nearby development (especially relative to the Richfield Bank Building, which is 6 stories). The tower elements appeared to have a "base" of about 3 stories, which complements Woodlake Center. The tower element was set back from the base, but the amount of setback could not be determined from the drawings. Separation of the tower from the base is critical; further design should demonstrate how this relationship can be achieved so that the tower does not overwhelm the street. The design of the building seemed to show an articulation of the fagade with banding, balconies and other elements that will help provide scale to the building. Real balconies should be encouraged (balconies that people will actually use). Context within the City of)�ichfteld While this would be a tall building in any part of Richfield, or in any other suburban city for that matter, there is probably not a better location for it in Richfield than at this corner. The Lakes at Lyndale master plan suggests that this part of the city will ultimately become "downtown (especially when the area that includes the Hub is considered). Tall buildings in a downtown might be expected; if the development were proposed in any of the other commercial redevelopment nodes in Richfield it would seem to be sorely out of place. Here, the addition of a tall building makes sense, and we believe it will fit more directly into the fabric of the city. Ultimately, the difference between a 21 -story building and the previously proposed 18 -story building is probably not significant. In terms of the area, the aesthetics of the intersection and the pedestrian • • r [J Mr. Brace NordPW Review of City Bella Concept 1 September 2000 Page 3 experience advocated by the master plan may be more important considerations. A lower scale base — one that mimics the height of Woodlake Center — and a taller tower element can certainly be achieved without diminishing the pedestrian experience and without overwhelming the street. Further design explorations by the developer should be oriented to proving that the project satisfies those considerations. And- as-the eity looks to the future, the ability to introduce large buildings at the K -Mart site and, if possible, to replace the parking lot at Champs with a building as welt, will create an identifiable center for the community's "downtown." References and Examples There do not seem to be a lot of reference points for a project like this. Tall buildings in suburbs tend to be isolated or surrounded by parking lots. Laurel Village in Minneapolis might be a reasonable example. There are two towers of approximately the same height as the City Bella proposal, and the design employs a 3 story base that forms a strong relationship with the street. The design of the buildings is quite different than that shown on the City Bella sketches, but it does use some of the ve basic architectural a few concepts (the notion of a base, a set back tower, and lower scaled "wings ,)• photographs of Laurel Village as an attachment to this letter. Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. r-nom. R. Mark Koegler Michael Schroeder Mr. Bruce Nordquist Review of City Bella Concept 1 September 2000 Page 4 Laurel Village: three and four story base Laurel Village: three and four story base of residential of residential and street level retail (with residential and street level retail base (with tower set at tower set back from street edge in the street edge in the background) background) Laurel Village: residential tower set back Laurel Village: three and four story base at street level from street behind four story base of parking and street level retail Q TL• _ Laurel Village:. three and four story base Laurel Village: residential tower set back from of residential and street level retail street behind four story base of parking and street level retail • • • AGENDA SECTION: PtjC4I Y j AGENDA ITEM # L9 REPORT # 341 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a planned unit development plan and an ordinance amendment rezoning land located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue from R (single family residential) and C -2 (general commercial) to PC -2 (planned aeneral commercial) for the Citv Bella Droiect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion Conduct second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning land located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue from R and C- 2 to PC -2 and approve a planned unit development plan for the City Bella Dro II. BACKGROUND The southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue has been part of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) redevelopment strategy since 1975. The acquisition and clearance of property in 1981 led to the construction of the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums. Similar actions in 1998 led to the development of Gramercy Park Cooperative on Lake Shore Drive. The remaining part of the quadrant (Lyndale Hardware, Trestman Music, Checker Auto Parts, and residential parcels fronting on Lake Shore Drive) 1211 citybellaPUD represent the boundary for the area yet to be redeveloped. In January 2000, the HRA entered into an exclusive rights agreement with Gramercy Corporation to study the feasibility of redeveloping the remaining area, and in July, 2000, the HRA approved a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Gramercy. Gramercy is proposing to construct a mixed use development in the southwest quadrant. The area would be rezoned to a planned unit development. The City Bella development includes the following components: • 251 apartment units in a 19 -story building with approximately 33,250 sq. ft. of office- retail- restaurant, and private health club at the corner of 66th and Lyndale; • Seven -story building on Lyndale Avenue with 48 units of cooperative housing units and approximately 11,800 square feet of first floor retail space and housing management office space; • Two -level underground parking structure with 663 parking spaces to service the housing and retail /office needs and an additional nine surface stalls; • Three -story building with 34 units of cooperative housing on Lake Shore Drive with 55 parking spaces, primarily below ground; • A 1.4 acre urban plaza; • A pedestrian connection to Wood Lake Nature Centre; and • Accommodation for future skyway connections to Woodlake Centre and Market Plaza. The seven -story building on Lyndale Avenue was originally proposed to be an office building; however, further refinement of the financial component has indicated that housing instead of office would be a better fit for the development. It would introduce a non -age restricted limited equity cooperative to the Richfield market place; new housing choices for the downtown. Data indicates the market place would support this use. For this reason, 48 cooperative housing units (general occupancy) are proposed for this building with first floor service retail space and space for the housing management office. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. • The proposal is consistent with the 1999 Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan references the Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan as the vision for the area. The Comprehensive Plan also designates the area between the Gramercy Park Cooperative and 66th Street as Community Commercial and the area on Lake Shore Drive as High Density Multiple Residential. Mixed use development is encouraged in the Community Commercial designation. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Issues such as traffic, building height, parking, landscaping, pedestrian connections, and land uses are addressed in the final development plan. • In order to achieve the goals of creating a pedestrian friendly environment, minimize the appearance of parking, create connections between uses, and increase housing opportunities within the downtown area, the development departs from the setback requirements of the C -2 and R zoning districts as follows: Setback R District City Bella PUD (co -op on Lake Shore Dr) C -2 District City Bella PUD Front 30 feet 25 to 30 35 North — 2 to 25 Rear 25 feet *20 to 39 20 South —176 Streetside N/A N/A 25 East — 9 to 41 Side interior 5 feet 13 to 30 20 West — 50 to 122 iaasuifau w hUriri right -of -way nne • Comments received from the public and Planning Commission, and responses from the developer and staff are provided as Attachment C. • A voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the project. The EAW process will be completed on December 11. A final decision on the planned unit development plan and rezoning can be made after consideration of the EAW. C. FINANCIAL • The HRA will consider providing financial assistance to the development through the use of tax increment financing at their December meeting. D. LEGAL On October 24, 2000 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning and PUD plan. • The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on November 13, 2000. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 29, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. • The City Council must approve the rezoning and PUD plan by two - thirds vote of the full Council IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Deny the PUD plan and rezoning with a finding that the proposed development would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. 1 • 0 • Deny the PUD plan and rezoning with a finding that the EAW was found to be inadequate. • Continue action on the PUD plan and rezoning until final action is taken on the EAW. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Attachment A: Existing and Proposed Zoning • Attachment B: Site Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representatives from Gramercy Corporation will be available for any questions. BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (City Bella Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The property located in the Southwest Quadrant area, specifically southwest of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue and north of Lake Shore Drive is zoned R (single family residential) and C -2 (general commercial) [the "subject area "]. B. Gramercy Corporation has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan "] in the subject area. The PUD plan proposes to construct a mixed use development with apartments, office, retail, cooperative housing units, plaza and underground parking. C. The City has reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that it would be appropriate to rezone the subject area as PC -2 (planned general commercial) and approve the PUD plan to establish the regulations governing the PC -2 district. D. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning the PUD plan and amending the zoning ordinance in the subject area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD plan and zoning ordinance amendment on October 24, 2000 following a public hearing. The City Council held a public hearing on the PUD plan amendment and rezoning on December 11, 2000. E. The City's zoning ordinance provides criteria for approving a PUD plan and rezoning of property to a planned unit development. The City Council finds that the PUD plan and rezoning of property in the subject area meets the criteria in the following ways: 1) The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans: This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Community Commercial and High Density Multiple Family Residential. The Community Commercial designation encourages mixed -use development. The design is also consistent with the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale plan, which is referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The project components are tied together through the 1.4 acre urban plaza and through pedestrian access among the components and to other developments in the downtown area and the Woodlake Nature Center. 3) The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: The design is intended to be consistent with the design guidelines of the Lakes at Lyndale Plan which encourages pedestrian friendly development, connections between uses, increased housing choices in the downtown area, and unobtrusive parking areas. Achieving these goals results in a departure from traditional C -2 zoning district regulations with respect to setbacks and building height. 4) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities, which serve or are proposed to serve the development: There are sufficient City services and infrastructure to serve the development. The sanitary sewer system was upgraded by the developer during the construction of the Gramercy Park Cooperative. 5) The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties: The development will be separated from the Lake Shore Drive condominiums by a fence and a controlled access gate. Connections will be made to other adjacent properties such as Woodlake Centre and the Gramercy Park Cooperative. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the project to study all potential impacts. The City Council determined that the EAW was adequate and that the project does not have adverse impacts on neighboring properties. 6) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: Conditions are attached to approval of the final development plan to ensure that proposed improvements are completed. Gramercy and the HRA have signed a development agreement that requires Gramercy to address certain conditions such as landscaping, traffic, building design, housing affordability and other items in order to obtain financing for the project. Section 6. Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 3, Paragraph (22) is amended to read as follows: B. Section 3, Paragraph (23) is amended to read as follows: i c i ■ MR 10-101 "NIONWININVION-Pla"I 1 1 AA• ME C. Section, Paragraph (11) is added to read as follows: through • of Block 3, Fairwood Shores Addition. Also, Graham Avenue and Circle Place, including the vacated portion of Circle Place, between the west right of way line ine of Lyndale Avenue and the east line of the vacated section of Graham Avenue leg within PMR zone no. 2. Also, All of the alley parallel to and between Lake Shore Drive and Graham Avenue except those parts included in PMR zones nos. 2 and 5. Also, The dedicated public walkway lying alon, q the south east lines of Lots 6 and Block •o• Shores Addition, - part included in PMR s Section 7. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 6617 to 6639 Lake Shore Drive from R to PC -2 and of 6616 to 6718 Lyndale Avenue from C -2 to PC -2. Section 8. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by or under the control of Gramercy Corporation or 30 days following publication of this ordinance, whichever is later. For purposes of this ordinance, a parcel is deemed to be under the control of Gramercy Corporation if either (i) the parcel is under purchase agreement in favor of Gramercy or its agents or (ii) a court of competent jurisdiction has entered an order approving the acquisition of the parcel by eminent domain by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor -J, M • • W ATTACHMENT jj an w U W 5 PUD PLAN #� uj vi M 0 • �,. O Ll 9t eel Yk / .owl' p err • a ■ B ' l fit 1 w d� 1 a r AGENDA SECTION: f esplu --to r) AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 3ck> STAFF REPORT =,40 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the City Bella project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution approving negative declaration and record of decision and make the findings of fact and conclusions contained in Exhibit A in regard to the City Bella Environmental Assessment Worksheet. III. BACKGROUND I An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the City Bella project. Based on review of the EAW, the City Council must determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the project. Staff prepared the EAW with the assistance of Gramercy Corporation, the project developer, and Loucks & Associates, engineering and planning consultants. The EAW assesses the impact of the project in regard to the following factors: wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources, wastewater, ground water, hazardous wastes, traffic, air and noise pollution, infrastructure and public services and land use plans. 1211 cd EAW The EAW was made available to the public from October 16 to November 15, 2000. Comments were received and are responded to in the Record of Decision. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects that would warrant preparation of an EIS. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The office building was changed to a 48 -unit cooperative housing building with first floor retail and office space. The impacts of this change are not substantial. The amount of.traftic generated by the housing and retail is slightly less than that generated by the office use. The proposed housing building is 22 feet taller than the office building; however, the impact of shadows is expected to be negligible. • The project will increase the amount of local traffic; however, the existing roadway network can accommodate the increased traffic. All intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service with the increased traffic. A left -turn arrow is proposed at Lake Shore Drive and 66th Street where there is currently a failing turning movement, and where the proposed development will further impact this left turning movement. • C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and found it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Deny the request for a negative declaration and determine that an Environmental Impact Statement is required for the proposed project. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Record of Decision VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from Gramercy Corporation will be present at the meeting to answer questions. • 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECORD OF DECISION CITY BELLA WHEREAS, Gramercy Corporation is the Proposer of a mixed -use development located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the City of Richfield ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 251 apartment units, 82 cooperative housing units, 49,500 square feet of retail and office space, a 1.4 acre plaza and 722 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the Project falls within the mandatory environmental assessment worksheet ( "EAW') category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 32 because the Project involves the construction of a mixed -use development with 333 attached housing units and 43,050 square feet of retail and office space ( "EAW'); and WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit ( "RGU ") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14 (1995); and WHEREAS an EAW was prepared by the City with the assistance from the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City consistent with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400 (1995); and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ( "MEQB ") for EAWs in accordance with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300 (1995); and WHEREAS, the City issued the EAW on October 16, 2000 and provided a copy to the MEQB on the same day; and WHEREAS, the City issued a press release on October 16, 2000 to the Sun - Current newspaper regarding the availability of the document; and WHEREAS, the comment period closed on November 15, 2000 and comments were received from four state agencies and one individual during the comment period; and , WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a proposed Record of Decision on the EAW for the Project for consideration by the City Council ( "Record of Decision "), which includes Findings of Fact and Responses to Comments received, is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and has found the Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council approve the Record of Decision and determine that no environmental impact statement ( "EIS ") is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact which are contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that no EIS is required with respect to the Project ( "Negative Declaration "). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the City Bella Environmental Assessment Worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, no environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.06500 (1993). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. r1 ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 Exhibit A RECORD OF DECISION ON THE CITY BELLA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Project Description A. Proposed Project The project consists of a 19 -story building with 250 apartment units over 33,500 s.ff of office - retail, a 7 -story building with 48 apartment units over 14,200 square feet of office - retail, and a 1.4 acre urban plaza and 9 surface parking spaces, all constructed over 663 underground parking spaces; and a 3 story, 34 unit, apartment building with 59 surface and underground parking spaces. The proposed project has changed from what was originally proposed but, as outlined in II.B. below, the changes are not deemed substantial. B. Site Description and Existing Conditions The project site consists of seven parcels of land which have been or are being acquired for the project and parts of five rights -of -way that will accrue to the seven parcel upon vacation. Three commercial buildings with a total footprint of 45,000 square feet and one single - family dwelling presently occupy the site. These structures, all of which are several decades old, will be cleared to make way for the project. The high -rise residential- retail - office, mid -rise residential- office - retail and low rise residential structures proposed are 19, 7 and 3 stories, respectively. Existing high rise residential structures of 11 and 12 stories will remain in place on the same block as the proposed project. Across 66th Street to the north are 13 and 9 level high rise residential buildings the latter which is constructed over ground floor retail and across Lyndale to the east from the proposed 19 story building is a 5 story office building that is in the process of being expanded. Single story commercial structures are located east directly across Lyndale from the proposed 7 -story office building and northeast across the 6e and Lyndale intersection. Single family residential is located across Lyndale to the southeast of the project site and Wood Lake and Wood Lake Nature Center are across Lake Shore Drive to the southwest of the site. II. Findings A. Criteria for Deciding if Project has Significant Environmental Effects Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. Subp. 7. sets forth criteria for deciding if a project has potential for significant environmental effects. Following is a listing of those criteria and the City's findings with respect to each of the criteria: 1. Type, Extent and Reversibility of Environmental Effects a. Redevelopment As part of a first -ring suburb of a major metropolitan area the site developed with urban uses decades ago.. b. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan The redevelopment of the site at higher densities serves to put the land to a more productive use, consistent with the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Subarea plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan and "Lakes at Lyndale" Plan. c. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources There are no fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources on the site. d. Water Runoff Water runoff from the site drains into both Wood and Richfield Lakes. Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with MPCA's Protecting Urban Water Quality guidelines will be applied to erosion and sedimentation during construction. These measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fence, hay bales, construction rock enhance pads, street sweeping, catch basin inlet control structures and temporary sedimentation basins. The City plans to install perimeter treatment systems for these lakes. The amount of surface water runoff from the site will increase slightly as a result of the project by virtue of the fact that the amount of impervious surface will increase from 3.79 acres to 3.86 acres. e. Water and Sewer The project will be connected to City water and wastewater from the project will be collected by the City's sanitary sewer collection system. Water runoff from the underground parking spaces will also discharge into the sanitary sewer. E Water - related Land Use Management Districts The project is not within a floodplain but is within the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's shoreland management district and as such will require their approval. g. Ground Water and Potential for Contamination As part of the project approximately 1,700 cubic yards of gasoline - contaminated soil at the north end of the site will be excavated and properly treated or disposed of. The project will not reach down to groundwater level. h. Traffic As a result of the project average daily traffic is projected to increase by 1,656 trips and traffic during the P.M. peak hour will increase by 203 trips. With the exceptions noted below the level of traffic service for vehicles passing through or traveling to or from the area will remain the same. The level of service will decline slightly for westbound traffic on 66th Street turning south and the level of service will improve slightly for eastbound traffic on 66th turning south. Converting the bus stop pull off lane to a right -turn lanes at Lyndale for westbound traffic on 66th would serve to reverse the decline in level of service at this location but would impact pedestrian accessibility. The level of service for westbound traffic on both Lakeshore Drive and 64th Street turning north at Lyndale will decline slightly as a result of the project but only 13 and 18 vehicles, respectively, make these turning movements during the P.M. peak. A dedicated left- sturn arrow for northbound traffic on Lake Shore Drive at 66th Street will be installed as part of • • the project and this will significantly improve the level of service for this currently failing movement. i. Air Quality Based on traffic predictions, concentrations of CO in the air were predicted at the four quadrants of the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 66`" Street, the busiest intersection in the area. All predicted values were within the Minnesota ambient air standards. j. Noise Using traffic projections, noise levels were predicted at various locations on streets adjacent to the project site. Noise levels are predicted to be less than that allowed under law during both day and night hours. k. Visual Impacts Buildings of 9, 11, 12 and 13 stories presently are located in the area. Although the 19- story building will be significantly taller than these buildings, it is located in an area planned for intensive use and will not adversely impact adjacent land uses. During no part of the year will the proposed 19 -story building entirely shadow any residential structure located in the vicinity of the project in the mid - morning and mid - afternoon. From Wood Lake the view of the proposed 19 -story building will be screened by the existing Lakeshore Drive Condominiums and the Gramercy Cooperatives and by dense tree growth between the Wood Lake parking lot and the lake. From the single - family neighborhood to the southeast the 19 -story building will be screened by the 7 -story retail - office- residential building and the five -story Richfield Bank and Trust office building. The first two floors of this building will be designed at a pedestrian scale and the building steps back from both ends on the seventh floor to provide visual relief to the building mass. Cultural Resources There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by the project. 2. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects. No related or anticipated future projects are being considered. 3. Extent to Which Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Regulatory Authority Following are a list of approvals that are required from regulatory authorities which will serve to further mitigate environmental effects: Unit of ¢overnment Federal: Federal Aviation Administration State: MN Dept. of Health MPCA MPCA Type of analication Notice of Construction (7460 -1) Water main extension Sewage Disposal System National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Status Approval anticipated 1 -31 -01 Not yet applied Not yet applied Not yet applied MDNR MSHPO Coun : Hennepin County City: City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield PUD Approval Not yet applied Section 106 and 36CFR800 Clearance Approval anticipated 12 -22 -00 Access Permit Rezoning to mixed use PUD PUD and final development plan Conditional use permit Subdivision Vacation Utility disconnect Demolition Right of way permit Grading drainage and erosion control Building permit Not yet applied To be considered 12 -11 -00 To be considered 12 -11 -00 To be considered 12 -11 -00 Preliminary considered 12 -11 -00 To be considered 12 -11 -00 Not yet applied Not yet applied Not yet applied Not yet applied Not yet applied 4.Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and controlled as a result of other available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including other EISs. The proposed project is similar in nature to numerous other projects that have been constructed in the region, without unanticipated environmental impacts. Environmental studies, including EISs have been undertaken by public agencies on projects of similar nature. B. Change in Proposed Project not Substantial The notice that appeared in the October 16, 2000 EQB Monitor indicating that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was available described the project as follows: An 18 story building with 250 apartment units over 33,500 s.f. of office - retail, a 5 story, 80,000 s.f. office building, 60 surface parking spaces, and an urban plaza all constructed over 700 underground parking spaces; and a 3 story, 34 unit, apartment building with 60 surface and underground parking spaces. In the actual EAW distributed, a correction was made indicating that 250 apartment units rather than 235 are proposed. In a correction notice mailed to all parties receiving the EAW it was indicated that the 18 -story building would actually be 19 stories high. After comments on the EAW were received the five -story, 80,000 square foot office building was changed to seven stories with 2,400 square feet of office and 11,800 square feet of retail on the ground floor and 48 apartment units above. These changes are found to be not substantial and to not affect the validity of these findings for the following reasons: 1. Increase Number of Units in 19 -story Building Reflected in EAW The EAW which served as the basis for review of the project reflected the change from 235 apartment units to 250 units. 2. Increase from 18 to 19 Stories would have Insignificant Impact on Analysis The only impact the increase of the building with 250 apartment units from 18 to 19 16 stories would have on the EAW is that the shadow cast would be somewhat longer and the building will appear somewhat larger than would be the case if it were an 18 -story building. These changes are insubstantial. 3. Change from five -story 80,000 Square Feet Office to seven -story 8,000 Square Feet Office -8,000 Square Feet Retail -48 Apartment Units has no Practical Affect on Analysis The reduction in office space by 72,000 square feet, the increase in retail space by 8,000 square feet and the increase in apartments by 48 units did not require a change in the size of the footprint and therefore quantity of impervious surface for calculating water runoff is not affected. This change resulted in a reduction in both the average daily traffic and the P.M. peak and in a slight improvement in the level of service as indicated in a letter from the traffic consultant attached as Attachment A. Attachment B is a letter from the air quality and noise consultant indicating that decreases in the average daily traffic and P.M. peak hour traffic levels will reduce CO concentrations and noise levels. The increase in number of stories in the building from five to seven will increase the length of the shadow that is cast and the building will appear somewhat larger. This building will be located between 19 and 12 -story buildings, however, and as a result this increase to seven stories will have no practical affect. • • NOVEMBER 2000 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR CITY BELLA PROJECT Relative to the environmental assessment worksheet distributed on October 16, 2000 for the City Bella Project proposed in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, following are a summary of comments received from various agencies and private parties and responses to those comments in italicized type: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: Aircraft Noise: The development is within the Metropolitan Council's adopted noise zone for MSP International airport. The 19 story residential building is "provisional" in exposure zone 4 and must meet an interior noise level of 45 db. The proposed 19 story residential building will meet maximum interior noise levels. Aviation Obstruction: The 19 -story structure is a potential airspace obstruction. A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration has been filed with the FAA and the project will comply with FAA requirements relating to the project. Comprehensive Plan Designation The Comprehensive Plan guides the area as Community Commercial and the EAW indicates that the City will be amending the zoning of the site to PUD. This land use change will require the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to submit the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review. The City believes that the proposed development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a specific mixed use designation but encourages mixed use development in its Community Commercial and Regional Commercial designations. Specifically, the Lyndale -Hub- Nicollet subarea plan states that, "Mixed use projects incorporating high density single and multiple family housing and commercial uses would be encouraged throughout the Lakes at Lyndale area " (The City Bella development is part of the Lakes at Lyndale area.) Surface Drainage: The EAW does not give a percentage of the site that drains to Wood Lake, but it appears to be about one acre. The EAW claims that there is no treatment of runoff from the project that goes to Wood Lake but that grit chambers which should meet Nationwide Urban Runoff Program standards will be incorporated in the project. Grit chambers cannot achieve NURP standards. The City should try to find a location where appropriate treatment can occur before discharge to Wood Lake. The City should consider low impact development techniques to reduce the amount and quality of runoff. In the existing condition 31 % of the site drains to Wood Lake and 69% drains to Richfield Lake, which eventually drains into Wood Lake. In the proposed condition 52% drains to Wood Lake and 48% drains to Richfield Lake. This redirection of drainage is proposed to utilize the newly installed storm sewer to Wood Lake and provide relief to the system flowing to Richfield Lake. This redirected storm water will have improved quality due to elimination of surface parking areas and development of the site into a park like area. The city is currently in the process of developing a perimeter treatment system for Richfield Lake. The City has plans to rework the Wood Lake parking area in the future and as part of that project plans to install a settling basin for runoff to run through before entering the Lake Although it is recognized that grit chambers alone cannot achieve NURP standards for removal of suspended solids and phosphorous, grit chambers were incorporated into the storm sewer system to provide sediment removal. The proposed development will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP's) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Structural BMP's include: ➢ Reconstruction of the entire site with new buildings, pavements, sidewalks and landscaping to reduce sediment loading and litter for the current uses. ➢ Reduction of surface parking from 177 stalls to 13 stalls. ➢ Reduction of dirt and gravel vehicular areas from 0.44 ac. to 0.00 ac. ➢ Construction of an underground parking garage, which is drained by sanitary sewer. The oils, greases and antfteeze will now be treated in the sanitary sewer system, rather than draining to the storm sewer. ➢ Construction of new storm sewers that include grit chambers for sediment collection. Site Management BMP's include: ➢ High level of maintenance for a commonly owned space with residential and commercial uses. ➢ Pavements and walks swept regularly to collect sand, salt and litter. ➢ Landscape maintenance to keep plant life healthy and collect leaves and clippings. The construction of the project and implementation of the above BMP's will have a positive effect on the stormwater quality from the site by: eliminating surface parking, construction of an underground garage, and creating a well maintained park like setting. 1 Parks and Open Space 2 The project is close to Wood Lake which, although not a regional park or trail, is an important natural resource and open space in this part of the metro area. Increasing the amount of green space in the project should be considered by making some of the plaza and hard surface parking natural vegetation, plantings and lawn area. There is potential for off -site mitigation adjacent to Wood Lake Park by pulling the off - street parking back from the lake and reducing the amount of it and perhaps replacing some of it on Lakeshore Drive. The project's planned open space provides systematic pockets of garden -like splices that now exist as surface parking. By design, it is important that the urban quality of this open space contrast with the natural open space of the 150 -acre Wood Lake Nature Center. The amount of site covered with landscaping and green area will decrease slightly from 1.87 acres before the development to 1.80 acres after the development. Likewise before the project there was 177 surface level off street parking spaces whereas the project proposes only 13 surface level parking spaces. As indicated above the City has plans to rework the Wood Lake parking area in the future and as part of that project plans to install a settling basin for runoff to run through before entering the Lake. Transportation It is unclear whether the bus stops on eastbound 66`" Street and southbound Lyndale Avenue remain in place or whether they will be replaced with right turn lanes. The bus turn out lanes will remain at this time. The bus stop "turn out lanes" on eastbound 66t4 Street and westbound 66t4 Street were studied to be converted to lanes that would accommodate both bus stops and right turns by extending the lane to the corner. It was determined that the benefits of the bus "pockets " are greater than the marginal improvement in traffic that would occur if they were converted to right turn lanes. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Surface Runoff Care should be taken to minimize the amount of storm water flowing into Wood Lake because large increases in flood levels can do substantial damage to wooded areas that are adjacent to lakes. In addition the Wood Lake Nature Preserve building is close to Wood Lake and could be affected by higher water levels. The amount of impervious surface will remain about the same (increase from 3.79 acres to 3.86 acres) as a result of the proposed project. Stormwater runoff rates and routing to balance the split of runoff between Richfield and Wood Lakes to the City's satisfaction is being worked out with the City's consultant. The final grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the City before construction. It is recommended that grit chambers be added to the Lakeshore Drive storm sewer, which will reduce the rate of sediment deposition in Richfield and Wood Lakes, thus extending their "life span". In addition further action will be necessary in the future to deal with sediment being deposited in these lakes if "lake" conditions are to be �+ maintained. Grit chambers have been incorporated into the storm sewer system through which runoff from the site will run before entering Wood and Richfield Lakes. The City has plans to rework the Wood Lake parking area in the future and as part of that project plans to install a settling basin for runoff to run through before entering the Lake. PUD Approval The project is within the shoreland district of Wood Lake and, because the City of Richfield has not adopted regulations for its shorelands, the proposed development is subject to DNR approval. In reviewing the project, paved areas will not be considered open space and as a result the amount of open space will probably not increase. The proposed project will be submitted to the DNR for review. While the amount of green space on the site will decrease slightly from 1.87 acres before the project to 1.80 , after the project, open space within an urban design context is retained. Construction Dewatering Construction dewatering of more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year requires a DNR water appropriation permit and can be approved in five days if the total amount of dewatering is less than 50 million gallons. No construction dewatering of groundwater is contemplated as part of the project, only dewatering of rainwater in the excavation. View from Wood Lake The project can affect the view from the Wood Lake Nature Preserve and the planting of trees in the appropriate locations can mitigate these changes. The existing 12 -story Gramercy Cooperative and 11 -story Lake Shore Drive condominiums on the north side of Lakeshore Drive have already established the high density, multi -story development adjacent to the Nature Center. These buildings and the dense tree growth between the Wood Lake parking lot and the lake will "screen" the view of the 19- story and 7 -story buildings from Wood Lake. MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY National or State registers of Historic Places There are no properties listed on the National or State registers of Historic Places within the project site. If federal assistance is provided or a federal permit or license is required the project should be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office of the Minnesota Historical Society for review pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. Financing assistance in the form of an FHA mortgage guarantee may be used for portions of the project and as a result the project has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review pursuant to the above Act and Procedures. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Impact on State Highway System None LARRY WOZNICZKA, 6744 Wentworth Ave. S., Richfield, Minn. 55423 General Calculation to support a determination that a project of this size does not require an EIS. In cities of the second class such as Richfield, a commercial project must be one million square feet and a residential project must be 1, 500 attached units to require a mandatory EIS. In this case 49,500 square feet of commercial and 503 attached residential units, including 160 existing units in the Gramercy Cooperative project at Lyndale and Lake Shore Drive, are proposed by the developer and this does not trigger a mandatory EIS. According to State of Minnesota rules, in deciding whether a project has potential for significant environmental effects and requires an EIS, the following factors are to be considered: A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects, B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. Based on these factors there is not potential for significant environmental effects. Complete documentation concerning this is contained in the Findings of Fact that are being made contemporaneously with the decision to not require an EIS. Parking A total of 820 parking spaces are provided whereas a total of 935 parking spaces are required, according to staff report of Planning Commission dated Oct. 24, 2000. Parking needs of the restaurant in project will conflict with overflow from Champps, which now depends on development site for parking. A request is made that additional parking be provided to satisfy need and assurance that the project will not lead to paving of Woodlake Nature Center for additional parking. With the revisions to the project components, 765 parking spaces would be required for the apartments, retail and office space individually, however, shared parking is permitted and encouraged in the case of mixed use developments with complementary uses. The parking ramp will provide 663 parking stalls, which assumes that the greatest demand for parking by the housing uses will be in the evening and week -ends and that the greatest demand for parking by the office and retail uses will be during the daytime on week -days. The development does not anticipate using the Woodlake Nature Center parking lot for its parking needs. As new uses are introduced into the downtown, it may be that high interest by the public and helping the public learn new ways to use new spaces may cause short -term conflicts which require mitigating strategies even with 10 sufficient parking. As a result, a large surface space behind Gramercy Park for off-street • construction and visitor parking to use until the parking ramp is constructed is planned. Wood Lake Nature Center desires to improve the safety and function of its parking lot and is considering a partnership with the Gramercy Park Cooperative for some shared use. Traffic Traffic increase on 68th Street is a concern and the zeros on the traffic chart for 68th Street are questioned. Noise increase of 11% on 68th Street is a concern. Existing and projected traffic levels on 68th Street compared to ideal maximums for residential streets with such design, given pedestrian and bicycle use, are requested. A question as to if traffic on 68th Street can be restricted to prevent an increase in traffic level' The zeros on the traffic chart for 68th Street are for movements that are not possible at 68th. It is estimated that traffic on 68th Street will increase by 97 trips per day and 14 trips during the P.M. peak hour as a result of the redevelopment project. Traffic levels on most residential streets in Richfield are less than 500 vehicles per, day. In addition to serving the residential neighborhood directly, 68th Street distributes traff c from the neighborhood to Nicollet Avenue or Lyndale Avenue. For this reason, traffic levels are higher than 500 vehicles per day. The projected P.M. peak hour traffic increase of 14 trips on 68th is an 11 % increase, however the predicted noise increase is. 4 dBA. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency a noise level difference of less than 1 dBA is not noticeable. It would be possible to artificially restrict traffic levels on 68th Street but traffic would be displaced to another street. Over Developingnt Building on all the land negatively impacts the environment. Eliminating the 3 -story Villa Co -op would provide relief to the 18(19) -story building and part of that space would allow 67th Street to continue west of Lyndale Avenue to Lakeshore Drive beneath a pedestrian plaza linking the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums and the 12 -story Apartments to a less traveled portion of Lake Shore Drive. This would also relieve the OF condition at Lyndale Avenue shown in Figure 15A. A 1.4 -acre plaza is proposed to provide a significant open space amenity for the project. The open space provided by projects in the vicinity is as follows: Market Plaza Lake Shore . Woodlake Gramercy City Bella Drive Point Park .................... open, space .60.........................._ lot. area (st) 10, 825 . . ............. . 200,662 ___ __ _. 82 � 950 172,000 _ 12, 961 61,876 12,935 107,774 75,500 243,877 open space 5% 48% 21% 17% 44% ......... # of units 166 178 157 160 333 o ens ace/unit s 65 466 83 81 324 As the table indicates, 44 percent of the total land area for the City Bella project is structured open space and the plaza. This percentage is similar to the amount of open space at the Lake Shore Drive condominiums and exceeds that of other multi family developments in the area Further, the 3 -story villa provides a transitional land use from the adjacent tall buildings, which enhances the environment. 6 The developer originally proposed a vehicle connection from Lyndale Avenue to Lake Shore Drive, through the project area Because of concerns by the Lake Shore Drive condominium residents, this concept was eliminated. An extension of 67th Street is also cost prohibitive. The overall D level of service at the intersection of Lyndale and 66th Street provides an acceptable level of traffic movements at Lyndale without the connection through the project. The only E/F condition on Lyndale is are for westbound traffic turning north at 64th and Lake Shore Drive and only 18 and 13 vehicles, respectively, make this turning movement during the P.M. peak. This condition would not be impacted by an extension of 67th from Lyndale to Lake Shore Drive. s • 0 • C] J REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: AGENDA SECTION: PLA.bI lG I- lea, -! (1A AGENDA ITEM # 17 REPORT # 3 3 cl STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Or REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Id JOHN OLINGER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding a housing program and joint powers agreement relating to a multifamily housing development and related housing program on behalf of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., and the issuance of revenue bonds therefor under the municipal housing proqrams act. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution as a "host" community and joint powers agreement relating to a multifamily housing development and related housing program on behalf of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., the issuance of revenue bonds therefor under the municipal housing programs act. 111. BACKGROUND, Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc. (Rolling Acres) owns and operates facilities for the developmentally disabled. They own and operate a two -unit home in Richfield. A primary facility of the organization is located in Victoria, Minnesota. They wish to consolidate mortgage and debt finance renovation work at several of their facilities including the one in Victoria and the property in Richfield and nine other jurisdictions. The City of Victoria would issue the revenue bonds in the amount of $2,550,000. Because Rolling Acres wishes to expend some of the proceeds of the 1211 mountolivet bond on their facility in Richfield, the City is being asked to become a "participating jurisdiction" or host community. There will be no financial obligation against the i City. (Richfield played a similar role in a similar situation one year ago with St. Ann's Residential Services.) III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • One year ago the City participated in a similar situation with St. Ann's. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Participation will strengthen the housing resources in the community. C. FINANCIAL • The City assumes no financial liability as a "participating community ". D. LEGAL • The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Sun- Current. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay action. • Reject participation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution with: Exhibit A, form of notice Exhibit B, project description Exhibit C, Housing Program for Multi- family Housing Exhibit D, Joint Powers Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc. Resolution No. RESOLUTION RELATING TO .A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. AND RELATED HOUSING PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES, INC., THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS THEREFOR UNDER THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING PROGRAMS ACT, AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City „), as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.1. The City (sometimes referred to as a "Participating Jurisdiction ") is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Housing Programs Act "), to assist in the financing of multifamily housing developments within its boundaries, and, specifically, to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds, which revenue bonds shall be payable solely from revenues of the development or other security pledged therefor. The City is also authorized by the Housing Programs Act and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 (the "Joint Powers Act "), to enter into a joint powers agreement and, pursuant thereto, to authorize another city (referred to as the "Issuer ") to issue revenue bonds of the Issuer to finance multifamily housing developments that are located in the City, in such other city, and in other cities or political jurisdictions. 1.2. Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Borrower"), has requested that the City conduct 'a public hearing on a proposal by the Borrower that the Issuer, or one of the other Participating Jurisdictions to be identified in a joint powers agreement or identified in Exhibit D hereto (all collectively referred to as the "Participating Jurisdictions "), acting pursuant to such joint powers agreement (the "Joint Powers Agreement ") between the Issuer and such other Participating Jurisdictions (which Participating Jurisdictions shall in any event include the City), issue revenue bonds in a principal amount of up to $2,250,000 (the "Bonds "), pursuant to the Joint Powers Act and the Housing Programs Act (together referred to as the "Acts "). 1.3. Under the proposal by the Borrower, the Participating Jurisdictions will enter into the Joint Powers Agreement, pursuant to which the Issuer, or one of the other Participating Jurisdictions selected by the Participating Jurisdictions, will issue the Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which (the "Victoria Portion ") would be applied by the Borrower to pay costs of the Victoria Project described below. Proceeds of the Bonds not constituting a part of the Victoria Portion would be applied to finance or refinance costs of acquiring, constructing, improving, rehabilitating, equipping and furnishing facilities of the Borrower located in one or more of the other Participating Jurisdictions, including a facility of the Borrower located in the City, as more particularly described below ( all collectively referred to as the "Development "). 1.4. The Victoria Project consists of the acquisition and construction of improvements, including equipment, furnishings and site improvements, to the existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located at 7200 Rolling Acres Road in the City of Victoria. The Development consists generally of the Victoria Project, • together with the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement, equipping, furnishing and refinancing of various existing and new facilities of the Borrower, all as further described in Exhibit B. The portion of the Development located in the City consists of the refinancing of existing taxable mortgage indebtedness with respect to, and the rehabilitation of, an existing facility of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled, at the specific address set forth in the form of legal notice attached hereto. 1.5. The Development constitutes one or more "multifamily housing developments" eligible for financing by the Issuer under the Housing Programs Act. There is attached as Exhibit C hereto a description of a related Housing Program therefor (the "Housing Program "), developed pursuant to the Housing Programs Act. 1.6. The Borrower has requested the Issuer to issue the Bonds, and has requested in connection therewith that the City approve the attached Housing Program, the execution and delivery of the Joint Powers Agreement, and the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer, for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended Section 2. Public Hearing 2.1. The Housing Programs Act requires that the City hold a public hearing on the Housing Program and the Development following not fewer than fifteen days' published notice thereof. 2.2. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder, requires that, as a condition to the exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the Bonds, this Council conduct a public hearing on the proposal to finance the Development through the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer. 2.3 A public hearing on the proposal_ that the City adopt the Housing Program and authorize the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer is hereby called and shall be held on , 1 , 2000, at o'clock _.M., at the City Hall. A legal notice of the public hearing, substantially in the form of Exhibit A hereto, shall be published in a newspaper circulating generally in the City, as required by law, not fewer than 15 days in advance of the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING PROGRAMS ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City ") on a proposal by Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower ") that the City of Victoria (the "Issuer "), acting pursuant to a joint powers agreement (the "Joint Powers Agreement ") issue revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") to finance and refinance the costs of acquisition, construction, equipping, furnishing and rehabilitation of the various residential facilities for the developmentally disabled described below (collectively referred to as the "Development "), including the Victoria Project described below, and the Richfield Project described below, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act "), including related administrative costs, reserves, capitalized interest, and cost of issuance. The Bonds would be issued pursuant to a Housing Program developed in accordance with the Act, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall. The hearing will be held at the City Hall, located at 6700 Portland Avenue South in the City, on December, 11, 2000, at 7:00 P.M. The Victoria Project consists of the acquisition and construction of improvements, including equipment, furnishings and site improvements, to the existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located at 7200 Rolling Acres Road, Victoria, Minnesota (referred to as the "Victoria Project "). In addition to the Victoria Project, the Development consists generally of the following: (1) the refinancing, rehabilitation, equipping and furnishing of various existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located in other cities or jurisdictions outside of the City (at specific addresses set forth below); and (2) the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement, equipping and furnishing of new and /or existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located in those cities or jurisdictions and in Aiken County, Minnesota (at the specific address set forth below). The Richfield Project consists of the refinancing of existing taxable mortgage indebtedness with respect to, and the rehabilitation of, an existing residential facility of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled, located at the specific address in the City described below. The facilities included in the Development are situated at the following locations: 7200 Rolling Acres Road, Victoria, Minnesota (serving 44 persons); 129 Mackenthun Lane; Norwood -Young America, Minnesota (serving six persons); 1757 Highwood Drive, Chaska, Minnesota (serving four persons); 320 Fifth Street Northeast, Mayer, Minnesota (serving four persons); 241 West Third Street, Waconia, Minnesota (serving four persons); 3921 Leslie Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota (serving four persons); 112209 James Court, Jonathan, Minnesota (serving four persons); 25925 Birch Bluff, Shorewood, Minnesota (serving four persons); 6843 and 6845 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota (serving six persons); 7829 Tessman Drive, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (serving four persons); 8217 29th Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota (serving four persons); 2413 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota (serving four persons); and Route T, Jevne Township, McGregor, Minnesota (serving a minimum of 20 persons). . Under the proposal, the City will enter into the Joint Powers Agreement, pursuant to which the Issuer (or another of the Participating Jurisdictions identified in the Joint Powers Agreement, as determined by the Participating Jurisdictions) will issue its revenue bonds in a principal amount of approximately $2,250,000 (the "Bonds ") to provide funds for the costs of the Development, and for related costs, including the funding of required reserves, . administrative costs, capitalized interest and issuance costs. The Development involves assistance for housing. Accordingly, the issuance of the Bonds is not a business subsidy, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended. At said time and place the City Council shall give all parties who appear or submit written comments an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. Questions; contact John Olinger, Community Development, at 612.866.9781 STEVEN L. DEVICH Acting City Clerk 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. Publish: November 22, 2000, Sun - Current Newspaper • 0 EXHIBIT B r (Description of Development) The Development consists of the acquisition and construction of improvements, including equipment, furnishings and site improvements, to the existing facilities of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled located at 7200 Rolling Acres Road in the City (referred to generally as the "Victoria Project "), together with the following: (1) the refinancing, rehabilitation, equipping and furnishing of various existing facilities of the Borrower (sometimes referred to as the "Refinancing and Rehabilitation Projects "), located in other cities or jurisdictions (at specific addresses set forth below); and (2) the acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation, equipping and furnishing of new and/or existing facilities for the developmentally disabled in such cities or jurisdictions and in Aitkin County, Minnesota (and/or in other locations, as necessary and suitable, to the extent permitted by law). The Refinancing and Rehabilitation Projects included in the Development will each consist of the rehabilitation of one or more existing buildings and sites located in other cities or jurisdictions outside of the City, and the discharge of any lien or other interest in those buildings and sites. The cost of rehabilitation of each of these existing buildings will be equal to at least $1,000 per dwelling unit, all as provided in and required by the Housing Programs Act. The Development will also include the acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation, equipping and furnishing of facilities for the developmentally disabled in those same cities or jurisdictions and in the County of Aiken. The facilities included in the Development are situated at the following locations: 7200 Rolling Acres Road, Victoria, Minnesota (serving 44 persons); 129 Mackenthun Lane, Norwood - Young America, Minnesota (serving 6 persons); 1757 Highwood Drive, Chaska, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 320 East Fifth Street Northeast, Mayer, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 241 West Third Street, Waconia, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 3921 Leslie Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 112209 James Court, Jonathan, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 25925 Birch Bluff, Shorewood, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 6843 and 6845 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota (serving 6 persons); 7829 Tessman Drive, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 8217 29`x' Avenue South, New Hope, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); 2413 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota (serving 4 persons); and Route T, Jevne Township, McGregor, Minnesota (serving a minimum of 20 persons). I: EXHIBIT C (Form of Housing Program) HOUSING PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING . DEVELOPMENT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES, INC. This Housing Program describes a housing development initiative to be authorized by the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City "), on behalf of itself and the other political jurisdictions referred to below (and /or any county housing and redevelopment authority authorized to act on behalf of one or more of such political jurisdictions), involving the development and financing of multiple residential facilities for the developmentally disabled, including: (1) the acquisition and construction of improvements, including equipment, furnishings and site improvements, to the existing facilities for the developmentally disabled located at 7200 Rolling Acres Road in the City of Victoria (generally referred to as the "Victoria Project "); (2) the refinancing, rehabilitation, equipping and furnishing of various existing facilities for the developmentally disabled located in other cities or jurisdictions (further described below), all pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement (the "Joint Powers Agreement ") to be entered into by the City in connection therewith (generally referred to as the "Refinancing and Rehabilitation Projects "); and (3) the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement, equipping and furnishing of new and /or existing facilities for the developmentally disabled in such cities or jurisdictions and in Aiken County, Minnesota (and /or in other locations, as necessary and suitable, to the extent permitted by law), all pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement (referred to, together with the Victoria Project and the Refinancing and Rehabilitation Projects described above, collectively as the "Development "). The specific portion of the Development located in the City consists of the refinancing of existing taxable mortgage indebtedness with respect to, and the rehabilitation of, an existing residential facility of the Borrower for the developmentally disabled, located at the specific address set forth below. The Development is being undertaken pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act "). Each of the facilities in the Development is and is to be owned and operated by Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (sometimes referred to as the "Borrower "). The Refinancing and Rehabilitation Projects included in the Development will each consist of the rehabilitation of one or more existing buildings and sites and the discharge of any lien or other interest in the buildings and sites. The cost of rehabilitation of each of these existing buildings will be equal to at least $1,000 per dwelling unit, all as provided in and required by the Act. These existing facilities are located in the following cities (and at the specific addresses set forth below): Chaska, Mayer, Waconia, Chanhassen, Norwood- Young America, Shorewood, Richfield, Brooklyn Park, New Hope, and Shakopee. The Development will also include the acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation, equipping and furnishing of facilities for the developmentally disabled located in those cities and in the County of Aiken (at the specific address set forth below). The facilities included in the Development are situated at the following locations: 7200 Rolling Acres Road, Victoria, Minnesota (serving 44 persons); 129 Mackenthun Lane; Norwood -Young America, Minnesota (serving six persons); 1757 Highwood Drive, Chaska, Minnesota (serving four persons); 320 Fifth Street Northeast, Mayer, Minnesota (serving four persons); 241 West Third Street, Waconia, Minnesota (serving four persons); 3921 Leslie Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota (serving four persons); 112209 James Court, Jonathan, Minnesota (serving four persons); 25925 Birch Bluff, Shorewood, Minnesota (serving four persons); 6843 and 6845 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota (serving six persons); 7829 Tessman Drive, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (serving four persons); 8217 29th Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota (serving four persons); 2413 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota (serving four persons); and Route T, Jevne Township, McGregor, Minnesota (serving a minimum of 20 persons). The Development will be operated as a multifamily housing development, within the meaning of the Act. The use of the Development will be carried out in accordance with applicable land use and development restrictions, and the Development will be subject to applicable state and local building codes. The Borrower will be required to operate the Development in accordance with state and local anti - discrimination laws and ordinances. The Development will be available for rental primarily to handicapped persons, within the meaning of Section 462C.05, Subd. 4, of the Act, and, accordingly, no limitations on the gross income of occupants will be required by the Act. The Development is needed generally in order to better serve developmentally disabled and handicapped persons and is needed specifically to lower the costs of operating facilities used to house such persons, to improve existing facilities used for housing such persons, and to add to the existing stock of such housing. Meeting these needs is consistent with and authorized by the City's Housing Plan, Comprehensive Plan and overall program for housing, all as authorized and contemplated thereby. To finance the Development, the City of Victoria, or one of the other Participating Jurisdictions, as determined by the Participating Jurisdictions (referred to in the alternative as the "Issuer "), will issue revenue bonds in a principal amount of approximately $2,250,000. The Borrower will be required, pursuant to a revenue agreement, such as a loan agreement, to make payments sufficient to pay when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such revenue bonds when due. The revenue bonds may be structured so as to take advantage of whatever means are available or necessary and are permitted by law to enhance the security for and marketability of the revenue bonds. Such security is expected to consist primarily of mortgage liens granted against each of the facilities included in the Development. The revenue bonds will not constitute a general obligation or indebtedness of the Issuer, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor will the full faith and credit of the Issuer, the State of Minnesota or any other political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, including the City, be pledged to the payment thereof. The costs of the Development and the program of financing the Development will be paid by the Borrower or from the proceeds of the revenue bonds to be issued, to the extent that such proceeds are lawfully available therefor. EXHIBIT D JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1 st day of December, 2000 (the "Joint Powers Agreement" or the "Agreement "), by and between the City of Victoria, Minnesota (sometimes referred to as "Victoria" and sometimes as the "Issuer "), and the other Joint Powers Participants identified in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the "Participating Jurisdictions ", or individually, a "Participating Jurisdiction "). Each of the Participating Jurisdictions is a municipal corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, or a housing and redevelopment authority, duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 1. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 (the "Joint Powers Act ") provides that two or more governmental units, by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties, and may provide for the exercise of such power by one of the participating governmental units. 2. In connection with the issuance of revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, (the "Housing Programs Act'), Section 462C.14, Subd. 3, provides for joint action between cities, housing and redevelopment authorities and port authorities (all as defined in the Housing Programs Act) in connection with multifamily housing developments undertaken thereunder, all as further provided in the Joint Powers Act and the Housing Programs Act (together referred to as the "Acts "). 3. Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower ") has proposed that the Participating Jurisdictions enter into this Agreement, pursuant to the Acts, pursuant to which Victoria will issue one or more series of revenue bonds, in a principal amount not to exceed $2,250,000 (the "Bonds "), and loan the proceeds thereof to the Company to finance the Development described in Exhibit B. 4. The Participating Jurisdictions has each adopted or will each adopt a resolution (i) evidencing its intent to undertake the housing program applicable to such Participating Jurisdiction, (ii) evidencing its intent to enter into this Agreement, and (iii) granting host approval (or, in the case of Victoria, granting approval) to the issuance of the Bonds, as required under the Acts and the Internal Revenue Code. 5. Victoria shall exercise the powers of the Act by adopting, approving and executing such resolutions, documents, and agreements as shall be necessary or convenient to authorize, issue, and sell the Bonds and such other resolutions, documents, and agreements as shall be necessary or required in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and giving effect to or carrying out the provisions of this Agreement and documents under which the Bonds are issued and/or secured. 6. The Bonds shall be special, limited obligations of Victoria, payable solely from proceeds, revenues and other amounts pledged thereto. In no event shall the Bonds ever be payable from or charged upon the general credit, taxing powers or any funds of any of the • Participating Jurisdictions; the Participating Jurisdictions are not subject to any liability thereon; no owners of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of any of the Participating Jurisdictions to pay any of the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of any of the Participating Jurisdictions; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of any of the Participating Jurisdictions; and the Bonds do not constitute an indebtedness of any of the Participating Jurisdictions within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation. No amount of the Bonds will be allocated to any of the Participating Jurisdictions other than Victoria for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 7. This Agreement shall terminate upon the retirement or defeasance of the last outstanding Bonds, and this Agreement may not be terminated in advance of such retirement or defeasance. 8. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. [THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] IM • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Participating Jurisdictions has caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers, all as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF VICTORIA, as Issuer By: — Its: By: — Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] 5911 CITY OF CHASKA By: Its: By: Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -4- • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: _ Its: By: _ Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -5- • CITY OF MAYER Its: By: Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] Ell • C� CITY OF NORWOOD -YOUNG AMERICA By: _ Its: By: Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] de • �l CITY OF WACONIA By: _ Its: By: Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] Eil 171 • • CITY OF MINNETONKA By: _ Its: By: _ Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] in • • CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK By Its And by Its [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -10- 0 a �l CITY OF NEW HOPE By Its And by Its [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -11- • is is CITY OF SHOREWOOD Its And by Its [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -12- �l • CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its And by Its [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -13- C s HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF AITKIN Its And by _ Its [SIGNATURE PAGE TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT] -14- • • is AGENDA SECTION: 1" drni n . -, +6PC✓4-> AGENDA ITEM # 1 (0 REPORT # 3.39 go STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Ef MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of consultant agreement/work order for preparation of plans and specifications associated with the new 1- 494 /Penn Avenue pump station (City Project No. 401 -30 -521). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize execution of a work order, in an amount not to exceed $53,500, entering into agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., a consulting engineering company, for design services associated with the new 1- 494 /Penn Avenue pump station. III. BACKGROUND I Construction of a new bridge over 1 -494 at Penn Avenue and other roadway improvements between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue from 76th Street to 1 -494 will provide additional stormwater runoff because of the increased hard surface areas. On occasion there has been . flooding of 1 -494 at Penn Avenue. The proposed work order /agreement provides for preparation of plans and specifications for a new stormwater pump station. Design of the new pump station would be coordinated with new roadway design for the 1- 494 /Penn Avenue area. 1211 WSBPennPump III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY The City has a master engineering agreement with WSB and Associates, Inc. WSB and Associates, Inc. is a qualified firm with experience in hydrology and hydraulic design. The reconstruction of 1 -494, including the Penn Avenue Bridge, has been identified as a priority of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The design work needs to begin soon to assure that the new roadways are built within the next two years. The Penn Avenue Bridge has been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2001. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is anticipated new roadway configuration will increase the area tributary to the pump station. • Existing lift station equipment will be reviewed for possible re -use in a new pump station at a new site in the area. C. FINANCIAL • The new pump station is part of the project to construct a new Penn Avenue bridge over 1 -494. Costs of the new pump station, including • the design consultant fees, are part of the budget for the new Penn Avenue bridge. D. LEGAL No issues known at this time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may choose to reject hiring the engineering firm of WSB and Associates, Inc. This would delay the schedule for building the Penn Avenue Bridge as City staff solicits proposals from other qualified engineering firms. V. ATTACHMENTS roposed work order /agreement with WSB and Associates, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None known at this time. C] This is Exhibit A, consisting of 4 pages, referred to in the Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Services. Initials: OWNER _ ENGINEER Work Order Form WORK ORDER NO. 5 Authorization to proceed and site - specific scope of services Project: Design Services for new pump station Location: I- 494/Penn Avenue City Project 401 -30 -672 WSB Project No. 1000 -72 We transmit the following information for your use: WSB monosal dated October 25, 2000 We hereby authorize you to proceed with the following phases of services for the above - referenced Project and location in accordance with the agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER dated December 10, 1999 Task 1 - Complete Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Task 5 - Final Pump Station '& Storm Sewer Design Task 2 - Preliminary Pump Station & Storm Sewer Design Task 6 - Mechanical and Electrical Design Task 3 - Coordination with Watershed District Task 7 - Structural/Architectural Design Task 4 - Evaluate Existing Equipment Task 8 - Prepare Final Plans and Specifications Payment shall be on the basis of (select from the following): ❑ Cost Plus Fee: Direct Salary Cost times audited overhead plus fee of _ percent and reimbursable expenses. ❑ Cost Plus Fixed Fee: As for Cost Plus Fee, however total Fee shall not exceed ❑ Lump Sum: One sum payable by percent of completion of the Services (plus reimbursable expenses). ❑ Cost Times a Factor: Direct Salary Cost times a factor of plus reimbursable expenses. . Standard Hourly Billing Rates: Hourly rates plus reimbursable expenses. The Not to Exceed Limit for this Work Order is: $53,500. A Construction Cost Limit of is agreed upon between OWNER and ENGINEER for this Project. ENGINEER: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. Signed: Its: Signed: Its: 0 Dated: OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD Signed: Its: Signed: Its: Dated: ANk WSB & Associates, Inc. October 25, 2000 Mr. Mike Eastling City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Re: Proposal for Design Services I- 494/Penn Avenue Pump Station WSB Project No. 1000 -72 Dear Mr. Eastling: tel: 763 -541 -4800 fax: 763 -541 -1700 B.A. Mittelsteadt, P.E. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Peter R. Wiilenbring, P.E. Donald W. sterna, P.E. Ronald B. Bray, P.E. As a follow -up to our meeting of October 10, 2000, please find outlined below the tasks associated with preparation of the plans and specifications associated with the new I -494 / Penn Avenue pump station. Task I Complete HydrologicfHydraulic Analysis As part of this task, a hydrologic/hydraulic model of the I -494 system will be developed based on a review of the 30% complete preliminary design/alignment plans. It is anticipated that the new roadway configuration will increase the area tributary to the pump station. Throughout the design process, the model will be revised as necessary to reflect changes in design. Costs associated with this task ............. ......................... $4,800 - $6,800 Task 2 - Preliminary Pump Station and Storm Sewer Design This task will include a site visit to review the existing conditions and establish the requirements for the new lift station site and soils investigation. In addition, a preliminary design of the pump sizing and sewer and forcemain routing will be prepared for review and discussion during the permit phase. The proposed design will incorporate the existing collection system for the I -494 low area. This will be accomplished by extending the pipes under the new roadway surface and installing a new collector to convey runoff to the new pump station. Costs associated with this task .......... ............................... $2,700-$4,200 M i n n e a p o l i s - St. C l o u d Infrastructure Engineers Planners r:1WPWfNl000- 72\101S00- nh.wpd EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER t!t! ON 2 6 2-000 As a follow -up to our meeting of October 10, 2000, please find outlined below the tasks associated with preparation of the plans and specifications associated with the new I -494 / Penn Avenue pump station. Task I Complete HydrologicfHydraulic Analysis As part of this task, a hydrologic/hydraulic model of the I -494 system will be developed based on a review of the 30% complete preliminary design/alignment plans. It is anticipated that the new roadway configuration will increase the area tributary to the pump station. Throughout the design process, the model will be revised as necessary to reflect changes in design. Costs associated with this task ............. ......................... $4,800 - $6,800 Task 2 - Preliminary Pump Station and Storm Sewer Design This task will include a site visit to review the existing conditions and establish the requirements for the new lift station site and soils investigation. In addition, a preliminary design of the pump sizing and sewer and forcemain routing will be prepared for review and discussion during the permit phase. The proposed design will incorporate the existing collection system for the I -494 low area. This will be accomplished by extending the pipes under the new roadway surface and installing a new collector to convey runoff to the new pump station. Costs associated with this task .......... ............................... $2,700-$4,200 M i n n e a p o l i s - St. C l o u d Infrastructure Engineers Planners r:1WPWfNl000- 72\101S00- nh.wpd EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Eastling City of Richfield October 25, 2000 Page 2 Task 3 - Coordination with Watershed District The preliminary design completed as part of Task 2 will be presented to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for approval. It is anticipated that this task will begin as the remaining task are being performed. Costs associated with this task .......... ............................... $2,10043,100 Task 4 - Evaluate Existing Equipment The existing lift station equipment, including the pumps, controls and standby generator will be reviewed to consider possible re -use. A site visit and discussion with Mn/DOT operating personnel will be completed. We will contact the pump manufacturer's representatives to further evaluate the condition of the existing pumps and the potential for re -use. Costs associated with this task ............. ........ ...... • • • . • • • ... $1,400- $2,400 Task S - Final Pump Station and Storm Sewer Design After reviewing the existing equipment, a final design of the pumping system and conveyance systems will be prepared. This task will also include meeting with Mn/DOT personnel to define the necessary operating parameters of the pump station controls. Costs associated with this task ......... ............................... $2,500-$3,500 Task 6 - Mechanical and Electrical Design In consideration of the importance of this lift station, we have anticipated that a standby generator unit will be permanently located at the site. In addition, we have assumed that a small building will be required to house the generator and the pump controls. The building will provide some sound attenuation and security for the electrical equipment. The pumps will be housed separately in a wet well adjacent to the building. Mechanical and electrical design will provide for the HVAC in the building and the new electrical control system. The new controls will be designed to accommodate the Mn/DOT SCADA system for monitoring the facility operation. Sub- contractor support will be utilized as part of this task. Costs associated with this task ....................................... $14,000416,000 Task 7 - StructurallArchitectural Design The proposed site for the new lift station is located near a car dealer's parking lot and a "strip" type shopping area. The buildings in the area are generally well maintained with brick exterior surfacing. In order to provide a building that fits into the surrounding neighborhood and provides a reasonable level of security with minimal maintenance, we have anticipated a brick -faced masonry building. The building F:\WPWfN\J0G0-72\1025G0-nh.wpd Mr. Mike Eastling City of Richfield October 25, 2000 Page 3 will provide space for the standby generator and provide shelter for the electrical controls and Mn/DOT SCADA system. Sub - contractor support will be utilized as part of this task. Costs associated with this task ........ ............................... $11,000413,500 Task 8 - Prepare Final Plans and Specifications This task includes development of the final plans and specification. This effort will include coordination with BRW for inclusion of the plan sheets and specifications in the final design package. Plans and specifications for submittal at 85% completion to Mn/DOT will be available before December 27, 2000. Costs associated with this task .......... ............................... $3,00044,000 The total proposal for design services associated with the I- 494/Penn Avenue pump station is $41,500 to $53,500. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (763) 541 -4800. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. 4 v Steve Gurney, P.E. Project Engineer c: Nancy Hanzlik, BRW Inc. rim Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Vice President F:\WPW1M1000 -72\ 102500- nh.%vpd n U AGENDA SECTION: ReSO A LL+J C> nS AGENDA ITEM # ( 9 REPORT # 371 �� STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Authorizing the submission of an application for Municipal Cooperative Agreement and Access Management Program funds provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the City staff to submit an application for Municipal Cooperative Agreement and Access Management Program funds provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for adding a fourth leg to the proposed new intersection on Penn Avenue with the entrance to the Best Buy Campus and extending the West 78th Street frontage road to connect to the new intersection. 11I. BACKGROUND I Each year the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) offers 50 % matching funds up to a maximum of $500,000 for local road projects that will benefit a state highway. Richfield has a project that may qualify for this funding. The project would add a fourth leg to the proposed new intersection that provides an entrance to the Best Buy Campus on Penn Avenue (see attached map). The fourth leg would provide access to the signalized intersection for the Century Court Apartments and the West 78th Street frontage road would be extended to connect to the new signalized intersection. 1211 Municipal Agreement Funds The owners of the Century Court Apartments, Dominium Group, suggested this idea and are in favor of the proposed project. The work would be done as part of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. The Minnesota Department of Transportation recommended the proposed design in response to the Best Buy Draft Environmental Impact Statement as part of the long -range plan to widen 1 -494. If funded, the project would be built in 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The project improves access and safety for Penn Avenue by moving the existing 78th Street access to Penn Avenue to the north, increasing the spacing between it and the westbound entrance ramp to 1 -494. • The project has been identified as part of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project in the City's 2001 to 2005 Capital Improvement Program. The project is consistent with MnDOT's long -range plan for widening 1- 494. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City has an opportunity to improve the safety and access for the iCentury Court Apartments to Penn Avenue as part of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. However, the owners of the apartment complex will be expected to donate some or all of the right of way needed to provide the access. This involves the demolition of the racquet club building which is underutilized and lacks adequate parking. C. FINANCIAL • If the application is approved, the City will receive 50% state of Minnesota funds to assist with the up to $500,000 in increased costs of the additional intersection and frontage road work. For the remaining 50% of the costs, the City will use the funds already identified to build the Penn Avenue Bridge Project budget or the City's Municipal State Aid Street funds (gas tax revenues.) D. LEGAL The City Attorney will be available to answer any legal questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Refuse to authorize the submission of an application for highway funds. This would make it increasingly difficult to honor a request made by the owners of Century Court Apartments to improve access to their property. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing City staff to submit an application for Municipal Cooperative Agreement and Access Management Program funds offered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. • Proposed layout showing the fourth leg of the intersection of Penn Avenue with Best Buy entrance and the connection to the frontage road on the west side of Penn Avenue, West 78th Street. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None expected. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS OFFERED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is submitting an application for Municipal Cooperative Agreement and Access Management Program funds provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for an improvement on Penn Avenue at the entrance to the. Best Buy Campus by adding a fourth leg to the proposed intersection as part of the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge; and WHEREAS, the City will use up to $250,000 of its funds identified to finance the Penn Avenue Bridge Project as its matching share of the remaining 50 percent of the cost of the proposed intersection improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City is authorized to submit an application for Municipal Cooperative Agreement and Access Management Program funds provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for an improvement on Penn Avenue at its intersection with the new entrance to the Best Buy Campus to add a fourth leg to the intersection to improve access to West 78th Street and the Century Court Apartments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if funding is approved the City will complete the project. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk ;7 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 100 scale feet PROPOSAL TO ADD 4TH LEG TO THE INTERSECTION OF PENN AVENUE AT BEST BUY ENTRANCE -- --- ------ °----- °-------------'- = =« =926 • - t t -------- --- --------- H -:T W41. L: ------------- ------- k1. ---------------- ----------------------------- ------------- --- --------- END -Q� ,-- I 0 r 0 n. • • AGENDA SECTION: rle-501 U-+ I bi $ AGENDA ITEM # EF REPORT # '? 3 =9' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: YO / � "VI/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the Business Subsidy Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Best Buy Co., Inc. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution approving the Business Subsidy Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Best Buy Co., Inc. III. . BACKGROUND I In 1999, the Minnesota State legislature approved the Business Subsidies Act. This law requires that certain types of developments which receive more than $100,000 in public assistance must enter into a business subsidy agreement with the government entity providing such assistance. The contents of a business subsidy agreement are based, in part, on the business subsidy criteria established by a government entity. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) established its business subsidy criteria on November 15, 1999 (see attached). 1 It has been determined that the redevelopment planned by Best Buy is to receive public assistance to a degree which requires a Business Subsidy Agreement with the Richfield HRA. The public funding identified in the amended Contract for 1211bbsub Private Development with Best Buy is consistent the attached Business Subsidy Agreement. The HRA subsidy, as identified in the agreement, is: • $48,0 73 127 as land write down for the site to be acquired; • $8,350,000 as Penn Avenue bridge reconstruction costs attributed to Best Buy; and • An additional $3,500,000 in public improvement costs attributed to Best Buy. The Business Subsidy Agreement states that the development will create at least 1,000 new jobs on the redevelopment site. For the purpose of this agreement, new jobs are defined as jobs which did not previously exist in the State of Minnesota prior to the date of the agreement. The agreement further requires that 15 percent of the new jobs pay at least $75,000 per year; 35 percent pay at least $50,000 per year, 35 percent pay at least $30,000 per year and 15 percent pay at least $20,000 per year. It has been determined that all of the public financing that is subject to the Business Subsidy Act is being provided by the Richfield HRA rather than the City of Richfield. The City Council, therefore, is being asked to approve the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement. This Agreement was approved, upon the completion of a public hearing, by the Richfield HRA on November 27, 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota state law requires the execution of a Business Subsidy Agreement for certain types of public assistance, including the type of public assistance which is to be granted to Best Buy for the redevelopment of the Interchange West area. • The Richfield HRA approved Business Subsidy Criteria on November 15, 1999. • The Richfield HRA held a public hearing and approved a Business Subsidy Agreement with Best Buy on November 27, 2000. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Public funding for Best Buy's redevelopment of the Interchange West area cannot proceed without the execution of a Business Subsidy Agreement. C. FINANCIAL • The public funding identified in the amended Contract for Private Development with Best Buy is consistent with the attached Business Subsidy Agreement. D. LEGAL • Legal staff has reviewed the Business Subsidy Agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Do not ratify the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement. • Defer ratification of the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement to a later date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Business Subsidy Agreement between the Richfield HRA and Best Buy Co, Inc. — approved by the Richfield HRA at its November 27, 2000 meeting. • HRA Business Subsidy Criteria, adopted on November 15, 1999. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative of Best Buy or their developer Opus. • • RESOLUTION NO. is RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND BEST BUY CO., INC. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the approval of a business subsidy agreement with Best Buy has been held before the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") on November 27, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. at the Richfield City Hall located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota after proper notice; and WHEREAS, the HRA approved the business subsidy agreement; and WHEREAS, the Business Subsidy Act provides that the City Council approve of such an agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: A business subsidy agreement in the amount of be $48,073,127 to be used for land write- down, $8,350,000 to be used for the Penn Avenue Bridge, and $3,500,000 to be used public improvements is approved. Such approval is contingent upon the necessary modification of the budget for the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District. Adopted by the City Council for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this 18th day of December, 2000, by and between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, ( "Grantor "), and BEST BUY CO., INC., a Minnesota corporation, ( "Grantee ") X`7*-M-: 1. Grantor and Grantee are the parties to that certain instrument entitled Contract for Private Development executed March 28, 2000, and subsequently amended on July 17, 2000, and October 16, 2000, ( "Contract "). 2. The March 28, 2000, Contract provides for financial assistance to the Grantee that constitutes a "business subsidy" for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act (Chapter 243, Article 12, Laws 1999) ( "Act" ). 3. The Act requires that a business subsidy may not be provided until the parties have entered into a business subsidy agreement that complies with the requirements of the Act. 4. This Agreement is intended to constitute a business subsidy agreement for the purposes of the Act. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and in the Contract, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows. (a) Definitions. The terms used in this agreement shall have the meanings given them in the . Contract and the Act unless a different meaning is clearly indicated. (b) General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: (1) The subsidy provided to the Grantee involves use of funds currently available to the ,Grantor for the payment of costs incurred by the Grantee in performing certain land assembly, including acquisition, relocation and demolition on the Redevelopment Property as more fully described in the Contract. The subsidy has an estimated value for land write -down assistance of $48,073,127, an estimated value for the Penn Avenue Bridge of $8,350,000, and an estimated value for public improvements of $3,500,000. (2) The public purposes for the subsidy are as described in the Business Subsidy Criteria adopted by the Grantor. (3) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure development of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property; to maintain such improvements for at least 5 years as described in clause (6) below; and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section (c) hereof. to (4) If the goals described in clause (3) are met, the Grantee shall have no obligation to repay the payments to the Grantee described in the Agreement (5) The subsidy is needed because site development costs make development of the Minimum Improvements financially infeasible without public assistance, all as determined upon approval of the TIF Plan. (6) The Grantee must continue operation of the Minimum Improvements for at least five years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion. (7) The Grantee does not have a parent corporation. (c) Job and Wage Goals. Commencing on the date of this Agreement and ending on the date which is two (2) years after the date of this issuance of the certificate of completion of the Minimum Improvements (the "Compliance Date "), the Grantee shall cause to be created at least one thousand (1,000) new full -time equivalent jobs on the Redevelopment Property (excluding any jobs previously existing in the State as of the date of this Agreement and relocated to this site, but including any jobs not previously existing in the State as of the date of this Agreement and relocated to this site) and shall cause the wages of any such new full -time equivalent jobs on the Redevelopment Property to be no less than the following: Fifteen percent (15 %) of the newly created full -time equivalent jobs to have a salary of seventy -five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) per year, or more, exclusive of benefits. Thirty-five percent (35 %) of the newly created full -time equivalent jobs to have a salary of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) per year, or more, exclusive of benefits. Thirty-five percent (35 %) of the newly created full -time equivalent jobs to have a salary of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) per year, or more, exclusive of benefits. Fifteen percent (15 %) of the newly created full -time equivalent jobs to have a salary of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) per year, or more, exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and job goals described in this paragraph are met by the Compliance Date, those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Redeveloper's continuing obligations under sections (b)(6) and (e). The Grantor may, after a public hearing, extend the Compliance Date by up to a year, provided that nothing in this Section will be construed to limit the Grantor's legislative discretion regarding this matter. (d) Remedies. If the Grantee fails to meet the goals described in Section (b)(3), the Grantee shall repay to the Grantor upon written demand from the Grantor (a) a "pro rata share" of the amount of subsidy expended by the Grantor. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: (i) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the jobs created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the facility in accordance with Section (b)(6), 60 less the number of months of operation as the required facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing on the date of the certificate of completion and ending with the date the facility ceases to be so operated as determined by the Grantor, divided by 60; and (iv) if any more than one of clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100 %. Nothing is this Agreement shall be construed to limit the Grantor's remedies otherwise available to it under this Contract. In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any other remedies available to the Grantor for failure to meet the goals stated in Section (b)(3), the Grantee agrees and understands that it may not receive a business subsidy from the Grantor or any grantor (as defined in the Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Grantee satisfies its repayment obligations under this Section, whichever occurs first. (e) Reports. The Grantee must submit to the Grantor a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2002 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated in Section (b)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five -year period described in Section (b)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section (d). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Act. The Grantor will provide information to the Grantee regarding the required forms. If the Grantee fails to timely file any report required under this section, the Grantor will mail the Grantee a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Grantee fails to provide a report, the Grantee must pay the Grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this section is $1,000. (f) Approval. This Agreement shall not be effective until approved by the City Council, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the City Council resolution of approval being affixed to this Agreement. is 0 BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA I. Purpose This document includes the criteria to be considered by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( "Authority ") to evaluate requests for business subsidies. It is the intent of the Authority in adopting these criteria is to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993- 116J.995 (the "Act "). The Authority hereby adopts the definitions contained in the Act for application in the criteria. II. Goals and Objectives It is the Authority's intent to advance the following goals and objectives in granting business subsidies: a. All projects, by not later than the benefit date, must be consistent with Richfield's comprehensive plan and any other plan or guide for development of the community or a sub -area of the community. b. Business subsidies must be justified by evidence that the project cannot proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the grantee must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the "but for" test. The grantee will be required to provide all documentation necessary for the Authority to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. C. Grantees will be required to enter into an agreement with the Authority that is consistent with statutory requirements, including a commitment to continue the business at the site for a minimum of five years after the benefit date and compliance with the specific jobs and wages goals established for the project. III. Business Subsidy Criteria The Authority recognizes that every proposal is unique. Nothing in these criteria shall be deemed to be an entitlement or shall establish a contractual right to a subsidy. The Authority reserves the right to modify these criteria from time to time and to evaluate each project as a whole. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating a request for a business subsidy: a. Increase in tax base. While an increase in the tax base cannot be the sole grounds for granting a subsidy, the Authority believes it is a preferred condition for any subsidy. b. Jobs and Wages. It is Authority's intent that the grantee create livable wage jobs at the site. This may 'include jobs to be retained but only if job loss is imminent and demonstrable. C. Economic Development. Projects should promote one or more of the following: 1. Encourage economic and commercial diversity within the community; 2. Contribute to the establishment of a critical mass of commercial development is within an area; 3. Provide basic goods and services, increase the range of goods and services available or encourage fast - growing businesses; 4. Promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup; 5. Promote the retention or adaptive reuse of buildings of historical or architectural significance; 6. Promote additional or spin -off development within the community; 7. Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. IV. Compliance and Reporting Requirements. a. Any subsidy granted by the Authority will be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the Richfield city council. b. It will be necessary for both the grantee and the Authority to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. r • U AGENDA SECTION: P tb 1; (, 4cp f nQ AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 33:5 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Q ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a preliminary plat of Best Buy Campus. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution granting preliminary approval of a subdivision for Best Buy Corporation. III. BACKGROUND I Best Buy Corporation is proposing a 1.5 million square foot office development in the area located between 76th and 78th Streets and Knox and Penn Avenues. The developments consists of four buildings and a parking ramp. The 40 -acre area currently consists of several small parcels and rights -of -way that are proposed to be vacated. Best Buy is proposing to replat the property and create one parcel for the new development. • An outlot is created for the City's lift station, located in the southwest corner of 77th Street and Knox Avenue. Three outlots are created for the property that will be taken by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the widening of 1 -494 at some time in the future. 1211 Mplat III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY It is important for plats to be filed when new developments are constructed to establish appropriate legal descriptions, dedicate the appropriate rights -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. • Any necessary utility easements will be established in the final plat. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A portion of the property will be needed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) at some time in the future for the widening of 1 -494. That area is being platted as Outlots A, B, and C so that it can easily be transferred to MnDOT in the future. • Ownership of the City's lift station, located in the southwest corner of Knox Avenue and 77th Street, will be maintained by the City and platted as Outlot D. • 76th Street and Penn Avenue will be widened. The property needed for the widening will be dedicated in the plat as right -of -way. • Submission of a final plat is a stipulation of the final development plan. • A copy of the preliminary plat was submitted to Hennepin County for review. The County Transportation Department reviews all plats adjacent to county roads; Penn Avenue is a county road. No comments have been received to date. • A copy of the preliminary plat was submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for review. MnDOT reviews all plats adjacent to state and federal highways. No comments have been received to date. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 29, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed on November 29 to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, people and organizations that have commented on the EIS, and interested parties who have requested notification of items related to Best Buy. • Approval of the plat is contingent upon the developer submitting title evidence to the City Attorney for review and signing an agreement acknowledging that Outlots A, B, and C will be required in the future by MnDOT for the widening of 1 -494. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Approve the plat with revisions. Do not approve the plat. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving a preliminary subdivision • Best Buy, Preliminary Plat VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from Best Buy Co., Inc. will be at the meeting to answer any questions. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION FOR BEST BUY CO., INC. WHEREAS, Best Buy Co., Inc. ( "Applicant ") has requested preliminary approval to combine and subdivide several tracts of land located generally between 76th Street and 78th Street and Knox Avenue and Penn Avenue; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as BEST BUY CAMPUS; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed plat of BEST BUY CAMPUS was held on Monday, December 11, 2000, at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of BEST BUY CAMPUS satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Preliminary approval is granted to the Applicant for the plat of BEST BUY CAMPUS, subject to the following conditions: • The developer shall submit title evidence to the City Attorney for review. • That an agreement be signed in which Best Buy acknowledges that Outlots A, B, and C will someday be needed for the widening of 1 -494. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk y r Y M a t ! i r �r M i '•fit 1\ — F r L —_ 9 Et, A Q m 2no o� a_ y rZ Ca n� O \ \ \ O C7 le F55.� €'S x g °a?�V;o � : sod$ IL in 1 E �i. gi sub �Rp 4:' A n o 3ipo x Is gas. M i '•fit 1\ — F r L —_ 9 Et, A Q m 2no o� a_ y rZ Ca n� O a Y N L' t a D a a� �a to A gss�3gs a � 95? s t9a �- ��i NV *d 5—T _� -H3 !•' B vg3 egS P 3 r = r 19 Vn O O O O O o D mj? yC � - R� R R R Q � P ° • $ $ II $ � egos 9:F: eoRn x °x ey ey �a R.o o =1n' ^� s ^� o ^I uR r �a 3g c° 3 " � a y � s 4 2 _ 3 A e P "3-^ ^� s -sa .I.. -.gi'" =g .. "g- by:o �og;3 oo:o-its Eris -s _s s3acat _ � =as "` "SU��a o R Q. Gi- •3 ^0 +� sit II8o$S�E ° % =3 s; �N3 is "sdaa9'�Y.a, ��sga9 t_R. ^: flat F sq ��n RO 4 7 q s 8s f s a °s $ s Y .pif2a; gat °s• g a�_�_�es os33g. ".9g�aa;� =Sop RS- �i�os:�_a:pp�4s$FNE�xL .Y sS SIB °.a�'�:V?�oio �• �g= ;s.�aF3 ° °SoNs3smas R$$ ES wi 43 1 -8x s =S;a ^s� at 138 ? sq, t a m. - u S g sx T iJ �Q 3a �m a; g _yo S PENN SOUTH »a Fn Sz- R v •na$ 4oR =' Qa- I se b Uzi RgS Ci .. £ug 4C S '3oonq wi g- y tt V 3 S? 5i >� ?Qp p44 a AYF.m I Ai= a/VER NOW 17T, am' ; x: ea ` (70 W VAG W) a 60 °a 4. i -:a � � °k�• R ¢ is Ea Ea G �+ aE E�� ¢ y � iE A4 •u \ Ea}¢dE ag Er \'a y' .E , .€ d¢ / E Epp � � @ E • EE+ E E E \ � G ° -: ��•Ei�•GIE °@' 'E n I it i �• � r • g 'gE ,� E �E � =(� tr ¢ ¢ n v c_ v c_ / s \ - v _ • .. , Ir �gta .°@ °r • Gal ' E �' 3°7C of aG Sd a d I �gall ' �� / t � � �'= tE�eiE\ �, �'� E• I I 1 �� \ �$^ i � It' I I - / ' s iv _ ii'a'• — \ 1E (rO BE vnc,¢ff) p E c 1 p--- - -- I-- - - - - -- ~�°iiE� a' // I \ E�' iI ? �VW @ € € CC \ q u s t / �/ fa \,`;.y o '`• // , '' E` W ¢, I G � � ��,MIT i l l Y '` - � X 6 a 1\ @•@ , G G EG E E C G G � Es I' T 11 c rtaoE __ NO jo "I LUZ a � c E s: B\ +, •' _ // y a _ Y: }?� ' G E y - ,q .I g le r-- - - - - -- lr �ak�¢• -�' ; ., ' G i�; ; \ - 3� ?�ti • E i� Ef .E � �•\ ��E�s�� 1 � ^� 1 / \ it //:�� i �I , i aE ltt l I $ °• � —; \ ! ° � a .:ay ° B G y y / I t g � O @, ' ag II $ �a �� ' I \ - ��. _ • s = a Gal 3 :a Ills. I � E 6 ¢ i a a � • � �/ ss "r n Eii 6 € i C ,� 1lI• ,\ € . ¢ al €4 ®INp %11 all �g a `r •— b y °ag �• A> as as = € • ill Y; € € _� crrsL�£— —- slj ;� # \ € \ € 4 a€ 1 E a� s s E„r " S'i .• 1 u apr ¢il E J — ' �� �I.� •G E, i; — /j�z d ion t.y,mmn.�f � •F i ;i �, os, � E Sa. a , �� II� � G ° ¢ '� _ � 8888 � � y g g ¢ 1 + E (/ g I • @ E // $� • .Oyu ' x \ ago G � # i �`�' �, E ds _ B° a W G G ¢ _ _• s� @ E ��`�' .¢ ¢ � E• ��E E •� / � E �11 ��� ° ?- � , y ¢ i ° �"•` .5 � E ¢ lE / i\C E i \\ y\Rc •a y \\ \ G\ �a\ \vw Aa , I i I € 1• — sr , uswExr xEa ,rt oEmsG a 1 °°a xa SMr E 11 IT' ' s.REEr uso.o+r ooa xa Nwr- of -w.r °0G xo. u . a„ V r � � l � @ � I � .y i Ea ai aE `� 1 `a 0: r u Ea �r°o a v rzn , � \.i y y £ '�a�+ -• . � aE s $ 2 _ g d g c to 4 °jai tR x ;W. �a s -s a \ G � 1 I, \ Re a cx NJ .++ � \ �P�'� x� �r \� 5f I c cd' .y _ � � E I •� iG .'�, /R(I c ,++� _ A 1 i4 /ii r G G $ h • /'� V L_ v V L_ � s 4 1 _ All � rri1�mm IR[rK xc al on re 1 I fLxMTE :y ••)Y / E 9• �• ',R/• F 0\ cis ` x \.� ••` �- a 1 �....• _ c[[ ' \f•x G a FM all 1 E t TES � _- r / a - _ oua / °G .. _g -Gx - -; - -- --- -1�- -- - -G9 ih`•'� G'ai \� AN •i �I t _ GG .°a (TO 6E VAC ED) I F3�= �� ° I \ - I i( i• €A i r �� 1 //� CQ __ _ � `— - _YC•4L • + '`y • Yw I • a V Aa � �� � mil,° e �� / � � �€ I 'o��,f� 1 .�� � // i• ��, I \` �� / I R� #� I \- /1/ x \� y � c ` ;� // ' Gc ' ti� ���1 I G5 € ��a�/ic6,Er. xa�� e� ;uE , f � -' ,� . � o I• t� ` \\ ° � x, I x frorEn - / sE F___ ____________!____ / /// / • c �t �1 in E s5• "L fe \ \ / . � p -- w / / ,@'; G 2,a6 - - - I � �,'• a ►EE G / , E G 1! � � - ,'' / /// g 9 1�•� i G p /� 5'34.4 �C.9. a C G GG Atm iB a c /r„ NJ � r I 1 -�� -A. e2lT AM m ' III •� � GV _° Ei 1 � t: it � �1 CA 9 _ GR • x x Fig ac a _ Pte: II ' SRI¢r EAYIIERT =OF XQ I UaaY • r �u gv nw�v £ X S [get 5 �I SEt�iy \ \� 5 I a G E 5 x � ` I �� "Ri %M-NM 11 - Efl • - - � w " '? 6. �i �� 110-1 IRS 11 RUA 61111 �rl���!% �:/IIYid�ri(fiw�IR�1�f►rl ®��li� =�E1 rn rcr^ �+J Y r Y r p 1 S R T K �i o a44 �pZ �tro �Z Ca n� y Z r e +8 PR �B$%%I 0 '•e `3`g N7y�� >N a B� $� 4' m moo�o ig$ :< °ag�dBFc2 ^ 087 � f 9Q.� gal G+ a� ��� oa" NQ� a ,, $ x ^- $$ga 000�000veeSo is "s ^;e "sssa "isaa "s3is 30oaooeo3oa0000a4333ooae3 '.Po3O33o393 se"¢ s" II3s" is = =ssi =aa" "aai¢s " =3 =a "a"s'ia "s � a" a' sis" e^¢ ss" a' s" s" s" s" as: s' s" s" s" a" ia" s" iE: sa" a"= =s • _+ ���— � n � $t=F § ^ � 11,3 1; 8:3�ag3e1r3e$ u g'a po $!e�• 3w� g €° ° e:n�F3t33�i18o Rs • am.$° 3sa^ t`S '��� .3 �s�� o -" ^ $t. t s °S tss" � � :3� 'S tstt s t sgd�- aaQ Q• Bseg� =q33s° c .3g°go�,ge . 3: y•�:• 3 . €i33 ° 4a°'.° 'o44s 0 ° �a^Res ew °gg �� 3 F' vs3• j g e_cn '� o3 '°��� a � R S 3 d :� �'�g g 43"' -all 3 3 g g• 3 gt aa- im °�° A s �i o a44 �pZ �tro �Z Ca n� y • • 0 AGENDA SECTION: PL Lb I j L j ng 5 AGENDA ITEM # 12, REPORT # 3 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW.: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way in the Best Buy Campus project area. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Conduct second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way in the Best Buy Campus project area. II. BACKGROUND Best Buy Corporation is proposing to construct a corporate campus, including four buildings with 1.5 million square feet of office space and parking for 7,500 cars, in the Interchange West area (76th Street to 1 -494 and Knox to Penn Avenues). The 42 -acre site is currently developed with a mixture of 68 single family and duplex properties, three apartment complexes (89 units), 12 small businesses and the Walser and McCarthy car dealerships. There are several public streets within the development area, including 77th and 78th Streets, Logan, Morgan, Newton and Oliver Avenues. The proposed development would eliminate the streets and the utilities contained within the development. 1211 bbvacations • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The site plan for the Best Buy Campus proposes an internal circulation system. Public streets would no longer be needed in this area. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current utility easements would no longer be needed. Any easements necessary with the new development would be established in the plat. • The majority of 78th Street (the portion of the frontage road that runs parallel to 1 -494) is not included in the area to be vacated. At some time in the future, this area will be turned back to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the expansion of 1 -494. The City would allow Best Buy to use this area for surface parking and landscaping until that time. • Utilities currently located within the street rights -of -way that provide services outside the project area will be relocated. • Right -of -way necessary for the widening of 76th Street and Penn Avenue would be dedicated in the plat. • The private utility companies were notified of the proposed vacation. Excel Energy responded stating that they have feeder lines within the project area that will need to be relocated. Opus has been informed of this issue and will be working with Excel staff to address this issue. • Two Bloomington water lines run through the project area. The water lines would be relocated with the project. A portion of the easements for these water lines are within City streets. Best Buy is working on an agreement with the City of Bloomington to provide a temporary easement for the water lines until they can be relocated. Until such an agreement is reached or until the water lines are relocated, the City will reserve a drainage and utility easement in areas where the water lines are located. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • First reading of the ordinance was held on November 13, 2000. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 22, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed on November 29 to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, people and organizations that have commented on the EIS, and interested parties who have requested notification of items related to Best Buy. • • The following stipulations are to be included with approval of the right - of -way vacations: • That Best Buy obtain control over all property adjacent to the streets and easements to be vacated. • That Best Buy submit title evidence indicating that they have an interest in the right -of -way to be vacated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the vacation. • Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission for review although they are not required to review vacations. The commission did review the planned unit development plan and voted unanimously to recommend approval. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Attachment A: Illustration of right -of -way and easements to be vacated VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from Faegre & Benson will be present at the meeting in the event of any questions. 0 • BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (Portions of Logan, Morgan, Newton, and Oliver Avenues, 77th Street West, 78th Street, and utility easements) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: The following described lands are subject to the easements as described below for street, roadway or public right -of -way purposes ( "Street Easements "): That part of Oliver Avenue South lying south of the southerly right of way line of 76th Street, as dedicated in the plat of JACOBSEN AND QUIST THIRD ADDITION and as dedicated in the plat of MCHARDY'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and as created by statutory user and Document No. 3649300. That part of Newton Avenue South lying south of the southerly right of way line of 76th Street, as dedicated in the plat of MCHARDY'S ADDITION and as dedicated in the plat of ROBERT WEBER'S FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and as created by statutory user and Document No. 2444987. That part of West 77th Street lying between the easterly right of way line of Penn Avenue South and the westerly right of way line of Knox Avenue South, as dedicated in the plat of JACOBSEN AND QUIST THIRD ADDITION and as dedicated in the plat of MCHARDY'S ADDITION, and as dedicated in the plat of ROBERT WEBER'S FIRST ADDITION, and as dedicated in the plat of JUNGELL AND JOHNSEN'S FIRST ADDITION, and as dedicated in the plat of A.N. TACK'S FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and as created by statutory user and Document Nos. 3186043, 468886, 2956722, 2956724, 2956726, 633329, 3186038, 2967023, 3267645, 3467745, 3308048 and 2444987 and as referenced in Document No. 712251. That part of Morgan Avenue South lying south of the southerly right of way line of 76th Street, as dedicated in the plat of JUNGELL AND JOHNSEN'S FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and as created by statutory user and Document Nos. 2956726, 3186041, 3186045, 3186042 and 603584, and 3577592, and instrument 3128632 filed at Page 626 of Book 2174 of Deeds, and as referenced in Document Nos. 647199 and 839290. That part of Logan Avenue South lying south of the southerly right of way line of 76th Street, as dedicated in the plat of A.N. TACK'S FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and as created by statutory user and Document Nos. 3194118, 3186043, 3267645 and 2956722, and as referenced in Book 2471 of Deeds at Page 79 as Document No. 3513383 and in Document No. 4758025. That part of the Southwest Quarter (SW %) of the Southwest Quarter (SW %) of Section Thirty Three (33), Township Twenty Eight (28), Range Twenty Four (24) West, 4th Principal Meridian, lying southwesterly of the following described Line 1: Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 656 feet east of the west line of said Section 33, distant 120 feet north of the south line of said Section 33; thence run northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Section 33, distant 355 feet north of the southwest corner thereof and terminating. And lying northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 180 feet northerly the following described Line 2: From a point on the southwest corner of said Section 33, run easterly at an angle of 89 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds from the west line of said Section 33 (measured from north to east) for 1359.14 feet to the point of beginning of Line 2 to be described; thence run westerly on the last described course for 89.23 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 00 degree 30 minutes 00 second curve (delta angle 04 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds) for 930 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 77.19 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 01 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 07 degrees 31 minutes 48 seconds) for 753 feet and there terminating. And lying easterly of the following described tine 3: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Section 33, distant 501.24 feet north of the southwest corner thereof; thence run easterly at an angle of 91 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds from said west section line (measured from south to east) for 125.65 feet; thence deflect to the right on a curve having a radius of 53 feet (delta angle 91 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds) for 84.64 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve to an intersection with Line 1 described above; then run southerly to a point distant 165 feet northerly (measured at right angles) to a point on Line 2 described above distant 656.32 feet easterly of its point of termination and there terminating. said lines forming a triangle with dimensions of 226.47 feet along Line 1 and 216.21 feet along Line 2 and 59.91 feet along Line 3. All according to the United States Government Survey thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/) of the Southwest Quarter (SW %) of Section Thirty Three (33), Township Twenty Eight (28), Range Twenty Four (24) West, 4th Principal Meridian, lying Southerly, Southwesterly and Westerly of the following described Line A: From a point on the west line of said Section 33, distant 535.26 feet north of the southwest corner thereof; thence run easterly at an angle of 88 degrees 30 minutes with said west section line (measured from north to east) for 33.01 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue easterly on the last above described course for 117.43 feet; thence deflect to the right on a curve having a radius of 62 feet (delta angle 91 degrees 30 minutes) for 99.01 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 210 feet and there terminating. And which lines Northerly, Northeasterly and Easterly of the following described Line B: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 33; thence northerly along the west line of said Section 33 a distance of 501.24 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting to the right at an angle of 88 degrees, 30 minutes, a distance of 125.66 feet; thence southeasterly along the tangential curve, concave to the southwest, radius 53 feet, delta angle 91 degrees, 30 minutes, a distance of 84.64 feet; thence southerly along the tangent of said curve a distance of 180 feet, more or less, to the northeasterly right of way line of said Trunk Highway No. 494 as defined by Document No. 3419310 and there terminating. and which lies Southwesterly of the following described Line C: Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and 33 feet easterly from the west line of said Section 33, distant 31.37 feet northerly of its intersection with the above described Line A; thence run southeasterly to a point on the above described Line A distant 31.37 feet easterly of said intersection and there terminating. and which lines Northwesterly of the following described line D: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet easterly from the west line of said Section 33 distant 30 feet southerly from the point of intersection of said parallel line with Line B; thence northeasterly to a point on Line B distant 30 feet easterly from the point of intersection of said parallel line and Line B. All according to the United Sates Government Survey thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Pathway easement per Doc. No. 1999707 Sec. 2: The following described land is subject to easements for public utility purposes ( "Utility Easements "): All utility easements as dedicated on the plat of "JACOBSEN AND QUIST, THIRD ADDITION" All drainage and utility easements as dedicated on the plat of "ROBERT WEBER'S FIRST ADDITION" All drainage and utility easements as dedicated on the plat of "JUNGELL AND JOHNSEN'S FIRST ADDITION" All drainage and utility easements as dedicated on the plat of "A.N. TACK'S FIRST ADDITION," all according to the recorded plats thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota Sanitary sewer easement per Doc. No. 2956725 (West 77th Street) Storm sewer easement per Doc. No. 3236317 (Logan Avenue extended) Sewer or Road and highway easement per Doc. No. 3186041. Utility easement per Doc. No. 3649300. Sec. 3: Document No. 5106079 creates certain private easements for ingress, egress, light and air. Pursuant to the provisions of said document, the City of Richfield hereby consents to the termination of the private easements for ingress; egress, light and air created by Doc. No. 5106079. Sec. 4: The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Street Easements and Utility Easements. Sec. 5: The proposed vacation of the Street Easements and Utility Easements will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair or replace any utility facilities that may be located within the area to be vacated. Sec. 6. The City of Bloomington has water lines located over that portion of Oliver Avenue located between the southerly right -of -way lines of 76th and 77th Streets and that portion of Logan Avenue located between the southerly right -of -way lines of 76th and 77th Streets and that portion of 77th Street located between Logan and Knox Avenues ( "Water Line Area" ) and there is a continuing need for use of these water lines. Sec. 7: The Council finds that, at such time that Best Buy Corporation has control over all property adjacent to the Street Easements and Utility Easements, there will no longer be a public need for the Street Easements or for the Utility Easements provided that utility easements are reserved for the Water Line Area. Sec. 8: The Street Easements described in Section 1 of this Ordinance are hereby vacated reserving however to the City a utility and drainage easement as provided in section 9 of this ordinance. The City does not intend to vacate those portions of the street easements created by Document Nos. 3186041, 3186045, 3186043 which are within the right of way of 76th Street West. Sec. 9. The City.reserves a_utility and drainage easement over the Water Line Area, subject to termination as provided by this section 9. The utility and drainage easement shall terminate automatically upon recording in the Hennepin County land records of certificate executed by the City of Bloomington city engineer. The certificate must reference this ordinance no. and must attest that the easement reserved herein is terminated. Sec. 10: The Utility Easements, as described in Section 2 of this Ordinance, are hereby vacated. Sec. 11: The vacation will be effective 30 days following publication. The City Clerk is directed not to publish this ordinance until Best Buy Corporation has produced evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that Best Buy Corporation owns all of the properties adjacent to the Street Easements and Utility Easements. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 10 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Streets to be Vacated Best Buy Campus Project ® Streets to be vacated (76TH ST. W) INTERSTATE_ HWY NO _494 ....... __.--- ._.. -- ---- ------- ... SOUTWOWN DR _.. ` \ . Q December 1, 2000 L o Z 2 76TH ST W ® Streets to be vacated (76TH ST. W) INTERSTATE_ HWY NO _494 ....... __.--- ._.. -- ---- ------- ... SOUTWOWN DR _.. ` \ . Q December 1, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: P(� 1 LGiNtP1Q5 AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 33 3 STAFF REPORT M0990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 12 JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a final development plan and conditional use permit for the Best Buy Campus project, located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution approving the final development plan and conditional use permit to allow construction of the Best Buy Campus project with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND Best Buy is proposing to construct a corporate campus, including four buildings with 1.5 million square feet of office space and parking for 7,500 cars, in the Interchange West area (76th Street to 1 -494 and Knox to Penn Avenues). Best Buy's current office facilities are located in nine buildings throughout Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Best Buy is seeking to consolidate its employees into one campus setting. 40 Buildings The four buildings would be six and eight stories tall, with approximately 300,000 and 400,000 square feet in each building. They would be connected with a one- 1211 bestbuyFDP level (30 feet tall) commons area where functions such as a cafeteria and convenience store would be located. A day care facility for 250 children and a fitness center would be located in the first building. A training center would also be incorporated into one building. Some basement space (up to 90,000 square feet) may be constructed to provide a service corridor underneath the buildings, storage space, a store mock -up area, and other similar functions. Access Signalized entrances will be located on Penn Avenue at 77th Street and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. A signal will also be added on 76th Street at Knox Avenue and additional access to the development will be off of Knox Avenue. Each access will provide entrance to the parking structure at a different level. Parking A majority of the parking (6,700 stalls) would be provided in a five -level parking ramp located in the northeast portion of the site. On the 76th Street side, two levels of the ramp would be below grade (approximately 38 feet would be above grade). On the Knox Avenue side, one level would be below grade. An additional 250 parking stalls would be available for visitor parking in the southwest corner of the site. A 476 -stall surface parking lot would be located on the south side of the site. This area would be taken for roadway purposes at such time that 1 -494 is widened. A partial sixth parking deck could be added to the parking ramp, if necessary, but at considerable cost. Best Buy views the future loss of parking as an incentive for implementing a successful Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM). A partial sixth deck would be located in the area closest to the buildings and would not change the lighting or shadow analyses that were conducted for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). City parking standards would not require the lost parking to be replaced. Transportation Improvements/Traffic Several transportation improvements are necessary to accommodate traffic from the development. - A new Penn Avenue bridge would be constructed. - Penn Avenue would be reconstructed from 1 -494 to 76th Street. - The intersection at Penn Avenue and 76th Street would be reconstructed with dual left turn lanes and right turn lanes in all directions. - 76th Street, from Penn Avenue to the 35W exit ramp, would be reconstructed. - Modify the 35W exit ramp at 76th Street to add a second right turn lane. Nineteen intersections were studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The level of service for individual turning movements as well as the intersections as a whole were analyzed for the project in the year 2003 and 2022. Thirteen of the intersections were found to be acceptable with Best Buy traffic. Two experience congestion but the congestion is not caused by Best Buy traffic. Four intersections will be upgraded to provide acceptable levels of service. The transportation improvements will be in place by November, 2002. The EIS shows that, with these transportation improvements, the intersections will operate with acceptable levels of service. The purpose of the EIS traffic study is to determine which intersections are impacted by the project. There are other • intersections that currently have failing operations that are not caused by the project. 76th Street/Penn Avenue Improvements 76th Street will be a four -lane roadway with a center median and protected left turn lanes at the Newton and Knox Avenue signals. A south alignment is proposed, which would reduce the amount of property taken outside of the project area. Staff, Opus and Best Buy have been meeting with representatives from the Colony and Fountainhead apartment communities to address impacts that the reconstruction of 76th Street will have on these properties. The preferred option is to provide a four- legged intersection at Knox Avenue and 76th Street and to relocate a portion of Knox Avenue 25 feet to the west. Colony and Fountainhead have responded favorably to,this option. This realignment will result in a loss of green space next to the parking ramp along Knox Avenue but will provide better access to both apartment communities. As part of the redesign of Penn Avenue, Century Courts has submitted a proposal to the City that would remove the racquetball club building and allow for a four - legged intersection on Penn Avenue at the main Best Buy entrance. This option is currently being explored. Best Buy has shifted their main entrance to the south to accommodate this potential option if it is determined to be feasible. • Staff continues to meet with other affected property owners regarding partial takings of green space for the improvements to the intersection at 76th Street and Penn Avenue. Travel Demand Management Best Buy is developing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce the number of employees who drive to work during peak hours. The TDM plan is included in the EIS, although the results of the traffic study indicate that traffic could be accommodated without TDM. A copy of the TDM plan is included in the staff report on the EIS. The site is being designed to accommodate transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. An on -site transit stop has been designed off of 76th Street. Bicycle storage facilities will be provided on campus with shower and locker facilities in the proposed fitness center. Eight -foot paths are proposed throughout the site to provide access for pedestrians and bicyclists (employees as well as community members). The entrance at Newton Avenue will be constructed to accommodate buses on the site. Stormwater Management Two ponds would be provided on site to retain and treat storm water. The ponds will improve the quality of storm water runoff discharging from the site and will . increase capacity for the area. There are existing flood ing /ponding problems in the 1-494 right -of -way at Penn Avenue and at the Fountainhead Apartments that would be reduced with the project. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan is Attachment H. A significant number of trees -over 900 -are proposed for the site. Larger trees and more intensive landscaping would be planted along 76th Street to soften the visual impact of the parking ramp. There are approximately 560 trees currently in the project area. Trees will not likely be saved for the project; however, the City will be given the opportunity to move trees to parks and other locations in the City. Utilities There is adequate capacity in the City's water system to accommodate the development. There is currently a lift station at Knox and 77th Street that controls the flow of sewage into the metropolitan interceptor along 76th Street. The storage capacity of the lift station will be expanded to accommodate additional sewage from the development. Two Bloomington water lines that currently flow through the project area will be relocated to the edges of the project area. Lighting Lighting will provide adequate levels for safe use of parking areas. The lighting will meet the ordinance requirement for less than 0.5 foot candles at any residential property line. The landscaping along 76th Street will also be designed to minimize any impact from lighting inside the parking ramp. Shadows A shadow analysis was completed for the proposed plan. The analysis indicates that, during the spring and fall, there will be some shadows on parts of the buildings to the east and west of the site in early morning and late evening. In the summer, the shadows will be contained on site. In the winter, there will be morning and afternoon shadows on part of the Woodlake Church parking lot and apartments at 76th and Penn. Signage Monument signage is proposed at the corner of Penn Avenue and 1 -494 and at Penn and 77th Street. Smaller identification /directional signage is proposed for the entrance at 76th and Newton and at 76th and Knox. Building signage is proposed for the freeway side of the development. Trash and Loading Area Trash will be accommodated inside the building and accessed through the southeastern access to the site. All loading functions will take place in this building with access from Knox Avenue. Schedule Acquisition of properties is expected to occur between February and April of 2001. Demolition and grading would take place in April and May. Construction would begin on the first building in June of 2001. Construction of the remaining buildings would occur consecutively, one month apart. Construction is expected to be completed by November of 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages high density development along the 1 -494 corridor. The Plan also encourages improvements at the gateways to the community. The proposed redevelopment of the Interchange West area is consistent with these goals. • The proposed redevelopment removes 169 housing units. A portion of the project's tax increment will be dedicated to a housing fund. Those funds will be used to increase and improve the City's housing stock. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Several transportation improvements are planned to accommodate the increased traffic from the development and to improve existing failing intersections in the area. • Best Buy is developing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan to promote the use of alternative transportation modes and reduce the number of employees who drive alone during peak periods. • The project requires that an EIS be prepared. Consideration of the EIS is scheduled for December 11. A final decision on the planned unit development plan and rezoning can be made after consideration of the EIS. C. FINANCIAL • The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has signed a contract for private redevelopment with Best Buy that details the financial aspects of the development. • Funding for the proposed transportation improvements is identified. The Penn Avenue bridge will be funded through a portion of the project's tax increment, funds will also be provided by Best Buy to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and MnDOT funds. Funding for 76th Street will be paid for with the City's Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds. D. LEGAL • A final decision cannot be made on the PUD plan and rezoning until the EIS is found to be adequate. • The City Council began the public hearing on the FDP and CUP on November 27, 2000 and continued the public hearing to December 11. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit on September 26, 2000. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 29, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed on November 29 to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, people and organizations that have commented on the EIS, and interested parties who have requested notification of items related to Best Buy. • The City Council must approve the final development plan and conditional use permit by two- thirds vote of the full Council. • Approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit are contingent upon the following Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 6. That a final plan for internal traffic circulation, including parking garage and internal building operations, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 7. That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 8. That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 9. That the final Travel Demand Management Plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 10. That, at such time that the south portion of the property is taken for roadway purposes, a revised design for the south edge and for any replacement parking be submitted to and approved by the City Manager. 11. That a final plat be submitted. 12. That a final certificate of occupancy will not be issued until such time that improvements to 76th Street, exit ramp from 35W at 76th Street, Penn Avenue, Penn Avenue bridge, and Knox Avenue be substantially completed and operational. 13. That Best Buy obtain an agreement from the City of Bloomington to providing for relocation of the water lines that are within the project area. 14. That a Voluntary Investigation and Clean Up Phase II Investigation Report/Voluntary Response Action Plan be completed. 15. That the developer obtain an Indirect Source Permit and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency. i16. That the term of the conditional use permit, as provided by zoning ordinance section 546,05, subd. 8, be extended for one additional year. 0 • C 17. That a resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding that the proposed project would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. • Deny the final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding that the EIS was found to be inadequate. • Continue action on the final development plan and conditional use permit until final action is taken on the EIS. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving the final development plan and conditional use permit and adopting findings of fact • Attachment A: Current and proposed land uses • Attachment B: Existing conditions • Attachment C: • Attachment D: • Attachment E: Proposed site plan Building elevations Ramp elevations • Attachment F: Preliminary grading plan • Attachment G: Preliminary stormwater management plan • Attachment H: Landscape plan • Attachment I: Lighting plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Best Buy and Opus will be present at the meeting. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS PROJECT WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a final development plan and conditional use permit for an office development of 1.59 million square feet on land generally located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Knox and Penn Avenues, legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request for a final development plan and conditional use permit on September 26, 2000 and voted unanimously to recommend approval; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement for the project has been found adequate; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on November 29, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the final development plan and conditional use permit on November 27, 2000 and December 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, the proposed office use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: A. The Comprehensive Plan Guide Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial /Office and the proposed development is consistent with this designation. B. An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The proposed development is consistent with this objective. C. The development is also consistent with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." D. The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." E. The development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater metropolitan area." F. The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." G. The development is consistent with the description of the 1 -494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of 1 -35W." H. Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community; and WHEREAS, the office use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: A redevelopment district has been established for this area. The proposed project is consistent with that district; and WHEREAS, the office use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Adequate provision has been made for lighting, traffic, parking, landscaping, utilities, exterior treatment of buildings, screening mechanical equipment, dumpster enclosures and stormwater management; and WHEREAS, the office use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: There are adequate facilities, utilities and services to support the development. With the proposed improvements as identified in- the Environmental Impact Statement, there will be adequate roadways to serve the development; and WHEREAS, the office use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and WHEREAS, there is a public need for such use at the proposed location: the Comprehensive Plan description of the 1 -494 West subarea plan states as follows: "The area between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of 1 -35W;" and WHEREAS, the office use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of a final development plan and conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. A final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for an office use as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described in Exhibit A. 3. The final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to completing the following conditions before a certificate of occupancy will be iissued: • That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final plan for internal traffic circulation, including parking garage and internal building operations, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That the final Travel Demand Management Plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That, at such time that the south portion of the property is taken for roadway purposes, a revised design for the south edge and for any replacement parking be submitted to and approved by the City Manager. • That a final plat be submitted. • That a final certificate of occupancy will not be issued until such time that improvements to 76th Street, exit ramp from 35W at 76th Street, Penn Avenue, Penn Avenue bridge, and Knox Avenue be substantially completed and operational. • That Best Buy obtain an agreement from the City of Bloomington to providing for relocation of the water lines that are within the project area. • That a Voluntary Investigation and Clean Up Phase II Investigation Report/Voluntary Response Action Plan be completed. • That the developer obtain an Indirect Source Permit and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency. • That the term of the conditional use permit, as provided by zoning ordinance section 546,05, subd. 8, be extended for one additional year. • That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 4. The final development plan and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Exhibit A Legal Description That part of the following described parcels of land: Block 1, "JACOBSEN AND QUIST, THIRD ADDITION ", All of "McHARDY'S ADDITION ", Block 1, ROBERT WEBER'S FIRST ADDITION, Blocks 1 and 2, JUNGELL AND JOHNSEN'S FIRST ADDITION, Block 1, A.N. TACK'S FIRST ADDITION, all according to the recorded plats thereof, Together with Tracts A, B, C and D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 618; Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1037; Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 800, files of Registrar of Titles Together with vacated Oliver Avenue South, vacated Newton Avenue South, vacated Morgan Avenue South, vacated Logan Avenue South, vacated 77th Street West and vacated 78th Street West, 0 AND The Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 33; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds East, along the south line of said Section 33, a distance of 60.00 feet to a line 60.00 feet east of and parallel with the west line of said Section 33; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along said parallel line, a distance of 253.51 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along said parallel line, a distance of 80.00 feet to the northeasterly right of way line of Interstate No. 494 per Document Number 3419310; thence North 70 degrees 16 minutes 28 seconds West, along said northeasterly right of way line of Interstate No. 494, a distance of 28.64 feet to a line 33 feet east of and parallel with said west line of Section 33; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along the last described parallel line, a distance of 343.81 feet to the south line of the north 83.00 feet of the south 113.00 feet of the north half of the Southwest Quarter of said Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 45 seconds West, along said south line of the north 83.00 feet of the south 113.00 feet of the north half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 33.00 feet to said west line of Section 33; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along said west line of Section 33, a distance of 83.00 feet to the north line of said south 113.00 feet of the north half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 45 seconds East, along said north line of the south 113.00 feet of the north half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 50.00 feet to aline 50.00 feet east of and parallel with said west line of Section 33, also being the west line of said Block 1, "JACOBSEN AND QUIST, THIRD ADDITION "; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along the last described parallel line, a distance of 510.83 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 1, "JACOBSEN AND QUIST, THIRD ADDITION ", thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 01 seconds East, along the north line of said Block 1, "JACOBSEN AND QUIST, THIRD ADDITION" and its easterly extension, a distance of 277.61 feet to the west line of "McHARDY'S ADDITION "; thence North 0 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds East, along said west line of "McHARDY'S ADDITION ", a distance of 0.39 feet to the westerly extension of the north line of Lots 1 & 16 said "McHARDY'S ADDITION "; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 55 seconds East, along said north line of Lots 1 & 16, "McHARDY'S ADDITION ", the north line of Block 1, ROBERT WEBER'S FIRST ADDITION, and the north line of Block 1, JUNGELL AND JOHNSEN'S FIRST ADDITION, and their extensions, a distance of 656.39 feet to Line A described below; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along said Line A, a distance of 33.00 feet to the north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 55 seconds East, along said north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 163.80 feet; thence South 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds West, parallel with said west line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 33.00 feet to a line 33.00 feet south of and parallel with said north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 55 seconds East, along the last described parallel line, a distance of 164.01 feet to the east line of -said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence North 0 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds East, along said east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 33.00 feet to the north line of the Southeast Quarter of said Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 55 seconds East, along said north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 165.84 feet to the northeast corner of the west 5 acres of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence South 0 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds West, along the east line of said west 5 acres, a distance of 33.00 feet to a line 33.00 feet south of and parallel with said north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section ,33; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 55 seconds East, along the last described parallel line, a distance of 140.00 feet to the northerly extension of the east line of said Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 618; thence South 0 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds West, along said east line of Tract A, and the east lines of said Tracts B, C and D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 618, and the east line of said Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1037, a distance of 1161.63 feet to the southeast corner of said Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1037; thence South 86 degrees 14 minutes 46 seconds West, along the south line of said Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1037, a distance of 60.64 feet to the southwest corner of said Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1037; thence South 0 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds West, parallel with the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 2.54 feet; thence South 86 degrees 26 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 79.67 feet to the east line of said west 5 acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence North 0 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds East, along said east line of the west 5 acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 5.01 feet to the northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315; thence South 86 degrees 26 minutes 20 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315, a distance of 166.20 feet to an angle point in said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315; thence South 0 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315, a distance of 1.86 feet to an angle point in said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315 and its extension, a distance of 656.41 feet to an angle point in said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315; thence North 0 degrees 11 minutes 14 seconds East, along said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315, a distance of 20.03 feet to an angle point in said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315; thence North 70 degrees 16 minutes 28 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street per Doc. No. 5110315, a distance of 278.43 feet to the intersection with a line 180.00 feet northeasterly of and parallel with Line 3 per said Doc. No. 5110315; thence northwesterly a distance of 38.95 feet, along the last described parallel line, being a non- tangential curve concave to the north, having a radius of 11279.16 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees 11 minutes 52 seconds and a chord which bears North 85 degrees 27 minutes 36 seconds West; thence North 85 degrees 21 minutes 40 seconds West, along the last described parallel line and tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 77.19 feet; thence westerly a distance of 100.08 feet along the last described parallel line, being a tangential curve concave to the south, having a radius of 5909.58 feet and a central angle of 0 degrees 58 minutes 13 seconds to the intersection with Line 4 per said Doc. No. 5110315; thence North 79 degrees 01 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 119.94 feet to the. point of beginning. Line A is described as beginning at a point on said south line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33 distant 984.00 feet east of said southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, parallel with said west line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 1313.52 feet to the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33 and said Line A there terminating. • • AGENDA SECTION: PLJJ I G Hect.r 1 nQ's AGENDA ITEM # I REPORT # 332.. J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a planned unit development plan for the Best Buy Campus project and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues to Planned General Commercial (PC -2). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Conduct second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property located between 76th Street and 1 -494 and Penn and Knox Avenues to PC -2 and approve a planned unit development plan for the Best Buy Camaus Droiect. II. BACKGROUND Best Buy Co., Inc. is proposing to construct a corporate campus, including four buildings with 1.5 million square feet of office space and parking for 7,500 cars, in the Interchange West area (76th Street to 1 -494 and Knox to Penn Avenues). 1211 bestbuyPUD(1) The site is currently developed with a mixture of 68 single family and duplex properties, three apartment complexes (89 units), 12 small businesses and the Walser and McCarthy car dealerships. The 42 -acre site is covered by a variety of zoning districts including R (single family residential), MR -1 (two - family residence), MR -2 (medium density multiple family residence), and C -2 (general commercial). The four buildings would be six and eight stories tall, with approximately 300,000 and 400,000 square feet in each building. They would be connected with a one - level (30 feet tall) commons area where functions such as a cafeteria and convenience store would be located. Some basement space (up to 90,000 square feet) may also be constructed to provide a service corridor underneath the buildings, storage space, a store mock -up area, and other similar functions. A majority of the parking (6,700 stalls) would be provided in a five -level parking ramp located in the northeast portion of the site. Additional visitor and employee parking would be provided in surface lots located in the southern portion of the site. Several transportation improvements are necessary to accommodate traffic from the development. A new Penn Avenue bridge is proposed at 1 -494. Penn Avenue, from 1 -494 to 76th Street, will be reconstructed. The intersection at Penn Avenue and 76th Street will be reconstructed with dual left turn lanes and • right turn lanes in all directions. 76th Street, from Penn Avenue to the 35W exit ramp will also be reconstructed. The 35W exit ramp at 76th Street will be modified to add a second right turn lane. These improvements will be in place by November, 2002 when the office complex would be completed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive. lan (Plan) encourages high density development along the 1 -494 corridor. The Plan also encourages improvements at the gateways to the community. The proposed redevelopment of the Interchange West area is consistent with these goals. • The Metropolitan Council approved an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan on September 27. The amendment re- guides 10 acres of the project area from high density single family residential and neighborhood commercial to regional commercial /office. Final consideration of the amendment is on the City Council agenda for December 11 and should be acted upon before the planned unit development plan and rezoning. • The proposed redevelopment removes 169 housing units. A portion of the project's tax increment (approximately $7 million total in present value) will be dedicated to a housing fund. Those funds will be used to increase and improve the City's housing stock. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The project requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. The EIS process will be completed on December 11. A final decision on the planned unit development plan (PUD) and rezoning can be made after consideration of the EIS. • Future expansion plans for 1 -494 will result in a taking of property from the southern portion of the site. The PUD plan takes the future property taking into consideration. A requirement of the preliminary plat is that Best Buy sign an agreement recognizing that property will be taken for the widening of 1 -494 at some time in the future. • In a PUD zoning district, building setbacks are established in the PUD plan. A comparison of setbacks proposed by the PUD plan to setbacks that would be required in the C -2 (general commercial) district is included as Attachment C. The setbacks along 76th Street and Penn Avenue may vary slightly depending on the final roadway alignments. The setback along Knox Avenue may also be reduced from 30 to 10 feet to accommodate a realignment of Knox Avenue in order to provide improved access to Knox Avenue and 76th Street for the Fountainhead and Colony apartments. C. FINANCIAL • The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has signed a contract for private redevelopment with Best Buy that details the financial aspects of the development. D. LEGAL • A final decision cannot be made on the PUD plan and rezoning until the EIS is found to be adequate. • The City Council began the public hearing on the rezoning and PUD plan on November 27, 2000 and continued the public hearing to December 11. • The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning on September 26, 2000 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning and PUD plan. • The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on October 23, 2000. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 29, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, people and organizations that parties who have Buy. have commented on the EIS, and interested requested notification of items related to Best • The City Council must approve the rezoning and planned unit development plan by two - thirds vote of the full Council. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the planned unit development plan and rezoning with a finding that the. proposed project would have a negative impact on surrounding -properties or the City as a whole. • Deny the planned unit development plan and rezoning with a finding that the EIS was found to be inadequate. • Continue action on the planned unit development plan and rezoning until final action is taken on the EIS. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance amendment rezoning property • Attachment A: Existing and Proposed Zoning • Attachment B: Planned Unit Development Plan • Attachment C: Setback Comparison VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Opus and Best Buy will be available for a brief presentation and to answer questions. • 9 BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (Best Buy Campus Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The property located in the Interchange West area, specifically between Knox and Penn Avenues and 76th Street and midway between 77th and 76th Street is zoned R (single family residential), MR -1 (two family residence), MR -2 (medium density multiple residence), and C -2 (general commercial) [the "subject area "]. B. Opus Northwest, L.L.C., on behalf of Best Buy Co. Inc., has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan "] in the subject area. The PUD plan proposes to construct 1.5 million square feet of office space and 7,500 parking stalls. C. The City has reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that it would be appropriate to rezone the subject area as PC -2 (planned general commercial) and approve the PUD plan to establish the regulations governing the PC -2 district. D. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning the PUD plan and amending the zoning ordinance in the subject area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD plan and zoning ordinance amendment on September 26, 2000 following a public hearing. The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on October 23, 2000 and a public hearing on the PUD plan amendment and rezoning on November 27, 2000 and December 11, 2000. E. The City's zoning ordinance provides criteria for approving a PUD plan and rezoning of property to a planned unit development. The City Council finds that the PUD plan and rezoning of property in the subject area meets the criteria in the following ways: 1) The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans: a) The project area is designated Regional Commercial /Office and the proposed development is consistent with this designation. b) An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with this objective. c) The PUD plan and rezoning are also consistent with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." d) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." e) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "Promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater metropolitan area." f) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." g) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the description of the 1 -494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of 1 -35W." h) Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. 2) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The project is designed to create an office campus setting for Best Buy Co., Inc. The buildings, ramp and site development are all part of one unified development. 3) The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original C -2 zoning district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: One setback for the parking ramp and the building heights depart from the original district regulations. The setback for the parking ramp on 76th Street is five feet less than would be required in the original district regulations for an accessory building. The reduced setback along 76th Street will allow for a right turn lane on 76th Street onto Knox Avenue. Significant landscaping will be installed in this area to make up for the reduced setback area. The additional building height is appropriate for freeway office development and allows for more open space on the site. 4) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development: Transportation improvements are proposed to accommodate traffic from the development and to improve existing traffic problems in the area at Penn Avenue and 1 -494 and Penn and 76th Street. The existing sanitary sewer lift station will be expanded to accommodate increased flow from the development. With the improvements, there are sufficient utilities to serve the development. 5) The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties: Transportation improvements are proposed to accommodate traffic from the development. Site features are planned to minimize visual impacts from the development on neighboring properties. The final development plan provides details regarding landscaping and lighting which are designed to minimize the impacts of the development on neighboring properties. 6) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: A final development plan, which establishes the terms and conditions of the development, is required before construction can commence. An EIS and Indirect Source Permit are required for the project. The EIS identifies impacts of the project and proposes mitigation measures. The Indirect Source Permit requires that the mitigation measures be implemented. The EIS was determined to be adequate by the City Council on December 11, 2000. Section 2. Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 7, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: 10) M -14 (Southeast of 76th and Penn) That area bounded by the centerline of Penn Avenue on the west: the south border line of Section Township 28 Range 24 Hennepin County, Minnesota on the south; the centerline of Knox Avenue on the east: and the centerline of 76thStreet on the UM is B. Section 3, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: ITAM W, A _ l C. Section 3, Paragraph (29) is amended to read as follows: (29) MI 44 (N44 GGFRGF 77th and KRG)�) That aFea lyiRg withiR 44e .� ; theRG Gt 91 R9 we 9 ti 4e 1 .�h CC}} D. Section 3, Paragraph (60) is amended to read as follows: E. Section 12, Paragraph (23) is amended to read as follows: F. Section 11, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: 1 , I , s t to Pi n ri iti [ JHRoell rd i r Aif,i G. Section 11, Paragraph (8) is amended to read as follows: H. Section 11, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: Section 3. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: R to PC -2: 7601 -7649 Penn Avenue South, 7600 -7644 Oliver Avenue South, 7601 -7645 Oliver Avenue South, 7600 -7644 Newton Avenue South, 7601 -7633 Newton Avenue South, 7600 -7634 Morgan Avenue South, 7601 -7629 to Morgan Avenue South, 7645 -7647 Morgan Avenue South, 1915 West 76th Street, 7615 Logan Avenue South MR -1 to PC -2: 7639 -7645 Newton Avenue South, 7638 -7644 Morgan Avenue South, 7639 -7641 Morgan Avenue South, 7608 -7646 Logan Avenue South MR -2 to PC -2: 7601 Logan Avenue South C -2 to PC -2: 7745 Penn Avenue South, 2015 -2121 West 77th Street, 1920 -2100 West 78th Street, 7701- 7725 Morgan Avenue South, 7700 -7708 Logan Avenue South, 7701 Logan Avenue South, 7600 -7700 Knox Avenue South, 7629 -7645 Logan Avenue South Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by or under the control of Best Buy Corporation or 30 days following publication of this ordinance, whichever is later. For purposes of this ordinance, a parcel is deemed to be under the control of Best Buy Corporation if either (i) the parcel is under purchase agreement in favor of Best Buy or its agents or (ii) a court of competent jurisdiction has entered an order approving the acquisition of the parcel by eminent domain by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. w ATTEST; Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk L� Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ............................... ............................... ................. ............................... ............................... ............................... 1 ............................... ...................... ............................... ............ ........................ ....................... ..................... ........................... .............................. ....................... .................................. ................................... .................. ................................... .................................. ................................. .................................. ............................. .................................. ................................... .................................. ................................... .................................. ................................... .................................. ............ ........................ ................ - .................. ........ .................. ...... ..................... ............ ....... ........... ............... .......... ................ ............... .................................. ................................... ............. ................................... .................................. ................... .......................... ................ -'. ............... ...................... ..................... �v NO- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Itm 1' Attachment C • Setbacks A PUD allows flexibility from the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. A comparison of the PUD plan to the C -2 zoning district shows that most setbacks are exceeded. The setback for a portion of the ramp along 76th Street will be 20 feet instead of the 25 feet that would be required in a C -2 zoning district. The building heights also exceed the maximum that would be allowed in the C -2 zoning district. • • SETBACKS C -2 district PUD Principal Building Front (Penn Ave) 35 feet 100 feet Rear (Knox Ave) 20 feet 100 feet Streetside 1 -494 (pre- taking) 1 -494 (post- taking) 76th Street 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 230 feet 70 feet 45 feet HEIGHT Principal Building 3 stories (40 feet) 6 stories — 90 feet 8 stories —120 feet SETBACKS Accessory Building Front (Penn Ave) 35 feet 530 feet Rear (Knox Ave) 8 feet 10 -30 feet* Streetside 1-494 (pre- taking) 1 -494 (post- taking) 76th Street 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 580 feet 400 feet 20 feet HEIGHT 1 story (15 feet) 3 stories — 38 feet 4 stories — 50 feet ►vote: I he setaacKs along icjtn Street may vary aepenamg on the rnnai alignment or f Ott] Street. *The Knox Avenue setback for the parking garage may be reduced to 10 feet to accommodate a realignment of Knox Avenue in order to provide improved access to Knox Avenue and 76th Street for the Fountainhead and Colony apartments. • is AGENDA SECTION: RC Lh) 6 peo-r I AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 331 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan with an amendment to the Guide Plan and changing the designation of property in the Interchange West area from R -SFH (high density single family residential) and C -N (neiahborhood commercial) to C -R /O (regional commercial /office). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Hold second reading of a transitory ordinance to adopt the City's Comprehensive Plan with an amendment to the Guide Plan and change the designation of property in the Interchange West area from R -SFH and C -N to C -R/O. III. BACKGROUND I On March 20, 2000, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a Contract for Private Development with Best Buy. The proposed concept plan for the Best Buy development includes 1.5 million square feet of office space. The office development is consistent with many of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and with the Guide Plan Regional Commercial /Office classification for the majority of the property. The northern portion of the development is, however, guided for housing and neighborhood commercial, which 1211 compplan the Best Buy concept does not include. A Plan amendment to designate this northern area as Regional Commercial /Office is appropriate for the proposed office development to be consistent with the Guide Plan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the text for the West 1 -494 subarea are supportive of the proposed amendment. The Plan encourages high density development along the 1 -494 corridor and also encourages improvements at the gateways to the community. • The Comprehensive Plan calls for a net gain of 1,125 housing units throughout the City. The net gain with the amendment would be 1,038 housing units, a reduction of approximately 87 housing units. • While housing is no longer a part of the proposed concept plan, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Comprehensive Plan provides a broad framework for the City to use when reviewing specific development proposals. • The current Comprehensive Plan suggests that 77th Street could be developed similar to 77th Street east of 35W, serving as a buffer between commercial and residential development and a connection from 76th Street to Penn Avenue near 1 -494. The Best Buy proposal would not accommodate an arterial road through the center of the development; however, the on -site circulation patterns provide for a similar connection for Best Buy employees. In addition, 76th Street and the intersection at 76th Street and Penn Avenue will be upgraded to provide the connection to 1 -494 and Penn Avenue. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • First reading was held on October 9, 2000. • The public hearing has been continued from November 13 because the Sun - Current published the hearing notice incorrectly. Because of the delay, it is appropriate to consider the amendment in conjunction with the rezoning and other land use items related to the project. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 15, 2000. The hearing was begun and public testimony taken on November 27 and continued to December 11, 2000. • Notice of the hearing was mailed on November 29 to property owners between 75th and 78th Street and 35W and Sheridan Avenues, property owners abutting 76th Street from Sheridan to Xerxes Avenues, people and organizations that have commented on the EIS, and interested parties who have requested notification of items related to Best Buy. • On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the amendment and voted unanimously to approve the amendment. On May 8, 2000, the City Council conducted a public hearing and authorized submittal of the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. • On September 27, 2000, the Metropolitan Council approved the amendment with the following conditions: 1. The wastewater system improvements to the local lift station must be completed prior to the occupancy of the office complex. 2. The City must complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for approval a Tier II sewer plan prior to any further development that reflects an increased discharge to the regional system. The Metropolitan Council approval included the following recommendations: 1.. Richfield should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as a result of the land use change. 2. The City should use the TIF to be generated by the proposed development to assist the development or preservation of affordable rental housing in Richfield. • The City Council must adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance by two- thirds vote of the full Council. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay the Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time; however, this decision would delay many other aspects of the development process. • Do not approve the amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Attachment A: existing and proposed Guide Plan designations VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A :7 0 BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AMENDED CONCERNING THE INTERCHANGE WEST AREA THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property. The property located in the Interchange West area, specifically between Knox and Penn Avenues and 76th Street and midway between 77th and 76th Street is designated R -SFH (high density single family residential) and C -N (neighborhood commercial) [the "subject area "]. The City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to classify this area as C -R /O (regional commercial /office). Section 2. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning modifying the Guide Plan classifications of property in the subject area. The Planning Commission approved the modification on March 28, 2000 following a public hearing. The • City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on April 24, 2000 and May 8, 2000. The Metropolitan Council approved the amendment on September 27, 2000. The City Council held a public hearing on the ordinance adopting the amendment on November 27 and December 11; and Section 3. The City of Council makes the following findings of fact: A. An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The proposed amendment is consistent with this objective. B. The amendment is also consistent with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." C. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." D. The amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater metropolitan area." E. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, 1211 compplan concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." F. The amendment is consistent with the description of the 1-494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of 1 -35W." G. Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. Section 4. The City's Comprehensive Plan as amended, changing the classifications of property in the subject area from R -SFH and C -N to C -R/0, is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • C AGENDA SECTION: f le SO) LL+) D n AGENDA ITEM # Is REPORT # 350 STAFF REPORT =0990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Best Buy Campus project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution determining adequacy and approving record of decision for the Best Buy Campus Environmental Impact Statement and make the findings of fact and conclusions contained in Exhibit A. 11L BACKGROUND I An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the Best Buy Campus project. Based on review of the EIS, the City Council must determine whether the EIS is adequate. Staff prepared the EIS with the assistance of Best Buy, Opus, the project developer, and consultants URS -BRW and Faegre & Benson, LLP. In addition, review assistance was provided to the City by SEH and WSB & Associates. Preparation of the EIS involved extensive review by state agencies and multiple opportunities for public input. A Scoping EAW was issued on May 15, 2000 1211 BBEIS • A public meeting on the Scoping EAW was held on June 7, 2000. • • Public comments were accepted on the Scoping EAW from May 16 to June 14, 2000. • A Draft EIS was issued on August 21, 2000. • A public meeting on the Draft EIS was held on September 13, 2000. • Public comments were accepted on the Draft EIS from August 22 to September 28, 2000. • A Final EIS was issued on October 30, 2000. The Final EIS responded to all public comments submitted on the Draft EIS. • Public comments were accepted on the Final EIS from October 30 to November 13, 2000. Twenty -two items were identified in the Scoping EAW and studied in the Draft EIS. Additional information was provided in response to comments on the Draft and Final EIS. Mitigation measures are proposed to address environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are listed in the Record of Decision (Attachment A). Those mitigation measures selected for implementation are attached as conditions of the final development plan and are required in order for the development to be constructed. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Two size and two layout alternatives were studied in the EIS. The size option of 1.5 million square feet and 7,500 employees and the layout option of four buildings and one parking structure are the preferred size and layout of the development. This alternative offers less impact on traffic, noise and air quality, shadows, water demand and the amount of sanitary and solid waste produced. • Additional analyses were conducted in response to comments received on the Draft EIS on the following items: pedestrian safety, school bus access, impacts on the regional roadway system, weaving on 1 -494, ramp metering, impacts on residential streets, impacts during construction, level of service at 76th and Upton, TDM plan, Knox Avenue intersection alignment. This information was included in the Final EIS. • Additional comments were received on the Final EIS regarding ramp metering, the impact on residential streets, and the Knox Avenue intersection alignment. The TDM plan was revised and additional air and noise quality analysis conducted. Responses to comments on the Final EIS but are provided in the Record of Decision (Attachment A). Copies of these responses were distributed to those who submitted written comments on the Final EIS. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The project will increase the amount of local traffic; however, with roadway improvements proposed in the EIS, the existing roadway network can accommodate the increased traffic. All intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service with the increased traffic. • The right turn movement at the 76th Street exit from 35W had a failing level of service in the A.M. peak hour. Adding a second right turn lane and retaining the existing "no- right- turn -on -red" sign is the preferred alternative. • Pedestrian safety was a concern raised in the comments on the EIS. Additional information regarding pedestrian safety was provided in the Final EIS including an illustration (Figure 12.1) of the pedestrian access that will be provided with sidewalks and traffic signals. • Impacts on 76th Street east of Penn Avenue were considered. The south alignment of 76th Street, which has the least impact on properties to the north, is the preferred alternative. A noise wall can be considered in the final design of 76th Street; however, the neighborhood has rejected this option in the past. • Impacts on 76th Street west of Penn Avenue were also considered. The project does not cause significant impacts on this segment. The City has recommended reconstructing this roadway in the past due to existing conditions; however, the neighborhood selected the minimal option which is in place today. Improvements are proposed at 76th Street and Penn Avenue in conjunction with the project that will improve traffic flow on the roadway. In addition, the City of Edina is planning for improvements at 76th Street and York Avenue that will reduce congestion. • Adjustments have been made to the alignment of 76th Street at Penn Avenue and Knox Avenue to minimize the taking of property in these areas. • The City has met with the Fountainhead and Colony apartments to explore a four - legged intersection at Knox Avenue and 76th Street. An option has been identified that is favorable to both apartment communities but which reduces the setback of the Best Buy parking ramp on Knox Avenue. • The Best Buy Campus project will improve stormwater management for the project and surrounding areas. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and found it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations. • The three standards necessary for making a finding of adequacy on an EIS have been met by the Best Buy Campus EIS: 1. The EIS addresses the potentially significant issues and alternatives raised in scoping so that all significant issues for which information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed. 2. The EIS provides responses to the substantive comments received during the Draft EIS review concerning issues raised in scoping. 3. The EIS was prepared in compliance with the appropriate procedures. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Determine that the project causes significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Attachment A: Record of Decision VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Walter Rockenstein, from Faegre & Benson, LLP, will be at the meeting to provide a brief presentation and answer questions. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND APPROVING RECORD OF DECISION BEST BUY CAMPUS WHEREAS, Best Buy Corporation is the Proposer of a 42 -acre office development located between 76th and 78th Streets and between Penn and Knox Avenues in the City of Richfield ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 1.59 million square feet of office space and total parking of 7,500 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the Project falls within the mandatory environmental impact statement ( "EIS ") category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4400, subp. 11 b (3) because the Project involves the construction of an office facility in excess of 750,000 square feet in a city of the second class; and WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible. Governmental Unit ( "RGU ") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14; and WHEREAS an EIS was prepared by the City with assistance from the Proposer; Toro WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a proposed Record of Decision in the EIS for the Project for consideration by the City Council ( "Record of Decision "), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and has found the Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council approve the Record of Decision and determine that it adequately studies the environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that the EIS is adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Best Buy Project Environmental Impact Statement in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Best Buy Campus project is adequate. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Staff Report 330 Exhibit A ADEQUACY DETERMINATION AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADOPTED BY THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 11, 2000 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy) intends to build anew corporate headquarters in the City of Richfield in Hennepin County. The proposed site is located in the northeast quadrant of Interstate Highway 494 (I -494) and Penn Avenue Interchange and is bounded by I -494 on the south, Penn Avenue on the west, 76`h Street on the north and Knox Avenue on the east (Project Site or Site). The Project Site contains 42.85 acres and is currently fully developed with a mixture of business and residential uses. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the Site in a campus setting (Best Buy Campus or Project) by constructing four office buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet (sq. ft.) and parking facilities for 7,500 cars. Best Buy expects that initial employment at the Best Buy Campus will be 5,500 to 6,500 persons, rising to 7,500 persons in subsequent years. Access to the Project Site will be from Penn Avenue, 76'h Street at Newton Avenue and Knox Avenue. The redevelopment plan assumes significant street improvements including a new Penn Avenue Bridge over I -494, the rebuilding of Penn Avenue both south and north of the new bridge, the rebuilding of 76`h Street from west of Penn Avenue to Interstate Highway 35W (I -35W) and the rebuilding of the Penn Avenue / 76`h Street intersection. Adequacy Determination and 1 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus Demolition and construction of the Best Buy Campus would begin in April of 2001 with the initial move in expected in November of 2002. 2. APPLICANT, RGU, AND CONSULTANTS Best Buy is the proposer of the Best Buy Campus and has made application for various permits and approvals related to the Project. The Best Buy Campus is proposed for construction in the City of Richfield (City), and the City, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), has prepared the Scoping Environmental Worksheet And Draft Scoping Decision Document For The Best Buy Campus (Scoping EAW), the Scoping Decision Document For The Best Buy Campus (Scoping Decision), the Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus (DEIS), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus (FEIS) for this Project in accordance with the Environmental Review Rules promulgated by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB). See Minn. Rules Chapter 4410 (MEQB Rules). Best Buy, assisted by the following firms, provided the completed data portions of the Scoping EAW, DEIS, and FEIS to the City: Barr Engineering; Faegre & Benson, LLP; Opus Northwest, L.L.C.; and URS/BRW, Inc. The following firms assisted the City in preparing the Scoping EAW, Scoping Decision, DEIS and FEIS: SEH Inc. and WSB Engineering. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The various environmental review documents have been prepared pursuant to the MEQB Rules, which require environmental review of commercial and residential development projects of a size that exceeds certain thresholds. Under the MEQB Rules, the Project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The process completed to date for this EIS preparation is described below. The public notices described below are included in Appendix D. 3.1 SCOPING EAW AND DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT The MEQB Rules require the preparation of a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet to identify the alternatives and issues to be addressed in the EIS. The Scoping EAW for the Project was prepared by the City, circulated for review to all parties on the MEQB mailing list and made available through the City offices and the local library. The Notice of Availability of the Scoping EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on May 14, 2000, and in the May 17 and May 24 issues of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. The 30 -day comment period for the Scoping EAW commenced on May 15, 2000. The public notice for the scoping meeting was published in the Richfield Sun Current newspaper on May 17 and May 24, 2000. A scoping meeting was held on June 7, 2000, to receive public input on the scope of the EIS to be prepared for the Project. The comment period closed on June 14, 2000. Adequacy Determination and 2 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus In response to the Scoping EAW, there were 12 written comments and 10 comments from individuals who attended the June 7, 2000, public meeting. 3.2 SCOPING DECISION Based on the review of the Scoping EAW and comments received during the public comment period, the City adopted the Scoping Decision on July 10, 2000. Notice of availability of the Scoping Decision was published in the EQB Monitor on July 24, 2000. An article was published in the Richfield Sun Current on July 19, 2000, on the adoption of the Scoping Decision. - The Scoping Decision describes three Project alternatives which will be analyzed: the No -Build Alternative; Alternative 1 with five buildings; and Alternative 2 with four buildings. Alternatives 1 and 2 each have two density options: Option A with 1.5 million sq. ft., 7,500 parking spaces and 7,500 employees; and Option B with 1.9 million sq. ft., 9,500 parking spaces and 9,500 employees. For more detail, see Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision also describes three 76`h Street reconstruction alternatives which will be considered: widening the roadway to north; widening it to the south; or widening it both to the north and south. For more detail, see Section 3.3 of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision identified 22 issues to be studied in the EIS: potential for environmental hazard; connection to public water supply; erosion and sedimentation; surface water runoff, wastewater treatment methods; potential for groundwater contamination; solid wastes, hazardous wastes and storage tanks; traffic; vehicle - related air emissions; traffic related noise; cultural resources; visual impacts; compatibility with the City's comprehensive plan and land use regulations; impact on road infrastructure; impact on other public infrastructure including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, police, fire and other utilities; cumulative impacts; social and economic impacts; fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources; dewatering; stationary source air emissions; pedestrian safety; and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) freeway ramp metering practices. For more detail, see Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision identified 10 issues to be excluded from analysis in the EIS: cover types; rare, threatened and endangered species; wetlands; abandoned wells; water - related land use management districts; surface use of waters; animal manure; construction odors, noise and dust; and nearby resources. For more detail, see Section 4.1 of the Scoping Decision. The primary areas of the Draft Scoping Decision Document that were modified as a result of comments received on the Scoping EAW included: • Addition of eight intersections to the proposed traffic analysis; • Addition of a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey on the Wally McCarthy parcel within the Site; and Adequacy Determination and 3 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus Addition of five issues to be discussed in less, but appropriate, detail, i.e., the landscape benefits of each alternative to wildlife, the determination of need for dewatering during construction, the permitting requirements for proposed emergency diesel generators, the impacts of traffic on pedestrians and bicyclists, and the discussion of MnDOT ramp metering practices. For greater detail, please see Section 4.3 of the Scoping Decision. No comments were received requesting the consideration of alternative site locations. The City of Bloomington requested that a less intensive alternative be added and reviewed. The City determined that the minimum development necessary to meet Best Buy's office space requirements was 1.5 million sq. ft. and declined to add a less intense alternative citing Minn. Rules 4410.2300, subp. G which provides in part, "An alternative may be excluded from analysis in the EIS if it would not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project ..." 3.3 DEIS After completion of the scoping phase of the EIS process, an EIS Preparation Notice was published in the EQB Monitor on July 24, 2000. The notice outlined the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS as defined by the Scoping Decision. Preparation of the DEIS commenced in May 2000 as the issues to be analyzed were being identified in the scoping process. Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published on August 21, 2000, in the EQB Monitor and in an advertisement taken by the City in the September 6, 2000, issue of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. An article in the same newspaper on August 30, 2000, noted the availability of the DEIS and the public hearing date. The DEIS was circulated for review to the public, governmental jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with MEQB Rules. The DEIS was also made available through the City offices and the local library. The public comment period for the DEIS commenced on August 22, 2000. The comment process included a public hearing. The notice for the public hearing was included in the notice in the Richfield Sun Current on September 6, 2000. The meeting was held at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at Richfield City Hall on Wednesday, September 13, 2000. Oral comments were recorded and documented in a transcript for the September 13 Public Meeting. The public comment period for the DEIS ended on Thursday, September 28, 2000. During (or shortly after) the DEIS comment period, 20 written comments and 35 verbal comments were received. In addition, the City of Richfield hosted four open houses: two for the Best Buy Campus on September 19 and 21, 2000, and two for the Penn Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Project on August 2 and October 10, 2000. Notice for the September 19 meeting was published in the September 13, 2000, edition of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. Notice for September 21 meeting was published in the September 13 and the September 20, 2000, issues of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. Adequacy Determination and 4 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 3.4 FEIS After reviewing the comments on the DEIS, the City determined that additional analyses were necessary and additional information was needed to answer the questions and concerns presented. This additional work performed included: • For the traffic study, an intersection was added to the traffic analysis, an analysis of Project impacts on the regional roadway system (I -35W and I -494) was done, a review of weaving conditions on I -494 was undertaken, and additional review of MnDOT ramp metering practices was made; • For the Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan), the Plan was revised to redefine the goal as a decrease in peak hour trips, to add trip reduction strategies, and to increase the Campus Transportation coordinator position to full -time; • For the 76`h Street reconstruction alternatives, additional information on the scope of proposed property condemnation and additional alignments for the Knox Avenue / 76th Street intersection were developed; • For pedestrian safety, additional review was conducted of the pedestrian safety in the Project area and the City selected a preferred mitigation measure for the southbound I -35W ramp intersection with 76th Street which retains the "No Right Turn On Red" condition; • For the parking ramp, additional analysis was completed for the potential parking space replacement due to I -494 expansion via a partial added level to the southwest corner of the ramp. • For construction impacts, additional information was provided on the potential detours and construction timing of the different road improvements in relation to the Project. All this additional work was incorporated in the FEIS in the substantive sections, the responses to comments or both. The FEIS Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on October 30, 2000. A press release was issued on October 26, 2000. The FEIS was circulated for review to the public, governmental jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with the MEQB Rules. The FEIS was made available through the City offices and the local library. The 10 -day public comment period on the FEIS commenced on November 1, 2000, and closed on November 13, 2000. During (or shortly after) the FEIS comment period, 11 comment letters were received. See Appendix B for copies of these letters. In addition 203 postcards were received expressing opposition to the Project. See Appendix C for copies of these postcards. Adequacy Determination and 5 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 3.5 DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY After reviewing the comments on the FEIS, the City determined that certain questions and concerns merited additional analyses. This additional work performed included: • For traffic, additional description and analysis of ramp metering was prepared, further description and analysis regarding weaving distance and traffic safety on I -494 was done, the two traffic software models used to predict intersection and intersection movement levels of service were compared in detail; a mistake in the mainline analysis was corrected and mitigation analyzed, and arterial street capacity was completed; • For the Proposed TDM Plan, the Plan was refined by adding car and van pool preferential spaces and certain financial incentives; • For the 76th Street reconstruction alternatives, further analysis was performed and discussions held regarding impacts on, and mitigation for, the Fountainhead and Colony apartment complexes; and • For noise, additional analysis was performed for the AM Peak Hour, impacts in 2022 and impacts on a school at the Penn Avenue / 76th Street intersection; additional study was done of potential temporary noise impacts during construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge on the 82nd Street detour route. This additional work was incorporated in this Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision For The Best Buy Campus Environmental Impact Statement (Record Of Decision). This Record Of Decision contains responses to the FEIS comments in Appendix A. Copies of this Record Of Decision were distributed to the City Council on December 7, 2000. Commentors requesting the Record Of Decision were also provided copies on December 8, 2000, even though the City is not required by the MEQB Rules to distribute the document until after the City Council makes its adequacy decision. 4. FINDINGS After considering the Scoping EAW, the Scoping Decision, the DEIS, the FEIS, the responses to comments on these documents, other documents referenced in these documents, the report of its staff, and public testimony, the Richfield City Council makes the following Findings with regard to the alternatives studied, the significant environmental, social and economic effects expected to result from the proposed Best Buy Campus, and potential mitigation measures identified to reduce or eliminate those effects. Adequacy Determination and 6 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.1 ALTERNATIVE STUDIED 4.1.1 Project Alternatives As provided in the Scoping Decision, three Project Alternatives were studied — the No- Build, Alternative 1 with five buildings and Alternative 2 with four buildings. The No -Build Alternative was studied with respect to all expected significant impacts. Two Site design concepts, Alternative 1 and 2, were also studied. The Alternatives differed as to number of buildings and building locations, sizes and heights. Both layouts could accommodate the minimum and maximum options for square footage and parking spaces by adding floors to one or more buildings and levels to the parking ramps. Each design plan provided a commons area and storm water ponds. Alternative 1 would contain five buildings clustered around a central pond that would extend out among the buildings. A commons area would be constructed between two of the buildings. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps and one surface lot along the southerly side of the property. This lot would eventually be taken for the expected expansion of I -494. Alternative 2 would contain four buildings in the southwest half of the Site with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly sides of the Site. A commons area would be constructed between the four buildings and the parking ramp. Parking would be provided in one structured ramp in the northeast portion of the Site and in three surface lots. The surface lots would be off Newton next to the daycare center; off Penn Avenue between two buildings for visitors, and along the southerly side of the property. The latter would eventually be taken for I -494 expansion. 4.1.2 76`h Street Reconstruction Alternatives As provided in the Scoping Decision, three alternative alignments for reconstructing 76th Street were studied — widening the roadway to the north, widening it to the south or widening it both to the north and south. The property impacts were identified for all three alternatives, with the south alternative affecting the least number of properties. 4.2 EROSION CONTROL 4.2.1 Impacts The Project Site does not contain any excessively steep slopes nor does it lie within any shoreland or wetland zones within the approximate 42 acre drainage area. All of the Site would be graded with approximately 300,000 cubic yards of material moved on -Site and 15,000 cubic yards removed from the Site. Adequacy Determination and 7 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.2.2 Mitigation A sediment and erosion control plan has been prepared and will be submitted to the City for final approval as required by the City's Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Best management practices described in the DEIS will be incorporated into the control plan to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction. 4.3 SURFACE WATER RUNOFF 4.3.1 Impacts Under Alternative 1, a single on -Site storm water treatment and storage pond would be constructed to accommodate runoff from the Site. Under Alternative 2, two treatment and storage ponds would serve the same function. Both alternatives would result in substantial reductions in the peak discharge rate of the Site. Flooding of areas in the vicinity of the Project, that has historically been a problem for the City due to lack of adequate detention and piping facilities, would be significantly reduced. Both alternatives greatly improve the quality of the storm water runoff from the Site through construction of storm water ponds and additional piping. Total phosphorus in Site runoff would drop by 58 %; total suspended solids by 82 %; biochemical and chemical oxygen demand by 40 %; and metals by 40% to 85 %. 4.3.2 Mitigation Neither alternative addresses storm water runoff from property and streets to the north of the Site which now flows through the Site on City streets. However, two mitigation options were described in the DEIS to handle storm water drainage from areas north of the Site. Option 1 would reroute the off -Site drainage to flow around the Site. Option 2 would reroute off -site drainage into the Site ponds which would be designed to treat and contain the additional volume. The City and Best Buy have identified Option 2 as the preferred mitigation measure. This would provide additional flood mitigation and water quality improvement in the Project area. A storm water management plan has been prepared and will be submitted to the City for final approval as required for the City's Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. 4.4 TRAFFIC The traffic analysis completed for the Project included the evaluation of potential impacts on 19 intersections, on the regional transportation system (specifically I -35W and I -494), on traffic weaving at Penn Avenue and I -494, and on residential streets. A Proposed TDM Plan has also been prepared. Adequacy Determination and 8 December ll, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.4.1 Intersection Impacts The intersection analysis was conducted for the Years 2003 and 2022 in both the AM and PM peak hours, with and without the Project. The analysis assumed the following improvements (collectively the Project Roadway Improvements): • Reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I -494 to a single -point diamond interchange and the widening of Penn Avenue between the Southtown Access and the Project Site West Access in the City; • Reconstruction of the Penn Avenue / 76th Street intersection to include two through lanes, dual left turn lanes, and a dedicated right turn lane in each direction; • Reconstruction of 76th Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W to include two through lanes in each direction, protected left turn lanes and dedicated right turn lanes at Knox and Newton Avenues; and • Installation of traffic signals at the Penn Avenue / Project Site West Access intersection, the 76th Street / Newton Avenue intersection and the 76th Street / Knox Avenue intersection. In the Year 2003 without the Project, a number of intersections and movements at intersections in the vicinity of the Project Site would operate at level of service (LOS) E, poor conditions, or LOS F, failing conditions, due to background traffic. a. Option A For the Year 2003, assuming construction of Project Option A (7,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic are expected to operate at a LOS D, acceptable conditions, or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Project Roadway Improvements are expected to improve significantly the operation of the Penn Avenue / 76'h Street intersection (from LOS F to LOS C) and to eliminate queue lengths exceeding storage lengths at the Penn Avenue / I -494 intersection ramps. At the 76th Street / I -35W intersection, the north approach right turn movement queue in the AM peak hour is expected to exceed storage length and impact the I -35W mainline. A number of mitigation options for this intersection were identified. The preferred mitigation is described in the mitigation section below. For the Year 2022, assuming construction of Project Option A (7,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic are expected to operate at a LOS D (acceptable conditions) or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Programmed Roadway Improvements are expected to improve significantly the operation of the Penn Avenue / 76th Street intersection (from LOS F to LOS C) and to eliminate queue lengths exceeding storage lengths at the Penn Avenue / I -494 intersection ramps. At the 76th Street / I -35W intersection, the north approach right turn movement queue in the AM peak hour is no longer expected to exceed the storage length because the I -35W / I -494 Interchange would have been rebuilt. Nevertheless, the queue is long enough that Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) may require mitigation. Adequacy Determination and 9 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus b. Option B For the Year 2003, assuming construction of Project Option B (9,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic are expected to operate at a LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours, except the 76th Street / I -35W intersection which is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. Site - generated traffic in the AM peak hour is expected to cause the queue length at the Penn Avenue / I -494 West Ramp intersection to exceed storage length and impact the I -494 mainline. Option B would require mitigation measures for the 761h Street / I -35W intersection and the Penn Avenue / I -494 West Ramp intersections. For the Year 2022, assuming construction of Project Option B (9,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic would operate at a LOS D or better, except the Penn Avenue / Project Site West Access intersection, which would operate at a LOS F in the PM peak hour. At the 76th Street / I -35W intersection, the north approach right turn movement queue in the AM peak hour is no longer expected to exceed the storage length because the I -35W / I- 494 Interchange would have been rebuilt. Nevertheless, the queue is long enough that MnDOT may require mitigation. However, Site - generated traffic in the AM peak hour is expected again to cause the queue length at the Penn Avenue / I -494 West Ramp intersection to exceed storage length and impact the I -494 mainline. Site generated traffic also causes deficiencies in the PM peak hour at the 76th Street / Knox intersection and the Penn Avenue / 80`h Street intersection. Mitigation would be required at these last three intersections. Based on the impacts identified in the intersection analysis, Option A is the preferred density option for the Project since it has less impact on traffic and requires the least amount of mitigation to minimize traffic impacts. 4.4.2 Intersection Mitigation A range of mitigation options is provided for each substantial intersection impact including, design improvements for specific intersection movements, a reduction in Site - generated trips through use of a TDM Plan and a reduction in the size of Option B to less than 9,500 employees. The City has identified a preferred mitigation for AM queue length impact at the northbound I- 35W ramp at 76`h Street. The City would retain the "No Right Turn On Red" sign and add a second lane to the ramp to increase queuing capacity. 4.4.3 Mainline Impacts In the Year 2003, the traffic generated by either Project Option A or Option B would not affect the level of service on I -35W, however both Options would have an impact in 2003 in the AM peak on the mainline of I -494 between Penn and Xerxes, changing the level of service from EtoF. In the Year 2022, the traffic generated by Project Option A would not affect the level of service on either I -494 or I -35W. Option B would cause the level of service on the segment of I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue to drop below an acceptable level of service in the AM and PM peak hour. Adequacy Determination and 10 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.4.4 Mainline Mitigation Option A is the Selected Alternative. Mitigation for the mainline traffic impacts in 2003 resulting from the Project will be completed by MnDOT with their proposed I -494 reconstruction project. 4.4.5 Weaving Impacts A study prepared by MnDOT on weaving issues, which can be compared to construction of the Penn Avenue single -point diamond bridge, concluded that the reconstructed bridge will provide longer ramps and higher ramp speeds which would lessen weaving conflicts and improve performance on eastbound I -494 west of the bridge. Benshoof and Associates, Inc. representing Walser Automotive Group, disagrees with this conclusion and presented information in support of its position. 4.4.6 Weaving Mitigation Based on the MnDOT study findings, no mitigation is required. 4.4.7 Residential Streets The best way to prevent traffic from cutting through residential neighborhoods is to maintain an arterial street system with an adequate level of service. The traffic analysis indicates that the Project Roadway Improvements would increase the level of service on Penn Avenue and 76th Street significantly. Improved travel times on these streets would give drivers less reason to use nearby residential streets. Additionally, data provided shows that the arterial streets that are near the Project area have adequate capacity to accommodate additional traffic from the Project. It was also found that ramp meters have sufficient capacity, with adjusted timing to minimize traffic on residential streets. Benshoof and Associates, Inc. representing Walser Automotive Group, disagrees with these conclusions and presented information in support of its position. 4.4.8 Residential Street Mitigation Based on the expected level of development, worst -case trip distribution and the capacity and present volumes of the arterial streets, the Project Road Improvements provide the capacity necessary to minimize impacts to residential streets. 4.4.9 Proposed TDM Plan The Proposed TDM Plan goal has been revised to reduce trips to the Best Buy Campus in each peak hour by 450 to 750 trips. The Plan outlines a combination of strategies including transit, carpooling, vanpooling, staggered hours, flex -time and telecommuting to reach this goal. A full time Campus Transportation Coordinator will oversee these efforts. The Proposed TDM plan will be submitted to the City for final approval as required by the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Adequacy Determination and 11 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.5 76th STREET RECONSTRUCTION 4.5.1 Impacts Three alternatives for the reconstruction of 76th Street were analyzed - north, central, and south alignments. This road reconstruction would impact a number of adjacent properties. All alignments impact eight properties at the Penn Avenue intersection. The North alignment impacts eight additional properties for a total of 16. The Central alignment also impacts eight additional properties, for a total of 16. The South alignment would have the fewest property impacts with only two additional properties affected for a total of 10. 4.5.2 Mitigation First, the South alignment has been selected by the City as the preferred alignment since it has the least impact to adjacent property owners. The City will coordinate with each affected property owner to determine specific location and size impacts and identify mitigation options specific to those properties. Second, the City has reconfigured the 76th Street / Penn Avenue intersection to avoid the taking of any buildings or full parcels. Third, the loss of twenty parking garage stalls at Fountainhead Apartments could be mitigated through payment of a damage award by the City for right -of -way that can be used to construct new garage stalls at a different location on the property. The City is proposing no net loss in on- site parking. Fourth, a mitigation measure has been identified which has Knox Avenue as a four - legged intersection that is shifted slightly to the west. The details of the intersection layout are being designed as part of the 76th Street Reconstruction project. This alternative allows Fountainhead to retain their northerly access, and also provides the opportunity to allow the Colony Apartment Complex access to be connected at the intersection. 4.6 AIR QUALITY 4.6.1 Impacts The air quality analysis completed for the Project concluded that all applicable Federal and State regulations are satisfied and that the Project alternatives and options will not cause exceedances of carbon monoxide (CO) standards based on representative analysis at worst -case locations, under worst -case conditions. For all conditions modeled, the highest one -hour and eight -hour predicted concentrations will be 6.9 and 6.6 parts per million (ppm) respectively. These values are below the State standards of 30 ppm for one -hour and 9 ppm for eight- hours. 4.6.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required since the increase in air pollutants is inconsequential. Adequacy Determination and 12 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.7 TRAFFIC- RELATED NOISE 4.7.1 Impacts Traffic noise analyses were completed for Options A and B for both the AM and PM Peak Hours in both 2003 and 2022. In addition, a noise analysis for the temporary construction detour for the Penn Avenue Bridge was performed. In 2003 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptors N -1 (77th Street and Penn Avenue) and N -2 (Newton Avenue at 76`h Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2003 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. In 2022 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic (compared to 2003 No- Build) would be clearly perceptible at Receptors N -1 and N -4 (Penn Avenue at 76th Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2022 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2 and clearly perceptible at Receptor N -4. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from temporary detour traffic at Receptor N -5 (Logan Avenue and 82 °d Street) would not be perceptible. 4.7.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required. A screen wall could be constructed for a two block -long segment north of 76th Street from Logan Avenue to Newton Avenue. However, residents in the neighborhood will need to support the wall and the changes in access that would be needed to build a wall. Several homes that have direct access to 76th Street would need to relocate their driveways to the north -south avenues. 4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, STORAGE TANKS, AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 4.8.1 Impacts The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified a number of potential environmental hazards on the property including petroleum leaks, underground storage tanks, and water wells — both abandoned and in use. Adequacy Determination and 13 December Il, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.8.2 Mitigation A Phase I1 Investigation Report and Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Plan (VIC) has been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the ESA and State regulations. Prior to and during redevelopment of the Project Site, all contaminants will be removed and properly disposed, and wells will be sealed by a licensed contractor. 4.9 SOLID WASTES 4.9.1 Impacts Waste generated from the demolition of the existing structures will be removed from the Site. Solid waste and recyclable materials generated from the activities in the office buildings will be removed from the Site and disposed of according to local and State regulations. 4.9.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 Impacts The State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a site files search, and an on -site reconnaissance was conducted by BRW cultural resources staff. Neither search produced sites or potential for intact archaeological materials. A Phase I Historic Architecture Survey was completed on the Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile property because of the year built (1947) and distinctive building characteristics. It was determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the property did not meet the minimum requirements for further investigation. 4.10.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.11 WATER SUPPLY 4.11.1 Impacts Current water demand for the residences and commercial businesses within the Project Site is approximately 35,000 gallons per day (gpd). Anticipated demand for domestic water for the Project will be 187,500 gpd for 7,500 employees (Option A) and 237,500 gpd for 9,500 employees (Option B). There will also be water needed for maintenance of the pond and lawns. A 12 -inch water main will be installed along 76`h Street to connect existing water mains, and additional water supply piping improvements will be constructed. Two wells may be installed Adequacy Determination and 14 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus on -Site to supplement water supply for pond and landscape maintenance. Estimated demand would be 75,000 gpd. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) permit would regulate this use. If wells were not installed, this demand could also be met by the City water system. The water well capacity for the City is 19 million gallons per day. The current average daily demand in the City is 4 million gallons per day. Therefore, there is adequate capacity for the increased water demands by this Project. The Project will require the relocation of two water mains that supply water to the City of Bloomington. The timing of this reconstruction will impact that City's water supply. 4.11.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required as there is adequate water capacity within the current City system. A utility plan will be submitted to .the City for final approval. Best Buy will continue to coordinate with the City of Bloomington and Richfield on the timing of the water main relocation. 4.12 WASTE WATER 4.12.1 Impacts Current flow into the nearest lift station is approximately 203,000 gpd. The proposed sanitary discharge from the Project is estimated to be 187,500 gpd for Option A, and 237,500 gpd for Option B. Based on the estimated waste water demands of the Best Buy Campus, the existing lift station and its wet well storage will be modified as part of the Project to accommodate additional flows. Collection system pipes will be relocated and improved to maintain the current pumping rates in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) wastewater collection system. The lift station improvements will be completed prior to occupancy of the Project Site. a. Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.13 VISUAL IMPACTS 4.13.1 Lighting Impacts The proposed lighting plan is in conformance with the City lighting code and the lighting guidelines set forth by the Illuminating Engineering Society. Landscaping will be designed to minimize lighting impacts on the surrounding property. A final Lighting Plan and a Final Landscape Plan will be submitted to the City for approval as required be a condition in the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Adequacy Determination and 15 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.13.2 Shadow Impacts A shadow analysis was completed for all four seasons for both alternatives. The study indicated that for Alternative 1 the shadows from the five buildings and parking facilities would be contained on the Project Site for much of the year, with Option B shadows extending slightly further. In spring and fall the properties to the east and west of the Site would be affected by shadows in the early morning and late afternoon. In the winter months, properties to the north would be in shadow for portions of the day. In Alternative 2, the shadows from the four buildings and parking facility would extend further out into the road right of way during the winter and affect additional properties than Alternative 1. The affected areas for both Alternatives will primarily be streets and sidewalks where the potential for slow ice and snow melt and refreezing situations could pose a problem if the areas are not regularly sanded and salted. Under current city maintenance programs, 76`h Street, Penn Avenue and Knox Avenue are regularly salted and sanded therefore no mitigation is recommended. An additional analysis was completed for the partial parking deck which could be built to replace surface stalls lost to future I -494 expansion and found no additional impact. 4.13.3 Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.14 COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADJACENT LAND USES 4.14.1 Impacts The type of redevelopment proposed by Best Buy for this area of Richfield is consistent with the type of land use designated in the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Project Site. The Metropolitan Council has approved the plan amendment. Commercial development is already a large component of the Site and is also a major component of the property adjacent to both sides of I -494 east and west of the Site. 4.14.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.15.1 Impact The effect of the Project on roadways is discussed in the Traffic Section (Section 4.4 of this Record Of Decision) and includes information on the planned road improvements in relation to the increased volume of traffic. The effect of the Project on services such as sewer and water is discussed in Section 4.11, Water Supply Changes and Section 4.12, Waste Water. The effect on Adequacy Determination and 16 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus emergency services such as police, fire, and ambulance is discussed in Section 11.5 of the DEIS. The FEIS added supporting data on police calls expected. The data demonstrated no increase in police services. 4.15.2 Mitigation Any required mitigation is specifically described in the sections mentioned above. 4.16 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 4.16.1 Impacts The impact of the proposed development on various social and economic factors is described in Section 11.6 in both the DEIS and the FEIS. Quantifiable costs and benefits to the City are measured and indicate that the development creates the following impacts: • Residents and businesses will be displaced by the Project; however, they will be financially compensated for their property and businesses. The loss of residents to the City and school will be replaced through the use of a Housing Fund, to which a portion of the Project tax increment will be directed. • There will be a net benefit from the Project in direct and indirect employment and in consumer spending. • Increased City administrative costs in some areas will be offset by decreased costs in other areas. The highest administrative cost to the City will occur during the development and construction phases; however, fees and administrative tax increment will be collected to cover these costs. • The City has an existing utilities infrastructure in place to serve the Project. The Project will use and pay for more of this infrastructure than the current uses do, which will allow for greater utilization of the City's existing resources. • The road network in the area currently operates below acceptable levels of service at several intersections. The Project Roadway Improvements will be made to accommodate Project traffic. The City will benefit from these roadway improvements, which, without the Best Buy Campus, are not expected to occur for approximately 10 years. 4.16.2 Mitigation No mitigation would be required. Adequacy Determination and 17 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.17 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 4.17.1 Impacts Hennepin County crash data indicates that the pedestrian crash rate for 76th Street was 7.5 times lower than the Hennepin County average for similar roadways. In addition, based on Minnesota Department of Safety data, intersections with signals and /or crosswalks are safer for pedestrians. The Project will add signalized intersections with crosswalks at the 760h Street / Newton Avenue intersection, the 76th Street / Knox Avenue intersection and the Penn Avenue/ Best Buy entrance intersection. All three should enhance pedestrian safety in the area. The City also looked more closely at the mitigation options for the AM queue length impact at the northbound I -35W ramp / 76th Street intersection. 4.17.2 Mitigation As noted above, the City has identified a preferred mitigation for the northbound I -35W ramp at 76th Street. The City would retain the "No Right Turn On Red" sign and add a second lane to the ramp to increase queuing capacity. 4.18 RAMP METERING 4.18.1 Impacts Examination of ramp metering in relation to Project - generated traffic indicates that ramp meters have sufficient capacity assuming the timing is adjusted. Specifically, MnDOT would reevaluate the metering at Penn Avenue and I -494 after reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge and the opening of the Best Buy Campus. MnDOT also adjusts ramp metering every six months and, in response to complaints, conducts field surveys and adjusts ramp meters. Finally, if significant queuing that impacts local streets is seen on MnDOT's CCTV cameras, MnDOT can manually override any ramp connected to the system. Benshoof and Associates representing Walser Automotive Group, disagrees with this conclusion and presented information in support of its position. 4.18.2 Mitigation Based on MnDOT ramp metering practices, no mitigation is required. 4.19 DEWATERING Based on the estimated water table at the Site, construction dewatering is not expected for building construction. Reconstruction of the wet well at Lift Station #3 would require small amount of dewatering for a period of a week or less. The amount of water that would be pumped under worst -case conditions would not exceed 1 million gallons and therefore would not likely require a permit. Details of the construction would be coordinated with the DNR hydrologist prior to any Adequacy Determination and 18 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus dewatering to verify permit requirements. BMP's for sedimentation would be implemented with any dewatering that may be necessary. 4.20 WILDLIFE HABITAT The DEIS (Section 12.2) identified the general landscape plans for both development alternatives. Both would provide improved habitat diversity over exiting conditions, however the layout of Alternative 2 provides connectivity with adjacent habitats, maintaining species mobility whereas Alternative 1 creates isolated habitat within parking structures. 4.21 STATIONARY EMISSIONS Emergency generators are the only potential source for stationary emissions. However, given the size and hours of operation anticipated for these generators, the emissions are not expected to trigger MPCA Registration Permit requirements. The specific generator types and locations on the site will be coordinated with MPCA. 4.22 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are addressed in the specific sections of the Draft and Final EIS. 4.23 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No -Build Alternative, the following impacts would be expected: • The Penn Avenue / I -494 Interchange would continue to operate LOS F in the PM Peak Hour and the Penn Avenue / 76`}' Street intersection would continue to experience severe congestion for certain turning movements; • Storm water runoff from the Project Area and the area to the north would continue to flow into storm sewers without containment or treatment and intermittent flooding could be expected in the area; • Existing contaminants and hazardous waste on -site would not be contained or removed; and • Landowners within the Project Site would continue to experience uncertainty regarding future use or redevelopment of their properties. Adequacy Determination and 19 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.24 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Both alternatives have the same locations for access to the facilities and require the same public roadway improvements. Both alternatives include a surface parking lot on the south side that will be relinquished eventually for the expansion of I -494. 4.24.1 Alternative 1 The combination of five buildings and multiple parking ramps in Alternative 1 creates a wall effect between the surrounding neighborhoods and the Best Buy Campus. The area devoted to parking also maximizes the impervious surface on the Site and reduces the available open space. The green space and any trails in this design are internal to the Best Buy Campus. The common space connects two of the five buildings 4.24.2 Alternative 2 The combination of four buildings and a single parking ramp in Alternative 2 frees up more open space on the site. The parking ramp wall effect is limited to a portion of 76th Street and Knox Avenue at the northeast corner of the Site. The building layout provides open areas and green space between the buildings and the surrounding neighborhoods. The trail and several green spaces are open to the community. The commons area connects all four buildings and the parking ramp and may provide opportunities for community uses. 4.24.3 Preferred Alternative Based on the analysis and information presented, the City Council prefers Alternative 2 to Alternative 1 because: • Fewer buildings and a single parking ramp frees up more open space on the Site; • Due to the building layout and site design, more green space and landscaping face the community; • The trail which circumnavigates the property and several green spaces are accessible by the public; • Parking structures dominate fewer views of the Best Buy Campus; • The view from the Penn Avenue / I -494 Interchange creates a more favorable gateway to the City; Adequacy Determination and 20 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus • Access to the buildings is more visible and visitor friendly; • The design has less impervious surface; and • The common space better serves the Best Buy Campus by connecting all buildings and the parking ramp and may provide opportunities for community uses. 4.25 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE DENSITY OPTIONS Option B, with 9,500 employees was specifically targeted by MnDOT, Bloomington, and the I -494 Corridor Commission as having the potential for negative traffic impacts that could not be mitigated. Therefore Option A (1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 employees) has been selected as the preferred size of development. This option has the least amount of impact on traffic level of service, mainline operations, ramp meters, and traffic on residential streets. This option also generates less traffic- related noise and air emissions, has less shadow cast from the buildings onto adjacent properties, has less water demand, and will produce less sanitary and solid waste. 4.26 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE 76" STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALIGNMENTS Based on comments to the DEIS, the 76th Street Alignments have been modified in order to reduce further the impacts to properties near the intersection of Penn Avenue and 76th Street. First, 76th Street has been shifted south which minimizes the partial taking of land on the north side of 76th Street. Second, Penn Avenue has been shifted west which reduces the partial taking of land on the east side of Penn Avenue north of 76th Street. Third, the westbound right turn lane on Penn Avenue has been shortened by 150 feet to avoid the taking of a four -unit apartment building. With the reduction of the westbound right turn lane from 300 feet to 150 feet, a further queuing analysis showed that the queue lengths would not be expected to exceed the storage lengths for all scenarios. The south alignment of the 76th Street reconstruction was also identified as the alignment most compatible with the existing conditions for that portion of the Project. The following Right of Way would be required for the south alignment: • The proposed 76th Street south curb line will be 10 -40 feet south of existing curb line except at the intersection with Penn Avenue; • The proposed north curb line will be the same as the existing curb line except at the intersection with Penn Avenue; • The proposed ROW will be approximately 15 feet further from the curb line for sidewalk, utilities, snow storage, etc; Adequacy Determination and 21 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus • This alignment requires relocation of 20 garages at Fountainhead Apartments. These garages will be replaced on Site or on adjacent excess MnDOT right of way or will be compensated to the landowner. • The access drive to Fountainhead Apartments, on Knox Avenue just south of 76th Street, must be modified; • Access to Oliver Avenue and Morgan Avenue will be limited to right -turn only access. 4.27 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO KNOX AVENUE INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES In the FEIS, eight options were described to provide improved access to the frontage road and 76th Street (see Section 6.4 of the FEIS for additional details). They were: 1) Leave the driveways and accesses as they are; 2) Provide east/west access to Logan Avenue; 3) Curve 76th Street 20 feet further to the south than the proposed 76th Street South Alignment; 4) Move 76th Street 80 feet further to the south than the proposed 76th Street South Alignment; 5) Remove apartment building, north of 76th Street at Knox Avenue; 6) Create skewed intersection by curving Knox Avenue to the west; 7) Create offset intersection; and 8) Move intersection west 40 feet. There have been numerous meetings held between Colony Apartment and Fountainhead Apartment representatives, the City, and the Developer to determine the most satisfactory solution to the issue of ingress and egress for the apartment complexes. Additional and modified intersection options have been discussed and evaluated. A new alternative has been identified which has Knox Avenue as a four - legged intersection that is shifted slightly to the west. The details of the intersection layout are being designed as part of the 76th Street Reconstruction project. This alternative allows Fountainhead to retain their northerly access, and also provides the Colony Apartment Complex with access to be connected at the intersection. This alternative would reduce the setback for the Best Buy parking ramp. The proposed design for this intersection was found to be favorable by both apartment complexes. 4.28 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Based on the DEIS, the FEIS, agency comments and City requirements, the following permits and approvals will likely be required for Project construction. Adequacy Determination and 22 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus Table 1.1: Permits Required UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) To be applied for Indirect Source Permit (ISP) To be applied for Registration Permit for emergency generators To be applied for Sewer Extension Permit To be determined Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Entrance Permit for Penn Avenue access To be applied for Drainage Permit To be applied for Off -site Road Improvements To be determined Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health (MnDH) Watermain Extension Permit To be completed Abandonment of Water Wells To be completed Well Permit/Registration To be completed Local City of Richfield Scoping Decision Approved EIS Adequacy Decision Pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment Pending Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning In process Final Development Plan In process Conditional Use Permit In process Utility Vacations In process Right of way Vacations In process Preliminary Plat Approval In process Final Plat Approval In process Demolition Permit To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Utility Permits To be applied for Adoption of Official Map for I494 Completed 76`h Street at Knox Avenue Entrance Permit To be applied for Contract for Private Redevelopment Completed Housing Redevelopment Authority Business Subsidy Agreement In process Tax Increment Financing Plan and Public Financing In process Adequacy Determination and 23 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus Tnhle 1.1: Permits Reauired, cont. UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS Regional Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Grading and Drainage Permits To be applied for Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension To be determined Designating I -494 for RALF loan funds Approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approved H ennepin County Penn Avenue Entrance Permit To be applied for I 5. DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In determining the adequacy of the Best Buy Campus EIS, the City Council must consider the three criteria specified in Minn. Rules 4410.2800, subp. 4, which are discussed below. 5.1 THE EIS MUST ADDRESS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES RAISED IN SCOPING SO THAT ALL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR WHICH INFORMATION CAN REASONABLY BE OBTAINED HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN CONFORMANCE WITH MINN. RULES 4410.2300, ITEMS G AND H. The DEIS, FEIS, the responses to comments on these documents, and other documents referenced in these documents, address the alternatives and all the potentially significant issues and set out in the Scoping Decision. A thorough discussion of the significant environmental, economic, employment and sociological impacts of each alternative has been provided. Major differences of opinion concerning significant impacts are discussed. This information is summarized in Section 4 Findings and in Appendix A Response to Comments of this Record Of Decision. The DEIS, the FEIS, and the responses to comments identify mitigation measures that could reasonably eliminate or minimize the adverse environmental, economic, employment and sociological impacts of the Project as described in the EIS. The key mitigation measures are set out in Section 4 Findings of this Record Of Decision. The mitigation of environmental impacts would be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and would be subject to the plan approval and permitting process. Permits and approvals that will likely be required for the Project are listed in Section 4 Findings of this Record Of Decision. Adequacy Determination and 24 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 5.2 THE EIS MUST PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEIS REVIEW CONCERNING ISSUES RAISED IN SLOPING. All comments, both written and oral, on the DEIS were responded to in Section 17 of the FEIS. In certain cases, the City requested further information from commentors to clarify the comments before responding. Copies of the comment letters, the City's inquiry letters and commentor responses were attached to the DEIS as Appendices E and H. The FEIS was distributed to everyone who commented on the DEIS along with those on the MEQB distribution list. All written comments received on the FEIS were responded to in Appendix A of this Record Of Decision. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B. A number of postcard comments were also received during the comment period that stated opposition to the Project and general concerns about issues such as traffic congestion, air pollution, use of tax increment financing, and the taking of homes and business for private development. These comments did not address substantively the adequacy of the FEIS, but rather stated general concerns regarding the Project. These concerns were addressed in the previously published DEIS or FEIS or in Appendix A of this Record Of Decision. Copies of the postcard comments are attached in Appendix C. 5.3 THE EIS MUST HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES OF THE ACT AND PARTS 4410.0200 TO 4410.6500. The environmental review requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the MEQB Rules have been met by the EIS and related documents prepared for this Project as detailed in Section 3 Environmental Review Process of this Record Of Decision. 5.4 CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION The City Council hereby determines that the Best Buy Campus EIS meets the three criteria set forth in the MEQB Rules and is adequate. Adequacy Determination and 25 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS ON FEIS This section provides responses for all written comments received on the FEIS from agencies, groups and individuals. Comment letters are included in Appendix B. Written comments on the FEIS were received from the following agencies, groups, or individuals: • A) Metropolitan Council • B) I -494 Corridor Commission • C) City of Bloomington • D) Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP on behalf of Walser Automotive Group, Inc. • E) Felhaber, Larson Fenlon & Vogt on behalf of Fountainhead Apartments • F) ROP Investment Co., LLP on behalf of Colony Apartment Homes • G) Benshoof & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Walser Automotive Group, Inc. • H) Larry Wozniczka • I) Peggy Handt • J) Julie Erlandson • K) Minnesota Department of Transportation • L) Postcard comments During the comment period a number of comment cards were delivered to the City with general comments regarding the Project. A total of 203 cards were received from individuals opposed to the project. Copies of these comments are included in Appendix C. Since all but two of these comment cards were of a general nature in opposition to the project and were not directed at the adequacy of the FEIS, they have been sorted and categorized by issue, with general responses are provided at the end of this section. A. Metropolitan Council Comment A1: The Council staff review has concluded that the FEIS is complete in regards to regional policies, plans, and concerns. Response Al: Comment noted. Comment A2: The Final EIS satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected. Response A2: Comment noted. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December]], 2000 Page A -1 CommentA3: The proposed office development would be consistent with the existing Richfield Comprehensive Plan's Regional Commercial /Office classification for the majority of the site. The Council has authorized a comprehensive plan amendment to change the classification of 11 acres from High Density Single Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial /Office land use. Response A3: Comment noted. Comment A4: Parks and Open Space: a) This proposed development is not located adjacent to a unit of the Regional Parks and Open Space system. b) Any improvements at this site for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit options will enhance the parks and open space system through lower environmental impacts and improved connections to park and open space amenities. Response A4: Comments noted. Comment A5: If Richfield is to grow as forecast through 2010, and adds only ownership housing units, it would need to add nearly 150 affordable ownership units (townhouses or condos) over the next 10 years in order to achieve its affordable ownership goals. As the FEIS indicates, Richfield should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as the result of the land use change since, unlike homeowners, they will not be compensated in the same fashion because of the loss of their housing units. Response A5: Comment noted. With regard to replacing affordable housing units, it is the HRA's policy to always evaluate an affordable housing component in its housing and redevelopment programs. CommentA6: The Metropolitan Council encourages Richfield to use the $700,000 in TIF funds generated by the project to assist the development and preservation of affordable rental housing in the city. Response A6: Comment noted. This comment will be forwarded to the HRA board. CommentA7. The thousands ofjobs that may result from this redevelopment represent a significant potential employment opportunity to the city's 5, 000+ renters. Response A7: Comment noted. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December ll, 2000 Page A -2 B. I494 Corridor Commission Comment BI: The Corridor Commission continues to express its concern over the inadequacy of the Best Buy proposed TDM Plan. The concerns lie in two distinct areas: a) the lack of an adequate number of preferential parking spaces (250 are proposed in the FEIS TDM Plan) b) the lack of a financial commitment on the part of Best Buy to provide additional incentives for carpoolers and vanpoolers other than those offered at the regional level to all employers. Response Bl: a) One of the objectives of the Proposed TDM Plan is to have 275 employees using either car or van pools. The 200 car poolers would need 100 preferential parking spaces assuming two people per car pool. The 75 van poolers (at a minimum of 5 persons to a van) would need 25 preferential parking spaces. Therefore, the number of preferential parking spaces needed to achieve the reduction in peak hour trips identified would be 125 preferential parking spaces. The prior version of the TDM Plan identified 250 preferential parking spaces at the Best Buy Campus. This leaves a balance of 125 extra spaces waiting for additional poolers. Best Buy, however, is willing to commit up to a total of 4% or 300 of its spaces (based on 7,500 spaces) for preferential parking. This would be an additional 50 parking spaces allocated for car /van pooling resulting in a total of 175 extra spaces waiting for additional poolers. This addition is reflected in the Proposed TDM Plan. b) Key financial commitments that Best Buy has made in the Proposed TDM Plan follow. For a complete list, please see the TDM Budget Costs in the Proposed TDM Plan (Appendix E). Preferential Parking - The addition of 50 parking spaces allocated for preferential parking is valued at $7,000 per space or an additional $350,000. This brings the Best Buy Campus total committed to preferential parking to $2,100,000. Bicycles — Provide covered bike storage for 80 bicycles at a value of $9,200. Commuter Fairs — Conduct quarterly. Cost $1,000 /fair equals $4,000. CarNan Pool Parties — Conduct monthly. Cost $100 /party equals $1,200. Campus Transportation Coordinator - $50,000 per year. In addition, Best Buy is committed to provide up to $10,000 per year for the first three years after occupancy of the Site to buydown costs for car /van pools, bus passes and to support the TransitWorks program. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -3 Comment B2: The Commission strongly urges the City of Richfield to require a signed letter of corporate intent to follow the revised TDM Plan included as part of the Final EIS document. Response B2: The City agrees that the Proposed TDM Plan should be a requirement of Best Buy approvals. For this reason, the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit contains a condition that a TDM Plan be submitted to and approved by the City. C. City of Bloomington Comment Cl: The Final EIS states that a maximum of 15,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the site. The proposed truck route for soil removal is Penn Avenue to 1 -494. Will all soil removal be accomplished before the Penn AvenuelI -494 Interchange closure in January of 2002? If not, what truck route would be used for soil removal? Plans for roadway cleaning along the truck route should be developed and added to the Final EIS. Response Cl: Based on the construction schedule described in the FEIS for the 76th Street and the Penn Avenue Bridge, it is anticipated that at least half of the 15,000 cubic yards of soil would be removed prior to the Penn Avenue Bridge being closed. Due to the requirement to maintain the frontage road between Knox and Penn open until the signal is installed at Knox and 76th Street, some Site material will need to be hauled off -Site after the closure of the bridge. In this case, the alternate route for soil removal would be either from Knox to 76th Street to I -35W, or from Knox to 76th/77`h to Lyndale to I -494. As described in FEIS Section 4.1.3 b (page 4 -2), gravel exit pads will be provided at all Site exits to minimize dirt deposits on the adjacent roadways and mechanical road sweeping will be conducted regularly during construction to remove dirt spills on to these streets. The plan for these measures will be in compliance with City policies. Preparation and approval of a final Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, including these details, is a condition of the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Comment C2: The Final EIS indicates that post development quality and quantity of surface water runoff are improved over pre - development levels due to the proposed pond system. Bloomington encourages implementation of the recommended surface water runoff mitigation measures. Response C2: Comment noted. The proposed surface water mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Storm Water Management Plan required by the City for this Project. The final Storm Water Management Plan will be reviewed and Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -4 approved as a condition to the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Comment C3: Bloomington continues to recommend that the 9,500 employee /1.9 million square feet alternative not be further pursued. Response C3: Comment noted. The City prefers the 7,500 employee option. Comment C4: To minimize the impact on the Bloomington street system,. Bloomington continues to recommend aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) requirements be put in place, including staggered work schedules for employees. Response C4: Comment noted. The City agrees that a TDM Plan should be a requirement of Best Buy approvals. For this reason, the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit contains a condition that a TDM Plan be submitted to and approved by the City. See Proposed TDM plan in Appendix E regarding the goals for staggered and flexible work hours. Comment C5: Occupancy of the Best Buy Campus should not occur until completion of the new Penn Avenue /I -494 Interchange is in place and fully operational. Response C5: Occupancy will not be allowed until the bridge and ramps are operational, with the exception of the on -Site daycare operation. It is expected that this will be a condition of the Indirect Source Permit. Comment C6: Bloomington continues to encourage the use of a free right turn from Penn Avenue into the project site to facilitate traffic movement on Penn Avenue. Response C6: The City agrees and therefore is requiring the right turn lane from Penn Avenue to the Site as described in the FEIS. Comment C7: Relocation of two large water mains will be required: a) any relocation of the water mains necessitated by the project should be funded by the project b) a reconstruction plan and schedule needs to be determined, and approved by Bloomington Public Works taking into consideration such issues as shut -down timing and ensuring sufficient water supply to Bloomington. Response C7: a) It is not the function of the EIS to identify funding sources. Funding required of the Project proposer will be identified in the Development Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -5 Agreement between Best Buy and the City that must be completed prior to commencement of construction. b) The Project proposer has been and will continue to coordinate with the City and the City of Bloomington on the timing of the water main relocations as previously discussed with the Cities and described in the FEIS (Response G4, page 17 -15) and DEIS (page 11 -3). Comment C8: Penn Avenue and I -494 Interchange reconstruction should be closely coordinated with MnDOT, Bloomington, and area businesses and residents to minimize negative impacts. Response C8: The City will stipulate in its contract with the bridge contractor incentives for early completion and penalties for delays. The City intends to limit the bridge closure for the minimal amount of time necessary to complete the work. Several meetings have occurred with the tenants and open houses were conducted to inform businesses and residents of the planned bridge construction schedule Comment C9: The City should continue to work with MnDOT to facilitate an alternative temporary I -494 Interchange at Xerxes Avenue. The Penn Avenue /I -494 Interchange should be completely operational before significant work begins on the Lyndale Avenue /I -494 Interchange. Response C9: The City will continue to work with MnDOT on the temporary Xerxes exit ramp. The City does not intend to close or start significant work on the Lyndale /I -494 Interchange until the Penn Avenue Interchange is completed. D. Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP on behalf of Walser Automotive Group Once again, this commentor offers general criticisms which do not cite specific deficiencies in the FEIS or suggest specific additional analyses which might be helpful. The City again attempted via voice messages to obtain clarifications of Mr. Malkerson's comments. Mr. Malkerson replied via voice message that he would not be available for at least a week to respond. Therefore, the responses provided are also general. Comment DI: The pace that the City has set (and been maintaining) for this environmental review is much too aggressive given the proposed project. Response Dl: The City disagrees that the schedule for this EIS is much too aggressive. The City began work on this environmental review in April and expects to complete the review in December, a period of nine months. From Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -6 publication of the Scoping EAW on May 15, 2000, to the date of expected City Council action on adequacy on December 11, 2000, will be eight months. These are reasonable time frames which allow adequate time for analysis and comment. In comparison, the City understands that EIS level environmental reviews for projects of comparable size and complexity have been completed in slightly more than six months. Comment D2: In several sections of the FEIS, the analysis is not at all thoughtful or searching, and at times it is conclusory. Response D2: In stating that that the analysis in several sections is "not at all thoughtful or searching," the commentor does not identify any section of either the DEIS or the FEIS to which the comment applies. Nor does the commentor suggest additional analyses which might improve the information provided. The City disagrees with this comment and believes that all the potentially significant environmental impacts have been analyzed at the level of detail required for an EIS. In stating that the analysis in several sections is "at times conclusory," the commentor does not identify any section of either the DEIS or the FEIS to which the comment applies. An EIS must draw conclusions about impact levels and the applicability of mitigation measures. Without some specific reference to a conclusion in the EIS as unsupported or wrong, a more specific response is not possible. Comment D3: Since publication of the DEIS, the City has obtained Metropolitan Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments that are necessitated by the proposed Best Buy Campus. Similarly, the Richfield Planning Commission has (1) approved rezoning of the project property, (2) approved a conditional use permit for the project, and (3) approved a PUD plan for the project. The granting of these approvals violates EQB rules and increases the likelihood that the project will be developed as currently proposed. Response D3: The MEQB Rules prohibit making a "final governmental decision ... to grant a permit, approve a project or begin a project until an EIS is determined adequate." None of the actions cited by the commentor are final governmental decisions. The Metropolitan Council review and approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment has no legal effect on the Project until the City Council adopts the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Richfield Planning Commission's actions are advisory to the City Council. The City Council will not make final governmental approvals with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, PUD plan or a conditional use permit for the Project until after a determination of EIS adequacy. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -7 Comment D4: The FEIS does not compare the proposal with any alternative site. In other words, a critical component of the EIS was handled privately by Best Buy before the environmental review process began, without governmental or public input, and without a meaningful comparison of environmental effects. Response D4: The Scoping Decision did not require that an alternative site for the Project be addressed in the DEIS. The commentor did not raise this issue in the scoping process and has not challenged the Scoping Decision. Comment D5: The FEIS does consider alternative designs and project scales, but the consideration is artificial. Response D5: The comment is noted. The City disagrees. Significant differences exist between the designs presented in Alternatives 1 and 2. Both designs were under serious consideration by Best Buy at the beginning of the EIS process. The City determines as part of this Record Of Decision that Alternative 2 is preferable based on the EIS analysis. The density differences between Option A and Option B under each alternative are not artificial. Best Buy asked to consider a greater density on the Site in case corporate growth exceeded expectations. As shown particularly in the traffic analysis, Option B under either alternative design presents significant problems. The City in this adequacy determination has selected Option A with 7,500 employees as the preferred option. Comment D6: The FEIS also describes only two density alternatives. Response D6: The Scoping Decision did not require analysis of more than the two density options. The commentor did not raise this issue during the scoping process and has not challenged the Scoping Decision. Comment D7: One of the most significant effects of the proposed Best Buy Campus would be the loss of some 170 units of affordable housing. The FEIS does not examine a) whether the loss of this housing will push the displaced residents toward the outer reaches of the metropolitan area; b) the effect that the loss of this housing will have on remaining sections of this neighborhood, c) what concrete measures the City of Richfield will take to replace these housing units or otherwise mitigate the effects of the loss. Response D7: There are 169 housing units within the Interchange West area (89 apartments units, 54 single family homes, and 26 duplex units). Providing an adequate supply of affordable housing is a significant regional issue, and the City has long been a leader in doing so. However, a focus only on Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -8 affordability hinders the City's ability to meet other community needs, which include providing a broader range of housing types and prices. The City and the Metropolitan Council have established "Livable Communities" goals to provide greater economic integration of the City's housing stock. A 1999 revision of the goals indicates that Richfield's owner- occupied housing is 86 percent affordable (for households earning 80% of the median income), and its renter - occupied housing is 64 percent affordable. The affordability benchmark set by the Metropolitan Council for Richfield is 64 to 77 percent for owner - occupied housing and 32 to 45 percent for renter - occupied housing. Therefore, the City exceeds the Metropolitan Council's benchmark. Using the Metropolitan Council affordability levels for the City and applying it to the Interchange West area result in the following assumptions of affordability: 57 owner occupied units would be considered affordable and 65 renter - occupied housing units would be considered affordable (total of 122). The Metropolitan Council comment on the FEIS recognizes that the Best Buy Campus project does not negatively impact the City's housing goals stating that, "The Final EIS for the Best Buy Campus satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected." a) The City has experienced a loss of housing from airport and road expansion and redevelopment projects in the past and has always sought to relocate within Richfield as many of those households as possible. For example, in the case of the New Ford Town/Rich Acres buyout by the airport, 25 to 30 percent of the households relocated in Richfield. Assuming a similar percentage in the Interchange West area, 42 to 59 of the households could be expected to relocate in Richfield. b) The housing units within the project area make up the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood is isolated by 76`h Street on the north, Penn Avenue on the west and commercial uses on the south and east. c) The City has experienced the loss of housing units and population due to airport expansion, roadway projects, and demographic factors and, on an ongoing basis, seeks to replace these losses through its housing and redevelopment programs. Because the Best Buy Campus does not include a physical housing component, a portion of the Project tax increment ($7 million) is being dedicated to Richfield's housing fund. The funds will be used to construct new and rehabilitate existing housing. With regard to replacing affordable housing units, despite the significant amount of affordable housing existing in the community, it is the HRA's policy to always evaluate an affordable housing component in its housing and redevelopment programs. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -9 Comment D8: The Penn Avenue Bridge reconstruction to a single point diamond interchange and the widening of Penn Avenue are of such size and regional importance that they should be the subject of an independent environmental review process that is coordinated with the preparation of an EIS on the proposed Best Buy Campus project. Response D8: While it is true that both the Penn Avenue Interchange project and the 76th Street Reconstruction project have been programmed to be completed even without the Best Buy Campus, the mandatory requirements for state environmental reviews for roadway projects are not met by either road project. According to Minn. Rules 4410.4300, subp. 22, a road reconstruction project must be at least one mile in length and add new travel lanes to require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The 76th Street project adds additional travel lanes but does not exceed one mile in length. The Penn Avenue Project also adds additional travel lanes but does not exceed one mile in length. Interchange projects only require state environmental review when they are proposed in a new location. Therefore, the size of these road improvement projects does not warrant independent environmental review under the MEQB Rules. The federal environmental review process requires a Project Memorandum to be completed for the Penn Avenue Bridge project. This environmental document was prepared by MnDOT and the City and is being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration. Review of the Project Memorandum is expected to be complete by the end of December, 2000. A federal environmental review is not required for the 76th Street Reconstruction Project. Comment D9: There is no analysis of the impact of rerouted traffic (and related noise and carbon monoxide levels) through residential neighborhoods and elsewhere while the Penn Avenue Interchange is under construction. Response D9: The traffic detour plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge project is illustrated in Figure 12.4 of the FEIS. The reference to this figure was omitted in the FEIS. With the closure of the Penn Avenue Bridge, the traffic volumes on 82 °d Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W are expected to increase approximately 100 percent. On 80th Street, the traffic volumes are expected to decrease by approximately 10% between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue, but increase by approximately 35% between Xerxes Avenue and France Avenue. Table A -1 lists the 1998 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps, the approximate capacities of the roadways, and the estimated ADT volumes during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge for these roadways. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -10 Table A -1: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, 1998 I Volumes taken from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps (vehicles per day) As can be seen from this table, the available capacities of these roadways are expected to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes on 80' Street and 82n1 Street during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. The 76th Street reconstruction project would not require a detour since the roadway is expected to have one lane in each direction remain open during construction, with the exception of temporary shut downs as utilities are worked on. The 76th Street construction- related impacts will be temporary and occur only within the 2001 construction season. Alternative routes available for traffic would be I -494, 80th and 82nd Streets. After review of the detour plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge project and the associated traffic analysis, additional noise analysis was conducted for 82nd Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W. The model showed no impact for the temporary noise increase expected from increased traffic volumes along 82na due to the Penn Avenue Bridge closure. All other increases in traffic due to the bridge closure were less than the analyzed intersection and, therefore, can be predicted to have no impact. See Comment D10 for noise model results. Comment D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS does not include impacts on other relevant receptors, which, as you know, would include especially all residential and other Noise Area Classification Uses pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7030.0050. Response D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS identified receptors that represented locations that had worst case conditions for potential noise impact. Standard procedures outlined by the MPCA were followed. It is reasonable to assume that, if there were no or little impact for the worst case receptors, other receptors in the vicinity would have the same or less of an impact. An additional analysis was conducted to include the addition of the church/school located on the corner of 76th and Penn (Receptor N -4) to identify the level of impact to this type of sensitive noise receptor. Additional analysis was also completed for the residential area along 82nd between I -35W and Penn (Receptor N -5) as a sensitive noise receptor during the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. To complete the documented analysis, the AM peak and year 2022 analysis for all five identified sensitive noise receptors were also analyzed (see Figure 1). Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -11 ADT After Best 1998 ADT During Buy ADT Capacity Construction Development Location d t ( d ) (vpd d 82 nd St b/t Penn & I -35W 8,200 23,000 1 16,400 8,650 80'h St b/t Penn & Xerxes 13,700 34,000 12,330 13,850 80` St b/t Xerxes &France 12,500 34,000 16,875 12,650 I Volumes taken from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps (vehicles per day) As can be seen from this table, the available capacities of these roadways are expected to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes on 80' Street and 82n1 Street during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. The 76th Street reconstruction project would not require a detour since the roadway is expected to have one lane in each direction remain open during construction, with the exception of temporary shut downs as utilities are worked on. The 76th Street construction- related impacts will be temporary and occur only within the 2001 construction season. Alternative routes available for traffic would be I -494, 80th and 82nd Streets. After review of the detour plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge project and the associated traffic analysis, additional noise analysis was conducted for 82nd Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W. The model showed no impact for the temporary noise increase expected from increased traffic volumes along 82na due to the Penn Avenue Bridge closure. All other increases in traffic due to the bridge closure were less than the analyzed intersection and, therefore, can be predicted to have no impact. See Comment D10 for noise model results. Comment D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS does not include impacts on other relevant receptors, which, as you know, would include especially all residential and other Noise Area Classification Uses pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7030.0050. Response D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS identified receptors that represented locations that had worst case conditions for potential noise impact. Standard procedures outlined by the MPCA were followed. It is reasonable to assume that, if there were no or little impact for the worst case receptors, other receptors in the vicinity would have the same or less of an impact. An additional analysis was conducted to include the addition of the church/school located on the corner of 76th and Penn (Receptor N -4) to identify the level of impact to this type of sensitive noise receptor. Additional analysis was also completed for the residential area along 82nd between I -35W and Penn (Receptor N -5) as a sensitive noise receptor during the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. To complete the documented analysis, the AM peak and year 2022 analysis for all five identified sensitive noise receptors were also analyzed (see Figure 1). Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -11 Traffic noise analyses were completed for Options A and B for both the AM and PM Peak Hours in both 2003 and 2022. In addition, a noise analysis for the temporary construction detour for the Penn Avenue Bridge was performed. In 2003 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptors N -1 (77th Street and Penn Avenue) and N -2 (Newton Avenue at 76th Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2003 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from Option traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. In 2022 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A (compared to 2003 No- Build) traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptors N -1 and N -4 (Penn Avenue at 76th Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2022 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2 and clearly perceptible at Receptor N -4. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from temporary detour traffic at Receptor N -5 (Logan Avenue and 82nd Street) would not be perceptible. No mitigation is required. A screen wall could be constructed for a two block - long segment north of 76th Street from Logan Avenue to Newton Avenue. However, residents in the neighborhood will need to support the wall and the changes in access that would be needed to build a wall. Several homes that have direct access to 76th Street would need to relocate their driveways to the north - south avenues. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -12 Table A -2: Predicted Noise Levels for Option A (AM Peak) Receptor Predicted L10 and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option A: 7,500 Year 2022 Build Option A: 7,500 Lto Lso Lto Lso Lto Lso N -1 67 60 69 63 70 64 N -2 69 62 71 65 - � 70 63 N-32 59 52 60 52 59 51 N -4 64 60 65 61 67 64 N-53 67 61 68 61 N/A N/A Daytime L10 State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime L10 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. 2 Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Table A -3: Predicted Noise Levels for Option A (PM Peak) Receptor Predicted 1,10 and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option A: 7,500 Year 2022 Build Option A: 7,500 Llo Lso Lto Lso Lto Lso N -1 68 62 69 63 70 64 N -2 68 62 71 65 71 65 N -3 2 58 52 60 53 59 51 N -4 65 61 65 62 68 65 N -5 68 62 68 62 N/A N/A Daytime L10 State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime L10 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. Z Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -13 Table A4: Predicted Noise Levels for Option B (AM Peak) Receptor Predicted L10 and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option B: 9,500 Year 2022 Build Option B: 9,500 Lto Lso Lto Lso Lto Lso N -1 67 60 70 64 70 64 N -2 69 62 70 64 70 64 N-32 59 52 59 52 59 51 N -4 64 60 65 61 65 61 N -5 67 61 68 61 N/A N/A Daytime L10 State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime L10 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. 2 Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Table A -5: Predicted Noise Levels for Option B (PM Peak) Receptor Predicted L10 and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option B: 9,500 Year 2022 Build Option B: 9,500 Lto Lso Lto Lso Lto Lso N -1 68 62 70 64 70 64 N -2 68 62 71 65 71 65 N -3 58 52 60 53 59 51 N -4 65 61 65 62 66 62 N -5 3 68 62 68 62 N/A N/A Daytime L10 State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime L10 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. 2 Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -14 17 MS£ ' r M $. '} . _ any �LWON * Q �� ` - ' 6 - anuaAv Yn , ui, a' I i Comment DII: There is not an adequate analysis of the noise in the FEIS which will emanate from the Best Buy Campus or an adequate analysis of the impacts of noise from vehicles traveling to and from the Best Buy Campus. Response D11: The impact of noise from Site - related traffic was addressed in Section 8.0 of the DEIS and additional analysis provided in the previous response (D10). Site - generated noise was briefly addressed in response to comment I2 of the FEIS. Based on current site plans, the following information is added to that analysis. Four outdoor cooling towers will be located next to the-southeast -edge of the parking ramp. These towers will operate in conjunction with chillers located in the basement of one or more of the four buildings. The outdoor cooling towers will include a fan. A 12 -foot concrete wall will be built between the cooling towers and Knox Avenue as a preventive noise mitigation measure. The concrete wall will serve as a buffer for the residences east of Knox Avenue. The cooling towers are located in an area insulated by the five story- parking ramps to further suppress any noise emitted. The closest resident is 150 feet from the cooler location. At this distance, the sound pressure level from the cooling towers would be 62 to 64 dB without the concrete walls. These walls will reduce these levels well below the state standards and the below the traffic - related noise. No other outdoor noise generating uses are planned for the Best Buy Site. Therefore, no impact will result to sensitive noise receptors due the Site - generated noise. Comment D12: The carbon monoxide analysis in the FEIS does not include a sufficient number of receptor sites which are affected by the project and the analysis to date was based on a faulty and incomplete traffic analysis. Response D12: The methodology for identifying potential local air quality impacts follows the EPA - recommended procedure for CO microscale impact analysis. The general evaluation procedure, outlined in the Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (EPA, 1992), includes a multiple- intersection screening process, followed by microscale CO analysis with the EPA CAL3QHC line- source dispersion model. Based on common practice for air quality analysis, a sufficient number of receptor sites were analyzed to provide an accurate CO forecast for this Project. As the levels in the FEIS indicate, the worst case scenario CO levels are well below state standards. Because the selected intersections represent the worst locations in the study area in terms of traffic volume and vehicular delay, it is reasonable to conclude that other locations in the study area would not experience violations of the ambient CO standards under either of the proposed options. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -17 Comment D13: The FEIS does not adequately address the impact of the project on the public roadways for the years between 2003 and 2022 and does not adequately address the impact of the project if certain assumed improvements to the public roadways set forth in the DEIS and FEIS are not completed by the times assumed in the FEIS. Response D13: This comment is exactly the same as the commentor made in his letter with respect to the DEIS. No acknowledgement is made of the response provided in the FEIS in Section 17, Response I7. The EIS has presented a detailed traffic analysis in Section 5.0 and Appendix B of the DEIS, Sections 5.0 and 12.5 of the FEIS and in this Record Of Decision. In this comment and his previous comment, the commentor does not identify any specific deficiency in the analysis. With respect to assumed the Project Roadway Improvements not being completed by the times assumed in the EIS, there is no impact because the Best Buy Campus cannot be occupied until the Project Roadway Improvements, are completed. Comment D14: The FEIS does, not adequately consider the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects or potential projects which are planned, approved or under construction impacting the same relevant area of study. Response D14: This comment is virtually identical to the comment made in the commentor's letter with respect to the DEIS. No acknowledgement is made of the response provided in the FEIS in Section 17 Response I8. The DEIS and the FEIS do consider the Project's impacts in conjunction with other existing, approved or under construction projects impacting the same relevant area of study. In both his previous comment and this comment, the commentor does not identify any relevant project which the DEIS or the FEIS ignored. E. Felhaber Larson Fenlon & Vogt on behalf of Highland Management Group, Inc., owners of the Fountainhead Apartments The commentors intend to incorporate the previous objections as stated in the FEIS (Comments and Responses J 1 through J 14). However, no specific deficiencies are cited which would direct the focus of additional analysis. Therefore the previous responses will be applied. Comment El: ACCESS: The FEIS does not address the material impacts that elimination of Fountainhead 's northerly access to Knox Avenue will have on the property. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -18 Response El: The worst -case impacts that could result to Fountainhead's northerly access from the various alternatives that are being considered for the south 76th Street alignment and Knox Avenue intersection at Vh Street include the loss of approximately 20 garages and loss of the northerly access into the property. The garages would either be replaced at a different location on the on the property through a payment of a damage award by the City or Fountainhead would be compensated for their loss. The northerly access would require a loss of the one way internal drive, requiring modifications to adapt it for two way traffic. In an effort to mitigate the access impact, the City has been meeting with Fountainhead to discuss the potential alternatives for mitigation. --Based on meetings with Fountainhead representatives, a new alternative has been identified which has Knox Avenue as a four - legged intersection that is shifted slightly to the west. The details of the intersection layout are being designed as part of the 76`h Street Reconstruction project. This alternative allows Fountainhead to retain their northerly access, and also to allow the Colony Apartment Complex access to be connected at the intersection. This alternative would reduce the setback for the Best Buy parking ramp. The proposed design for this intersection was found to be favorable by both apartment complexes. Comment E2: ACCESS: The FEIS does not offer any clear indication or commitment to maintaining reasonable access to Fountainhead during reconstruction of Vh Street. Response E2: The FEIS (Response J2, page 17 -22) describes how access to the current frontage road will be maintained between Knox and Penn until approximately November of 2001, at which time the 76`h Street improvements (specifically the signal at 76`h Street and Knox) will be completed. At least one lane on 76h Street will remain open during the 76`h Street reconstruction. So for the first eight months of construction (April 2001 to November 2001) there would be no change to the current access at Fountainhead or Galyan's. After November 2001, the access to Fountainhead and Galyan's will be via the improved intersection at Knox and 76`h Street. Comment E3: PARKING: The DEIS and FEIS acknowledge that the City's preferred alignment of 7e Street to the south will require the taking and /or reconstruction of Fountainhead garages now located on the north side of the site. Yet no information is supplied about the number of garages impacted by the City's plans, or how Fountainhead will be able to replace or relocate those spaces, as well as the 18 public parking spaces located on Knox. The lack of information is perhaps even more significant if Best Buy elects to pursue the 9500 employee development alternative. Response E3: There are 20 garages being impacted by the south realignment of Vh Street. The City is proposing no net loss in on -site parking at Fountainhead Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -19 through reconfiguration of parking on -site. The details of the reconfiguration are being worked out between the City and Fountainhead representatives. The City does not guarantee on- street or public parking for private development. Private properties are expected to provide adequate off - street parking. Therefore, the elimination of an estimated 18 on- street parking spaces is not considered a substantial impact. Comment E4 TRAFFIC: The projection for traffic on Knox Avenue for the 7,500 employee development does not account for the impact on Knox Avenue that will be caused by the permanent closing of the south frontage road from Knox to Penn Avenue. This impact may be expected to be material in that all Galyan's traffic will use Knox, rather than the frontage road. Response E4: As was described in the EIS (Response to Comment J2 of FEIS), with the construction of the proposed Best Buy Campus; the I -494 North Frontage Road will be removed between Knox and Penn Avenues after about November 2001. The analysis for the Traffic Impact Study and EIS accounted for the traffic that used the frontage road to either access Galyan's or the Fountainhead Apartment Complex by redistributing it throughout the network to access these locations via the 76`h Street and Knox Avenue intersection. Therefore, the volume projections on Knox Avenue used in the analysis do include the increase in traffic volumes from Galyan's due to the closure of the I -494 North Frontage Road. Comment E5: The FEIS lists eight potential alignments for the Knox Avenue 1761h Street intersection but does not indicate which alignment will be selected. Response E5: It is not the function of the EIS to choose the preferred mitigation measure, but rather to identify potential measures that could be used to minimize impacts. The FEIS identified eight potential alignment options for the Knox Avenue intersection. Since the FEIS was published, through meetings with Fountainhead representatives, additional options have been identified and discussed. Based on these meetings a favorable option has been identified and is being further refined. See Response E 1. The final alignment for the Knox Avenue intersection will be submitted to the City Council for approval as part of the 76`h Street Reconstruction Plans. Comment E6: The relocation of Best Buy's parking structure to the south impedes access of Fountainhead residents to northbound Knox Avenue by supplying Best Buy traffic with the right of way. This could materially impede ingress and egress to Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -20 Fountainhead at its only point of access to Knox Avenue. The FEIS does not address that complication. Response E6: If the access to Best Buy's parking ramp structure is located south of the access to the Fountainhead Apartments, vehicles leaving the Fountainhead Apartments will be expected to stop for vehicles traveling north on Knox Avenue. These vehicles leaving the Fountainhead Apartments will also need to stop for vehicles traveling north from Galyan's. Vehicles leaving the Best Buy parking ramp will also have to stop and give the right -of -way for vehicles traveling on Knox Avenue. Therefore, all vehicles that wish to access Knox Avenue from a private access driveway must stop and give the right of way to vehicles on Knox Avenue. The Best Buy access points onto Knox Avenue will have stop signs. Because vehicles leaving the Best Buy parking ramp will be required to stop, a gap in traffic will be created on Knox Avenue for each stopping vehicle. This is expected to allow vehicles exiting/entering the Fountainhead Apartments to enter onto Knox Avenue northbound or enter into the apartment complex. Additionally, the on- street parking is expected to be removed to accommodate a second lane for northbound traffic on Knox Avenue. Therefore, vehicles leaving the Fountainhead Apartments would be able to make a right turn from the complex into the near northbound lane, which would be expected to minimize the conflict with vehicles leaving the Best Buy Campus. Further discussions with Highland Management have indicated that they are satisfied with the access points on Knox as described in the FEIS. Comment E7: The FEIS does not address in any fashion the reasons for, or the impact of, that extension of the construction period (from June 2002 to November 2002) on the community. Response E7: The Project construction schedule identified in the DEIS (Section 2.3, page 2 -4) described demolition starting in April of 2001, with grading and construction to start in May 2001. Construction would continue through November of 2002, with a phased move into the completed buildings starting in June of 2002. The total length of the construction schedule described was approximately 20 months; it did not assume construction would be completed in June 2002. The Final EIS identified (Section 2.3, page 2 -1) a change to the Project schedule, which only delayed the phased move in until November of 2002. The delay in the phased move in of Best Buy employees would not impact the overall construction schedule since construction was originally planned to occur between June and November of 2002. The construction period remains at 20 months. Therefore, Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -21 there are no impacts to be addressed, since the construction period had not changed from the DEIS to the FEIS. The purpose of the change in the phased move in dates was to alleviate concerns presented by the City of Bloomington, the I -494 Corridor Commission and MnDOT, which were included and discussed in the FEIS response to comments section. Additionally, it is anticipated that there will be occupancy restrictions set by the MPCA's Indirect Source Permit that will not allow significant occupancy of the Site until the Project Roadway Improvements are completed. Occupancy of the Site, except for daycare operations, was changed to occur only after the reconstructed Penn Avenue Bridge is operational, which is scheduled for November of 2002. Comment E8: The FEIS demonstrates that a 9,500 employee development simply cannot be accommodated at the proposed site. Response E8: Comment noted. As described in the Findings Section of this document (Section 4.25), the City's preferred development density option is the 7,500 employee option. Comment E9: The failure of the FEIS to resolve or mitigate the project's material adverse impacts on Fountainhead should result in the City's determination that it is inadequate, barring pursuit of the project until those adverse impacts are satisfactorily remedied or eliminated. Response E9: See response to comments E 1 and E5. Based on recent coordination meetings with the Apartment representatives, these issues have been resolved. F. ROP Investment Company on behalf of Colony Apartment Homes Comment FI: We have agreed that acceptable designs for the intersection of West 7e Street and Knox Avenue are either Option #6 or Option #7. Either of these two options will work for Colony Apartments and for Fountainhead Apartments without unduly impacting on property for the benefit of the other. Response Fl: Comment noted. The City has identified a design that has the potential to improve access to 76`h Street for Colony apartments. See Response E 1. Based on recent coordination meetings with the Apartment representatives, these issues have been resolved. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -22 Comment F2: We agree with the City of Richfield s conclusion in Section 66 of the Final EIS that construction of a second right turn lane for the southbound exit from Interstate 35W at West 76jh Street is preferred to removal of the "No Right Turn on Red ". We are substantially less sensitive to this issue if the Colony Apartments driveway is included in the traffic signal at the West 7e Street and Knox Avenue intersections. Response F2: Comment noted. Comment F3: The DEIS and attached traffic study failed to study: a) Traffic arriving and departing from the Colony Apartments b) The impact of the Project on the property and its residents; and c) Mitigation measures needed due to Project- generated traffic. Response F3: a) The traffic arriving and departing from the Colony Apartments was included in the traffic analysis and is represented in the background traffic numbers. See Traffic Impact Study in DEIS Appendix B and Section 5.0 of FEIS. b) The FEIS identified the impact of the 76`" Street Reconstruction project on the Colony Apartments Complex access as a change from full access to aright in/right out access. Since the FEIS was published, another alternative has been identified which provides full access to the Colony Apartment Complex. This is the alternative that is being refined for final plans. c) See response to Comment E5. Comment F4: The DEIS does not study or,consider any alternative layouts for the West 76'h Street and Knox Avenue intersection. We encourage the City of Richfield to develop design alternatives that preserve full access to the Colony Apartments. Response F4: See Section 6.4 of the FEIS which outlined eight alternatives for this intersection. Since the FEIS was published, the City has evaluated additional alternatives at this intersection, including some that create full access, even though the City is not obligated to provide a full access alternative for this property. Response E 1 explains the latest intersection layout. This layout has been found to be favorable by Colony and Fountainhead representatives. Comment F5: The designs included in the DEIS for access to Colony Apartments do not allow for left turns from the property or for left turns into the property from West 76Th Street. The DEISfailed to consider the impacts to the Colony Apartments and on the adjoining neighborhood from such restrictions on access. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -23 Response F5: Response E1 explains the latest intersection layout. This layout has been found to be favorable by Colony and Fountainhead representatives. Comment F6: The designs included in the DEIS for the exit from Colony Apartments show that right turns to and from the property will not be protected by a traffic signal. The DEISfailed to consider the impact of the Project on the flow of traffic and the safety of turns to and from the Colony Apartments. Response F6: The analysis completed for the FEIS showed that the queue lengths on 76th Street would occasionally block the entrance to the Colony Apartments. There is approximately 100 feet of storage distance between the Knox Avenue intersection and the access to the Colony Apartments on 76th Street. The AM peak hour maximum queue length for the westbound through movement with the 7,500 employee development is expected to be 150 feet. Therefore, the queue lengths are expected to periodically block the access to Colony Apartments. Without mitigation, however, because a low number of vehicles are expected to exit from Knox Avenue to 7601 Street during the AM peak hour, the traffic signal at the 76th Street and Knox Avenue intersection will remain "green" for a significant amount of time for through traffic on 76th Street. This longer "green" time will allow the queues on 76th Street to dissipate and thus allow vehicles exiting from the Colony Apartments to enter onto westbound 76th Street. Response E1 explains the latest intersection layout being considered as a mitigation measure. This layout has been found to be favorable by Colony and Fountainhead representatives. It provides access to Colony via the intersection with Knox Avenue. G. Benshoof & Associates, Inc. Comment GI: Best Buy Project would cause a significant negative traffic impact by creating increased congestion on the mainline lanes for I -494 and 1 -35 W. a) Table 5.15 in the FEIS shows during the AM peak hour that I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue would function within the LOS E volume range under the Year 2003 No -Build scenario. Table 5.15 mistakenly reports this as LOS F. b) Tables 5.15 and 536 show that 1 -35W between 66`h Street and 761h Street during the AMpeak hour and that I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue during the PMpeak hour would function at the threshold between the levels ofservice E and F under the Year 2003 No -Build scenario, but would drop completely into LOS F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. Response Gl: a) Benshoof & Associates correctly noted that Table 5.15 of the FEIS has an incorrect level of service reported for the Year 2003 AM peak hour No -Build condition for the location on 1 -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -24 The Table states that this location is expected to have a LOS F. The correct level of service for this location should be LOS E. Therefore, with the expected 7,500 employee development for Best Buy, the level of service between Xerxes and Penn decreases from a LOS E (the No -Build condition) to a LOS F. b) The Benshoof & Associates comments regarding congestion on the I -35W and I -494 mainlines, state that two other locations have hourly volumes of 2,300 vehicles per lane for the No -Build condition. The locations are: I -35W between 76`x' Street and 66`h Street during the AM peak hour; and • I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue during the PM peak hour. The threshold for a LOS F on a freeway with these types of lane uses is 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour. Therefore, any volume greater than or equal to 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour is LOS F. Because these locations have volumes equal to 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour, the level of service at these locations is LOS F. Based on the traffic volumes, geometry and levels of service identified in the table, it is clear that the regional transportation system (I -494 and I -35W) is currently operating at or near capacity (LOS E and F) without the Project (No- build). The segment between Xerxes and Penn is already approaching a failing condition (LOS E), and the other two segments are failing (LOS F). The Project- generated traffic is only a small contributor to that condition on a regional basis. The mitigation for this level of service impact is programmed by MnDOT to occur within eight years after the Project is constructed. The MnDOT planned improvements include additional lanes on the mainline of I -494, collector /distributors roads, and improved interchanges. With the reconstruction of I -494 in approximately 2010, the level of service at all three locations described above are expected to improve to a LOS D for both No- Build and the 7,500 employee development. MnDOT is currently in the process of completing the final EIS for the planned I -494 improvement project. Given the current traffic volumes on I -494, with many segments at or near capacity, MnDOT is encouraged to move this scheduled improvement up as much as possible. The Project's contribution to this planned improvement is to provide the Penn Avenue Bridge and interchange portion of MnDOT's project eight years ahead of schedule. The Project also results in the reconstruction of 76`x' Street, between I -35W and Penn Avenue, which is an identified reliever for I -494. MnDOT has reviewed both the DEIS and FEIS for the Best Buy Project to examine the possible impacts of the Project on the regional transportation Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -25 system. MnDOT stated that Option B with 9,500 employees may be too large for the supporting roadway network and should not be pursued. MnDOT has expressed no specific traffic- related concerns regarding Option A with 7,500 employees, other than encouraging implementation of a TDM Plan. The Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's regional growth policy objective of increasing the density of development within developed areas. Increased development density encourages increased transit use. It is not the intent of their regional growth policy to limit redevelopment projects due to regional transportation deficiencies. Comment G2: Best Buy Project would cause a significant negative traffic impact by creating increased congestion and accidents on I -494 between Penn Avenue and I -35W due to greater weaving conflicts. a) The second paragraph under Section 5.3.2.A of the FEIS indicates that the MnDOT weaving study addressed the weave conditions at Penn Avenue and I- 35W (I -494) with a single point diamond interchange. This statement is false. The referenced MnDOT study addressed other weaving circumstances. b) Page 5 -29 in the FEIS references the MnDOT Weaving Study and includes the following statement: "The study concluded the reconstructed Penn Avenue Bridge improved weaving conditions and operations on eastbound I -494 west of Penn Avenue. " This statement is untrue because the referenced study did not address in any matter the subjects of weaving conditions and traffic operations on eastbound 1 -494 west of Penn Avenue. c) Page 5 -31 in the FEIS includes the following statement, "The MnDOT Weaving Study also simulated the AM and PM peak hour No -Build and Build conditions for the Penn Avenue Interchange area, which were simulated using SYNCHRO and TrafNetsim software. " This is a false statement because the referenced MnDOT Weaving Study did not address any such simulation analysis. d) The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) state that the recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps such as Penn Avenue and I -35W is 1,575 feet. The existing spacing of 1,280 feet is already 295 feet (19 percent) shorter than the recommended minimum. Contrary to the erroneous statements presented in Section 5.3.2.A of the FEIS, it is obvious that the shortening of the weaving distance to 1,050 feet under the build condition would exacerbate the already deficient condition. The FEIS includes a contradictory statement on page 17 -9 in response to comment D8 which referenced weave distance as a reason for rejecting the HO lane on the eastbound ramp to I -494. Response G2: a -c) The first two comments made above all make reference to the MnDOT Weaving Study and that it did not specifically address the conditions at the I -494 and Penn Avenue Interchange. The FEIS misstated the reference to this study. The intended reference was that the MnDOT Weaving Study Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December ll, 2000 Page A -26 results were representative of conditions that would occur at I -494 and Penn Avenue. The MnDOT Weaving Study entitled "Estimation of Capacity in Freeway Weaving Areas for Traffic Management and Operations" examined other weaving areas at similar interchanges. The Weaving Study did not specifically include the I -494 and Penn Avenue Interchange. However, the weaving analysis results in the study can be applied to other ramp entrance and exit merge /diverge areas, including the I -494 and Penn Avenue Interchange area for both the existing conditions and the proposed single - point diamond interchange. Additionally, a specific simulation model was run for the -Year 2022 for the Penn Avenue Interchange to test the general conclusions of the Weaving Study on this interchange. The findings of the simulation analysis were consistent with the expectations based on the Weaving Study. Section 5.3 (page 5 -29) of the FEIS is the section within the FEIS that misstates the findings from the MnDOT Weaving Study. The original discussion and accurate reference to this study was represented in the clarification letter submitted to MnDOT by the City on October 6, 2000. The attachment to this letter, as documented in Appendix H of the FEIS, accurately describes the study and how it can be applied to the Penn Avenue /I -494 Interchange. MnDOT reviewed this letter and attachment and agreed through their follow -up correspondence on October 17, 2000 that there were no concerns regarding the proposed weaving distances. Therefore, even though the study was misstated in the FEIS, the conclusions drawn in the FEIS based on the study results and reviewed by MnDOT are valid and relevant. d) Mr. Benshoof correctly states the AASHTO recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps is 1,575 feet. The current ramp spacing between the Penn Avenue entrance ramp and the I -35W exit ramp is 1,280 feet. Therefore, the current ramp spacing condition of 1,280 feet is less that the AASHTO recommended minimum spacing. However, Mr. Benshoof fails to mention that the MnDOT recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps is 1,000 feet (MnDOT Road Design Manual, Chapter 6), which is the standard used in Minnesota. Therefore, under both the existing interchange condition/No -Build alternative (1,280 foot spacing) and the proposed single -point diamond interchange/build alternative (1,050 spacing), the spacing between the entrance and exits ramps of Penn Avenue and I -35W is greater than the MnDOT recommended minimum spacing of 1,000 feet. In reference to Mr. Benshoof s claim that contradicting statements were made in the FEIS regarding weaving distance, the following clarification is provided. Response to comment D8 of the FEIS (page 17 -9) stated that Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -27 construction of an HOV bypass lane for the eastbound ramp was rejected due to inadequate weaving distance. This is an accurate statement as the addition of an HOV lane for the 2002 construction would result in a weave condition of less than 1,000 feet (the MnDOT minimum standard). Without the HOV lane, as proposed, the weave distance is 1,050 feet, which complies with the MnDOT standard. Therefore, the statements presented in the FEIS are not contradictory. Based on the findings in the MnDOT weaving study, as described in the City letter to MnDOT (FEIS Appendix H, attachment A), a reduction in the weaving distance between entrance and exit ramps is not a significant factor for creating congestion on the freeway mainline. Traffic speed and ramp geometry were more relevant issues. Based on the principle findings of the study, it would be expected that the design changes proposed for the Penn Avenue Interchange (increased ramp lengths) will allow for increased ramp speed, which will result in less congestion than the current condition even with the reduction in weaving distance. MnDOT reviewed the City's letter and its evaluation of the MnDOT Weaving Study and agreed through their follow -up correspondence on October 17, 2000, that there were no concerns regarding the proposed weaving distances. Comment G3: Best Buy Project would cause a significant negative traffic impact by creating substantial congestion on Penn Avenue and 76Th street because the p.m. peak hour volumes projected to use entrance ramps from these roadways to 1 -494 and 1 -35W greatly exceed their capacity. Response G3: The purpose of this response is to clarify the effects of ramp metering, describe MnDOT's ramp metering practices, and respond to issues that were raised in the FEIS. In the comments to the FEIS, Benshoof & Associates determined average metering rates for the Penn Avenue entrance ramps to I -494 and the 76"' Street entrance to northbound 1 -35W through field observations on a single day. Based on this average metering rate, capacities of the entrance ramps listed above were determined: MnDOT's standard practices and procedures, however use six different metering rates (R1 through R6), instead of a single average rate, at each entrance ramp to allow vehicles onto the freeway system in a manageable fashion. The R1 rate is the fastest metering rate and the R6 rate is the slowest metering rate at a specific entrance ramp. The R1 rate is typically in operation when the traffic volumes on both the freeway main line and specific ramp are low. The R6 rate is typically in operation when there is extreme congestion on the freeway mainline. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -28 Table A -6 shows typical approximate metering rates for several locations in the Twin Cities Metro area, and it also shows the approximate metering rates for the Penn Avenue entrance ramps to 1 -494 and for the 76`x' Street entrance ramp to I -35W. As can be seen from the table, the metering rates are different for each ramp entrance location. MnDOT's practice is to calculate the metering rates such that they are able to accommodate the volume of traffic entering onto the freeway without causing significant congestion on the local streets. Table A -6: MnDOT Ramp Meter Timings Existing Volumes Approximate Metering Rates - Red Times Only Location Number of Vehicles ( h) (2) R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R6 Penn Ave to I-494 EB (PM) 1099 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.6 .2.7 4.6 Penn Ave to I494 WB (PM) 304 5.9 7.1 8.8 11.2 14.9 21.7 76th Street to I -35W NB (PM) (4) 294 6.2 7.4 9.1 11.6 15.5 22.5 Broadway Ave to I -94 EB (PM) 1028 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.9 3.0 5.0 Hennpin Ave to I -94 EB (PM) 1184 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.3 4.1 I -94 EB to I -35W SB (AM) 1884 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 12th St to 1 -94 WB (PM) 1071 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.8 4.7 I -35W NB to I -94 WB (AM) 1514 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 10th St to I -35E NB (PM) 1004 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.0 3.1 5.2 TH 100 SB to I -394 WB C -D (PM) 1215 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.3 2.2 3.9 RI = Rate 1, R2 = Rate 2, etc. Best Buy Project - 7,500 Employee Development (Year 2003) Approximate Expected Metering Rates - Red Times On (') Location Number of Vehicles (vph) PM Peak Rl R2 ( R3 ( R4 R5 ( R6 Penn Ave to I494 EB 1600 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2 2.5 Penn Ave to I -494 WB 939 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.5 5.7 76th St to I -35W NB 591 2.1 2.7 3.5 4.8 6.7 10.2 RI = Rate 1, R2 = Rate 2, etc. (1) Add 2.0 seconds for Yellow and Green phases. (2) Number of vehicles was taken from the MnDOT "All Detector Report," April 13, 2000. (3) Timings were calculated based on the MnDOT Traffic Management Center's current timing practices as of Nov 17, 2000. (4) Number of vehicles was taken from the MnDOT "All Detector Report," April 14, 1999 because ramp was under construction in Year 2000. The metering rate used at any specific time and at a particular location is determined by mathematical equation that uses real -time volume information from the freeway mainline and all entrance and exit ramps. This volume information is updated every 30 seconds, which in turn updates the metering rates Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -29 at each specific entrance ramp. Because there are six different metering rates at each ramp entrance and the metering rate in operation may change every 30 seconds, an average metering rate cannot be used to adequately determine the capacity of the entrance ramp. The metering rates determined at a particular ramp are calculated based on the volume of vehicles entering onto the freeway during the peak hour (AM and PM). Because of this, these metering rates are different for each entrance ramp, unless the volumes on the ramps are the same. For example, the metering rates at the Penn Avenue entrance ramp to I -494 eastbound would be different than the metering rates at the France Avenue entrance ramp to I -494 eastbound because the volumes on the ramps are different. Because the metering rates are calculated based on the peak hour volume of vehicles using the entrance ramp, large increases or decreases in the volume of vehicles using the ramp would require the metering rates to be updated periodically. MnDOT updates /adjusts the metering rates for the entire system every six months. Where large scale development occurs in an area that may affect an existing ramp meter by creating substantial traffic volume increases, MnDOT provides immediate reevaluation of that ramp meter and adjusts the metering rates, as appropriate. Metering rates would also be reevaluated after the reconstruction of an interchange, as would be the case with the Penn Avenue / I -494 Interchange reconstruction. Therefore, after completion of the Project Roadway Improvements on Penn Avenue and 76th Street and completion of the Best Buy Project, the ramp metering on the Penn Avenue entrance ramps to I -494 and the 76th Street entrance ramps to northbound I -35W would be reevaluated. As stated in Section 12.5 of the FEIS, MnDOT's fastest metering rate is 2.1 seconds per vehicle. If this were the only rate used during the entire hour, a maximum of 1,714 vehicles would be able to travel through the meter and onto the freeway system. Because MnDOT uses six different metering rates, the lowest rate could be at a minimum of 2.1 seconds per vehicle. The other five metering rates could be equal to or greater than the 2.1 seconds per vehicle minimum based on the volume of vehicles entering onto the freeway. As stated in Section 12.5 of the FEIS, for all development scenarios and time periods included in the analysis, the expected volumes entering onto the regional roadway system (I -494 and I -35W) are less than the maximum threshold of 1,714 vehicles. This reference was made not to imply that a 2.1 second per vehicle metering rate would be used at these entrance ramp locations but to show that the ramp meters have the capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes from the Project. If MnDOT adjusts the ramp meter rates based on the new traffic volumes from the Best Buy development and there are complaints of the ramp meters creating queues that back up onto local streets, MnDOT's practice is to perform a field review of the location, verify the problem, and take the appropriate steps to Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -30 mitigate the problem. If significant queuing lengths that impact the local street are noticed using the Closed - Captioned Television (CCTV) cameras, MnDOT also has the capability to immediately manually override any ramp meter that is connected to the system. Also, construction of the I -494 / 1 -35W Interchange area is expected to begin in approximately Year 2011. When this reconstruction is complete, vehicles will not be able to enter I -494 from Penn Avenue and then travel south onto I -35W. Because of this, the volume of vehicles on this entrance ramp to eastbound I -494 from Penn Avenue is expected to decrease. With this decrease in traffic volumes, MnDOT would be expected to reevaluate the meter rates at this location again and adjust them accordingly. Comment G4: Best Buy Project would cause a significant through traffic use and associated negative impacts on local residential streets because motorists would seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on the 1 -494 and 1 -35W entrance ramps Response G4: See Response G3. Based on MnDOT's practice of adjusting the metering rates to accommodate the anticipated volume of traffic entering onto the freeway, and added ramp capacity with the interchange reconstruction, motorists would not be expected to experience unusual congestion on the entrance ramps and would therefore not need to seek alternative routes on the local streets to avoid this congestion. Additionally, there are a number of arterials that are designated as relievers for I -494 and I -35W traffic. Some of these routes are located within residential areas. The north/south arterials closest to the Project include: York Avenue, Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, and Nicollet Avenue. These roadways are generally four -lane undivided roadways with few protected turn lanes, except for York which does have protected turn lanes. Table A -7 below shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and the design capacities of these roadways. In the DEIS, 15% of the employees entering/exiting the Best Buy Campus are expected to use 1 -35W north of 76`" Street to travel to /from the Site. As a worst case example, if this percentage were redistributed evenly to the four arterial roadways listed above, each roadway would experience an approximate 4% increase in daily traffic volumes from the Project. The table also shows the ADT volumes on these roadways with the 4% addition of the Best Buy traffic. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -31 Table A -7: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and Design Capacities Arterial 1998 ADT ( d)t Capacity of Roadwa ( d) Example Worst -case ADT After Best Buy Campus (v d)2 York Avenue 19,000 34,000 20,160 Penn Avenue 17,000 23,000 18,305 Lyndale Avenue 13,500 23,000 14,080 Nicollet Avenue 11,900 23,000 12,480 1 Volumes taken from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps (vehicles per day) 2 Four percent was added in addition to the percentages previously assigned to Penn, York, Lyndale, and Nicollet Assuming the Project traffic was added to these arterials as shown above it is far less than the available capacity of the roadways and is not expected to significantly impact them. Traffic on 76th Street just west of Lyndale Avenue has dropped from 12,000 ADT to 5,700 ADT since 77th Street was built as a minor arterial. Only a limited amount of traffic uses 76th Street to gain access to or from Lyndale or Portland Avenue given the improvements made on 77th Street. This is a prime example of how minor arterials with adequate capacity minimize the use of residential streets. Similar benefits are expected to occur with the road improvements on Penn Avenue and 76th Street. Comment G5: MnDOT has not altered its September 27 statement that the scenario with 9,500 employees would cause five problems regarding access off Penn Avenue. Response G5: Comment noted. The City's preferred alternative is the 7,500 employee option as described in the Findings Section of this document (Section 4.25). Comment G6: In response to a MnDOT comment that a single point at Penn Avenue will be stressed to its limits and will affect the operation of I -494 and 1 -35W, page 17 -3 in the FEIS presents the following comment: "Based on a MnDOT study of other weaving areas, and simulation of the existing and proposed conditions, the proposed Penn Avenue improvements are expected to improve operations on 1- -494 during peak hour conditions. " As noted in points GI (a) and GI (b) above, the preceding statement is incorrect and seriously misleading. Response G6: See Responses G1 and G2. Based on the results of the MnDOT Weaving Study (which did not specifically study the Penn Avenue Interchange), and a simulation study of Year 2022 conditions specifically conducted for the Penn Avenue Interchange Modification Request, the proposed Penn Avenue improvements are expected to improve operations on 1 -494 during peak hour conditions. Based on these studies, this is not a false or misleading statement. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS. December 11, 2000 Page A -32 Comment G7: Response to Comment E -2 in the FEIS is incorrect (regarding increased congestion on 1 -494 when the freeway is reconstructed) because the traffic capacity on 1 -494 likely will be reduced during construction due to factors that will include: a) reduction in lane width b) loss of shoulders c) lane shifts. Response G7: The FEIS response for E2 did not state that there would not be increased congestion. What it did say was that there would not be substantial construction constraints imposed on I -494, especially during peak traffic periods. With any major freeway reconstruction project there is bound to be increased congestion. However, this congestion would be temporary and intermittent depending on the construction locations and progress. The reconstruction of I -494 is not part of this Project or this EIS. The impacts of the I -494 construction project should have been addressed in the 1994 Draft I -494 Environmental Impact Statement, and would be updated in the Final I -494 Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by MnDOT, which is to be published in January 2001. Mitigation for temporary construction impacts for unrelated and unconnected construction projects is not the subject of this EIS. Comment G8: Regarding the response to FEIS Comment ES: Traffic queuing and congestion will occur at the Penn Avenue /1 -494 Interchange because the capacities of the entrance ramps are less than the volumes projected to use the ramps. Response G8: See Response G3 and G4. Again, because MnDOT's practice is to adjust the metering rates to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes entering onto the freeway after significant roadway improvements are completed or when traffic volumes increase, significant queuing is not expected to occur at the Penn Avenue / I -494 Interchange under normal circumstances. Comment G9: Regarding the response to our comment presented in HI of the FEIS: a) The SimTraffic results indicate that the intersection would operate at level of service C. In comparison to normal level of service calculation methodologies, SimTraffic has underestimated the delay and level of service at this intersection. b) The increase in level of service at the intersection of 77'h Street and Lyndale Avenue, presented in the FEIS is an illogical outcome when the total volume entering the intersection increases. This situation provides further merit to the argument that the SimTraffic simulation used in the FEIS yields level of service results that are not as valid as results produced through the standard methodologies presented in Syncho or the Highway Capacity Software. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -33 Response G9: a) In an effort to help clarify for Mr. Benshoof the difference between the two traffic software models ( SYNCHRO and SimTraffic), the following is a response from John Albeck, the software designer for both the SYNCHRO and SimTraffic programs: SYNCHRO " Synchro and SimTraffic ARE different models and will give different results. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program [examines the intersections and network as a whole and calculates the impacts to the system based on empirical equations] that replicates the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. These models do not account for "bottleneck" situations where upstream traffic deficiencies reduce the amount of traffic reaching downstream intersections. This would be a situation where Synchro may show a delay that is worse than SimTraffic since all of the volume is not reaching the intersection in SimTraffic." SimTraffic "When it comes to SimTraffic, this is a microscopic simulation model [examines the impacts to each individual vehicle within the model]. SimTraffic has the capability to simulate a wide variety of traffic controls, including a network with traffic signals operating on different cycle lengths or operating under fully- actuated conditions. Most other traffic analysis software packages do not allow for a direct evaluation of traffic conditions operating under varying cycle lengths and traffic control [as exist in the study area]. Each vehicle in the traffic system is individually tracked through the model and comprehensive operational measures of effectiveness are collected on every vehicle during each 0.1- second of the simulation. Driver behavior characteristics ranging from passive to aggressive are assigned to each vehicle by the model, effecting the vehicle's free -flow speed, queue discharge headways, and other behavioral attributes. The variation of each vehicle's behavior is simulated in a manner reflecting real -world operations. Since SimTraffic is a microscopic model, the full impact of queuing and blocking would be measured by the model. This is a situation where SimTraffic could show more delay when compared to Synchro." For the Best Buy Campus analysis both traffic software models were used. The SYNCHRO software was used as a database manager where the lane geometrics, volume information, and signal timings were stored for each development scenario. These inputs were then transferred to the SimTraffic model, which was used to fine -tune the signal timings and geometrics and then Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -34 calculate the level of service and queue length impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The SimTraffic model was used to determine the impacts of traffic on the surrounding roadway network because this model examined the impacts of traffic in the system on a vehicle by vehicle basis. As stated above in John Albeck's response, some intersections may have worse level of service results and some intersections may have better level of service results using the SimTraffic model compared the SYNCHRO model. Also, contrary to Mr. Benshoof s statement that the results from SimTraffic are not compatible with HCS or SYNCRO results, the level of service and queue length results produced from SimTraffic are compatible with each of these programs and are accepted in the traffic engineering field as reliable and accurate. The analysis that was performed by Benshoof & Associates at the 76a' Street and I -35W Northbound Entrance Ramp and at the 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersections using the SYNCHRO software included only those intersections. Because these intersections are part of a larger interconnected signal system, the operations at one intersection influence the operations at an adjacent intersection. If the signal system is optimized, vehicles traveling on the coordinated roadway generally arrive at the intersection when the light is green. Because of this, these vehicles incur little delay thus improving the intersection level of service. If the signal is looked at individually and not in a coordinated system, vehicles travelling on the main roadway arrive at the signal at random times. This may add extra delay to each vehicle because they may arrive at the intersection when the signal is red thus decreasing the level of service of the intersection. A comparison of the AM and PM peak hour time periods with the 7,500 employee option for the Year 2003 was conducted to examine the differences in the intersection level of service results produced by SYNCHRO and SimTraffic. The comparison showed that for a total of 36 intersections (18 for the AM peak hour and 18 for the PM peak hour) the following occurred: Nine intersections had worse intersection levels of service using SimTraffic vs. SYNCHRO; Five intersections had better intersection levels of service using SimTraffic vs. SYNCHRO; and Twenty -two intersections reported the same levels of service using SimTraffic vs. SYNCHRO. As can be seen from this information, SimTraffic showed that there was a difference of four intersections that had worse level of service conditions than intersections that had better level of service conditions. For the majority of the intersections, SimTraffic and SYNCHRO produced the same level of service results. As stated above, SimTraffic was used to determine the impacts the surrounding roadway network because this model examined the impacts of Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -35 traffic in the system on a vehicle by vehicle basis and has the greater capability to model "real- world" conditions. b) The FEIS has a statement in it that reads "The improvement occurred because the volume collected by Benshoof was 100 vehicles less than the predicted average used in the DEIS" for the 77h Street / Lyndale Avenue intersection. The statement should read, "The improvement occurred because the volume collected by Benshoof was 100 vehicles less for the northbound to westbound movement than the predicted average used in the DEIS." The total volume of vehicles entering the intersection for all movements during the PM peak hour under the Year 2003 scenario with 7,500 employees would be 124 vehicles higher using the Benshoof data than as presented in the DEIS. Mr. Benshoof is making the reference that an increase in volumes automatically means a decrease in the level of service of the intersection. This statement is untrue. Because there are fewer vehicles making the northbound to westbound movement using Benshoof s data, the traffic signal can be optimized to remove allotted "green" time for this left turn movement and to reallocate that "green" time to the eastbound and westbound through movements. By optimizing the signal timing and giving more "green" time to the higher volume movements, the level of service for the intersection is expected to improve from LOS D to a LOS C using the volumes taken from the Benshoof & Associates analysis. Comment G10. We strongly disagree with the response to FEIS Comment H7 and would state that motorists would have a major incentive to use local streets to avoid the substantial congestion that would occur on Penn Avenue and 76`h Street because the capacity of the entrance ramps to 1 -494 and 1 -35W would be considerably below the projected volumes. Response G10: See Response to Comments G3 and G4. Comment G11: Aside from the no -build option, the FEIS has not addressed any development alternative that would not cause the above referenced negative traffic impacts. Response G11: All alternatives identified in the Scoping Decision document were analyzed. The MEQB Rules do not require inclusion of an alternative which has no traffic impacts. Rather the Rules require the development of mitigation measures in response to identified impacts. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -36 H. Larry Wozniczka Comment HI: Preparation of the EIS by unbiased experts was promised. The firm of BRW, who designed the roadway system, also prepared the EIS technical response. Similarly, the City Department assigned as the responsible governmental unit raises questions. Response Hl: The City enlisted the assistance of several consultants to prepare plans for the various Project Roadway Improvements and the EIS. SEH is preparing the road plans for the Vh Street Reconstruction Project, WSB engineering provided the utility engineering for the Penn Avenue Bridge project and BRW provided the design plans for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. BRW was also involved in preparing the traffic impact study and portions of the EIS. The City used consultants based on their expertise and familiarity with the Project area and issues. The City used independent experts to ensure that the EIS analysis would be objective. Community Development and Public Works staff worked on the EIS with assistance from SEH, who reviewed the transportation portion of the EIS, and WSB, who reviewed sections relating to utilities. BRW is a recognized expert in the preparation of environmental review documents as well as bridge design. The technical issues raised in the EIS were also issues affecting the bridge design. Therefore having BRW work on both does not imply a bias. BRW is a reputable engineering firm that has prepared dozens of environmental impact statements for responsible governmental units and developers. BRW has an excellent reputation with MEQB for their presentation of the facts and attention to proper procedure. Comment H2: Failure to use the I -494 frontage road to carry some of the traffic places a greater load on 76`h Street to the West of Penn Avenue. If this leads to widening of 76`h Street west of Penn, more houses will be lost. Response H2: It is assumed that the commentor is referring to the potential closing of the frontage road to the west of Penn Avenue. The frontage road west of Penn Avenue will not be closed as part of this Project. Closure of this section of frontage road is being contemplated as part of the I -494 improvements. Impacts of closing this portion of the frontage road should be addressed in the MnDOT FEIS being prepared for the I -494 roadway improvements. Comment H3: Cost questions related to the project remain. Risk analysis was only lightly treated. There is no indication that the City's General Fund will benefitfrom additional revenues for the 25 year term of the Tax Increment Finance district. Response H3: The commentor does not provide adequate information on what cost questions remain or what additional risk analysis should be completed. These comments are noted. Revenues generated by the Project are to be Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -37 dedicated to the regional fiscal disparities fund, Richfield's housing fund and for HRA administrative costs. To the extent that these revenues may decrease financial reliance on the City's general fund, this would represent general fund cost savings during the life of the TIF district. I. Peggy Handt Comment 11: A traffic analysis still has not been done on the north /south arterial streets. What will be the impacts be due to increased traffic on these north /south arterials, as well as on 76th Street between Portland and 1-35 W. Response Il : See response to comment G4. Comment 12: The FEIS still does not accurately address the effects of additional buses on the arterial streets and at the intersections studied on air quality and noise quality. Response I2: The current bus routes are located along Penn Avenue and 76`h Street. Any increase in bus traffic to service the Project would occur along these same streets. Based on the 225 people forecast to use bus transit in the Revised Draft TDM Plan, a maximum of 12 additional buses would be needed during the two -hour peak periods or roughly 6 buses in the peak hour. This is not a significant increase in the number of buses and has been accounted for in the traffic analysis completed to date. As a result, the analysis of noise and air impacts, which uses the traffic analysis, also accounted for the increase in buses. The commentor's expectation that the number of buses will increase drastically is unreasonable. Additionally, from an air quality and noise standpoint, for every bus that would be added, approximately 20 cars would be removed from the roadway. Fewer vehicles on the roadway would result in less air and noise impacts. Comment 13: Analysis at all intersections still do not include the increase in buses. Response I3: As was stated in the DEIS and FEIS, the impact of increased bus traffic resulting from the Proposed TDM Plan has been analyzed as part of the traffic impact study. See response to comment 12. Comment 14: Before the FEIS is approved, further studies need to be done to mitigate ways to physically discourage employees from straying off the main arterial streets. Response I4: Section 5.4 of the FEIS addressed the most reasonable mitigation to minimizing traffic impacts on residential streets. See also Response G4 of this document. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -38 Comment IS: Even though it is stated in the FEIS that Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale, Penn and York are expected to be relievers offreeway traffic, NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE AT ALL to determine the possible adverse effects of all of the increased traffic on these arterial streets and the safety ofpedestrians. Response I5: See Response G4. Comment I6: If an average growth rate of 0. S percent per year continues; what will be the actual growth rate when you add in the 7,500 or 9,500 employees? Response I6: The description for the 0.5 percent growth rate for background traffic was explained in the DEIS (Section 5.1.1, page 5 -2) and the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix B, Section 2.2 of the DEIS). This rate was applied to the existing traffic volumes that were collected in Years 1999 and 2000. This growth rate was then compounded annually to determine the background traffic volumes for the Years 2003 and 2022 assuming the Project did not go forward. The trips generated by the Project were then added to this background traffic to give the total amount of traffic on the roadways. This process was used for both the 7,500 and 9,500 employee options. Therefore, the "actual" traffic growth due to the Project is the difference between the background traffic numbers and the total traffic numbers. The "actual growth rate" cannot be determined until after the employees move in. The traffic study assumed the worst -case, which would be all 7,500 employees starting in November 2002. Therefore, after 2003, the traffic analysis assumed a zero growth rate for Best Buy because their maximum growth was assumed to occur in 2002. The actual growth resulting from the Project cannot be defined as an "actual growth rate" because it will not occur equally during the timeframe analyzed and therefore cannot be labeled as a standard "rate ". Best Buy will have 5,500 to 6,500 employees move to the site in November 2002, with the additional 1,000 to 2,000 moving to the site as they are hired. Comment I7. Section 5.4 does not address any mitigation measures on the N -S arterial streets and bus routes as admitted anticipated relievers offreeway traffic. Response I7: See Response G4. Comment 18: To present the table setting forth how Best Buy hopes to achieve a reduction in the number of trips from the RDTMDP does not invalidate the fact that conceivably an unmanageable number of buses may have to be added to the bus routes if Best Buy has 7,500 or 9,500 employees. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -39 Response I8: See Response I2. Comment 19: I want to know where you are going to route all of the traffic during the widening of 7e Street and the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Response I9: See Response D9. Comment HO How was the figure of 2% arrived at for buses, commercial vehicles or heavy trucks? Where is that set forth in the EIS? How do you know 2% is accurate? Response I10: The data used to analyze the air quality and noise impacts included the forecast increase in buses as a result of the TDM plan. As previously explained, the traffic analysis assumed that two percent of the traffic in any location is comprised of heavy trucks or buses. The value of two percent is a standard number taken from the Highway. Capacity Manual, 1997 (Table 9 -3) that is used for operational and planning analyses. For example, using existing traffic volumes at the east approach to the Penn Avenue and 76th Street intersection, the PM peak hour volume of traffic approaching the intersection is 945 vehicles, of which 2 percent would equal 19. Therefore is was estimated in the analysis that approximately 19 buses or heavy trucks would move through this intersection during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. With the 7,500 employee development option at the east approach to the Penn Avenue and 76`h Street intersection, the expected PM peak hour volume of traffic approaching the intersection is 1,337 vehicles of which 27 would be buses or trucks, or an expected increase of 8 buses or trucks. According to the Proposed TDM Plan, a conservative estimate of 6 buses could be added during the peak hour with the addition of the Best Buy Campus. The total number of buses added will depend on the transit provider and the demand for ridership. J. Julie Erlandson Comment JI: The area of most concern is the TDMP. With only 13% of the employees considering alternative forms of transportation, and Best Buy not having a past, solid success rate of what employees have been willing to do, in reference to alternative modes of transportation, the outlook seems too uncertain to depend upon. Response J1: As described in the Draft and Final EIS, the traffic study shows that Best Buy Campus traffic for the 7,500 employee option can be accommodated on the improved road network without a TDM Plan. The analysis was completed assuming the worst -case scenario of no car pools, van pools or transit would occur and found that without these measures the traffic still operates at acceptable levels of service. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -40 Best Buy's employee survey identified approximately 23% willing to try car pooling, 16 % willing to try the bus and 25% willing to try a van pool. K. Minnesota Department of Transportation Comment KI: MnDOT has concerns about temporary drainage during construction and requests that the City make efforts to provide for adequate drainage during construction. Response Kl: A final Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and a final Storm Water Management Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City -for approval as required by a condition in the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. As described in the FEIS, drainage from the Site as well as off -Site areas will be accommodated on -Site during and after construction. Comment K2: MnDOT encourages the City to work with the Developer in implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan to help minimize increases in traffic that result from this development. Response K2: The Proposed TDM Plan is included in Appendix E. A final TDM Plan, required by a condition in the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, will be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director of the City of Richfield. L. Postcard Comments In addition to the comment letters received, 203 postcards were received stating opposition to the project. Copies of these postcards are included in Appendix C. These postcards were sent and collected by the Walser Automotive Group and submitted to the City during the FEIS public comment period. One of the postcards was received from an individual that also provided a comment letter (Peggy Handt), which identified the same concerns and were responded to under the previous section "I ". Comment LI: Of the remaining 202 postcards received, the majority (163) stated their general opposition to the Project based on traffic congestion. Some of these also alluded to other impacts such as air and noise pollution associated with traffic, traffic within the residential areas, and the taking of homes and businesses in the project area. However, none of these specifically commented on the adequacy of the EIS in regards to these issues, rather just the commentors' opinions of the potential impacts. Response L1: Comments noted. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -41 Comment L2: Twenty other postcards simply stated their opposition to the Project without any specific issues identified. Response L2: Comments noted. Comment L3: Approximately 18 commentors also stated opposition to the Project based on one or more of the following topics: the use of eminent domain, the use of tax increment financing, or suggested use of an alternative site location within Richfield east of I -35W. Response L3: Comments noted. The issue of alternative site locations was addressed in the Scoping EAW, the Scoping Decision, the DEIS and the FEIS. The EIS process completed to date has adequately addressed alternative sites as outlined in the Scoping Decision. Comment L4: Only one of the 203 postcards stated that the EIS inadequately addressed the traffic impacts that will result from the Project, further stating that there is no way to design for a development of this size in this location. The commentor also claimed that the traffic capacity of the area will be exceeded within five years without any additional development in the area. However, the commentor did not provide any specific information to substantiate these projections. Response L4: Comments noted. As described in the DEIS and FEIS, the Traffic Impact Study completed for the Project indicates that the smaller of the Project options analyzed (7,500 employees) does not cause substantial changes in traffic operations, requiring only one minor mitigation measure. Therefore, the smaller sized Project does fit within this location according to the best available information and agency review. The traffic capacity without this Project or its related Project Roadway Improvements is at or near capacity at a number of intersections, as is evident today. However, the Project and Project Roadway Improvements will increase the capacity of the worst intersections (Penn/I -494 and Penn/76th), resulting in traffic improvements instead of traffic deficiencies. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -42 Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future November 13, 2000 Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Best Buy Campus —Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Metropolitan Council District 5 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18260 -5 Dear Ms. Urban: Metropolitan Council staff has conducted a review of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The Best Buy Campus is proposed to be located north of I -494, west of I -35W, and south of 76th Street between Penn and Knox Avenues in Richfield. The proposed project area is 42.85 acres. It will include the demolition of single - family homes, duplexes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures to accommodate the construction of four to five office buildings. Expected development is planned at 1.5 million square feet to create offices for up to 7,500 employees, with a maximum development of 1,900,000 square feet to create offices for up to 9,000 employees. The alternative with the expected square footage will include parking spaces for up to 7,500 cars. The maximum square footage alternative will include parking spaces for up to 9,500 cars. Demolition and construction of the Best Buy Campus would begin in April 2001 with the initial move -in expected in November 2002. The Council staff review has concluded that the FEIS is complete in regards to regional policies, plans, and concerns. Council Staff Offer The Following Comments: Housing (Guy Peterson, 651 -602 -1418) The final EIS for the Best Buy Campus satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected. When Richfield submitted its updated comprehensive plan (1997- 2007), it acknowledged household and housing unit growth through 2010 of about 1,000 households greater than the Council had forecast for 2010. All of the nearly 1,000 housing units could be developed as market -rate units, and if only 10 percent are rental units, the city would still have total housing numbers for all rental housing, and for affordable rental and ownership housing, that would be within the sector benchmarks and at their affordable and life -cycle goals. 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 (651) 602 -1000 Fax 602 -1550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904 Metro Info Line 602 -1888 An Equal Opportunity Employer r Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 2 The proposed Best Buy campus development involves the apparent removal of 169 housing units - -54 single - family homes, 26 units in duplexes, and 89 apartment units. Assuming that all of the units to be removed are affordable, and new rental housing units are built in Richfield over the next decade, the loss of these 169 units will not impact the city's ability to meet its LCA and comprehensive plan housing goals. However, if Richfield is to grow as forecast through 2010, and adds only ownership housing units, it would need to add nearly 150 affordable ownership units (townhouses or condos) over the next 10 years in order to achieve its ambitious affordable ownership goal. Land Use (Greg Pates, 651 - 602 -1410) The proposed office development would be consistent with the existing Richfield Comprehensive Plan's Regional Commercial/Office classification for the majority of the site. In May 2000, the city submitted to the Council a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for an 11 -acre area that is a part of the proposed Best Buy campus site addressed in the dEIS. The Council acted on the comprehensive plan amendment on September 27, 2000, authorizing the city to put the amendment into effect. Once in effect by the city, the comprehensive plan amendment will change the classification of these 11 acres from High Density Single Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial/Office land use. Parks and Open Space (Michael McDonough, 651- 602 -1054) This proposed development is not located adjacent to a unit of the Regional Parks and Open Space system. This volume of employees in this area may have some impact through added use for several regional parks facilities including Hyland/Bush/Aliderson Lakes Regional Park (located about 2 miles to the southwest), and Minnehaha Parkway trails (located about 2 miles to the north). It may also add use to the Wood Lake Nature area located about a mile to the northeast. An existing railroad track corridor located less than one mile to the east is proposed to be added to the regional trail system in the future. If it becomes a regional trail, good access between it and the proposed development may promote using this regional trail for commuting. Any improvements at this site for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit options will enhance the parks and open space system through lower environmental impacts and improved connections to park and open space amenities. Council Staff Offer The Following Recommendations: Housing (Guy Peterson, 651 - 602 -1418) Assuming that all of the units to be removed are affordable, and new rental housing units are built in Richfield over the next decade, the loss of these 169 units will not impact the city's ability to meet its LCA and comprehensive plan housing goals. However, if Richfield is to grow Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 3 as forecast through 2010, and adds only ownership housing units, it would need to add nearly 150 affordable ownership units (townhouses or condos) over the next 10 years in order to achieve its affordable ownership goals. Losing this number of rental units and affordable rental units does not by itself affect the ability of Richfield to achieve, i.e., maintain, its rental housing goals negotiated in 1995 because the city's share of such units significantly exceeds the sector benchmark for cities in the south of Minneapolis planning sector. As the FEIS'indicates, Richfield should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as the result of the land use change since, unlike homeowners, they will not be compensated in the same fashion because of the loss of their housing units. The FEIS indicates that with regard to the $700,000 per year average of TIF generated by the Best Buy development to be dedicated specifically to the Richfield HRA, specific decisions about how it will be used have not been made. The Metropolitan Council encourages Richfield to use this fund to assist the development and preservation of affordable rental housing in the city. The thousands 'of jobs that may result from this redevelopment represent a significant potential employment opportunity to the city's 5,000+ renters. This will conclude the Council's review of the Final EIS. The Council will take no formal action on the Final EIS. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer; at 651- 602 -1410 or by e -mail at greg.pates @metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, jj" Helen A. Boyer Director; Environmental Services cc: Phil Riveness, Metropolitan Council District 5 Keith Buttleman, Director, MCES Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Eli Cooper, Director, MCCD Planning and Growth Management Department Richard Thompson, Supervisor, Comprehensive Planning Karen Jensen, MCES Environmental Planning & Evaluation Department Phyllis Hanson, Sector Representative, Comprehensive Planning Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer,, Comprehensive Planning 1 =494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION 8480 MitcheN Road • Eden Prairie MN 55344 • {614}699.4428 • FAX 6904044 November 10, 2000 Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700,Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 i�oq % � 10 ... RE: Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement WEIS) – Richfield Best Buy Campus Dear Ms. Urban: B Q :4 i 3w "o° The I-494 Corridor Commission, a Joint Powers Organization (JPO) representing the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairi Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield, hereby submits the following comments regarding the Richfie; Best Buy Campus Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement or (FEIS). As you are aware, the I-494 Corridor Commissic has also submitted similar comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement earlier this fall. Despite the information contained in the FEIS and the comments prepared by staff in response to our letter dated September l; 2000, the Corridor Commission continues to express its concern over the inadequacy of the Best Buy proposed TDM Plan at i Richfield campus. Our concerns lie in two distinct areas: the lack of an adequate number of preferential parking spaces (25 are proposed in the FEIS TDM Plan) at the site that will encourage Best Buy workers to carpool or vanpool; and the lack_ of financial commitment on the part of Best Buy to provide additional incentives for carpoolers and vanpoolers other than thou offered at the regional level to all employers. The concern about an adequate number of allotted preferential parking spaces at the site stems from the 494/Penn interchang and mainline traffic generation estimates contained within the FEIS and prepared both by BRW staff as well as comment submitted by Benshoof and Associates to the City. After reviewing the estimates for the 494/Penn ramp meter entrances (bot eastbound and westbound), it is clear that, in a worst case scenario, the 494 ramp meters could be as much as 87 percent over capacity ( Benshoof estimate). Given the fact that MnDOT has informed the Corridor Commission that no ramp mete bypasses will be constructed at these two 494 entrances until at least 2006, it is of critical importance that the number c estimated peak hour vehicles arriving and departing the proposed Best Buy site be reduced substantially, or long queues durin peak hours will occur and back up traffic along Penn and other local streets on both sides of 494. Should traffic be diverte, from 494/Penn because of excessive queue lengths, other access points to 494 (France, Lyndale) will also incur huge traffi increases during peak hours, especially in the afternoon. The 250 preferential parking spaces proposed at the corporate headquarters site represent only 3% of the total spaces planner (7500); at present the current Best Buy headquarters site in Eden Prairie has approximately 2200 parking spaces with 90 space allotted for preferential parking —a 4% ratio. This decrease in the ratio of preferential parking on- campus in a suburban marke where transit ridership at best represents a 2 -5% modal split (thereby rendering transit access to the site a less attractive optioi for most SOV commuters) in unsettling and puzzling. The Corridor Commission expects the cost of designating more preferential parking to be very low (signage costs only) as the spaces are proposed to be built anyway and enforcement o preferential parking would already be occurring. Given these facts, it is unclear why Best Buy would not wish to increase it, ratio of preferential parking substantially, considering the fact that it is one of the most cost - effective and easiest -to- implemen incentives an employer can offer its employees. BLOOMINGTON • [OEM PRAIRIE • EOINA • MAPLE GROVE • MINNETONKA • PLYMOUTH • RICHFIELD 1494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION 8080 Mitd*J Road • Eden Prairie MN 55344 • (614)699.4428 • FAX 690 -4044 rally, given that Best Buy has already considered offering other incentives for its employees to use transit (i.e., Metropass) d wishes to encourage the startup and continuation of vanpools and carpools to the site, we feel that a TDM budget item rich demonstrates the fiduciary commitment of Best Buy to encourage SOV commuters unable to utilize transit should be nsidered. Specifically, a line item should be included within the TDM Budget that provides money for further "buydown" of npool and carpool participants to the site on a regular basis. Many other employers, including Advantek in Minnetonka and per Valu in Eden Prairie, have successfully deployed this incentive to encourage the development and sustained commitment employees choosing to carpool and vanpool to and from work. Given the costs of building additional parking stalls at the site accommodate additional employee traffic, an annual commitment of as little as $10,000 could be both cost - efficient and ective in convincing employees not to drive alone to and from work. ing met directly with the Director of Corporate Architecture, Della Kolpin, the Corridor Commission is encouraged by Best 's willingness to improve upon the TDM Plan submitted for the FEIS. However, the Commission strongly urges the City of ifield to require a signed letter of corporate intent to follow the revised TDM Plan included as part of the Final EIS iment, as is done in other 494 cities (Eden Prairie and Minnetonka) before the construction permitting process is underway. safeguard will ensure that Best Buy will conform to the promises made in the TDM Plan and that it will carry forth a ess to implement the plan immediately. you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me at (952) 941 -1040. rciy, s� L Thorfin n Jr. Corridor Commission Metropolitan Council City of Bloomington City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Maple Grove City of Minnetonka City of Plymouth City of Richfield 2 allClty Of bloomington, minnesoto 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington MN 55431 -3096 • 952 - 563 -8780 • FAX 952 -563 -8754 • TTY 952 -563 -8740 Gene L. Winstead Mayor November 7, 2000 Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — Richfield Best Buy Campus Dear Ms. Urban: Mark Bernhardsor City Manage On November 6, 2000, the Bloomington City Council authorized transmittal of the following comments on the Richfield Best Buy Campus Final Environmental Impact Statement. As discussed in Bloomington's comment letter on the Draft EIS, Best Buy's proposed redevelopment requires the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue/I -494 interchange. While the proposed interchange improvements will ultimately benefit us all, the improvements are not without significant concerns, especially for businesses in Bloomington that rely on the interchange. Given that interchange reconstruction is needed and will occur at some point in the future, sooner is preferred to later. The Best Buy project schedule requires complete bridge and freeway access closure for a period of several months. It will be of utmost importance to minimize disruption to businesses and residents during the reconstruction. Richfield and its project partners must continue to inform the affected property owners and businesses regarding the interchange reconstruction process. The City Council strongly recommends that reconstruction occur in the months between January and November 2002. Section 4.1 Erosion Control (Page 4 -1) The Final EIS states that a maximum of 15,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the site. The proposed truck route for soil removal is Penn Ave. to 1 -494. Will all soil removal be accomplished before the Penn Ave" interchange closure in January of 2002? If not, what truck route would be used for soil removal? Plans for roadway cleaning along the truck route should be developed and added to the Final EIS. 2. Section 4.2 Surface Water Runoff (Page 4 -2) The Final EIS indicates that post development quality and quantity of surface water runoff are improved over pre - development levels due to the proposed pond system. Bloomington encourages implementation of the recommended surface water runoff mitigation measures. 3. Section 5.0 Traffic A. As documented in the Final EIS, the traffic impacts associated with the 9,500 employee /1.9 million square feet alternative are excessive and cannot be successfully mitigated. Bloomington continues to recommend that the 9,500 employee /1.9 million square feet alternative not be further pursued. An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer Ms: Julie Urban, AICP November 7, 2000 Page 2 of 3 B. The Final EIS shows that traffic generated by the proposed project (7,500 or 9,500 employees) will degrade the level of service for several individual movements at Bloomington intersections and also increase the queue lengths at several Bloomington intersections. This level of service degradation will be increased after the I- 494/1 -35W interchange improvements are in place, since access to Penn Avenue via I -494 from I -35W will no longer be available, leading motorists approaching the Best Buy site from the south on I -35W to exit at 82nd Street in Bloomington. To minimize the impact on the Bloomington street system, Bloomington continues to recommend aggressive transportation ,demand management (TDM) requirements be put in place, including staggered work schedules for employees. C. In its 2003 traffic impact analysis, the Final EIS assumes completion of the new Penn Avenue/1- 494 interchange. Occupancy of the Best Buy Campus should not occur until that improvement is in place and fully operational. D. Bloomington continues to encourage the use of a free right turn from Penn Avenue into the project site to facilitate traffic movement on Penn Avenue. 4. Section 11.1 Water Supply Changes (Page 11 -1) As referenced in the Final EIS, two large water mains (42 inch and 36 inch) that supply a large percentage of Bloomington's water bisect the project site. The proposed development will require relocation of these water mains north of I -494 and around the proposed new Penn Avenue/1 -494 Interchange south of I -494. Any relocation of the water mains necessitated by the project should be funded by the project. Richfield Public Works staff has been in contact with Bloomington Public Works staff regarding coordination of the water main relocations. A reconstruction plan and schedule needs to be determined. Plans, specifications, and sufficient easements for the replacement water mains must be approved by Bloomington Public Works. The water mains must be designed to work with planned I -494 improvements. To prevent additional shutdown of these water mains during I- 494 construction, relocation of the water main on the south side of I -494 must occur at the same time as relocation of the water main on the north side. To ensure sufficient water supply to Bloomington, timing of the transition to the new mains must be carefully coordinated with and approved by Bloomington Public Works. Timing must not conflict with expansion of the Bloomington Water Treatment Plant, an expansion that may at times limit the City's capability to treat water from its ground water supply, thereby placing a very high reliance upon the water flowing through the water mains to be relocated. Timing must also occur during non -peak periods (October 1 -April 15). The 42 -inch main and the 36 -inch main must not be out of service at the same time. 5. Section 12.6 Construction Related Impacts (Page 12 -5) Perhaps the single largest impact of the project on Bloomington will be traffic congestion and detours during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue and 1 -494 interchange. While there is no way to fully avoid adverse impacts from such a major reconstruction project, project staging and construction should be done in a manner that minimizes impacts on surrounding businesses and residents. Interchange reconstruction planning should be closely coordinated with MnDOT, Bloomington, and area businesses and residents to minimize negative impacts. The bridge and access points should be closed as tittle as possible. As discussed in the Final EIS, closure must be limited to a 10 -month period between January 2002 and the beginning of November 2002. Bloomington continues to strongly recommend that the construction contract contain significant incentives for meeting deadlines and significant penalties for not. Closed access points and portions of the bridge should be placed into service as soon as those elements are available. Public education and signing efforts will need to be closely coordinated and put in place sufficiently in advance of the interchange reconstruction. Ms. Julie Urban, AICP November 7, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Richfield should continue to work with MnDOT to facilitate an alternative, temporary I -494 interchange at Xerxes Avenue. The Penn Avenue /I -494 interchange should be completely operational before significant work begins on the Lyndale Avenue/I -494 interchange. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Best Buy Campus Final EIS. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Larry Lee, Community Development Director, at (952) 563 -8947. 4Sinrely, I I . " /' / Gene Winstead Mayor \planning \eaweis \bestbuy \Final Comments on EIS MALKERSON GILLILAND MARTIN LLP SUITE 1500 ATaT TOWER 901 M- AROUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -3205 TELEPHONE 612- 344 -1111 FACSIMILE 612- 344 -1414 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612/344 -1699 November 13, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Julie Urban City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Comments on the Best Buy Campus FEIS Dear Ms. Urban: I represent Walser Automotive Group, Inc. and the owners of the real property on which the Walser dealerships are located in Richfield. I write to comment on the Best Buy Campus final environmental impact statement (FEIS). In addition to the comments submitted by others in response to the DEIS, and comments by Benshoof and Associates, Inc., in response to the FEIS, I believe the FEIS does not comply with the applicable statute and rules in many ways, including but not limited to the following: Before commenting on specific sections of the FEIS, I wish to make a few general observations regarding the City of Richfield's environmental review of this proposed project. First, the pace that the City of Richfield has set (and has been maintaining) for this environmental review is much too aggressive given the proposed project. The size of the proposed Best Buy Campus and the chosen location at the intersection of Interstates 494 and 35W make it particularly complex, particularly in terms of traffic, noise and air - quality impacts. Additionally, the fact that the campus would displace several businesses and no less than 169 housing units —most if not all of them affordable housing— raises a significant social and economic issues. Yet the City's schedule for environmental review affords little more than the minimum comment periods prescribed by EQB rules, and the City appears to be more concerned about its schedule than about the environmental review process itself. This leads to my second general comment: In several sections of the FEIS, the analysis is not at all thoughtful or searching, and at times it is conclusory. For example, in various subsections, the analysis consists of a statement that a particular environmental effect will not exceed the applicable legal standard or that the City is not legally required to correct the expected 44588 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 2 effect. Similarly, some of the City's responses to comments on the DEIS are defensive and non- responsive. The central purpose of an EIS is to analyze and evaluate a proposal's significant environmental effects. However, and perhaps it is because of the City's apparent concern about deadlines, this FEIS does not adequately analyze environmental effects, nor does it adequately respond to comments directed to alternatives and mitigation measures. My third comment is also related to the fast, schedule - conscious pace of this environmental review process. Since publication of the DEIS, the City has obtained Metropolitan Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments that are necessitated by the proposed Best Buy Campus. Similarly, the Richfield Planning Commission has (1) approved rezoning of the project property, (2) approved a conditional use permit for the project, and (3) approved a PUD (planning unit development) plan for the project. The granting of these approvals violates EQB rules and increases the likelihood that the project will be developed as currently proposed. Alternatives The consideration of alternatives is at the heart of an EIS. Under EQB rules, an EIS must compare the proposal with reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. An EIS must address one or more alternative sites, alternative designs or layouts, and alternative project scales, unless such alternatives would not meet the project's underlying need or purpose, or would not have any significant environmental benefit compared to the project as proposed. The FEIS does not compare the proposal with any alternative site. The DEIS indicates that in the summer of 1999, Best Buy ruled out other locations, as well as expansion of its current Eden Prairie campus, because of such factors as infrastructure, functionality of existing buildings, financial considerations, and the location of the company's current employee base. In other words, a critical component of the EIS was handled privately by Best Buy before the environmental review process began, without governmental or public input, and without a meaningful comparison of environmental effects. Furthermore, the fact that Best Buy favors the Richfield site for a variety of reasons does not mean that alternative sites could not meet the project's need or purpose. The FEIS does consider alternative designs and project scales, but the consideration is artificial. The two design alternatives are a configuration of four buildings or a configuration of five buildings. But the differences are fundamentally esthetic; in virtually all categories of environmental effects, the two "alternatives" are identical. The goal of an EIS —to avoid, lessen and mitigate environmental impacts —is not at all served. The FEIS also describes only two density alternatives. Option A, which calls for the lesser density of 1.58 million square feet and 7,500 parking spaces, is described as the "expected development." Thus Option B, which is significantly more dense and would result in more environmental effects than Option A, is not really an "alternative." Option B serves the purpose 44588 Julie Urban . November 13, 2000 Page 3 of making Option A look better, but again, comparing the two is an artificial exercise that misses the point of environmental review. No less dense alternatives have been analyzed. Loss of affordable housing One of the most significant effects of the proposed Best Buy Campus would be the loss of some 170 units of affordable housing. The loss would be vast in size, as well as irreversible. Yet this effect is barely discussed. The FEIS's statement that displaced property owners would be financially compensated for their property does not begin to address the social impacts presented. The FEIS does not examine (1) whether the loss of this housing will push the displaced residents toward the outer reaches of the metropolitan area; (2) the effect that the loss of this housing will have on remaining sections of this neighborhood; (3) what concrete measures the City of Richfield will take to replace these housing units or otherwise mitigate the effects of the loss. Bridge and road projects likely require independent environmental review The Traffic Impact Study assumes that as a result of the Best Buy Campus project, the Penn Avenue bridge over I -494 will be reconstructed to a single -point diamond interchange design, and Penn Avenue itself will be widened. These significant changes would be constructed _ eight years ahead of schedule because of the Best Buy Campus project. Additionally, the Traffic Impact Study assumes that as a result of the Best Buy Campus project, 76`h Street will be reconstructed between Penn Avenue and I -35W, including intersections and ramps. While the FEIS discusses these separate projects in its Traffic Impact Study as a way to mitigate some of the effects of the Best Buy Campus Project, the implication is that these projects need to be designed and built with just the Best Buy Campus project in mind. But in fact, these projects must be considered in light of regional traffic /commuter issues and other area developments, whether existing or planned. In other words, these projects are of such size and regional importance that they should be the subject of an independent environmental review process that is coordinated with the preparation of an EIS on the proposed Best Buy Campus proj ect. Impact During Construction There is no analysis of the impact of rerouted traffic (and related noise and carbon monoxide levels) through residential neighborhoods and elsewhere while the Penn Avenue Interchange is under construction. Comments Previously Submitted related to the DEIS and still applicable to the FEIS. 1. The noise analysis in the FEIS does not include impacts on other relevant 44588 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 4 receptors, which, as you know, would include especially all residential and other Noise Area Classification Uses pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7030.0050. 2. There is not an adequate analysis of the noise in the FEIS which will emanate from the Best Buy Campus or an adequate analysis of the impacts of noise from vehicles traveling to and from the Best Buy Campus. The response by the City has been that there is an exemption under State law for such traffic noise. Assuming arguendo there is, there still is noise impact that must be addressed. The City can not just state that because of some alleged exemption, mitigation need not be addressed. 3. The carbon monoxide analysis in the FEIS does not include a sufficient number of receptor sites which are affected by the project and the analysis to date was based on a faulty and incomplete traffic analysis. 4. The FEIS does not adequately address the impacts of the project on the public roadways for the years between 2003 and 2022 and does not adequately address the impact of the project if certain assumed improvements to the public roadways set forth in the DEIS and FEIS are not completed by the times assumed in the FEIS. 5. The FEIS does not adequately consider the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects or potential projects which are planned, approved or under construction impacting the same relevant area of study. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Barbara Jerich Carrie Wolski MIT-1:1-3 i 1 t�Ll AB,,7 -R L` F.,-soN F�vLO N.,,- `? VOLT 601 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 4200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -4302 612 339 -6321 ■ FACSIMILE 612 338 -0535 Christopher S. Hayhoe (612) 373 -8505 Facsimile: (612) 3384608 e -mail: chayhoe@felhaber.com November 13, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 2100 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -4901 651-222-6321 • FACSIMILE 651 222 -8905 RE: Best Buy Campus Project; Final Environmental Impact Statement Our File No. 9908.047.001 Dear Ms. Urban: As you know from previous correspondence, this office represents the owners of the Fountainhead Apartments and their managing agent, Highland Management Group, Inc. In my letter to the City of September 26, 2000, the owners of Fountainhead expressed their concerns about the proposed rezoning of a portion of the project site and .,1�.,,,t +l,n n.7n »+ +.,„ r,f Don+ D,,,•�.+ r+lnrr�nrl „rit /iot,Atn ».=1P.,t »lnt, The a1vVU. ..•v . nners rsA Vg7este . "%iW1JtAVll %Jl "VOL LVOL LM.7 O 1J1K1111V► Klaia %aV, VlVKa that the Planning Commission defer action on these matters pending adoption of specific measures to mitigate the material adverse consequences of the development on Fountainhead. In my letter of September 28, 2000, the owners supplied additional comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS"). We have now reviewed the Final Environmental. Impact Statement ( "FEIS") dated October 30, 2000, and wish to advance the following additional questions and concerns about the project. 1. Incorporation of Prior Comments_. We incorporate the objections addressed in our letters to the City dated September 26 and 28, 2000, respectively. Our objections have not been resolved in the FEIS. MPLS 164831 -1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 2 2. Inadequacy of the FEIS. Neither the DEIS nor the FEIS offers any specific information about, or any tangible solution to, the significant impacts that the project will have on the Fountainhead Apartments for both access and parking purposes if Alternative 2 Option A, and the southerly realignment of 76th Street, are adopted. The City's response to Comment J3 in the FEIS acknowledges this fundamental deficiency in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project on Fountainhead. Among the specific deficiencies in the FEIS as it relates to Fountainhead are these: a. Access. The FEIS does not address the material impacts that elimination of Fountainhead's northerly access to Knox Avenue will have on the property. Elimination of this access will be exceptionally detrimental to Fountainhead, not only from a convenience and internal traffic movement standpoint, but as a matter of public safety. We believe that the owners of Fountainhead were required, at the time of its construction, to provide two access points to Knox Avenue in order to permit legally - sufficient access to the property for fire safety purposes. The FEIS does not commit to maintaining two access points, simply stating that the City is "exploring" that - possibility. The Fountainhead community has a right to expect more than that, particularly when the City's preferred realignment of 76th Street requires elimination of that access. Neither does the FEIS offer any clear indication or commitment to maintaining reasonable access to Fountainhead during reconstruction. of 76th Street. We have '.earned from the FEIS that most Rest Buy construction traffic will use Knox to access 76th Street. We also note from the DEIS that reconstruction of 76th Street from I -35 through Penn Avenue will occur at the same time as Best Buy construction, as will reconstruction of the intersections of 76th Street and York Avenue, and 76th Street and Penn Avenue, and reconstruction of the Penn Avenue bridge over I -494. We have also learned in the FEIS that the south frontage road between Knox Avenue and Penn will be permanently closed while this construction work is in process. All of these activities will materially affect Fountainhead residents' abilities to access their homes, yet the FEIS acknowledges that the "exact impacts" of all of these activities on Fountainhead are not known. Our residents are entitled to more protection than the FEIS provides. MPLS 164831 -1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 3 b. Parking. The FEIS advises that no improvements to Knox Avenue will be made if the 7500- employee development alternative is selected by Best Buy. It also makes clear, however, that all 18 parking spaces in Knox Avenue now used by Fountainhead residents will be eliminated, regardless of the development alternative pursued by Best Buy. At the same tune, the DEIS, as incorporated into the FEIS, acknowledges that the City's preferred alignment of 76th Street to the south will require the taking and /or reconstruction of Fountainhead garages now located on the north side of the site. Yet no information is supplied about the number of garages impacted by the City's plans, or how Fountainhead will be able to replace or relocate those spaces, as well as* the 18 public parking spaces located on Knox. This is a significant flaw in the FEIS analysis. The lack of information is perhaps even more significant if Best Buy elects to pursue the 9500- employee development alternative. The FEIS suggests that development " of the Best Buy campus to that density will require construction of a new right -turn lane on Knox Avenue. Since Best Buy's five -story parking structure will effectively prevent expansion of the Knox Avenue right -of -way to the west, addition of a right -turn lane to Knox will obviously require that a significant portion of existing apartment buildings be taken from Fountainhead. Such a taking will also materially impact garages and other improvements on both the north and the south sides of the ountainhead site. The FEIS does not supply any information as to how the lass of this additional parking (and of significant portions of two apartment buildings) will be mitigated. c. Traffic. The FEIS predicts that the traffic on Knox Avenue will double as a consequence of construction of the project if a 7500- employee development is selected by Best Buy. This projection does not account for the impact on Knox Avenue that will be caused by the permanent closing of the south frontage road from Knox to Penn Avenue. This impact may be expected to be material in that all Galyan's traffic will use Knox, rather than the frontage road, for access to. the property. At the time that the Galyan's project was under consideration by the City, it was represented that "most" Galyan's customer traffic, and virtually all of its truck traffic, would access the property using the frontage road. Obviously, elimination MPIS 164831 -1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 4 of the frontage road will divert all of that traffic onto Knox Avenue to 76th Street. This material increase in traffic is not described in the FEIS. Further, we are frustrated that the FEIS lists eight potential alignments for the Knox Avenue /76th Street intersection but does not indicate which alignment will be selected. It is not possible for us to evaluate the impacts of all eight proposed alignments without understanding specifically how some of them would be constructed. From the descriptions of the options set forth in Section 6.4 of the FEIS, it is apparent to us that options 6 and 7 will permit the interests of both Fountainhead and the Colony Apartments to be partially accommodated from both a safety and a convenience standpoint. We join in the comments made by ROP Investments Co., LLP, in its letter to the City dated November 13, 2000 with respect to the conditions to our approval of these options for the intersection. Finally, although we acknowledge that the FEIS indicates that the Best Buy parking structure's principal entrance and exit point at Knox will be relocated to the south (apparently to avoid direct conflict with Fountainhead's southerly access, and perhaps to mitigate headlight glare into the apartments), that relocation impedes the access of Fountainhead residents to northbound Knox Avenue by supplying Best Buy traffic with the right -of -way. This could materially impede ingress and egress to Fountainhead at its only point of access to Knox. The FEIS does not address that complication. d. Extension of Construction Period. It appears from the FEIS that the beginning of Best Buy's phased occupancy of the project has been extended from June 2002 to November 2002. The FEIS does not address in any fashion the reasons for, or the impact of, that extension of the construction period on the community, including Fountainhead. 3. General. Comments. The FEIS demonstrates that a 9500- employee development simply cannot be accommodated at the proposed site. We urge the City to reject that alternative as environmentally insupportable. We also ask the City to take seriously the legitimate concerns of neighboring residents and businesses who have contributed to the City for decades. The MPLS 164831 -1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 5 Fountainhead owners are concerned that the project's aggressive schedule, and the sometimes strident tone of the FEIS's response to citizen comments, make the project -- in whatever configuration Best Buy wants -- to be inevitable. The City should not permit its apparent conclusion that construction of the Best Buy campus should proceed regardless of the consequences to justify requiring its existing citizens and businesses to bear a disproportionate share of the project's detrimental impacts. The failure of the FEIS to resolve or mitigate the project's material adverse impacts on Fountainhead should result in the City's determination that it is inadequate, barring pursuit of the project until those adverse impacts are satisfactorily remedied or eliminated. Thank you for your consideration of these additional comments. Very truly yours, �i22tit�i - Christopher S. ayhoe kmw /jad cc: Mark Z. Jones II Arlene Dixson MPLS 164831 -1 ROP Investment Co., LLP c/o Otness Management Company 5200 Willson Road, Suite 205 Edina, Minnesota 55424 Ph: (952) 927 -0612 November 13, 2000 By Hand Delivery and By E -Mail Ms. Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Best Buy Campus; Final Environmental Impact Statement; Colony Apartment Homes Dear Ms. Urban: ROP Investment Co., LLP, the owner of Colony Apartment Homes, 1740'/2 West 76th Street, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ( "Colony Apartments ") appreciates the opportunity to make the following comments to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "Final EIS ") for the Best Buy Campus (the "Project "). We and representatives of Fountainhead Apartments have a meeting scheduled at the City of Richfield on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 to discuss the intersection at West 76th Street and Knox Avenue. As discussed below, we and representatives of Fountainhead Apartments have agreed on the preferred alternatives for this intersection. Due to the fact that many Ife atures of the Project have still not been set in the Final EIS, we reserve the right to make additional comments once all features of the Project have been determined, and we have had a reasonable opportunity to complete our review. For example, the Final EIS does not make a final determination of; or contains multiple alternatives for, the following: (1) overall site plan; and (2) design for and signalization of the intersection at West 76th Street and Knox Avenue. BACKGROUND Colony Apartments consists of 212 apartments in 24 buildings. Colony Apartments is home to 400 to 500 people. The site is bounded by West 76th Street on the south, West 75th Street on the north, Logan Avenue on the west, and the Humboldt Avenue /Interstate 35W frontage road to the east. The main access to Colony Apartments is through a two -way entrance driveway from West 76`h Street, approximately 120 feet east of Knox Avenue. At this entrance, vehicles are able to enter or exit from both the east and west lanes of West 76th Street. The site layout and internal circulation of Colony Apartments were designed to orient traffic to this entrance. At least 90% of the traffic in and out of the property is through this entrance. The secondary, or back, access to Colony Apartments is located on West 75`h Street. Only a small number of vehicles (10% of total traffic) use this back entrance. FINAL EIS COMMENTS ISSUE 1: Determination of Design for the Intersection of West 76th Street and Knox Avenue. We and representatives of Fountainhead Apartments have agreed that acceptable designs for the intersection of West 76"' Street and Knox Avenue are either Option #6 (create skewed intersection) or Option #7 (create offset intersection), as set out in Section 6.4 of the Final EIS. Either of these two options will work for Colony Apartments and for Fountainhead Apartments without unduly impacting one property for the benefit of the other. Our support and the support of Fountainhead Apartments is contingent on both of these options including the following features: (1) the Colony Apartments driveway (as relocated) will be included in the traffic light at West 76th Street and Knox Avenue, and the residents of Colony Apartments will be allowed to make both left and right turns into and out of Colony Apartments at this traffic light; (2) the northerly exit from Fountainhead Apartments to Knox Avenue will be preserved; and (3) the garages at Fountainhead Apartments will be preserved. Between the two designs, Option #6 is somewhat preferred. The entrance to Colony Apartments can be relocated westward by approximately 80 feet to more closely align with a skewed intersection at Knox Avenue. For the residents of Colony Apartments, a skewed intersection may be easier to understand and to use safely in comparison to an offset intersection (Option #7). For Fountainhead Apartments, curving Knox Avenue to the west would create some additional buffer between the apartments and the street. With Option #7, the entrance to Colony Apartments can also be relocated westward by approximately 80 feet. With such a driveway relocation, the loss in storage length for the westbound turn lane on West 76th Street would be substantially less than the 200 feet stated in the Final EIS. While the Final EIS states that both Option #6 and Option #7 would reduce operational efficiency of the intersection, any loss in operational efficiency is not significant to the overall flow of traffic into or out of the Project. As set out in Section 6.5 of the Final EIS, Knox Avenue is a secondary access to the Project, serving only 17% of daily traffic to the site. In addition, the Draft Traffic Impact Statement dated August 21, 2000 states that Year 2003 Level of Service will be rated "A" or excellent for the AM Peak Period (Figures 5 -2 and 5 -6) and "B" or good for the PM Peak Period (Figures 5 -4 and 5 -8). Since both AM and PM service levels are substantially above a "D" rating, which is considered to be an acceptable level of service in urbanized areas (See Section 2.6 of Draft Traffic Impact Statement), it is reasonable to design the West 76th Street and Knox Avenue intersection to accommodate the needs of the residents of Colony Apartments and Fountainhead Apartments while at the same time keeping the level of service at this intersection at or above an acceptable rating. ISSUE 2: Design of Southbound Exit from Interstate 35W at West 76th Street. We agree with the City of Richfield's conclusion in Section 6.6 of the Final EIS that construction of a second right turn lane for the southbound exit from Interstate 35W at West 76th Street is preferred to removal of the "No Right Turn on Red Sign ". We are substantially less sensitive to this issue if the Colony Apartments driveway is included in the traffic signal at the West 76th Street and Knox Avenue intersection. ISSUE 3: Response to Comments to Draft EIS. We do not consider the Final EIS to be responsive either to our comments to the Draft EIS or to the comments submitted by third parties. Even though this document is stated to be the final environmental impact statement, many fundamental design decisions do not appear to have been sufficiently studied as of this date. Instead of study and careful analysis of the issues raised in comments to the Draft EIS, the Final EIS contains numerous conclusions unsupported by facts or analysis. For this reason, Issues 1 through 4 of ROP Investment Co., LLP's comments to the Draft EIS are restated and incorporated by reference. We request that these issues be studied and analyzed before the City of Richfield determines whether the Final EIS is legally adequate. For example, Section 6.4 of the Final EIS states that "Right turns into and out of Colony Apartments would be easier and safer for drivers than making left turns into and out of the site ". This conclusion is counter intuitive and not supported by any facts or analysis. It is apparent that drivers who wish to travel east from Colony Apartments will turn left somehow, even if such a left turn requires: (a) a "U" turn on West 70h Street; (b) traveling across multiple lanes of traffic to turn at the West 76th Street and Knox Avenue intersection; (c) traveling through the residential neighborhood adjoining Colony Apartments; or (d) making a left turn from an uncontrolled intersection somewhere to the west of Colony Apartments. In addition, the Final EIS failed to adequately consider possible impacts on the adjoinin1 neighborhood of inadequate access from the Colony Apartments to West 76t Street, as set out as Issue 3 in ROP Investment Co, LLP's comments to the Draft EIS. Section 5.4 of the Final EIS briefly discusses use of residential streets because of congestion on arterial roadways, but fails to study or analyze the impact on residential streets caused by inadequate access to arterial roadways. NEXT STEP We are optimistic about our meeting with the City of Richfield on Tuesday, November 14, 2000. We would like to continue dialogue with the City of Richfield and work together to develop a successful design solution to the important issues discussed above. To assist us in evaluating the impacts of the Project and in creating design solutions, we have engaged the services of Westwood Professional Services, Inc., a civil and traffic engineering firm located at 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Allan Klugman, P.E. will be Westwood's main contact for this effort. He may by reached at (952) 906 -7418, or by email at allan.klugman Qwestwoodps.com. To the extent that we are able to reach an agreement as to the issues set out above, we are willing to modify or withdraw this comment letter. ROP Investment Co., LLP Robert E. Otness Partner BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC.t- �3 =oa`. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO/ HOPKINS, MN 55343/ (952) 238-1667/ FAX (952) 238 -1671 November 13, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 REFER TO FILE: 00 - 42 RE: Comments Regarding Final Environmental Impact Statement for Best Buy Campus Dear Ms. Urban: PURPOSE AND SUMMARY On behalf of the Walser Automotive Group, we have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Best Buy Campus dated October 30, 2000. Our review has focused on potential transportation impacts, similar to the scope of our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which were expressed in letters to you dated September 13 and September 26, 2000. Our comments on the body of the FEIS (Sections 1.0 through 16.0) are presented next. Following these comments, we have expressed further specific points in response to Section 17.0, Response to Comments. On a summary basis, we need to state that the FEIS includes several very serious erroneous statements regarding potential negative traffic impacts due to the Best Buy Project. These statements, which are intended to demonstrate that the project would not cause significant negative traffic impacts, are untrue based upon information presented in the FEIS and based upon other information. Instead of confirming that the project would not cause traffic difficulties, information presented in the FEIS and provided by others through comment letters clearly demonstrates that the Best Buy Project would cause significant negative traffic impacts, including: • Increased congestion on the mainline lanes for I494 and I -35W. • Increased congestion and accidents on I-494 between Penn Avenue and I -35W due to greater weaving conflicts. Ms. Julie Urban 2 November 13, 2000 • Substantial congestion on Penn Avenue and 7e Street because the p.m. peak hour volumes projected to use entrance ramps from these roadways to I494 and I -35W greatly exceed their capacity. • Significant through traffic use and associated negative impacts on local residential streets because motorists would seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on the I-494 and I -35W entrance ramps. COMAIENTS ON SECTIONS 1.0 —16.0 We have comments regarding three specific types of traffic impacts which are addressed in Sections 1.0 through 16.0 in the FEIS. Highly erroneous and misleading statements are presented in the FEIS regarding these three types of impacts. Each of these three items is described next, together with the incorrect statements presented in the FEIS and the serious negative impacts which would occur under the build condition for the Best Buy Project. a) Impacts on mainline lanes for I -35W and 1-494. Referring to Tables 5.15 and 5.16, which address 2003 volumes and levels of service on the mainline lanes of I494 and I -35W, page 5 -21 in the FEIS includes the following statement: "For both the AM and PM time periods, the levels of service do not change with the addition of the traffic generated by the Project." This statement is incorrect because the following three points presented in Tables 5.15 and 5.16 demonstrate that the project would reduce the levels of service. Table 5.15 shows during the a.m. peak hour that I -494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues would function within the level of service E volume range under the 2003 no -build scenario. Table 5.15 mistakenly reports this level of service as F. The table correctly reports that the quality of operations on this section of I494 would drop to level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.15 shows during the a.m. peak hour that 1-3 5W between 60h and 76h Streets would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no- build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. Table 5.16 shows during the p.m. peak hour that I494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. Ms. Julie Urban 3 November 13, 2000 b) Impacts on weaving operations along 1-494 between Penn Avenue and I- 35W. Section 5.3 in the FEIS is entitled, "Weaving Analysis." Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions, and Section 5.3.2.A addresses potential impacts in 2003. Correlating Section 5.3.1 with the beginning of Section 5.3.2.A, the FEIS acknowledges that the 2003 build scenario would result in a 230 foot reduction in the weaving distance (18 percent reduction) between Penn Avenue and I -35W for both the eastbound and westbound directions. Section 5.3.2.A then proceeds to reference a Mn/DOT Weaving Study and to state that the build condition would improve the weaving section between Penn Avenue and I -35W. This statement of a positive outcome is simply not supported by the Mn/DOT study. Section 5.3.2.A includes the following three erroneous statements regarding the Mn/DOT Weaving Study: • The second paragraph under Section 5.3.2.A on page 5 -29 in the FEIS indicates that the Mn/DOT Weaving Study ( a report dated in May 1999) addressed the weave conditions at Penn Avenue and I -35W with the single -point diamond interchange. This statement is false. The referenced Mn/DOT report addressed other weaving circumstances and did not address in any manner the weaving conditions between Penn Avenue and I -35W with a single point diamond interchange. Page 5 -29 in the FEIS references the Mn/DOT Weaving Study and includes the following statement: "The Study concluded the reconstructed Penn Avenue bridge improved weaving conditions and operations on eastbound I494 west of Penn Avenue." This statement is untrue because the referenced study did not address in any manner the subjects of weaving conditions and traffic operations on eastbound I -494 west of Penn Avenue. • Page 5 -31 in the FEIS includes the following statement: "The Mn/DOT Weaving Study also simulated AM and PM peak hour No Build and build conditions for the Penn Avenue Interchange area were simulated using Synchro and TratNetsim software." This is a false statement because the referenced Mn/DOT Weaving Study report did not address any such simulation analysis. According to Attachment A included with Tom Foley's letter to Paul Czech of Mn/DOT dated October 6, 2000, this simulation analysis was a separate effort, which addressed 2022 conditions. As presented on Figure 3 in my comment letter dated September 13, 2000, regarding the Draft EIS, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has stated that the recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps such as Penn Avenue and I -35W is 1,575 feet. The existing spacing of 1280 feet already is 295 feet (19 percent) shorter than the recommended minimum. Contrary to the erroneous statements presented in Section 5.3.2.A of the FEIS, it is obvious that shortening of the Ms. Julie Urban 4 November 13, 2000 weaving distance to 1050 feet under the build condition would exacerbate the already deficient condition. Interestingly, the FEIS includes a statement which contradicts the statements in Section 5.3.2.A and indicates that shortening of the weaving section would create negative impacts. This statement is provided on page 17 -9 in the response D8. In explaining the rationale for not including an HOV bypass ramp on the ramp from Penn Avenue to eastbound I-494, the following two sentences are provided: "For the eastbound HOV ramp, the proposed ramp would not be long enough to provide an effective bypass lane for high occupancy vehicles. If the ramp length were increased, it would have a negative impact on the weaving section between Penn Avenue and the I -35W southbound ramp." c) Congestion impacts and impacts on local streets caused by capacity limitations on entrance ramps to I -494 and 1-35W. In our Draft EIS comment letters dated September 13 and 26, 2000, we raised the issue that meters on the entrance ramps to I -494 and I -35W cause the capacity of these entrance ramps to be lower than the volumes projected to use these ramps in the 2003 and 2022 build conditions. Our comment letters indicated that this volume to capacity discrepancy would result in major congestion at the Penn Avenue/I494 interchange and also would cause negative impacts on other roadways in the area, including local streets. The FEIS includes Section 12.5, Ramp Metering Impact Analysis, to respond to our comments. This section indicates that ramp meters would be able to accommodate the expected increase in traffic volumes due to the site generated trips because Mn/DOT would adjust the ramp metering rate to 2.1 seconds per vehicle. This assertion that Mn/DOT staff would use a metering rate of 2.1 seconds is severely misleading and conflicts with the following three sentences from the last paragraph on page 12 -6 in the FEIS: "MnDOT's shortest metering rate is 2.1 seconds per vehicle. This rate is used when traffic volumes on both the freeway mainline and ramps along the mainline are low. As the volumes on the mainline and ramps increase, the metering rate typically becomes longer." During the p.m. peak period, high. volumes would occur on both the mainline lanes of I494 and I -35W and on the entrance ramps. As expressed in our comment letters dated September 13 and 26, 2000, the current metering rates during the p.m. peak period are: 5.7 seconds for the ramp from 76h Street to northbound 1-3 5W, 4.2 seconds for the ramp from Penn Avenue to eastbound I494, and 7.0 to 15.1 seconds for the ramp from Penn Avenue to westbound I -494. Given these current rates and given Mn/DOT's practices as described in the FEIS, it is highly implausible and, therefore, seriously misleading to suggest that the rates on the entrance ramps to I -494 and I -35W would be shortened to 2.1 seconds. Rather than the ramps providing sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected volumes, the clear outcome would be that the traffic volumes projected to use the entrance ramps would exceed their capacity as noted in our comment letter dated September 26. The result would be major Ms. Julie Urban 5 November 13, 2000 congestion during the p.m. peak period on Penn Avenue at I494 and on 76h Street at I -35W. Increased traffic use and associated negative impacts would occur on other roadways in the area, including local residential streets. COMMENTS ON SECTION 17.0 Section 17.0 in the FEIS consists of responses to comment letters received by the City in regard to the Draft EIS. We have comments on several of the responses presented in the FEIS. Our comments are organized according to the identification system used in the FEIS. B. Minnesota Department of Transportation In a comment letter dated September 27, 2000, Paul Czech of Mn/DOT stated that access off Penn Avenue is problematic for five reasons. Tom Foley of the City Public Works Department sent a letter and an attachment to Paul Czech on October 6, 2000, which responded to Mr. Czech's September 27 letter. Paul Czech submitted a follow -up letter to Tom Foley on October 17. In regards to these items of correspondence and the statements presented in Section 17.0 of the FEIS, we have the following two comments: • In his letter dated October 6, Paul Czech indicates that the City has satisfactorily addressed four of the five issues regarding access off Penn Avenue. In his letter and in conversation with me, Paul clearly has stated that this satisfactory situation applies only to the scenario with 7,500 employees. Mn/DOT has not altered its September 27 statement that the scenario with 9,500 employees would cause five problems regarding access off Penn Avenue. In response to a Mn/DOT comment that a single point at Penn Avenue will be stressed to its limits and will affect the operation of 1-494 and I -35W, page 17 -3 in 'the FEIS presents the following comment: "Based on a MnDOT study of other weaving areas, and simulation of the existing and proposed conditions, the proposed Penn Avenue improvements are expected to improve operations on I-494 during peak hour conditions." As noted in points a) and b) presented earlier in this letter, the preceding statement is incorrect and seriously misleading. E. I494 Corridor Commission In its corrunent letter, the I-494 Corridor Commission raised a comment (identified as Comment E2 on page 17 -10 of the FEIS) that the Best Buy Project would increase congestion on I494 when this freeway is reconstructed. As presented on the bottom of page 17 -10, the response is that no significant problems would arise when I494 is reconstructed between TH 100 and 30 Avenue because the number of lanes is expected to remain the same in both directions. In our judgment, that response is incorrect because Ms. Julie Urban 6 November 13, 2000 the traffic capacity on I494 likely will be reduced during construction due to factors that will include: a) reduction in lane width, b) loss of shoulders, and c) lane shifts. Another question raised by the I494 Corridor Commission is: How will queue lengths be controlled at the I494 entry points and on the Penn Avenue bridge during the PM peak period? The response presented on page 17 -11 refers back to previous statements in the FEIS, which indicate that this will not be a problem. As expressed under point c) earlier in thisletter, such statements in the FEIS are incorrect. Traffic queuing and congestion will occur at the Penn Avenue/1 -494 interchange because the capacities of the entrance ramps are less than the volumes projected to use the ramps. H. Benshoof & Associates. Inc. As previously mentioned, our comments on the Draft EIS were presented in letters dated September 13 and 26, 2000. One comment, identified as H1 on page 17 -17 in the FEIS, involved discrepancies between traffic forecasts and existing volumes at intersections on 7e and 77h Streets. We have the following two comments regarding the response presented on pages 17 -17 and 17 -18 in the FEIS: • The level of service results for signalized intersections in the DEIS and the FEIS have been determined using a SimTraffic simulation. The normal traffic engineering practice is to use Synchro or highway Capacity Software (HCS) for determination of level of service. Results from SimTraffic are not always compatible with HCS or Synchro results. At the intersection of 77a' Street and Lyndale Avenue, the p.m. peak hour volumes for the 2003 scenario with 7,500 employees (based .on the September 2000 counts) would operate at level of - service D when analyzed with Synchro or HCS. The SimTraffic results indicate that the intersection would operate at level of service C. In comparison to normal level of service calculation methodologies, SimTraffic has underestimated the delay and level of service at this intersection. • The FEIS_indicates that the 2003 p.m. peak hour volumes with 7,500 employees were updated to reflect higher existing volumes than presented in the DEIS. Yet, with the increase in volumes using the intersection of 77a' Street and Lyndale Avenue, the analysis shows an increase in level of service. This increase in level of service is explained on page 17 -18 as follows: "The improvement occurred because the volume collected by Benshoof was 100 vehicles less than the predicted average used in the DEIS." It is unclear what was meant by this reduction and, in fact, whether such a reduction would occur. One factual item is that the total volume entering the intersection of 77h Street and Lyndale Avenue during the p.m. peak hour under the 2003 scenario with 7,500 employees would be 124 vehicles higher using the Benshoof data than as presented in the DEIS. The increase in level of service presented in the FEIS is an illogical outcome when the total volume entering the intersection increases. This situation provides further merit to the argument that the SimTraffic simulation used in the FEIS Ms. Julie Urban 7 November 13, 2000 yields level of service results that are not as valid as results produced through the standard methodologies presented in Synchro or the Highway Capacity Software. Comment H3 on page 17 -18 is that potential traffic impacts on the mainline lanes of I- 494 were not analyzed. The response refers to Section 5.2 in the FEIS. As indicated under point a) earlier in this letter, Section 5.2 indicates that the Best Buy project would cause a reduction in levels of service on 1494 and I -35W during under the 2003 build condition. Comment H4 on page 17 -18 is that traffic impacts have not been analyzed for the approximate five year period in which traffic flow on I-494 between TH 100 and 34h Avenue will be significantly disrupted due to reconstruction of I494. Reference is made to the response to comment E2 raised by the I494 Corridor Commission. In our judgment, that response is highly inadequate because it simply indicates that no problems would occur because the same number of lanes would be provided in each direction during the construction period. As mentioned earlier, this response ignores the reduction in traffic capacity on I494 that would occur due to the reduction in lane widths, probable loss of shoulders, and lane shifts. Comment H5 on page 17 -18 pertains to the potentially serious safety and congestion impacts to traffic flow on I-494 between Penn Avenue and 1 -35W due to shorter weaving distances and increased weaving volumes. Reference is made to Section 5.3 in the FEIS. As mentioned under point b) earlier in this letter, Section 5.3 includes several statements that are highly erroneous and misleading. Available information clearly indicates that the planned `design for the Penn Avenue/I494 interchange would exacerbate the current deficiency in the weaving distance between Penn Avenue and I -35W, which in turn would increase congestion and safety problems. Comment H6, which begins on page 17 -18, pertains to the issue that the traffic volumes V ected to use the entrance ramps to I494 at Penn Avenue and to northbound I -35W at Street exceed the ramp capacities. The FEIS refers to Section 12.5 and includes the following statement on page 17 -19: "However, because MnDOT adjusts meters to shorter cycle lengths, based on traffic volumes, the capacity of the ramps would not be exceeded." As explained under point c) earlier in this letter, the preceding statement is completely false. The volumes projected in the Draft EIS substantially exceed the ramp capacities because Mn/DOT uses longer metering rates, as stated in Section 12.5, when the ramp and mainline volumes are high. Comment H7 on page 17 -19 pertains to potential major traffic impacts on local streets due in part to trips diverted from freeway entrance ramps. The response in the FEIS is that there will be little incentive for traffic to use local streets for two reasons: a) ramp metering rates will be adjusted to accommodate the projected volumes and b) the capacity will be increased on local arterials. We strongly disagree with that response and would state, to the contrary, that motorists would have a major incentive to use local streets to avoid the substantial congestion that would occur on Penn Avenue and 76th Ms. Julie Urban 8 November 13, 2000 Street because the capacity of the entrance ramps to I494 and I -35W would be considerably below the projected volumes. CONCLUSIONS Several statements in the FEIS, which are intended to demonstrate that the Best Buy Project would not have significant negative traffic impacts, are highly erroneous and misleading. Using information presented in the FEIS and information provided by others, it is evident that the Best Buy Project would cause the following four types of significant negative traffic impacts: • Increased congestion on the mainline lanes for I -494 and I -35W • Increased congestion and accidents on I-494 between Penn Avenue and I -35W due to greater weaving conflicts. • Substantial congestion on Penn Avenue and 76h Street because the p.m. peak hour volumes projected to use entrance ramps from these roadways to I494 and I -35W greatly exceed their capacity. • Significant through traffic use and associated negative impacts on local residential streets because motorists would seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on the I494 and I -35W entrance ramps. Aside from the no -build option, the FEIS has not addressed any development alternative that would not cause the above referenced negative traffic impacts. Sincerely, BENSH F & **So IATES, INC. mes A. Bens hoof c. Mr. Paul Czech, MtMOT Mr. Mark Filipi, Metropolitan Council Mr. Ross Thorfinnson, I -494 Corridor Commission 6744 Wentworth Av. S. Richfield, MN 55423 November 13, 2000 Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Julie, Comments follow on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Best Buy Campus, dated October 30, 2000. Perhaps these should be directed to the City Council for consideration of adequacy of the EIS. Preparation of the EIS by unbiased experts was promised. The firm of BRW, who designed the roadway system, also prepared the EIS technical response. Similarly, the City Department assigned as the responsible government unit raises questions. Traffic remains a concern. Failure to use the I-494 frontage road to carry some of the traffic places a greater load on 76th Street to the west of Penn Avenue. If this leads to widening of 76th Street west of Penn, more houses will be lost and the future of single family residences west of Penn Avenue and south of 76th Street may change. Cost questions related to the project remain. Risk analysis was only lightly treated. There is no indication that the City's General Fund will benefit from additional revenues for the 25 year term of the Tax Increment Finance district. Very truly yours, Larry Wozmczka November 10, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Mn 55423 I would like to submit the following comments on the Final Environmental impact Statement that I have now reviewed in its' entirety: tl -to-o0 Comment 1: Section 1.3.4 Traffic (g) Residential Streets. A traffic analysis still has not been done on the north/south arterial streets to assess whether or not. the increase in traffic from buses and all of the employees that reside in Minneapolis, north of Richfield is going to have a detrimental effect. "Meese are the employees most likely to travel through neighborhoods, but there are no studies in the EiS to address this concern. In public comment-, and written comments after reviewing the MAS. I specifically brought to your attention the need to address the additional traffic and buses on existing bus routes and the N/S arterial streets. These arterial streets are both commercial and residential and the numbers of pedestrians crossing them are high. I suggested these roads should be studied in order to mitigate the increase in traffic. I believe that another Street that will be greatly affected with increased traffic and buses is 7e* Street between Portland Avenue and 35W. Employees travelling south on the N/S arterial streets will not go all the way.to 77'" Street, they will turn off and cut through on 7(P. Likewise, they will cut off to 76 "' street on the way home to get to the northbound street. The huS ,roTALLY FA i1 S, TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES even though brought to your attention in a proper, timely manner.. It appears to me that this is in violation of MR 4410.2800 Subpart 4 (a) and (b). The EIS cannot be considered complete until this issue has been analytically addressed. Comment 2: 'lire FEIS still does not accurately address the effects of additional buses on the arterial streets and at the intersections studied on air quality and noise quality. (Page 1 -5 R 1 -6. 1-3.6) Although your Response states that a figure of 2% was used, it is impossible to accurately predict the effects if it is not know for a certainty, how many Best Buy employees will bus. Again, studies should have been done taking into account the best and worst case scenarios — No Build, 7,500 employees and 9,500 employees. Therefore, 1 want it on the record that 1 still believe that the FEIS is not complete. Comment 3: Analysis at all intersections still do not include the increase in buses. Ibis is a valid concern, and the FEIS is not complete without a study done to analyze the effects of additional buses on storage lengths and queues at each intersection. 1 would like it on the record that t still believe the traffic analysis is inaccurate and invalid. Comment 4. - 1.3.4, Page 1 -5 Residential Streets. Your response is non - responsive. Smoother traffic flow on the main streets may give less reason for people to cut through side streets, but it does not in any way discourage it. One^ again, before the FEiS is approved, further studies need to be dune to mitiKatc ways to physically discourage employees from straying off the main arterial streets. Comment 5: The FEIS states in Response 81 that the north /south arterial roadways are Portland, Nicullet, Lyndale, Penn and York. (Page 17 -3) However, in Section 5.4— Evaluation of Residential Streets- Even though it is stated in the FEIS that these streets are expected to be relievers of freeway traffic, NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE AT ALL to determine the possible adverse effects of all of the increased traffic on these arterial streets and the safety of pedestrians. All traffic studies have been concentrated on intersections. Portland. Nicullet, and Lyndale are all residential streets from about 67 "' to 76 "' Streets. i brought this up in my written comments to the DEIS, and my concerns have not been addressed. (See Comment 1.) Comment 6: 5. 1.1 Growth Rate. You state that an average growth rule of 0.5 percent per year was used Now do you figure that ? if it continues to grow at a rate of 0.5 percent a year, what will be the actual growth rate when you add in the 7.500 or 9,500 employees? Comment 7: Your response to Comment R2 in totally non - responsive. Section 5.4 does not address any mitigation measures on the N -S arterial streets and bus routes as admitted anticipated relievers of freeway traffic. For the record, your non - response to this issue in the FEIS makes the FEIS incomplete and inadequate. Comment 8: Your Response to S -3 is non - responsive. To pull out the table setting forth how Rest Buy HQPES to achieve a reduction bt the number of trips from the RDTMDP does not invalidate the tact that conceivably an unmanageable number of buses may have to be added to the bus routes if Best Buy has 7,500 or 9,500 employees. A study of best and worst case scenarios should have been done on this issue. The table in your response is a GOAL with no facts or figures of the actual 7,500/9,500 employees to hack it up. As such, it should not even be considered in the FEIS as a response to my comment. I want it on record that i do not accept this as a valid response to my concerns. Comment 9: Comment W 1 in Section 12.6 is non - responsive. You misstated the ibw I pointed out in my prior comments on the DEiS. t want to know where you are Doing to route all of the traffic during the widening of 76'x' Street and the construction of the Penn Avenue bridge. Comment 10: Response to BB2: How was the .figure of 2 %, arrived at for buses, commercial vehicles or heavy trucks'? Where is that set forth in the EIS? How do you know 2% is accurate? If tile TMD is successful, 2% sounds to be quite low, and such an important factor in congestion should be studied at the least and worst case scenarios. Here again, as it is impossible to come up with any accurate figures based upon the 7,500 or 9,500 employees, the preparers are just coming up with figures to justify an unjustifiable project. in Summary: After reviewing the FEiS, 1 want it on the record that i do not believe that all of the conditions in Minnesota Rule 4410.2800 Subp. 4. have been tnet. Though I cannot comment on all of them, this FEIS is full of inadequate responses to the comments of interested parties. It does not address all of the potentially significant issues that have been brought to the attention of the RGU and Proposer, and reasonable studies to address those issues have not even been attempted by the RGU acid proposer. This project has too tremendous numbers of possibilities of detrimental impacts on the City of Richfield. The FEIS should include studies on every little possible effect it may have on our city. I would submit for the _u record, that from my understanding of the Minnesota Rides, if the Richfield City Council rules that this FFIS is adequate, they are in violation of Minnesota Rule 4410.2800 Subp. 4 (a) and (b). (STAT AUTI1: ms 116D.04; 116D.045) Respectfully submitted, AIV #,nit Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 798 -0078 (h) (612) 627 -1859 (w) TOTAL P.03 Dear Julie Urban, I can't help but feel like Best Buy is nothing but a massive township, moving into a somewhat small city, and into an already busy area, and then, expecting everyone residing within a calculated radius of the development to accommodate its people by significantly changing streets and traffic flow. And not to mention the homes, apartments, businesses and residents who are being demanded to make this change by moving out, weather they like it or not. This is unacceptable. And after talking with my neighbors, I find they feel the same way as I do. Disgusted. We feel like our city is being bought out by big money. And our city counsel members are not listening to us. After reading the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), I am still convinced that the Best Buy project will cause too many significant traffic problems and unwanted changes for Richfield neighborhoods, now and in the future. Hence, the problem solving methods proposed in the Travel Demand Management flan (TDMP) have not changed significantly enough or proved to be successful or solid enough for me to feel comfortable with this development. The area of most concern for me in reference to the (FEIS) is the TDMP. With only 13% of the employees considering alternative forms of transportation, and Best Buy not having a past, solid success rate of what employees have been willing to do, in reference to alternative modes of transportation, the outlook seems too uncertain to depend upon. And, reducing the number of the estimated daily trips, by employees, in the morning and afternoon peak hours by 450 -750 is not enough of a traffic flow change (page 2). In conclusion, there are too many uncertainties to consider the environmental statement worthy to be complete. Most of the ideas for traffic reduction are based on the willingness of the Best Buy employees to accommodate the traffic needs. And that, along with other proposed ideas for solving traffic flow problems is not enough. Julie Erlandson ,t""Escq.� Ab Z gy O > r p t Iv Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 November 16, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban, AICP City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Subject: Best Buy Campus — Final EIS Mn/DOT Review File # EIS00 -007 Northeast Quadrant of I-494 and Penn Avenue Richfield, Hennepin County Control Section 2785 Dear Ms. Urban: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Please note that Mn/DOT's comments contained in our September 27 and October 17, 2000 letters concerning the draft EIS are the same for this final EIS. In addition, Mn/DOT encourages the City to address the following issues: Mn/DOT has concerns about temporary drainage during construction and respectfully requests that the City make every effort to provide for adequate drainage during construction. We would encourage the City to use the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices for "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" when addressing drainage during construction. Please contact Don Berre (651- 797 -3090) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section for any questions concerning drainage issues. ■ Mn/DOT encourages the City to work with the developer in implementing a Travel Demand Management Plan that will help to minimize any increases in traffic that result from this development. Please direct questions concerning this issue to Wayne Norris (651 -582 -1295) of Mn/DOT's Pre- design section. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Sherry Narusiewicz Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Please note that Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. An equal opportunity employer Feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1771 if should have any questions. Sincerely, um Paul Czech Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison Copy: Pete Tulkki, Hennepin County Surveys Section Dave Zetterstrom, Hennepin County Public Works Walter H. Rockenstein II, ESQ., Faegre & Benson LLP Beth Kunkel, BRW, Incorporated Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 2785 Mn/DOT LGL — Richfield C� o _ o O`C13 0 CL E a).2 .F C Ls F C� t6 -_ O O O t pq O CQ vio. o W �1 U N -0 o� OL a U +, � m o a) �' m rr�� o a) `�1 U"�-' - -- a)... ------------- .O :t_- cn G • U V -0 O `c o� 9 Co m E— Q, N _ AP M.2 W c l / 0 .O (1) . a) a) W O t d U �' v O E � � -0 v L- c� m� - ` cu - a) V L o _°�-� c' ci y z N A b. 4 o 0 N Cd d N A s y � Y � � J li � V, h U z iz .4 44 i `O S >+ N U ::3 cu ca � U U � O =_ N � a o43 If O Q. U (6 Q m E "6 -0 U (a _U L aa) ° 'c a0 6.!= O U O N O -C ,,gym E0 a) mm cu N N 04- N U --,, J+ N r N U� U tlf cv O c cc CL M m E:9 N 'U :N � U E L N ` LL W W O X Q. C6.5 o U O N O :3 U �••, � � m E 0 N CC' m cu -2 m o O U _ N 6 vl e aJ �s J 0 s H � l I m 141 3 [n M V z M O N r%1 U a d 0 I , N A ate+ � S a V d -o d .o N ti 0 a �• �U� � I D Ucn (D co 1� i� �-• O o� N A QOM Cc w cu Co E� E: U cu U p4. �;ir. E�j � ._ W�E°' W °' o i ° o C6 c 5; z L ~ (D a ai a� a a'> U -0 + U 0 C A ,�J 0O _ � _ m ,,gym E 0 e> y E 0 O N (� m � O N (u m t4 -tj Qy z cO U v1 'p � L T L � e � a N A cb y +� z U v� r a N z • � v � ,'� W a, w m N A i 0 � �+-• Vj s N A —4 to C: 41 c .v U a) 0) CL Ca CL (II "a C, (B E y o. U 4=- r' N U 'v= It3 .�. o M U 4-J 3 U obi rrww =3 C to W �EE� �vi W ��N .5 ri CV o Q — o Jz _ a cc ZkS rc U ca o�io I! O N cu m r r (a w -0 (D z Vl U Vl �+ I a) >, Z S L Q S' L Y i �I �Ia . d � e N A . 01 s -�,n Mm Z . I Ili z (Z u th �+ a) d :3 �• U T U � _• ca cu U v! v 6- U �V W CTti o = d C. cn Q E -0 `0 o� U U —,- O 0 C- (U L Q cu E A Fyn CU U CL tlf o� il ►fir cft CL ca E S F .V L l�l C .'C= _U C j O R O m -a a> L a) W--> (D U � a) ° � oE� o�>, ° 1 ° Q >o A W N L co a) ►.`j a a) U _ a) ° 3 U a low m E 0 � -0 _ — a) 1 Y i �I �Ia . d � e N A . 01 s -�,n Mm Z . I Ili z (Z u th >+ Q7 ° :3 �• U T U � Wa> CSI Wa) o�C 0 �V W C4 CL C. cn Q E -0 `0 o� U U —,- L N c U L L1� N C- (U L Q cu E � . S 4- O 0- 75 N _U 4- U . 0 > a) ° a S a) 0 ,, � U l�l +- a O m a) O -c a) a) -coo O m -a a> L a) W--> (D U � Y i �I �Ia . d � e N A . 01 s -�,n Mm Z . I Ili z (Z u th N a s � " x b o D N Z S 7 m $ K A �I a, rA d 6 U L � � Ct to �' b0 u ri1 a s -o a r d 0 >, a) ° U � co � , Cam• � U V CSI Wa) a) 3 �V W C4 C. O `0 o� �E� a) U c U L L1� N C- (U L Q cu E � . S 75 N _U 4- S (B _U L S a) U a) l�l O +� U 4- m W -0 E a) a) U) O Boa (O N W--> L-0. a) ° � 1�W o�>, ° 1 A >% U m co a) r J1, _ (_ L a) U _ a) t N a s � " x b o D N Z S 7 m $ K A �I a, rA d 6 U L � � Ct to �' b0 u ri1 a s -o a r d 0 a) C to V U a) Wa) o0 o C4 C. ca �E� a) U c U L L1� N \ a% ° 41 O Q L U) O �W a) U a) l�l O +� U 4- m : a) U) O -° N N m (O N L-0. O U _ N D N a s � " x b o D N Z S 7 m $ K A �I a, rA d 6 U L � � Ct to �' b0 u ri1 a s -o a r d 0 l� v W W O v w W aq W O �1 aN • cn U ::3 ca U .CU � O= ..CC 3 +� N O� c Q. E U Of � U L N 4- O N O c Q to •O O U O N a) O U F, � O m E Q N � m W .. a) L N U a) _ 2m- cu � U 03 O Q U (6 cu E CL -0 fA O •� -0 Ea) O Q2 O, V N N a) U m ' E 0 N a) ca -p L N U >, -J I M a � d N J` c� A Vi \ 0 j A J(� � Q H z N A d 0 I w N A w t, X. 9 d -r � o � F a+ p> b rn U vs 4 (D U C iB v U s_ O O� � O A Q U Qq O C Q N O W U U N ..O N � ca m to U � O cB A Q U F+y N N CL p � U t L N • �1r_ -0 E O 2 Q. C > N W �C> U O ca u O O m M � a) r — L a) 0 ._ N A c � t d M z ti dd � t M w ce z �, vl U bn vi •�. v z� V � (A �p ti J 0 +0 . 8_. ... - ...._. N `• U p N W a� 3 t CO) to U CL Iw (0 NE m o. Q Z _ 4---C t ca .V `• _ > Z N Ai Q W -QE°' � � Q 3 o 0 Q � L C > U Z Yooi0: >, -0 O N �m C L 'a N I U y CS � 2 C Q v z� V � (A �p ti J 0 +0 a W� W O �1 cam, C� V W W O . 8_. ... - ...._. z • 9 o m o. Q Z _ Z t,n `• _ > Z N Ai Q a W� W O �1 cam, C� V W W O r U :3 ca � U Z Q O — N ca 045 QU i Rf N � � U L N +-+ CO QEQi O Q 2 �> N U "6 o ,- U F, m E N m L N U 43 N 2 N c3 �� Ic a z • 9 o m o. Q Z _ Z t,n `• _ > Z i C � Q 3 � Z Yooi0: >, i � o y ti I � CS I N v-. o c. CL ca � U)E-9 a d o E`er 3 o .L o C N i C > E 0 i I N cam U -0 4) v � Z r U :3 ca � U Z Q O — N ca 045 QU i Rf N � � U L N +-+ CO QEQi O Q 2 �> N U "6 o ,- U F, m E N m L N U 43 N 2 N c3 �� Ic a -�'A a z • 9 m o. Q Z _ Z t,n `• _ > Z i C � Q 3 � Z Yooi0: >, i � o y ti I � CS I N a -�'A V W O A N U) U � U U N O � N u 4— O O� Q � N Q- -0 N N U t� co Ui . jE tD C C +� Q O O 0 N 4.1 Q O C > N U O N 0, U -0 N N to m (Q -� O t O U , _ a) Q i l >, N O U � (B O =_ N � (B O � O U Q (a CL E Qi _U cu .Q O (9 C O N O � Q � O 0 U O N N 0 U ,r >,:3m -a N N t1f m 0 L- C N U N � b c f d b �� N A S q d 0 0 o� � • ''+ to �• ;.' O O � •RS U � N W ° ' � O o� t a A If m N U A Rf r by (a (n Q ,� O U v- a E cu U 1 �1 M (n 0 E a) Q O �-' O a ^I a) a) a) ` U a) a) 0 Ot � 0 "O A � � m O 0,, U E 01 •� m N ca a� � � m m L m U �, L � • ''+ to d � •RS U � N t a A o U CL i� Rf r cu E CL :2 O U v- a E cu U 1 �1 O •s a) C E a) O �-' O a [Tl E > N a) 0 0 "O �( O 0,, U •� N O� � � m C L b N A d. �I z � U v� "Z o t{. b 1 � N A z W W O Con Cam• V W O >, Q) C? =3 tB � U •U � O — a) � o� O U Q co Co� U L N (D 0 C Q cji � AOA`` L > j U Q) a) O U }, � O m E 0 a) cu m ca a) L o4 O U O U :3 U ) r c6 O cu Q a) E co CO ,Q O N O C Q � O N cn U O N O U >. O m i (D N Rf m c (D L N U a) = N Q 4 1 1 ",l� � N A q RZ RS �z A s u e 1 U iii a •m O s+ d � A N t a r a -61 d � o L b V W 0 w W O N cri cv ) o = 0 "14 - 4- J cu �_ Q O 0. M o o v Q ca E N.v •v=. � � � �1, rte, as =}� own o uSL -° �� �� W E > ►y 2 O -a) ca v ,L L big"W " e v v LO _ U Wok o � 0.- � 3 Co 0 n.� N 3 � v L +• ° O ` 4 h > v v coo U " :� >+ m � OoE N � L mVIVi 0 v = Nan I'm Q d L. Y 2 L ^q .41 to �n U c6 � U U D ca o C. � � _Ea N U y0—. � � U E L N � v N O Q 6 L >c > U v v O 0, >, O m E a) cam v- v L v U �.O a ci +% z I= E. N CIS r w A I � � Q U vi 12. N rn s, c� V vZ .o �� ti h 0 0 d b a m .•o o. a �• U c • cu CU U V U � L v �O o� A Q U !w (0 E "Q !� N U cu.2 cn vv -0 Aq °2o. > c a°i I� V v N I� � O C > 0 m E p -Q v ca -� L. Y 2 L ^q .41 to �n U c6 � U U D ca o C. � � _Ea N U y0—. � � U E L N � v N O Q 6 L >c > U v v O 0, >, O m E a) cam v- v L v U �.O a ci +% z I= E. N CIS r w A I � � Q U vi 12. N rn s, c� V vZ .o �� ti h 0 0 d b a m .•o o. a ::3 �• U V U Q 4-- O Q cu E -.2 � U ELjP -a` -0 a) a) M O o Q '�I ( O 2 U a) 4) O U 4- O m L o N_...?'__ a) N :3 �• U V �.O W a) CU O O � Q. U Co Q m E 4 E cu E L r� N (B r ) N o E 4- Q. WCOa) a)-6 C O 4- :3 U 4- A = m O E M a) . ca N L >+ a) `• N i� V S W ° m NA O ..... �I Q- tL U Q cu E m f e� 4i m H { aa) a) o E o o C .1- Q N i U a) > C� O a) KA Um� w 04 \ O (D ca m z� L- o 4� v co +' A O (u ea '.pF. ' O U �L N 3 ` LL N o W.Q N CD 0 C Q e O p c CTl c > 0 ` ~ V - c w paC>' i; U " m � O _ aa+i R%j E 0 cu MO L •e. cu -a L N 0,- q j a) 0 cl tit N A d v a � � tc" co � t�` J a � c i L� I � 5 d � � N A h Q o ° �. ► ►J U) N A A i Y 0 cl tit N A d v a � � tc" co � t�` J a � c i L� I � 5 d � � N A h Q o ° i L� I � 5 d � � N A h Q o ° V W 0 V 0 A4 h W W 0 E•r A a) • *_' v) • U ca • cu U t ,. 4— (o O ao u CL co CO E N C� Q R -Q E e O E ` .-. Q O O y U O N a) C O U +, >C, m r C .Q N `a m to -0 a) 70 >, a) U � co � U U Q a) co 4— o O U Q to w E t -0Eaa)) o r QO c >a) U O N O O U a, >,:3m U) a) m m -a a) L U T L) Q 9 � C rk J Q ;11► 3y �z g �a a v Q 4 COD J as N n `n N A a> �n U co CO) 1� U (o r •U Q W ) 4 a O Q O U �co bo' M = 4-- -r- -11A AT M O C Qj� _0 _p . UJ > ' pqq �1 O o ��� ~ U o u m e� >� � •Q rn a? co �• U O � v � 4 •U a) O W a) a o O U co a- �� (o E :9 u� cl a) w N U U o /I jE W -0�� O p Q U) .— O W L � > p U +- O o a) 0 N ga cu L m � , ca � �' b�D •°' m 0 Q _ a) [lam V W O A4 h W A4 W 0 Con U � M � U �U N a) 3 C O e tN Qj < t� SZ -cu C3 N I U tom. �1 E c c -0 Ea), oc:E ,o •O O e C > a) U O N a) O m -0 N ca m L 04- a) = N Q fi 0 -1! of hA N J �3 z s• ° a �s 'b- ��z �1 d N A ice. L" b�D U V O W O v U � ca � U A-Z I� O -s (c U Q. coo E O U L nI Co . C Q E a) O a Q C > Q) U a) a) N O N ca m (O -a a) L N O �. O U �• CU U O C4* v W 0 Q N A O �CU Q E a) � COD �V �CU N .� Q j � o c:E L .O O W (1) a) :.� O L >' U � a) C� L m z vi V ria i C� R3 - a) Lon (D Q) z "1 1 � \t Z; L I Q rii U a d s N 0 d � V iii a IT- QQ v Cry( U_ N 1 CL U V MNy ca CO a) O c V X Q E a) O c Q a1 to •� � i C > 'N Q U >+ O m -14 a) ca m �O 0 a a) O [lam V W O A4 h W A4 W 0 Con U � M � U �U N a) 3 C O e tN Qj < t� SZ -cu C3 N I U tom. �1 E c c -0 Ea), oc:E ,o •O O e C > a) U O N a) O m -0 N ca m L 04- a) = N Q fi 0 -1! of hA N J �3 z s• ° a �s 'b- ��z �1 d N A ice. L" b�D U V O W O v U � ca � U A-Z I� O -s (c U Q. coo E O U L nI Co . C Q E a) O a Q C > Q) U a) a) N O N ca m (O -a a) L N O �. O U �• CU U O C4* v W 0 Q N A O �CU Q E a) � COD �V �CU N .� Q j � o c:E L .O O W (1) a) :.� O L >' U � a) C� L m z vi V ria i C� R3 - a) Lon (D Q) z "1 1 � \t Z; L I Q rii U a d s N 0 d � V iii a IT- QQ W O0 O � -� A Q U 1� t6 cu Q. h (� mEa) CL Aq W = >> 1� V N N ..� 1� N � O m O a)�m c. 0— v3 >, CD o :t- U) U :3 cc Co C�1 r U � W � •3 4- Co 0 0 U c Q U Ca N Q. (6 E "a Q4 _� .Q \ S Aq °_E W o r S 4- m E 0 N � a) Q°' o cu r� r N U � N I N N n t U h i ,l z � �qq 1 �bi V W O h W Aq W 0 V W 0 0 r� r V) U : ` M � U oM o� If cn cc R cu fA Cl m E E� L N AML 0 U) .L O , i j F N N N "a O f = U E a °' w m cu -a a) , � L O... (D U �, •D. �U) U W U y v a)�' N o Co o t CU 0 C1 (6 Q E U v0'- w.2 N E o r Q uS ° O U v - N 0� � E 0 � a m' . ai N a� Q N A RO a 9 z t`� p Q wto � z5 � ya r%1 tU v� co • U V W 0 4� O 1Z{ Q^1 t6 V Q (a N Rf _E � U y L N 1J IL �I N ca .� Wa)C qS O C O Q N L N W U a) a) �. 0�� U CO E 00 O a) V ca a) L r _ L `• � U C i \ •U a) W a) CU cn O-� O- cu ca . Q � E 6 U_ w= .0.1 ` u E j2 a) (D N 44 A= O a Q F•� C > O { W U a) a) 0 +-O, O -0 a) a) c O mQ -a N o", a) U _ a) 1 O i fl a � d � A N 2 � ti i Q J ti s, I; - ,f v� b y r •o obi . -zzz o >. a) v A A co �• Ci ai +r '^'I4 YIILL .3 1 of c O O .� tcu Q 0 •� ca ►�- E�� N A C C L `0 .c 1..1.. t +, (D O. -0 C E I O Q. N Q N .- O W a) a) ca E -� a) o U- m`� A 0 4 a)camC iL) as -a a) r� -8 I; - ,f v� b y r •o obi . -zzz o >. a) v A A co � Ci ai +r '^'I4 YIILL � 1 [Tl 0 •� N A `0 .c � d O. 1 I N Q ca E -� a) iL) t�nc�a� -8 c a) M 0 O C Q O O C > N V a) a) > CC O >' a O E A"a N L I; - ,f v� b y r •o obi . -zzz o .•o 0 f L � 4i 0 1 i bbs z v A A � Ci ai +r '^'I4 YIILL � .•o 0 f L � 4i 0 1 i bbs z 0 T � d -8 .•o 0 f L � 4i 0 1 i bbs z �• U V v Q O O� A Q U Fyn Co Q N E -a A4 � Q (D a O 2 °' WE c>: (D N � " =3 O E� cu a) cum () L �• � rn �• U C .(B V v � W a) 3 L CU J +� O0O r- A Q U f� tB N � co E N U_ O � Q O N _ O U a) O T O m Ou cu a) _ L (_/11 0 U a , v _ a) .Q Q n� R. N A �i v d � � N A w -\ i C 1 V �oi W W i O V W O .W i i O N U :3 U N �U Q ca O� � U ca E-0 .0 •— O U L N � cu _a a) a) o 0 Q O > m U 4) � � O m Cl) m a) L N U 2 a) r'D b a� QI N A U Q , O) ry q .o "� I Al d CC tB j o CL N A a E - FD — O C o a) � S � vl � > (1) ° V � O z Q d Ic- S - L a?, _ N ..Q -6 v� -- s- c r'D b a� QI N A U Q , O) `o q .o V Al d tB j o CL Cc a E - FD — O C o a) � Q 0 Q. vl > (1) ° V L C > d L _ N ..Q r'D b a� QI N A s O) cs q .o d — o ►l Mvj a b z Ln U rn -, U z d � a N A t �tl It a> d L I v w 44 0 [Vl W 0 t v U3 � U o- "-' Co O_r_ � U f2 to U) O- tD E "O N U v0- � U L r a) a^), CA' m W o c oQ E >c O , W U N -o Off, � O m E ., m `� m cu N L N U N = N Q .O _ N U � ' _ t6 Cc U .0 N ca 0 O -C Q M U) CL m N U w- L 4c- -0 a O O E o \ U O - ` 0,- U +, >' � m N o m co N L 0 2 a) n 0 d c. A N s � ON d bo b� z rig U v1 9! I V •' (n � � N �• U � O '— d cv o O 0 O'� O 2 m i O Q t6 E o . c to d . a iii U) d r N EE J. W -0 O C Q W a) CD Cam) o m o 0 a� m 'r1 O X_- N , O = ti a) CU O O � L U co U3 Q- (6 E !� rr O a) ! E c U) C ++ 4 E 1 Pq �O C ° o �. '> a� W �1 U N 'Op 0 U V) O v � o -0 N L � N U 2 a) n ►l Mvj a b z Ln U rn -, U z d � a N A t �tl It a> d L I v w 44 0 [Vl W 0 t v U3 � U o- "-' Co O_r_ � U f2 to U) O- tD E "O N U v0- � U L r a) a^), CA' m W o c oQ E >c O , W U N -o Off, � O m E ., m `� m cu N L N U N = N Q .O _ N U � ' _ t6 Cc U .0 N ca 0 O -C Q M U) CL m N U w- L 4c- -0 a O O E o \ U O - ` 0,- U +, >' � m N o m co N L 0 2 a) n 0 d c. A N s � ON d bo b� z rig U v1 9! I e 1 � � N A � d o z b N m O 2 m i Ah o . c to d . cis U iii V W W W �1 V W 0 W 0 Ln >,a) UV) � I �• U� 1 � U a) � , � � � i W a) cu O O Q CU Z i Q. O U) CL U) Q- V rL cu E ti i E 2 I +c+ \ a) -0 °' _ �) � ►� a) U .,°—> U_ ca U Co CO o E .3 2 O O E U) O O Z U) -2 O \ V > > N N pJ y1 ' 3 N tv N ` nI v D a 3 0, >+ S= 0 +� ^I E u () M a) y v O m N '' b��A O L . to z (40 U vs (a a) O U� o �• U� _ 3 ctf C6 U m .0 O (13 U O O W a)3 +� ca ca � m c. O «- c O O m o N A .. 0 P Cc U Q M N m tZ C ca E cu E �� v -O—� =3 N N o �d N Q E O c Q -ice 'C3 M O Q '[��j O O v� cd L C > CD V 4- >, � m 1 T O m w 0 O E .Q B N m O ca z vs U VI a) a)�t O v } Q 7 `�l �f vb 9 Qj YI t N A q chi Ei 2 h O a 0 a � a � cn ti01 d a YI t N A q chi Ei 2 h O a 0 a � a � cn ti01 CamC•� C� W O `o1 rC� V W O '4 W W O `1 ca T. � U O =_ 3- a) -I-1 v— O' tf �-p cu 7 Q C d Q O E - S o c Q i 'C > tva)a a C: EQm a) cu L m cu -� o L N U 4- 4 a) N U � co A U U a> o= o Co O Q (n C v a) co in L Q o v 1 E 0- o , o o ai � aa) a) a) 3 O U E 0 a) Co a) L W T L! 'ei b V NX f �I 8 W z b CamC.� C� � � O � � I tQ W M� I� �1 Qk, i � U �U N � Q Q O FE Co O cu U Q Q t E N .2 � C . � U L N :1� ° o a- . L o •> tV U N (D o� U +, T � m -0 N - (D L- o O U a z . o v1 U v� a a> a� ate+ �O z N A i Q O M U 0 Q 0 Q E -a (D a)i v : a 11 ELF -a - .N C 1 • f� -C 1 C aCi Cc �. O C — O Q- '> 0) 0 a) a) ai p >+ L1, 0m ) I a)cm cu � iq % + , a> 1 L Q z . o v1 U v� a a� ate+ �O z is -a - 0 z . o v1 U v� a V W O W 0 Lon V O F�1 W W O U ::3 cu � U U � u 4- cu O , Q U Rf CO CL cu E N � U :3 -0.- a o � O N 0 L C N L O U O N a) � O U ,F, >,�m E .0 0 L- `� m ca a) �0, a� U � v Q m � � U CU o �. • : sn U (U U Y Q. Q Al cu E E cu .o ID a c ti -0 E o c E v •O N CL b 4) aci w U 'a O U >, :3 � U 0 cu cu -0 a� L N U ,-. = N I � a N A I Q N 7 ^ � z ? � z n � y Yq —� a U a) t � V W o� , -(13 O O ;� UA tB U C E � U � � U r O O Q � .� 0a)0 C O U�,m Lon a) v c � ct5 U v o — +� W ,41 4, O 0 � 1� Co CL Y^1 ! E \ Aq E a� W o c Q c tQ,4� H2O 0� ~ a�acia>i qY}� o 3 m ,\ O E u -6 z v T L 6_/11 0 ++ a) 4 M N a Cd I N A z L v o� m v 0 ci ti 7) t ON q) d 0 d a 1. >, N != U) v ,tea O . - z -a N v :r a+ 0 0 a a i4) t- N L 40d O i !t W sic h 43, F' d r O 0 •y z rig cl a U O U Q O O 3 1� !6 co Q- )' — '< U E fy co .� co W (D°'a) EE o a Q. u W M '> a) L- C> 0 a) Qi 0 �j , O i a N -=03 c (A ' d O ^`Q L cu c N U N O E +� CO ° o C�� �1 fLf U c '> 5 V ) o c _ a) C > � J v 0 0 � U A Cs O U m lL cu Q ttS E 'a a� a ! a _U •E +� J co -0 ca W -0 Ea) _ L G °o� W 10 _L O d a) a) ^' W O cc � 0, _ � U O a)� C) 3? /� ` ��(( W i \V Co ca a) L O n` . W w d �J 4-1 .d t!1 v ,tea O . - z -a N v :r a+ 0 0 a a i4) t- N L 40d N {�0 ) con Z sic h 43, F' d r i •y z rig cl a 4 O O 3 G. ` l V 04- co CL i a -=03 c (A ' .! U r�� c N O E +� ° o d c '> 5 _ 4 C > L Cs O U m lL E O N z co a ca o _ L G u � ca R+ J � If C U 0 F 3 i N Q cc E� y Z '�•, !�� IV � c�U— � e ri1 U L-m J z N . h d s O c Q �x u c -o CN N -0 \ J 1-4 /N�' W O f� tt�ss V U E 0 u).� z r%1 U ri1 9 ca u' . N a) L O 4 �t -...r 1 L. 4- T � W w d �J 4-1 .d t!1 J a � N v ,tea O . - z � v :r a+ 0 0 a a i4) d � A N 40d N {�0 ) con Z sic h 43, F' d r i •y z rig cl a N A ei J a � N ,tea O . - z � v :r a+ 0 0 a a i4) d � A N N {�0 ) con Z sic h 43, F' hs r i •y z rig bo U is a a c • � U lr U O o .;c CL U w to Q. cu E t A4 � � ) W -� a) O C Q. .O 0 �W 00) a) a O U ., �,�m OaMa) a) a) a) r L U >, Y m >, �• U tII U -0 W a) cu t C o A Q U Q. Co E-0 O Q O WN L O U N -p o �. U >,�m O a) � a) N cu m ca a) L N U a) = N z IAI a d R d N w A I� f CTV, 'O W ti a �o CJ ii1 rw In "i N A t%2 N U � ca � U O � 0.4- t C� cn p 4 O U L N ` tL (Q .� O - a) 4-O C Q. C .� a) a) a) Q) U � O � � U � 'O (D w�m cu -0 aD L � U � 0 • (A U 4-' � .-• m �• U � E 0 ff U ai a) ca m v1 Q o a) p U as LD � U •v= c (u U T.� co +' .4 '�1 O Cc: Q (6.S= O ►44 aN(D a) -a h 0 d � a N A s Ch cl 4 E; v Q z IK ry (� h O z vs U ri1 ai ; U 4-' � .-• m E 0 U ai a) ca m v1 a) NU ate-+ = N -8 h 0 d � a N A s Ch cl 4 E; v Q z IK ry (� h O z vs U ri1 C� v w W W Con v W 44 W r� r A N U �U O' co Q. U co a) E .Q 3 N a) O i a) U C O U a) L cu N a) U cu U O O (a Q. N t� a) E m N a) .Q O U7 c L a; c c c a L n d d Z f 1 I 1 f t � U c � i O I � I CL I � Q i m 1 N ► f m s � i� U W .Q ca .c CD CD 4-- U E tf U � � r ,. % E O Q_ j L O > a) ca m ca(D i U � N� z WE I f � m � a a � � � A N �I r Z \ .y ` o 0> �a u rJ 5 d � N A i z WE I f � >> U) � U W a) W o`� O'� U I � U Q M Q a - __N r 4-- t O U L N \ IL In � •O °�Q0 W a) W U O oN r L a) V11 a) U `r _ N _• U N U_ tea) W o =_ O O-� CA � O A Q U Q m E a) .0 `F= C L N .a � IL N a) O C CQ.. 0 W(6.- o �1 U N O U O a)-Q a) L � U � a) _ N Q i i 10 W W a� 0 rr�� �1 V W O W `11 O' _1 U � � U a) � ca 4- ca O -0C � U CL m _E a a) O U � E _U L -0 o 'q -0 C7 o r E O OCL L a) a) a) - q 00 D E 0 5 1 N ca m e (D 1 L O to j Q U c < U p .0 U m � J 4 +, CU o r if U) 01 Q U to Q. (u E :R jE .Q Q A� W o E ° 0 L U Al U =3 q) Co E 0 N� a) cu (a � 20� N U _ a) J z Q � t , U 3� Q. - d ru ti d ti 0 4t 00 I N A j1JJ, v tn G U ON t n d � ri� 4^ � c CQ h w r h v W O W Cam, l� W 0 W O �1 O v U U o CU cu u aD a) t^ d (o o X-' 3 " 3 N `�'oy o'er• (0) fl- (o E , a) -0 a) I` �V ,r U O U "_ � M � V2 ��,,, � U jE U) E C C O d O Q o +J ` 2 cn i > a) C > O U a) O L >+ O m M cw ai; U 4' m D (n a) co N L � O� N U � ca � U U O a� 3 cq O �) CL M CL cu E -a — () � U L N :3 co .� U) -� �C-a) 0 0 a > N U a) 0 O ice, U E VJ (a -0 a� a) U _ -0 (+ O [ .L2 .t 'a Lq N vt `r44r/ a) o - t- J ca � I LL- - �aP u F1i ccc E :2-c- -0 ti 3 pj -2 IKZ cn z� 0 C a3 z o roc 0 C: o s 1 j [T\ O > (D irk J } ' 4 ` C a) �- m a) Xx 6 a � d N A I 0 mz R a `a- ��W W -2 z z A t a o� -a v rig C3 v� a �1 b c� o a. � � N A s 1 °l t) P. P. - � Q. .oa o U) r U N ca v O CU CL O � O � � !� ca E co W 0E0 ��OL c, _ '> 0 �— - WL c > m U a)0 sr 0� U 4- M -3 im , 1 O a) -cu a �I � m ca0L 0 al � Cam• U U Q W a) ` ti o C O J o U 1 A Co U M� (B to E M E v jE <D a) W orE tAq oa "rl N o 01� '1 �l U N o S �1 (D �• U +, ^I T =m O � �' co r _ L V`1 a) U d 0 i N A �I R a+ � �9 J ai Qr 8 tw z co v� t a> ?T �9 "n r U� t0 � U �U a) a� 0,- -r_ CO) QU R3 N sZ ca E -0 a) O U_ U W.- ..a C:3 m �o 4 a) °�E o U N � o D m 'O a) N cSf m ID L a) U S 0.1 44 O N �Q � a R N A 2 z C1 q 0�l .o fi d ti O d IW a z �o N O a a O CL CU s M E t -O Qi E jU� L o L CJT.�= L C >. c� U _r_ 7 E0 a) O cam c q. v� t a> ?T �9 "n r U� t0 � U �U a) a� 0,- -r_ CO) QU R3 N sZ ca E -0 a) O U_ U W.- ..a C:3 m �o 4 a) °�E o U N � o D m 'O a) N cSf m ID L a) U S 0.1 44 O N �Q � a R N A 2 z C1 q 0�l .o fi d ti O d IW a z �o N O a a >, N W O O O o u A U M�1y CL (6 O E 1 tQ tB U _1 a) N N E O O Q W o N N N e U N O O E -0 . a) cu m tB N N a) `• U C', W (D 3 c- U I.y a- CO !� (B _E 'a �V N U_ w� �^^``� cm! W W Q 0 a c > o L4, c > w U U N N U ate+ 4 E0U)� o��m�A cc 1 L c a) U C = N M yi L 1• U cu • to U o o� oU w CL w E a V �; W -0 W M o 0 W Q c p N U N N 'O O -r— +, 3 >,3m Lm M � � N T L Vll L� U ++ O = N ID 0 d d N A a� U d -o a v >+ N d a �• v N 44 N L 41 O4- -° m- A Q U F� t6 4Z E ►V !� � U co c Q —1 N � O Q d 'C L U N "O O U , a, O m E�a) O m C6 N _1 N O 4-3 N U U L 1• U cu • to U o o� oU w CL w E a V �; W -0 W M o 0 W Q c p N U N N 'O O -r— +, 3 >,3m Lm M � � N T L Vll L� U ++ O = N ID 0 d d N A a� U d -o a a� d a cl N A s E -° m- v w 4Z � L, 0 c d a� d a cl N A s E -° m- v w 4Z � L, c rTV 0 W W 0 r� V W `4 cq Lon O co � w � co (o U Q U) Q to E W Q`�3 to uai � •� k Q N% N O 0 o CL E 0 a`)aa))a)`4 -a a�m� E�(D z c m� Q a) 2 0O=k t• N U :3 co � U �U o a) Y O4- Q U co Q E a) a) � U two . .Q N a) o � Qo a) a) N N O � U 4- : m >_ � N N to m a) U a) i c. Q "1 N .r R s� J �s �Q cl z o � ~J Q � N A `I J 0 a J v1 U vi d to n a l� N A.. R •• c1 � V v� u a. QI N A s q d -O x,11 ti 0 ai a d o U V) Cam, l� w W A4 W U) U� c� � U U .3 4- 0-- _tf U) 0- U (B coQ E -0 U 8 C E ca U L' N 0 CL .° U O N -O o - U }, : m AEA``�/}}(( N C N L N U N a IN NSA 9Ll ii rig U 4: C} ZSo . A� C� v w 0 h W j �1 ca � U -0 0— W V O N A co I 0 CL r%y ca E -0 !� � :. !�J � U n co U_ E E L W o C n.�v O W >� L = > _ N N N 0 A I U r m ou � a � cum r� Lcu z r L 0 U +-' _ a) U W W W 0 t� � D o o�� O . 0- �' a cn a co N c oC:E cx ui •2 0 N O x"30 m m�t N 0 _ID �i 3 . o ^� � h 7 y y C t� b aiI _ 8 z N A mom N �16z �N d � b � ,�' b4 • V U v� 0 N Q yl� -o d x ti m 0 a 1 � I 1 1 � 1� � D o o�� O . 0- �' a cn a co N c oC:E cx ui •2 0 N O x"30 m m�t N 0 _ID �i 3 . o ^� � h 7 y y C t� b aiI _ 8 z N A mom N �16z �N d � b � ,�' b4 • V U v� 0 N Q yl� -o d x ti m 0 a C.> W 0 W W 0 V 0 C� C� W 0 :t_- N c o= ca a Q i ca E O. N U "_ E co U d L � ca •� � N 3 o�Q ec i U) •O � E C > i N N N 1 U O $ C O U 1 C� E Co a) ca m a) 1 N LO , 2 r►..r' _ 0 Uw tt= -" O =_ N CU O� Q U ca t CO fl- ca E � U 4— 3 a C o E = CL U) oo U O N v N 0:5 T U E t"n N cam ca -0 a� 3 T v 4- �t _ N-a II .W. �z 4 N � `i d L r%� U O � a INA li m N o `n w 03a� m ,+ a 0 .4 � 1 „• a� v ci a~ ca a V W O W W O >, N U) U ::3 M U O � a) 4o Oo t:: U) Q. U CU a E • aD U L (La . Co .Q O N o c E cb > N U O N O rte.- � U -W = m a) c ca N N U N -8 z U �. o to U 1a 0 1- Q U co � N CQ E :2 L fY J'; UA O r EE o ,� U L O N > N N o UQy C O U m E 0 CO �rQ �VK 4) ca m N to ui N UL ;ms's y i � , J N ILI G Vi v U\ a V � •"O �v per' +,U o � � a .I m z &Z u r r� V W O W 1 O E� N U � tQ � U U � a) � a-• i O Q tB Q. a) L N C: -0 (L) a O = Q j °° V a) a pN >' U 4- 7 : m Q p N m ) ° a) m O: A = N _ 1 N N mZ >a2 Im J U W �vn o¢m U r � I t y ar Cl z co i i A� 1 f tom. j c� J. V v1 ca �a) n °- O — a) ca O c6 a O N ° N A; E O v Q C (n C� cNLi_ a) N -O v i a) U 4- (D U U cu (y s.� N a) 44 ± W -0Em W o c E ° 0Q. +� O Q cj�.L O N L O i C> W a) a) a) }� U O m O a O 4- = O m O NON a� yi O a) cc z r%1 V C/1 ! to _a a) Lij L " a) = A = Q I o� N P L, MA M d � : N G 1-4 1 � a 34 MO a� z ai V z a ti 0 bD �: a d N A z 4T d y 0 :r obi r • � U Y +' (6 14, O +'O. Q QC `. N CL (is E Z N � .— co 0 ° c � E� �Q Q ° �• fn •O > >M t� � p 4- C : °gym 9 C, O � ° m tIN a ca a) Z Oo _0 % ca �a) n °- O — a) ca O c6 a O N ° N A; E O v Q C (n C� cNLi_ a) N -O v i a) U 4- (D U U cu (y s.� N a) 44 ± W -0Em W o c E ° 0Q. +� O Q cj�.L O N L O i C> W a) a) a) }� U O m O a O 4- = O m O NON a� yi O a) cc z r%1 V C/1 ! to _a a) Lij L " a) = A = Q I o� N P L, MA M d � : N G 1-4 1 � a 34 MO a� z ai V z a ti 0 bD �: a d N A z 4T d y 0 :r obi V) v MR d � O N A V U va V W O fM�'c l 1 W CT� O >, a) N U _ ca to v aoi �3 � Co O Co Q U CU ca E Q ca E =3 ca .� -a O a) o c E tc coaoi O - D �. � O m -0 ID CO m- ca - a), d) O _ L- =3 M o _, 0 O O +-� N A CO CL CC T� O- o W Q ` to a) U P +-� N •U - J E jE W o :E OQ 0c ^i N �_ O O > j'. �a)a'> a) q) 0c • J i `4 m o �; o � O (WN m h (a a ay L �- O o O 2 (D Q 3: d z° ti a Q- �+ () U U� Rf O 4-' ~ Co Q N -0 E Rf _ a) [� N .� -0 E (D 2 o Q o E � W a) O N A �1 O A ca -� Os,_- O U = N V) v MR d � O N A V U va V W O fM�'c l 1 W CT� O >, a) N U _ ca to v aoi �3 � Co O Co Q U CU ca E Q ca E =3 ca .� -a O a) o c E tc coaoi O - D �. � O m -0 ID CO m- ca - a), d) O _ L- =3 M o _, 0 O O +-� N A CO CL CC T� O- o W Q ` to a) U P +-� N •U - J E jE W o :E OQ 0c ^i N �_ O O > j'. �a)a'> a) q) 0c • J i `4 m o �; o � O (WN m h (a a ay L �- O o O 2 (D Q 3: d z° ti a Q- N N A d N O � o �� ! \ \ W O rrE�, �1 \ \ o � U r - U -0 W N� 0 v-. O� cu Q U Iry tQ U Q. o E o � � U E co n C- o�Q0 c '> a) L O > U O N O-_,, E 0 N N cu m cu -0 L � U � V U m �. C U V U Q ca 0 0, tc r i1. Q 1 E ca -0 U �1 N N C Q A4 °c of 1� vi •° o a� m i N U -p O +�-• U � O m ' o E�� CSI N cu m cu -a U .-. _ .Q I r of c N A v >, N U o 0 � U �U .Q O O Q U CU Q � U L U) o •� 0 0 0 ` E > a> L U O O N � O � O m N Rf m o� L � U � W Q O N A Qq � MW Z_ Q ^i a> W V ti o O _ ei O cz -a a a� 5' U oU�s� v 0 = �4 u CS tB U f ca E o d _U rw �j N a+ W.So�E CL �N ° 03' c > a) u x L c > E 0 � N u CC� u � � Ca -0 r� � L S N Y .c x 3� -.1 d � n0 CIQ � T t N A i ti b�D K% d -o is 3 0 -a) �• U r U � Wa) 3 }� cu O O4- L+• co � U Q Co N U_ :� t6 _U L .Q N O 0 Q. tT� � �° o "`i U N N 0, U © �� a) � U `r N >+ O cu • U V U -0 W a� 3 A O U F� a tB to E O U_ t� Coln °2a- '> U O N O =3 U o E -� ai a) cam �a a) L N U � N _ N .Q f ;b V � f u> y O v' n s w S F� k, �z 0 4 N A 'I B z O ii 4 N, W N A t 4J d �4 En 4 41 +s m d � Ica b w a a v d r Wk, 10 NVOCISM � a 7) Q i N A U Oq A) •o l 0 a E P:41 >, N �. � 0) `• U �• 3 w CLI pq _U � • (6 U •°a ou o0 O `U O o = '� Q U s tB O W a) 0 Co Q cc E N y ( h U •►•� ca V � o a 4pq x f, U , v1 ) 1 1 QU � 0) pq CL t6 H N G E G w i u U H L N _ N .Q H ((L ._ H E U o 3 C ca W N C m w " 0 � •rl U E J4 }-i 0 v " 4 1� O Q3 N a41 U pq 0 +�-� M W O tc C 4-1 4 b 1,4 a) pq 4 o cu 4) r L W a) N .n 41 O fA CC '� z , o ro U a pq B z O ii 4 N, W N A t 4J d �4 En 4 41 +s m d � Ica b w a a v d r Wk, 10 NVOCISM � a 7) Q i N A U Oq A) •o l 0 a E >, N `• U r �U (D N � O `U O A Q U tB Co Q cc E M c /U/ R °`CL 0 L O U .N 0, � � u7 o Qm cu- L N _ N .Q B z O ii 4 N, W N A t 4J d �4 En 4 41 +s m d � Ica b w a a v d r Wk, 10 NVOCISM � a 7) Q i N A U Oq A) •o l 0 a E v W 0 W O 1 v W O , �W O N U � 'U .Q � Y 4_ O O U Q Q cu E a) � a) W O Q. O C > a) U O a) a) _0 O +, C Co Q� cn i` V a) -2 L N O - a) T- a) a U � 4— O 'C N (� Q Co E a) x cr- a) N � •. .� O EAA O C- \ '> �aa) V O f t. O C a O m E C a) a) N m ca a) L C a a) r co C �• U � V 3 � 0= �W ) 1 AAg \V U 3 e..� Q M ' Y to C- �� Of C C i E 44 E y O C C. 5 . 3 � > a) 5 a) a) a) L U a) "O t c I � C� U E 0 N co v W O i O rC r ' tl v o o � c ��z (n CL r Y 3 co E 3��0 N ti uvY v U jE d V vp 3 olkz O'S O .v 4.- Co h� Z O"Cr,� Ca U Z l C s (n CL r o 3 co E 3��0 N ti uvY v U jE d vp 3 O .v N N � �!. � N 3. E O =E +' o 0 3��0 U) > a) uvY Y d vp 3 Vrvv >' C O a) L ca z OUA = N � v L N A �I y z d O d a to d N A I l H obi Q o AM cs a> vi* W O h t 7 _ 4 W 0 N U :3 ca � U o � 4 O � U L2. � cu E 'a a) CD .II O N O O L U N w N O U c� :3 m C 0 - a) m m c L a) U �. CL o r L a O 2 a O N L O L U V >, : m �m L a) � :E i � I w a N A � i 1 11 i V W con W ,1 _1 V W 0 W O ate+ co Q) :3 t U � S U L QD cu uui m E � •U OS4� U ` " c 0E O E I c Q W.2 0 - i C >� e U 4) _ p -r- U .. CA m C _a cn . 0 co co -0 a) N `p 'V�} N (.} O ca (6 U U Q C' Co o CL Co � U L N N F+ Q C- O cc Q O > a) L .O A O a) Lon L a) a) Iml z oa z ti ..o o> 0 .7 fi CC qA � O a � N l r Eq d z d ti o vs V v� Ilk C•� ( (Q U' +. y o o i � I w a N A � i 1 11 i V W con W ,1 _1 V W 0 W O ate+ co Q) :3 t U � S U L QD cu uui m E � •U OS4� U ` " c 0E O E I c Q W.2 0 - i C >� e U 4) _ p -r- U .. CA m C _a cn . 0 co co -0 a) N `p 'V�} N (.} O ca (6 U U Q C' Co o CL Co � U L N N F+ Q C- O cc Q O > a) L .O A O a) Lon L a) a) Iml z oa z ti ..o o> 0 .7 fi CC qA � O a � N l r Eq d z d ti o vs V v� C .(6 V U � 6� O N M `) Q Q ) m L N C WE O 0 C>> ^ill V N O -C U A � � m O E�a) a) L � o �• U v -0 W a) 3 O `-- 0C cn O- (a Q O E E� ._ is A C +-' a) a) 44 E E 0 O C6-.!-- a) W U a) ) 0 U 4-, m � O O a�a) C O m L a) L a) V C . a) _ a) e z N A i W W t ai Ld . a) CO) U � (tf U U � a) ca 0 0 Q. U cif EM N U_ ns L „ .a) Q O r E ++ O OQ C > a) L— C U N -0 a) U , � O >, m E 0 N N cif a) ca N a) o Ov I N to Z v1 V N A rid U d d v 0 0 h C1 �a d -o d •y O a V ) a N G 04- QU Co v Q. cu E 'O C -O ' m CTS E W o c O o 0 c � L O tl "'_ v O a 40 3 U 4- m S: E 0 to O C40 "1 L m _ 1 Q Ov I N to Z v1 V N A rid U d d v 0 0 h C1 �a d -o d •y O a V W 0 W �W O rr�w _1 V W O W W O r� r -0 d '� U� ca � � U U a) -Q 1 o Q i T to N O- caE� a) U U C L N C -0° o2Q U) 'o o e � a) -o i -a N 6 a) ca m ca a) -p �+ N U� ca � U a) 4- M O Q m Q E -0 -0. N fn +� Q E a) O Q L N O U N � a 0 m E L m m o y 8 a z �i � a) (� to V U � 0 0� Q Ca U 7� 3 0 U) ` ca E Q1 � U o W � p �O�- O N L _O 0 �1 U O N � As A O O a) cam o EZ4 L ttw� ca _1 0 a) j N U W O W W O >, a) co U :3 as � U U ) O = + a) 3 4 O Q CU cd Q E a) U � U L N I.L N cu r- _Q a) aJ O c: E 0--- : L c U N -C O ate-• ?_ � O � �-a a m ca � L U + 0 � O 4 � ci +� 8 a z �i � a) (� to V U � 0 0� Q Ca U 7� 3 0 U) ` ca E Q1 � U o W � p �O�- O N L _O 0 �1 U O N � As A O O a) cam o EZ4 L ttw� ca _1 0 a) j N U W O W W O >, a) co U :3 as � U U ) O = + a) 3 4 O Q CU cd Q E a) U � U L N I.L N cu r- _Q a) aJ O c: E 0--- : L c U N -C O ate-• ?_ � O � �-a a m ca � L U + V z � s o s. R V v� 1 I N A a� s. C? m -o �O 0 bpio 0 O � N A z y a V z � s o s. R V v� 1 I N A a� s. C? m -o �O 0 bpio U) :3 �• U V CJ n CU ' a1 u .6 A Q. U CU w E 'a N ) �j L �• � cu .� (n _ ai W mEa) O W E U O N O O EQa) a- m cu L d � �. Cl) :3 CamC•� U C� U Q N � O r CU '�1 C Q.. M Qc C :2 �. cu a) U 4 U jE .Q O N A4 ° 2 D- a o a) U O N CC � 00 U A � � m O a) a) ca m F a) L N U 2 N� mms V CA- � S Z I z t d a A I N I at i rig U v� V W W �1 W O r➢� i NA A4 L O _0 U ::3 M � U U ) O — (D ccf O i..i N 0 .0 O .Q o � Q O N >0 U N _0 O Y U � O m O N ttf -rs n. U:3 �s � U �U N O =_ N � �CrJ o4, t Q. co O_ � � t �= U � -0 O N o � Q U).- 9 U N - O +-C., > U +,, :3 m N a) a) L N U r 2 N t c. 1 N CJ N mZ y ` >z ~ ad w R st Q Z 8 +z i i+ d 5 0 c to d r k Sv � N A 3 �I2 s � a H o� tiSet V W O W W O [vl 0 �V O g r..sd E 01 ~ �m� o U : r (Q U .Q c� O,- U CL CU to O- O N U U -6.s . -0 O N O r QO C > N U O N .O O C :3 U m N N (6 m L r- a) U �-• N A I i i Z � � 1 � in U) N t• � U � U M � U a a w 04- 0 Co U Q � N Qc- ttT C ca O � � t C C L � .Q :3 -0E0 Q- ( o�Q (Q 1 U O N 1 o, �v 0' E 01 ~ �m� o U : r (Q U .Q c� O,- U CL CU to O- O N U U -6.s . -0 O N O r QO C > N U O N .O O C :3 U m N N (6 m L r- a) U �-• N A I i i Z � � 1 � in ■ MCI U) �. U U � a a 0 ■ MCI O Nmm L- , 3 U s N U � M � U O =_ cu u O O U Cl. Co CO a (a E N tt-- ._ U .Q O N O , � Q C > N U O N O U �,, m E O N N N m L U �-. i _ a) t 0 �I M v 3 {L v � �z 0 � t N A S L � � � d o -�j ° CA Q N A i a •o"' z U) �. U U 0 ca � � t t Q- ( (Q 1 1 m.E 4 47- S �U U)t s s� WOCR 1 � a) ° 11 - Q O 0- C C, -.1Z C > N ro O N N o o - -- c 070 v a a �t c U :5 O 4 4- � >, m v v p N U � M � U O =_ cu u O O U Cl. Co CO a (a E N tt-- ._ U .Q O N O , � Q C > N U O N O U �,, m E O N N N m L U �-. i _ a) t 0 �I M v 3 {L v � �z 0 � t N A S L � � � d o -�j ° CA Q N A i a •o"' z Cam, [J W W w O V rV h0.( O. A N U� ca � U O N c� 04- p U Q (6 cu E CL a F - ) U v- V � .5 t6 U a elf -0 N N oO Qom: c> U N N O 4 U � O m E 'O N N R5 m (a N L U N C N 4� 4 ca Q U Ca C N p- c6 9 N N U_ v= U L.L D E N C p O E�O •> N it U N N N 0, � cat .a .3 a) m � m � � � L a) U r+ _ N Q � o N A ai ate.. D ' s� baD _ ` 4 rr f I a c� N A: ..I a� ea ` I rte, V _1 w rol O r� V W 0 �V W O �+ N U ::3 ca {� U U ) N O Co Q U Co B- E N t E j2 CO t6 -0 U N �O O Q Co U N N O ;C U � O m N N (B m cu -0 N L N O � N U U � � U O N to O QU (tf CL t0 E N N U � U L N ` 11 to � •� Q N N O � > Q � ON UO N "O O 4 U +, 3 m E�� )u co S -�y N L N U N \ \1 d �o ►:7 �I rl S M O N t w � N A � 1 nnh l� y L v� V rrs m a -o d ti o d d !-A Ell gll'I � S M O N t w � N A � 1 nnh l� y L v� V rrs m a -o d ti o d d !-A �e V W p W Q N U � tff � U �U 43 .n O =_ a� 3 ca O-&., Q Q. t0 E a .a " O U E L N .Q ` IL N - E a) O Q C •O U O-C T O m E ) -O i a m O � N L U '- Is- W a� 3 M Q o 4- A Q U f� (a Co CL N U V t U Aq L jE F., Co .� 44 0Ea Qa ° _ CL U) .° U N N O +�-� = -0 U) ca a ��m co -0 L Ion N U = N Q LP iL R N A R _ f/1 •i I f �+ I vs V v� a ' �l cn -a �a) (l3 r Ua) W(D 3 O O � A C U h� CL f6 co CL M E:2 E (� U �\ in WCIO Q C- O QO L O U O N O U +, A >, :3 m p Q CO N c� m ca L N O _._.._._...__._.. T._.— d)._._> --- U a) .� Q04- A Co U 1� 0 Co Q m.E :2 _U F N4- W -m A4 o a) 2a W r L j� U N "O h 0 4-+ � U A : m Q a)� r � L V11 � a) U _ " .Q c� 4 i O� i� ^O h C o� iz II 0 N A w s a -o d 9 � o �a) co U U N V 03 a O -C -- ca �' _ N E U U � O O C +' W -0° 3 o0C- Q o�� -° o W N N N p +4.1 +, 3 �t a) om ca Con T 0, �• � O ca CC •� � U 0 d CL (a K E tE M U 3 p4 E jz o •� E EO c Q 0 ^y LcU > V N -D � U 4— s 6 � m E 0 7 � co ca �t ca 3 a N i cs. � N A I i ' � L E � � c Ion lc,4 � a A N �I a> band i W O O - cut M 0 CL N i - ing cu Lo C WEB Zq � j�,_ o Q- W U N LC> G N � �1 O ate-+ U >, 0 Con4cu W ca)) . h .. = c • � U V U a) W a) O L t, � U U- o f6 w.E -0 3 a' o r a0 a> band i W O O - cut M 0 CL N i - ing cu Lo C WEB Zq � j�,_ o Q- W U N LC> G N � �1 O ate-+ U >, 0 Con4cu W ca)) . h .. = M � 114, M e> ate+ � o 49f 1 �N� � r d N A i c I ei +� d z COD U �z a c • � U V U a) W a) O L t, � U U- Iw f6 w.E -0 a' o r a0 W E c> !� N N N 00 0, >, m M a� L U �-. N _ N II M � 114, M e> ate+ � o 49f 1 �N� � r d N A i c I ei +� d z COD U �z a V o. W O Cam, l� V W 0 rV W O U:3 co 'U a) O � 04, Q U to N O- Rf E � U L 1.1.. .Q O a) O c: Q. W-2 O L C J U N O U � O m -0 0 �_ m to 0 L U � N m A ch v :3 a co O � \� \ � O Q U ^ (o to E - N � U^ E(D O E v co O � . U :� >, :3 m , Q U) m J ca a) U 0 = N N A can o� p tb 7y� ry I NZI N A a �i i s i i i camc,� [lam V W 0 44 Aq W W O C� W O >, 0 • co co U � co � U O = o� 0-co O Q. to E -0 N U co U L .Q 1 }r � W a) -0 E O C fl.. .O W W a) a) U N 'a OF > U 4- m A O 'o N Lim to -0 a) L P 0.+- O U a a N U U o� a� .3 ((f O'C � QU to Q co E -0 N U 4- C L jE N Nr C O C ` E '> 0 CL a� aci aid o or- T ' U +' -0 U co � N mr L a? _ N C1. d � N A o. m ti .a y •cs Q to :3 �• U W o= � a) 3 o r- O'r- n� o cu E -0 a) 4— ��..0 E cu U_ L N ) N N W O 0 Q h� c W U O c� �1 O U +, A >, m O a)QU) cu -0 a) N U F. a) _ a) r� V W O N W 0 CO :3 a ►� t �. Co O �i CL ca c6 E of ai N / 3 �w Co C -1 E a) O I o 2 O o 0 > () ` S ~ (D a) a) O ate-+ >. U �0_ O z cis c is * � L N V11 a) L � F' r N U o � cts � U U ) a) '3 O r Q.. Q a) U_ =53 .� a) O N O C Q O a) U a) O 4 U >, :3 V� EN0 � a) m ) cts a a) L a) O ate... a) = a) .Q �i r� CJ O 1 C� W O to Uo ca � U U N O N � +� cis 04- v Q. U(tj � � c E L� a) a) O � Q. C O N a) 0 a) t C a) U � �. m E o -0 a) N m m ca O U z g d N A d � v O vs (V O E N A s� CIS to V z ti d ti 0 Rio °' [Vl 0 W O r� V O W W O Ems, U � tB � U O � 04- Q U Q E (D U_ v0- t: 4 U .Q O a) O r Q = O U O N a) O r- 4- m E 0 a) L m L N O N U � to � U � Q O a) 3 O O U 4 ca N E 0 U 4-- L N LL A, Alf W a) O c CO O o� W U N 0..-, T O CO 'O a) N m a) L a) U 61 N A cs - All s J s. � a2 U rig 5i V W 0 W 0 O a) � � O � QU Rf E N U_ � U E � � C: {-f O a) C t^ O E N O 4 Q L O U O N a) 0, =3 U 4- m -a N N cu a) m ca -0 a) v) L N U �' 3 = a O 1 N A s q ti ,P. d 0 h tr a s .. q d d c�< ti o � ti cl �U a) N A O ` cn a— CL f CL E ' 1 Ilk ¢I .� 44 _Q( W f O O I 4 W W W zr c ca } 4 E 0V; I � a) a O 1 N A s q ti ,P. d 0 h tr a s .. q d d c�< ti o � ti Cam, C� v >r CO) pq W 0 ~1 U � ca (t3 U U 0= �a a) .3 0 Q � s? ccu E a •— a) � U C) cc E jE C? -0 1 11 -tea -2 2 cL co .� U N U A m E 0co a) m c>3 U 0 G d N A I ai s. Di r� t �I a 4I .� � L l 1 v W �1 W 0 Con v Q W O r� r A a) %Y N 0.— O tf � U Q (B Q cu m y (D y .n N C i E a) ' a)aaim 0 U E Q ca m�. ; c~3 - a) z vs U v1 N U 4 U � co Co -U 04- V N Q co Co Q (a E Z3 N N U Z 5 = CA ^4- y ..0 a) a) Come 0 c oQ U) .O W E > o U +, CD E N N � m ca -� a) N U " a> = N .Q CC y z V s a d •o d E^r -�O d 0 ;+"_+ �-. U O _ o Co O-� co Q- fa to CL E N U-- 0 � I E jE W n a) O C co)- E .O a> N U co 0 — � Q) ca a) m ca � a, �w N 4- a) 0 2 a) 0 G d N A I ai s. Di r� t �I a 4I .� � L l 1 v W �1 W 0 Con v Q W O r� r A a) %Y N 0.— O tf � U Q (B Q cu m y (D y .n N C i E a) ' a)aaim 0 U E Q ca m�. ; c~3 - a) z vs U v1 N U 4 U � co Co -U 04- V N Q co Co Q (a E Z3 N N U Z 5 = CA ^4- y ..0 a) a) Come 0 c oQ U) .O W E > o U +, CD E N N � m ca -� a) N U " a> = N .Q CC y z V s a d •o d E^r -�O d 0 A N U :3 ca U •U N O = N � L O Q U O a- c� E -a N U :N O U E L N -0 ` IL N � O U N O - :3 7+ � N a) � m � � N >. w U:3 W U O = - °, o . b �Z C� U) �- a) 0ca o° ( ° a) U N U M� Tc �t c ^C Q U) L co (� ca -p N L N U ++ N _ N Q o. X, d -o C r b Ia, z W � •y p J a a a Z y�1 WJ^ Yy ti :3 �• ca U V U � W a) 3 Q Q o to C U Cn °- 0� �E2 2 ; cn . 3 4 O O O o c Q L N L O > i rte, (D a� J 0 r- `- n COC � a) Cpl a) c6 0 a) L � U 4.- a) _ N Q >. a) i_+ Ul U :3 CamC•� U C� O T U O W O Co o C 'rl ' Cl CL ?� m E 2 L f C -0 o E +-� O Q W N.�o a�aa)0 C�C U a) -O C� EQ CA r a� � ns m m -a m y _ L a) 91 d � (N A m 0 :3 O 1 O I O- �v m m nl � 4i 4 N A d -a 0 k � :n ,-- U C �• U z d 1 7�L N A O 4t "� - k = ' CL d ` � N A Q c � 0 4— to ( � o ( \ I d s ;\ CL m E-0 C -0 (D d , ca U _ � � Jtl S il J � ° ock CL W iC >O O ti � >S� �-• t3 . , � ca 'v� > rn C.0 in cu -0 c nl � 4i 4 N A d -a 0 k � :n C Q d 1 7�L N A 'V to z Jtl il J � Z rig S U 'v� nl � 4i 4 N A d -a 0 k � :n Cam, [C� V O i W O V W 1V W W 0 U) U � ca U c) a) O Co C t Q E -O '— a) a) LJ_ W a) O r E .O 0 a) a) (L) U a) O =3 � O m E Q v c6 ) ca a) L a) U Z a) W U :3 O O cs N A Q U t I CU C\ U) CL N cc LU �v U) +- a) (D . E .20 N > a) tJ o�i of a) ai U�, r— I r . C9 Zfi E ° m � m L Q � j 1� 4� N A 1 p�jp v rA s q N �O 0. d ti Co t3 d Q �. (D U W a) O 0 O � 7 ca ►� E J tp O U L fV rtM A�' .— 0 0 4^/ Q W L W4 ���L C: a) -o 9 O a . -0 a) N� a) ca m L 1,_/•11 � O � -i--, V W 0 A4 W J 44 U •U O O � � � 1 CL Q w a) U va) E `� jE n`u c a) o f a) a) a) U a) p E O N .n 0 a) ca m L ca a) J? L O a) W ) > �Y 2 L- 1[ q V� N Ci ryj �O os a �xw tit w N F� m c� z Llk -19, Q+ cl N A d U in Q 'o, N ,1 a> C1 A r a �D C! ti 0 d v r o� -o z \ ti d 0 awn W ° -� L cII O a( 3 cu E :a !1 N v U) ,+ o COL 4.1 '� a2i a W U N N N 'O U D , � C m O C 0 tw L ti �• U V 0 =— W 0 _ N 3 ^i Co ` y� m _E -a O U — L N 11 r iii (6 '� I w C: d � 'Q E N o O O oa 4 C L N N N i]] c N -a 1 O +t-+ C : m e Q W _ t CO O N � 0 L N 1 4T v 4 d 9 d N A A � � � A V, v z � a rte. .p -r ' ti ti U rig a I�V O Con V W Q) W 1�i O N rn U ca � U U ) O =_ N � ca y.- O � O Q U c� Q P u N U_ � U E a) o � Q �oaoi U N N O 0, >, : m cn N Q3 m -o N L L— 04- a) 1 ( Q C) ctf � U O N � cv os � O Q U _E _U 4'O- ,-. of Q E 4) O Q C O N U N N N O O , U 4- : m -0 N (6 N m -0 (D L U O _ N j D h = d s y V r�r a - D `1 � � 1 d � � N A _I � C? -o N 0 ti -off oYi 9 d a a .off t � 0 R sv. Z � Uri a I�V O Con V W Q) W 1�i O N rn U ca � U U ) O =_ N � ca y.- O � O Q U c� Q P u N U_ � U E a) o � Q �oaoi U N N O 0, >, : m cn N Q3 m -o N L L— 04- a) 1 ( Q C) ctf � U O N � cv os � O Q U _E _U 4'O- ,-. of Q E 4) O Q C O N U N N N O O , U 4- : m -0 N (6 N m -0 (D L U O _ N j D h = d s y V r�r a - D `1 � � 1 d � � N A _I � C? -o N 0 ti -off oYi 9 d a V W 0 C� l� W O ton f_ N U � cc. —cu U U � a� 3 cv `F- o -tf O U Q, tII 0 N _U �r--1 LL CO to 0Ea -2 c CCL C 'O O i >c >, U U N =O U >, � i3 m E 0 ; a cu m ca -� a o U U = a -> ` =� U � v ZF w W a� ..I Q tB v Co Q ' a> cu E_-2o� .. -_� L � N� (i Q) .n (D y o =Z o c E L R: 2 Q C N N O F .. Co � � O d �+ a-+ ca O Q 70 -0 i r O — \ W °' 3 cu O W h P L a L r& E Q to CL ca E S� t0l1 ��'' •� � O L O N N N -0. N p U O m O �. N (tf m� L N U co U � N � � tQ O� Q U CU M.E 70 � U 'v. M � � U 2 O R N L O U N N 'a O � A :3 m E V5 O .0 N. CU m A to -0 x_/11 a U `. 00 =� U � v ZF w W a� ..I Q tB v Co Q ' a> cu E_-2o� .. -_� L � N� (i Q) .n (D y o =Z o c E L R: 2 Q C N N O F .. Co � � O d �+ a-+ ca O Q 70 -0 i r O — \ W °' 3 cu O W h P L a L r& E Q to CL ca E S� t0l1 ��'' •� � O L O N N N -0. N p U O m O �. N (tf m� L N U v ai Z ra V 1_� 'O N A d Z vi U o� v -o S v ti 0 0 v lza Q i a d -o v a •1, S d 0 v � N � N A v ai Z ra V 1_� 'O N A d Z vi U o� v -o S v ti 0 0 v lza Q i a d -o v a •1, S d 0 v O W W O rr�w -1 a� �• cn U::3 ca U U ) O -' C v-. O O Q. U R3 N Q- '— a) L E jE :3 (B C +' -0 O N O Q , � O ^`` ^ L > ? U O N :3 O m .Q cn a) (B m to a) O U C� V W O O _A a) U � m � U U � a) � +O+ " R5 04- CL Cc QC co C a U `r=- LoL N ` lL 4- .Q E a] 0 C E O CD O > 0 U N -0 O +-r_ � 04- m n N co N CO CU -0 a> L N U a) =iQ 0 0 N A at U v� a N v 0 d a Cam• C U V 'O � W a) N � -C +.• o Q Rf c -0 N C -0 O U :►_ E ca -0 N ca .� r a: +� U - a) O C Q o C O �W 0 W U U +, � O m O a) a) ca m �- O U C� V W O O _A a) U � m � U U � a) � +O+ " R5 04- CL Cc QC co C a U `r=- LoL N ` lL 4- .Q E a] 0 C E O CD O > 0 U N -0 O +-r_ � 04- m n N co N CO CU -0 a> L N U a) =iQ 0 0 N A at U v� a N v 0 d a h-LL-7 -o Pt o Ts Ill Rou4 : fox -suit/ Co3w w�srt gwt2A✓ 6w� sd �i- �ccrna� o� i�-i.N�s aoTlt� �a 3 r s/ttr . � coumac! f !zo�/�cT w�l " .457 .457 uY �o� tt- �or,�T- -5�3 YEAS • /ACS � D � j} -L.L� � Dl> /�O i wit-•r��� 7o f f� 5u � S t D J z� IAI !ir/-IZ�ue Tb CO Sfi s o f t -r-Y. T s t o A15. r 13 t L[ Tb /_ u n1 f- Ft-1'- ! ! vr�Fs� u ! l�Ftlr�✓cti W o d T 64j r LL 1--L oz ``7� L A-T o �✓5 G [ {c �- t r�z �.cl�s 7"a v o 2 oTCt-i�2 p L%�"� �s ?lf fit PAAA-C- 1 OtLL � c_ �`( �h tzt T�f- e � o J,4A M LLT � t,✓ o rz- `rk+�F c L -T`( W l T [L t�' Sb L-1 f Vo i l�clDr�2gT{�'Ir/D [- W `j�tt -T Co Gbtit p (��.0 lq l�/T r- Alpe,�" cmF+ ,n�Cs T�ftZ T(�1YFr14 uW 1 ( -��g -v S1, �"Zr�t i w► �� t� fk'P PC-IV. W -7 �iJ Q / �1 P fZv N �D f i3 Z t fi� G C9 AJ j VV - O tI Eiz.Lvr�-D �t'c ._ -Ru i `f' ! A -)✓- O u-T t.rJ i A/d 40 -i✓p Q tc t TT'rAl �- "� wt � l�Z�'�rn.�° � ,� D � � i ✓�- I r>`2ou.�i�f —. � ��!-i Gam G �T�v i� - –1 Iili*tylop Ta ,Gliv1�- +���v- f�� ! �OC�O e�! -fZS l� X21 DLO C k '7�vL 2s/ oAl Ttrtl�' foA-v _ `(ou s ��C� (,J r G,r+fZW % AIAIV NOGG! W T 70 (T' 19- N`�i�YL>= �XG�?i !� +��✓ct -S -DOAJ T' Dc'. t ,+ - �i4` ► `s t T rK t c T--i F—kD oNT- -PO IT-1 -1;1 1 a Al i cOXA51 �YPPft �tOA1 7--'Y- �4, t-- ✓Z A145- -5 . -�C -r6-,�vk 77te-T %i t �tti= t--t_D 5T'i ! L, G}-ft5 T vvt n-3 tKrC c1 yt--N p rn f�K G PCICIU t16 - t,W OIA L t> kVp- i- P M tack "ir w r3 r^ -- o o d 9 PAS ox) 6f - rzosl -D� . T wr CE- 't -nj( 7t{b5E Ua�ffi ��F 77R{JFlZS 1 Kn-PPEv IA-1 77-0-E C:oo lf— ! tDA✓. 4- �F tt c vt-L , A- e OLWCCI 1-1-4'114C•v 7 AV & l9 �''F�4K l ��FF1 c— 1 t IM —S . /t'N�7 Gv ic� . �1/i✓ 5' Pr< t ✓^ �' i - 2s/ oAl Ttrtl�' foA-v _ `(ou s ��C� (,J r G,r+fZW % AIAIV NOGG! W T 70 (T' 19- N`�i�YL>= �XG�?i !� +��✓ct -S -DOAJ T' Dc'. t ,+ - �i4` ► `s t T rK t c T--i F—kD oNT- -PO IT-1 -1;1 1 a Al i cOXA51 �YPPft �tOA1 7--'Y- �4, t-- ✓Z A145- -5 . -�C -r6-,�vk 77te-T %i t �tti= t--t_D 5T'i ! L, G}-ft5 T vvt n-3 tKrC c1 yt--N p rn f�K G PCICIU t16 - t,W OIA L t> kVp- i- P M tack "ir w r3 r^ -- o o d 9 PAS ox) 6f - rzosl -D� . T wr CE- 't -nj( 7t{b5E Ua�ffi ��F 77R{JFlZS 1 Kn-PPEv IA-1 77-0-E C:oo lf— ! tDA✓. 4- �F tt c vt-L , A- e OLWCCI 1-1-4'114C•v 7 6A Richfield 2000 EAW available Best Buy proposal Environmental `assessment to be discussed public meeting The city of Richfield has drafted an environmental assessment of the pro- posed Best Buy campus development and is seeking public input on the doc- ument. The Scoping Environmental As- sessment Worksheet (EAW) identifies environmental issues that need to be examined, such as the development's effect on traffic, the water table and air quality. The Scoping EAW is the first step toward preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the devel- opment. Richfield Community Development Director Bruce Palmborg said the EAW process is expected to he com- pleted within 60 days. The City Coun- cil is expected to vote on the document at its July 10 meeting. The EAW is available for review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Ave. S., Augsburg Park Library, 7100 Niool- let Ave. S., and at the Southdale -Hen- nepin Area Library, 7001 York Ave. S. The public is invited to comment in writing on the EAW through June 14. Comments should be to Julie Urban, Planning and Zoning Administrator, city of Richfield, 6700 Portland Ave. S., Richfield, MN 55423. The Best Buy plan The Best Buy project seeks to re- place the 10 -block area of residential and commercial property north of In- terstate 494 between Knox and Penn avenues with a multi- building office complex. The $150 - mi1lion complex is expect- ed to accommodate the 3,000 Best Buy employees -who currently work in of- fices in Eden Prairie. The company an- ticipates hiring an additional 2,000 corporate employees over the next five years to-support the company's expan- sion. To meet the company's space needs, several low -rise office buildings tot . l- ing 1.5 million square feet of space have been included in the concept plan for the Richfield site. By comparison, each of the Meridian Crossings -office towers at Interstate 35W and I-494 en- compass 200,000 square feet of space. The development is consistent with the Richfield comprehensive plan's classification for the majority of the property. The northern portion of the development area is, however, zoned for housing and neighborhood commercial buildings, which is incon- sistent with the Best Buy concept. The City Council will have to reclas- sify this area for regional commer- cial/Office uses for the development to proceed. Preliminary plans provide two op- tions, four 10 -story buildings or five six -story buildings that could accom- modate a total of 7,500 employees. As many as three multilevel park- ing ramps could be constructed around the campus. Between the buildings, a pond, a walking path and trees could be included. Best Buy officials have said the groundbreaking for the site could occur in spring 2001 and the campus could open as early as the summer 2002. Wfai's :nett What: 'Meeting on.the Scoping < Environmental Assessment: Worksheet. of Best Buy. campus development_ When: 17.a-,p.m., - .Wednesday, e Jun .7 :. Where`Richfield City; Hall":;'; :-9700 Portiand.Ave.-S.: . Informationo 612- 861 =9764: The development would consume 67 houses, 87 apartment units, 13 businesses and the Walser and. Wally McCarthy auto dealerships.' - The site would be a 25-year tax-in- crement. financing (TIF) district with the increased taxes generated by the new buildings being used to finance the development. Under the terms of the TIP district, as much as $35.9 mil- lion would be provided to subsidize the nearly $45 million cost Best Buy would spend to purchase properties and as- semble the site. Included in the subsidy is $7.1 mil- lion to widen the Penn Avenue bridge over I494. If federal or state money be- comes available for the bridge project, Bien the $7.1 million would be used to subsidize the site assembly costs. The bridge project is expected to cost be- tw4pen$9 million and $16 million. `About $7.2 million of the new taxes generated- throughout the life of the TIP district would be allocated to a housing tfust fund, which could be used to build and rehabilitate Rich- field housing. — Compiled by Michael Werner Richfield Sun- CurrenMednesday, May 17,200D 3A SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW, BEST BUY CAMPUS The environmental review process for the Best Buy Campus project has begun. This process will study the impact of the development on items such as stormwater, infrastructure (i.e. roads and utilities), public services, wildlife, surface and ground water, air quality, soils, and adjacent land uses. There are three phases to the process. Each phase provides an opportunity for public input. • Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comment period: May 15 — June 14, 2000 Public Meeting: 7.00 p.m., June 7, 2000, Richfield City Hall City Council action: 7:00 p.m., July 10, 2000, Richfield City H_ all • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comment period: August 21 —September 26, 2000 Public Meeting: 7:00 p.m., September 13, Richfield City Hall • Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comment period: October 30 — November 13, 2000 City Council action: 7:00 p.m., December 11, 2000, Richfield City Hall Note: the dates and times for the Draft and Final EIS are preliminary.. Contact City Hall for the most current schedule. The Scoping EAW determines which issues will be addressed in the EIS and how the issues will be studied. The EIS studies the issues, determines the impacts, and develops ways to mitigate the negative impacts. All documents will be available for review at Richfield City Hall, Augsburg Park Library. and the Southdale Branch Library. Comments can be submitted in writing during the comment periods. Written comments should be submitted to: Julie Urban Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Questions about the project can be directed to Julie Urban or John Stark, Community Development Manager at 612(861-9760. SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW, BEST BUY CAMPUS The environmental review process for the Best Buy Campus project has begun. This process will study the impact of the development on items such as stormwater, infrastructure (i.e. roads and utilities), public services, wildlife, surface and ground water, air quality, soils, and adjacent land uses. There are three phases to the process_ Each phase provides an" opportunity for public input. • Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comment period: May 15 — June 14, 2000 Public Meeting: 7:00 p.m., June 7, 2000, Richfield City Hall City Council action: 7:00 p.m., July 10, 2000, Richfield City Hall • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EiS) Comment period: August 21 — September 28, 2000 Public Meeting: 7:00 p.m.,.September 13, Richfield City Hail • Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comment period: October 30 — November 13, 2000 City Council action: 7:00 p.m., December 11, 2000, Richfield City Hall Note: the dates and times for the Draft and Final EIS are preliminary. Contact City }lap for the most current schedule. The Scoping EAW determines which issues will be addressed in the EIS and how the issues will be studied. The EIS studies the issues, determines the impacts, and develops ways to mitigate the negative impacts. All documents will be available for review at Richfield City Hall, Augsburg Park Library, and the Southdale Branch Library. Comments can be submitted in writing during the comment periods. Written comments should be submitted to: Julie Urban - Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Questions about the project can be directed to Julie Urban or John Stark, Community Development Manager at 6121861-9760. Eu4,i- CwAt4 i joq/od 1 Council- a dopts �Environme utal doe" Umen t for Bes t Buy project Draft EIS expect ' _ ed lti August area have limped along, clouding the neighborhood's future. • - By Michael Werner _ - Best Bu Co " SW Newspapers this Y corp- committed itself early Year to building its corporate head- The' - ichfield City Council unani- Quarters to Richfield. mousl a The $150 million complex is expected . Y pfor the an environmental to accommodate the 3,200 Best Buy eta- . worksheet far the proposed Best Buy ployees who currently work offices campus development, paving the way for Eden Prairie The company anticipates as envir !Amental "impact 'statement hiring an additional 2,000 corporate em. (EIS? to be prepared. hiring by 2002 it to support The scope of the Best Buy- project re- the company's .quires an EIS be prepared. The sco in expansion.. environmental -assessment workaheet r fur or five structures will be erected (EAW) determines what items should be andg encompassing up to 1.9-million tr ies studied in -the EIS. square feet: The campus will b designed The EIS will address hazards, , the potential for to accommodate up to 9,500 employees. ' environmental hazards, the potential for _ =- As many as three multi -level parking groundwater cor emissions, visual; ve- ramps could be constructed �amund the - hicle- related air emissions, visual im- campus, Between.the buildings; a pond pacts, and the impacts on infrastructure , - and public services. a walking path and trees could be d, The Best Bu eluded. the 10 -block area sf res e �d Company officials have said . . mercial Property l;roundbreakirig for the site could occur ' P PertY north of interstate 494 in spring -2001 and the campus could between Knox and Penn avenues with. a open as early. as the "summer'2002. . multi- baildingoffice complex - The. campus development would be- The city solicited public comment on - constructed as one complete develop- the PAW last month. Five state encies the ci � meat, with no future-phases anticipated. - ty of Bloomington, five Richfield The development would consume 67 residents and a traffic consultant hired houses, 87 apartment units, l3 business- by WalserAutomotive commented on the es and two auto dealerships; plan. The site would be a 25-year Asa result of the public comments, the went financing tax -mein- -FAW was modified to include eight addi- tion creased taxes eratedcby tbe�new tional intersections in the traffic study buildings being used to finance the de- and a survey of the Wally McCarthy site. velopment Uader.the terms of the TIF gto assess its - historic architecture. Addi- district, as much as $35.9 million would o undw the need for pumping away be provided to subsidize the "nearly $45 groundwater from the construction site and the effects miiIion cost Best Buy would spend to and nearby parks is traffic on pedestrians Purchase properties and assemble the will be addressed as a site. result of public comments. Included. in the TIF subsidy is $7.1 - The eland begin to' publish a draft of million fo widen the Penn Avenue bridge - the EIS_ and begin taking public com- over I- 494..If federal or state money -be= meat -on itAug. 21. The draft will provide comes available for the bridge project, ' information on the project's impacts and then:.the $7.1 million would be used to. Potential mitigation of those impacts. - subsidize the site assembly costs.' The .- A final EIS is expected Iater in the fall bridge project is expected to cost between and the-council is expected to vote on the $9 million and $16-million. document'* December. About $7.2 million of the new taxes [[ The site of the project, known as. In- generated throughout the life of the TlE 1 t terchange West, was first identified for district would be allocated to a housing redevelopment in•1997. For years, redevelopment plans in the d tt habilitate Richfield housing build MOAM FAX: 612 -861 -9749 Press Release - Richfield Community Development For more information, call: Julie Urban 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612- 861 -9700 For Release: July 17, 2000 Date: July 14, 2000 EIS PREPARATION NOTICE FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS In July 2000, the City of Richfield distributed a Scoping Decision Document to all agencies listed on the EQB distribution list and all interested parties. The document describes the scope of investigation and anticipated schedule for the Best Buy Campus EIS that will be prepared by the City for the Best Buy Co, Inc. The Scoping Decision Document is based on the available information documented in the Scoping EAW and draft Scoping Decision Document, input from the public scoping meeting and written comments received during the comment period. The following items will be analyzed in the EIS: erosion control, surface water runoff, traffic, air quality, noise, hazardous materials, storage tanks, and groundwater contamination, solid wastes, historical /archaeological resources, water supply changes, waste water, visual impacts, compatibility with plan and adjacent land uses, public services (police, fire, ambulance), social and economic impacts, and cumulative impacts. The following additional topics will be discussed in lesser detail in the EIS: landscaping benefits on wildlife habitat, need for dewatering activities, the size and location of the emergency generators, 7e Street impacts on pedestrians and bikers, and how the current metering practices applied by the Minnesota Department of Transportation may be modified as a result of this project. The purpose of the project is the private redevelopment of the site to' provide. office space to meet the needs of Best Buy and their employees. The...EIS will evaluate the following alternatives: NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE: The site would not be redeveloped for office space. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES: The general parameters for the development alternatives are: a rhinimum expansion size with 1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 parking spaces (Option A); and a maximum expansion size with 1.9 million sq. ft. and 9,500 spaces (Option B). Alternative 1: This alternative includes five buildings clustered around a central pond. An additional two story common use area would be constructed between two of the buildings to house uses. such as a convenience store, cafeteria, day care facility and fitness center. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps, ranging. in height from two levels to five levels. A surface lot would alsobe included along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be located on Penn Avenue;- =Knox Avenue, and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. Alternative 2: This alternative includes four buildings located in the southwest half of the site, connected by a two story common use area, with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the property. Parking,would be provided primarily in one large parking structure on the northeast half of the site, ranging in height from five to seven levels. A surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, Knox Avenue and 76th Street at Newton Avenue. 76th STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Additionally, the City of Richfield may require upgrades to 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of this project. The EIS will look at three different road improvement alternatives for 76th Street. These alternatives will include one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway with'a combination to the north and south of the existing right of way. RGU: City of Richfield Contact: Julie Urban, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612/861 -9766 Fax: 612/861 -8974 =Ad Press Release — Richfield Community Development For more information, call: Julie Urban, AICP 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612- 861 -9700 Fax: 612- 861 -9749 For Release: August 21, 2000 Date: August 21, 2000 DRAFT EIS NOTICE FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS On August 21, 2000, the City of Richfield distributed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the- proposed Best Buy Campus in Richfield to all agencies listed on the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list and all interested parties. The DEIS was prepared by the City of Richfield to determine the potential environmental impacts of the Best Buy Campus redevelopment being proposed by the Best Buy Co., Inc. The public comment period for the DEIS ends September 28, 2000. A public hearing will be held on September 13, 2000, at Richfield City Hall. The Best Bu� Campus project site is bounded by 1-494 on the south, Penn Avenue on the west, 76' Street on the north and Knox Avenue on the east. The purpose of the project is to redevelop the site into office space to meet the needs of Best Buy and its employees. The DEIS analyzes those aspects of the project that were identified for review in the Scoping Decision Document For The Best Buy Campus that was distributed in July 2000. The Scoping Decision Document was based on information documented in the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet, input from the public scoping meeting and written comments received during the scoping comment period. The following items are analyzed in the DEIS: erosion control; surface water4unoff, traffic; air quality; noise; hazardous materials, storage tanks, and groundwater contamination; solid wastes; historical /archaeological resources; water supply changes; waste water; visual impacts; compatibility with plan and adjacent land uses;. public services (police, fire, ambulance); social and economic impacts; and cumulative impacts. The following additional topics are discussed in lesser detail in the DEIS: dewatering activities; landscaping impacts on wildlife habitat; the size and location of emergency generators; 76th Street widening impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists; and how the current metering practices applied by the Minnesota Department of Transportation may be modified as a result of this project. The DEIS evaluates the following development alternatives: NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE: The site would not be redeveloped. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES: Two development alternatives are proposed, each with thelollowing two levels of development: an expected development size of 1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 parking spaces (Option A); and a maximum development size of 1.9 million sq. ft. and 9,500 parking spaces (Option B). .Alternative 1: This alternative includes five buildings clustered around a central pond. An additional one story commons area would be constructed between two of the buildings to house uses such as a convenience store, a cafeteria, a day care facility and a fitness center. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps, ranging in height from two levels to five levels. A small surface lot would also be included along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue, and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. Alternative 2: This alternative includes four buildings located in the southwest half of the site, connected by a one story common use area, with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the property. Parking would be provided primarily in one parking structure on the northeast half of the site, ranging in height from five to seven levels. A small surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. 76th STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Additionally, the City of Richfield will require..upgrades to 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of this pro�ect. The DEIS analyzes three different roadway improvement alternatives for 76t Street. These alternatives will include one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway both to the north and south of the existing right of way. RGU: City of Richfield Contact: Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield - 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612/861 -9766 Fax: 612/861 -8974 by 6i c ^o .° m >, m b. vmt - 5E cpp m o R' y 3 m x" to O � U ' +m2 ►`�' � v +�i . � c3 of � O 'NV, m E+ m �a� ° W CO U' b 't7 �'' C' 2 CO �.' N N N is U "o,oa0kv�s r pCq �C11 v c. o .� o omi aQ A.NE W vi O °V 10 'o a UD4WE4 o Ocow H Q, o O 'L7 (OD o m RAU y-jx b, U U 42 > rr�11 .. R F 01 2222E co 2 00 u Cq V Irmo 1' ci a m co '[ham :•L• --� +�i •"'+ r'' y r'�s t". cd too IV U m. py m p '#". $4 o 2a o 2 h ° m . CD G; to i-p � :3 > A 3 Rt p ca o '" R, C* co q) j u�ami.�CIA m�a�iw'm m 2p j CQ a°a .-. 0 3 C-. R 'D . m -LA° i ! a D .Arom•tV c„ A cm pm c Sbo+ � " • '3�:m m y a.' n c�d •m oo o .,o y >> a •q a o m3 a z m a , P >q " @ a C !m Z 1 0. °► m °Q .o m v q �.a aEl 'm ; : m I .m �. D wm . zj U m 3 b o . o cn v o.q m >,> m , F q - m m _ �� C �co 0. c..o 'm El bi m cc m o 4) 0q m F. w v + m > a r 4 0 > °. v ^ p -,, .'t .01 V W X. 0 0. r .y o m 7 v•� o E t" , m m O � N bn CD . 0. cs y o ° R . "� m � H m Vy � o -� + 4°N'd � m m °O p �.a m > 3 ;j --8 m • f. b .� V m •- m U m c m m m m m m •z � o '' a' as m v o �+q �m y rsvm C ti p b 0 d44 0 g $2410 > ° q ' vi m o to ao s.. mmf.,om oo m 0. (1) obo0.0 m a V V m -im0 0S 0A 0 w :3 P.S. w > q 1 .3 5 g � ° N " ;4 TO 44 (D to m O m O 0 co W td xm U m m ,O CZ+> A >> o o y �ai a qm V.0 +° bog o � m m 9 q �; 91 :. o 0m q m m a + , _ .�•O ci qm 4.m o O V sm ° . D Rv 'q R y .m � a c(°� ^' ' C ' , . . bD m ,a c. o to m v o 0.0 co m . m , a� ° °o � C.+ C s. v ... • a � - m 4410 p . 10 bD O C O O M•cd m y IS cm . 'b 0.m cv v c. •Sm O y w 6s m o p - k F °° .m m m m +> +� , ° cs 0.w a y co co O 0. 0.4 - :a m 0 It U m 0 e4 °Q . sc. � " ,X o m°.c ° mcQ M c,m a CO R m . o Q y3 CD dD .a ;Cu E" 0 0 -"b s .q c co : > m o a4y .. co Z m + cC q Cw G� >-: 3 U m 0 m ami °� ID 9 �� �.m +a m q �G �m , + 11 . 3mm 4 �� 0� w °q ° N mm � 3 � ' " U m ��b . .�.°Mmp. . `�+q m "g�i �•�.q . a3 3 o m-C q v. c>. >O ^o ,°3,,,, aamtom 0.3 0 s $ � o p3m c .,�a3 c �%x, � �' �v'kb .c mm+v , >�m p'' b �+3>r fqs ca •�m.�.l tt 4y v[ s. ' r v 3 nb D 0 2m� a. ° w a ~d°+'o e R.o mw o N , '� y a0 -v Its to � '+ ' 4m +wcmC3 0 a^o v ' > o yym y m a5o o.0 . y 3 3.+o .m cm� o 13 +l F_- " 4 ° m bp cs m :3 +a q p N ..m o 0 v sm w oc02 -0 rz, w --0 . AamR t dm° .� '•o m `so a 3 q .cm c3 mm o ( > m -44 +- - aComm'L 0mmom�q o ° �.+d C o ; o O •ym - o q i o ho 'to to O 411. " mcq m+, p+, +a R v y 's A° O m ° +' mc a•rmm1 0b � m Q„o�.3 UD0. coO;..4) O a. Ol75t9'qX m m m m - 10 'O.i mm10A � p q �m m o g C o y +. .0 q q v q �.Gy � .. o cd 3 w . t- -o+' ' o m "q coo m^ CIS � o y " R4%4 m(I.., i >,E4 m y bo (L, > io C � o " 00 i 0" m m ° ' Os 3m . 0 () CD Q. ,o m 'C A ca m � ca o ..�m m au +� co' m O W eo . N q bi) � h ca w II °° � p m a g� - cd m-� .0 p o R s +V aoai 'b N �' + R CC � N 0 p ° t.m m +; C . i ¢~ ~ ° d. . m O . � boo' a.'v o^° � s�U ,, °' .° O m 9�A ° � o R' ° a � o q m mm 1m" ,[ o m cr)4. o W ~ o bo f co+,„p-,cw c°a °H m R m m ' ` o gym.. 0 °� c°, m q m�?4 �'y' _bID 4. -0 • m . +, w +, Q' mho•» coi c 0.•y �' o 3 o mvm agi•o� o CO cao ° v ai : o m CO q rJ m m m m CO ;, c, cm, ° m.m boo �� >z >+� .d m o 4°, m� °o� +, C 0. u] -° poi bo�O > a m m m 441 > � .b 'S3 •q Q'i L: +a m i. m - . m 4 , bD q C. q p . + Z m m > .O 1. m +, Vr" �:, m • .a O y .-isi 0. > . c3 +, >, �. q m .O 0.m p w "C'3 m bo m c7 O ►+ ° �b ' m •-• g> °ow3�m� c � 4" ' Co ° ' CD .� O.J. aD > a - vora o �0 D Cr w ca +, m w > m m m . p G , 0 ° co o o 0 c 00 o �m to 's bo � , •° o Vo+ , 3 et >;- �.a A °o , '° +CO y � m :3 A ca to a o o bC3 -o y A. o 0 C &°° .•O 03 o q m +,"c'3 � 0.�•rl � 11+v m f�D3 a ], . A oW 'm 4 .�° 0. mtm m ' 7 ' 'o ^ ^� '�'oq �mCy 3 o y ." 3 F3 0 � 3 sa: t •mp 2, m QQ3p p s o �c0.io '. . rq tC , .+o a b r�m o .. .qo tm q y m o .'.7q m : , o 10 0 o � a " 4'm 3 " +'mb p, �. �0. " m °q ' ',cm ,o a .+yl p m + °cO c6 > �sL, ' ' ! '�Fm „ �.q , ' m q ►3 u-; r ' .>R, W" +oa� .+Lmam c' � s �o H 3 q m OM" et°w - 13 >.m g c co +4 co o or .. + y> 4) k El m a> :3 p 407 M I ba ^> d 010 3 q ;; m• m tv (L) 0 16. 4 -1 - w " �m q ti N d °+;'"c* ° W �ti m bD+~ . v+qN mq bO 2 ' . o m > � � p o p m bo m 43 a 3 ° M �� O +, A bo> a m t: 0 >, q o mPq Rm bw o`m N p 3 ��C m E m.m . 3 m q C m V O > i 9.m .0 » c. w IV.O+> p Rb � w m a � o 3 m y +; +d s» oo'� m m. C. bom �73 oo > 'CO > 0. 0.0 m C f m A. ° n Q q°o ( °0 aQ. R m � 3 El L 3 m . A >y • Wc1 O0� c Ne E; El� g b v .o 3 -- °o o m ,..t gcc cpi ° 9 t m m m ca c°a m m m ° o M ch 3m 0.s. -- A00 °o mo •oc� %) mx 3°; a� m� 3 cco•f�m+9 ti o bob Q ° p o"a+3 0'p m93 m mL °� Ck bo bp 1q2. IY ° W'S -9of� �d��"�,�m "0 m m � }. bo►� '� L�q m � :3 � A a c0 a+a� k..0 rL. d 5 A >y • Wc1 O0� c Ne E; Public reacts = - to Best Buy office plans. More than 150 people pack Sept. 13 meeting By Michael�Wemer Sun Newspapers Best Buy's proposed corpo- rate ;headquarters development in Richfield attracted more than 150 people to City Hall to dis- cuss its potential impacts. Concerned residents and auto dealership employees filled City Hail Sept. 13 to offer com- ments on the project's Draft En- vironmental Impact Statement (DEIS).' About 30 'people chose to comment publicly. Most _fol- lowed the directions spelled out at the meeting and addressed the project's, expected impacts, rather than tag- increment fi- nancing or the city's redevelop- ment policy_ "I think people tried to stay on point and that made for a smooth meeting " City Manager Samantha Orduno said during a telephone interview last week. "There were a lot of good ideas out there:' Among those offering com- ment at the meeting was Jim Benshoof, a traffic consultant retained by Walser Automotive. . Benshoof said he found the traffic analysis portion of the DEIS to be very incomplete. "A number of very significant impacts have not been ad- - dressed," he said. "Neither staff nor council have the basis to make a sound.judgment" Benshoof said the metered ramps from Penn Avenue to In- terstate 494 could not accommo- date the traffic volumes in the area, leading to 'severe conges- tion" on Penn ` BEST BUY: To Pace t3A °i �-� m ° Lm . . 'd v Qm _ '..y'G '.a . `�°+8 m, Q • '�' � ����••.... • A + �a m .s ' '�m }° � ••� � y eo PtA74° ,. ' CN O .� m rvfO °m °3 ,D i -N d t'� + t O av ml - _.m Ri. ..' +- .om Cw •.,.S • .'A�.� sCLm ,; , . .o O m > . pO o Gm . •mt'v V v om= , �m m � Q, i , ' :a � p yOS.am•�m >". ...� qC.. ', . m � R� ~ m >m . p�� o Qm g m a m �r >� c`H R~ m � 3 c��m ' �° Bm � .�m � � �>, ohi -�'m m v a � .•�°vs .m m ��o y .o °, 7 • . m m w :Q�0. . . PA m m m '.. r^•m.a U c -. � GJ�m �>m F@ m 4 3 'L, •t3 �o R>] o .� b Q 'o ti aH e tw o n m 0 o O m o m m �0 C) ;'Z �mR' e 2 N, m to A4) Cd +3 0 mwom � mG d a o H LD A m ' m , Pa. 0 o y m to Do B' 2 H P' 0, 4 12 o U A- 0 co m +a -9 y @ 4 b °g 0 m .5 106 � mv to a a w +> ep o m 'ire V m .[ y • " .� Q V F m -•» D >, r•y •rcm •0 . a• aam i s � m. O � W Q q �=p -i •�� @ + A mmm '^-f7 ' ' am'a •'r F .,f. , •a +,� : � a .o m '✓ ., q " w ° .-S;w r1 .oCa . •.ry m �Om3S ''. • Lq°C3 7 ++O A> . bO w n ,c°Q ti .,• .�C H •0 :a-a�+ * t aem S s �C � 0 0 m a M'Cd CD 03 oy✓�b G.lo- m aa � Q: , O '0 dm Cd O.M :3 -+v � H • H it•a 4 m p Z .g zO ms S . •+O 5:4 G 0 m +2 ^.O m ld Z. c 0 114 7 m �5 oF%. 9 49 -4-S QA y m d+>�m+ + i :2yN . y 3 °� • , �O ° m � + VnaHi i i 9•r ti rm m m to g:g °'b R. r m O G3.�.Q m m ^r+ m � a � m c vF, :�'• '-� R.m a p'O - '° t w >t b tAi A.m m ma aace - mo 5 m a'o��b >m w m - tioo�r. g ;skm zs Cdp 3> 8 Q= oc� ..mom yo• mo moi of oaDam 0 oC69 r�i• »� m ,°, � a y •° � f,w F, ea m � b Rz- -sd m .>i � ai m o�.� m °off' 'v m x A A W {, ai r-i 10. ° " '4 Co o ,a •� m at y m � 'es 3 Fi m Aw> >,_�.��mce b.,� a;�q.,oc'Q0�mIm pdr a n A o m m m 3 o- o R• > F, ot- '�y• ^�+� m b N o 0.o �QrcmV; mp�p +c0'o 'dr �mf.v.a cRoQ�� mai.CO w 7 r.. io.C.44iC^". @a'obZm�mq �y 4. fy .Q �y O A /„� [0 m m U ° 0 L+ .'y Q m m— 'C O of id P.- 10% Co..mm�;mm wa. �4y .�++.t7 @R mq mUG.bm > b�c�w oiaom om".a a °: �"� @ m ato A m m W CJ •.. o Cti £� sl .' ° m R � wm w 4Q � U •� � x @ q � "qm � n ° ' , a c°s ' }a ' c co� o � ran d W 'c$ s mm ,ld rC ti , ' �� � W a •�JNR1 �WF+ I °m' AR' � » 5� . W ° -'a m ^� a . ' o'3'�e4 s ,o�.r� > : o• rEe � � � v bgm v��q °m , . Iat C �ms + � ' >' CO � mm o . m m' 8 o Nm mm cV I mm ° a RR m :1 m a 4 ° 92 . ' eQed i o old � � It to '2 ° m T � °E. x �o � � Q � 7 qq m ..ID a t b O NO W O P4 > ° .c a . 4 G� i O °o4'om Q °�.. tm a •.. m omm o ° mw+., mol c> m A 4D � m dAL 2'3. .ti mo m 10 43 4D ,4:g � a,-•. m p � O .w +; m � CL's' f3 � � @ .a " �, at +' � � = �'t7 c0 M M 3 a t� .� m b an +: �., +' to �O�uy"�0Q@�s�G�+mao; ��Kr';ao m °gwoa Qj} C y m N > ,O V MV. c0 .••r �a H O +� > O =� >a m O ° m 'tj to p, m U. w >, ►• rC W d Q 'S3 'a W S44 3 COD ,f.' ba m o c >' *• 3 m o^ °' 3.� ll .bq m�3 �a�° 5fa9�.'°�+ �..� m � rr m m ct ° '4 k ! :& od � o R c4 ' o ci Cu moo cc o >"D, .0 . � m � F•i •yr @ 0.0'0 Q, � >, °' 'b 'a► •m� m " '21.4 4 '1 3 +2 .m� wu4) E-� o m 2 H w r -0,2 m E' o c �o A2 m a, 0 SO m'3W . ^ � R f - m m' V V m Kyy�yi y m m N N m m 1. " O qqm r O c .�.s �O � r , � c • co 0 0 ~aa ,,yym�� --u C ,ij o m o c ° ° °' ;l ca V. a: m o $'ss a w^ troq a °moo °gyp m� mho b"'paQ'Ci � mC4 aA�, ¢• A,o°�a ° oAra..m� xm�'•�+ti�'eit�m 'so ° e5a v c mfoo ..���A>. a m 3 m y m y° pq�•�gy m,'�mpmi3,�m$ a�OO wm.m . .Q��>, o. ad m y°QsW a- omm ARy @-vwA O+ai ,a qm°°.°�+� •Q 'a�mI&.ga^.°a °3m DA H m Iw o CJ .'!r1 a At m r m ,� O O e eo Dr ,, +Os oe m m m V � W o pp Q Q r3 i ..•r i•t 00 _ m eo a% W O @ �m L� ,e^ D V m ,� m m m '� 0° R O d �O y '� G 1.7t a m '�' ; • c0 c"� t� n co m s. 'D 'a iI yy OD ►�r m w m a� �1 `q �i cy Lj r9 m . ar O 'b O ... m o .+3Q'�r5i' E1'm ad �+''ai'bmt,'.fl "� mmo�gE p'°Rri}�0°° a � ,� m N awe >, F m �+r° of tr " �[A o m @ F@�+ �w kb 0,0.0 � .mom �� «t a � a� mW m O wo o �',° I .0000 _ m mIe*� c�y+q cW.fl 1 p.m !b� >�, n'sf sm.�i•'. >rm o1 4. m ° m Q m.� �+ o"��angqd > Q m - >r � a Qo.� Fr @wP4 m + m 0� v;� arQ�. .G 'O i V1 a O 0,0000 1 i AW • _ Q .� 0 o v h = m�V d � V H o� 3 O O .. z V y . C C. �- 0 M. u 0 tL E V, t m. n- m d & CL .Oo� N • C C' Ors V � ,p Wq 20 06, d� ,F- r. Q 0 M.�4 -a3_ •.+ N = Q,O C .N E � 'a C 0>>'�•N p •h-cU �,C CL 4) Cc Nv=CM m cu c ^ w` V � � �` W 00 -a ., A\ > A, O m�.o "= a CO ca N d O d N 3 ' cn cc o ,_ o" m10 cc MM, � R C E cc O 0.0 N �♦,y.. Ey� C -.. wto_ E tr.- -, N o�.�� 'NL 0> =Qw CL = U.Ccpsn s�..� m � ca �• d . ° N N C R = 'N 2I'Z G� '.a E+ C » >..o� , °wW a'Q o � > E _#, C 0 CL s P.2cww -5 M E■®® 0 M a 0 M M M M MMMIW i lill It 111111IRREMERN 0 am O lug low .o"00 101, c ' V _ 0. ro 0 0 C 0 rawL � � V E V d w o i d o m Z � �s r to � o d 3 ' .E := a, si 3 0O art O C d o ". `•"- "t � s d moo N N >- .� 0► O. r Or N h us Ud d a 0. VIA # u d y 3 O Cd 0 O Q E Q. •o E+°;°' U. >+ •0to� � vn.3aNiE a :� N Qi .'►.. CL r ++ V = G N ii O C � oo� > O mW fir.• C 3V 0 �mcr a s N � m� a as L E•O 0 L t m co fl. O > 0. cc is Q •p +� tNl! L c R n O.a,Ndm E a N N a C 3 V i a c 2 L ®a m f c O >, Ck. c N > Cr CL m 3 0 m c r: ra N �•. O > �.. •, O V W O d N > Q � 2 A d m 0 fl. > t!1 •�. N N V Meet nCs slated on Be BUTProposal The city of Richfield, Best BUY >and Vpus Northwest will conduct open houses to f discuss the Best Buy cam - pus development :Z4iesday, Sept. 19, and Thursday, Sept. 21. The open houses will fea -. tore a site plan for the cam_ Pus. Pinned road improve - ments, information on the P %feces Environmental im- pact Statement and a con- estruction timeline. Citysta& . and representatives -of Best Buy and Opus will- be on ,J hand-to answer questions: The open houses will be ; from 4.30 p-m. to 8 p.m. at ' Richfield Middle School, 7461 Oliver Ave. S. Information: 612 -861- 9760. J FAX: 612-861-9749 Press =Release: O Commun�tiy Develo`ptYient For more information, call: Julie Urban or John Stark 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612- 861 -9700 For Release: October 26, 2000 Date: October 26, 2000 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BEST BUY CAMPUS Notice is hereby given that a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Best Buy Campus project is available. The proposed 42.85 -acre campus is located southeast of Penn Avenue and 76th Street, and northwest of Interstate 35W (1 -35W) and Interstate 494 (I -494). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) consists of the minor changes to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the written comments received on the DEIS, a summary of the verbal comments made at the September 13, 2000 public information meeting, and the responses to all comments on the DEIS. The project will include the demolition of single family houses, duplexes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures to accommodate the construction of four to five office buildings, with an expected minimum development of approximately 1.5 million square feet to create offices for up to 7,500 employees, and up to a maximum development of 1.9 million square feet to create offices for up to 9,500 employees. The alternative with the expected square footage will include parking spaces for up to 7,500 cars; the alternative with the maximum square footage will include parking spaces for up to 9,500 cars. The FEIS is available for review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota and at Augsburg Park Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7100 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, and at the Southdale Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7001 York Avenue, Edina, Minnesota. Comments on the FEIS are invited from the public during the official comment period which ends on November 13, 2000. Comments should be in writing and should be addressed to: Ms. Julie Urban Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Comments can be mailed to Ms. Urban or dropped off at Richfield City Hall. Questions about the FEIS or the comment process will be answered by Ms. Urban or John Stark, Community Development Manager, at 6121861- 9760. ### BEST BUY CAMPUS PROPOSED TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for: Best Buy Co., Inc. Prepared by: BRW, Inc. December 11, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GOAL OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................1 1.1 Goal ................................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Objectives and Strategies to Achieve Goal ....................... ..............................1 1.3 Development of Goal ........................................................ ..............................2 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ ..............................5 2.1 Initial Steps for TDM Plan ................................................ ..............................5 2.2 Existing Policies ................................................................ ..............................6 2.3 Project Description ............................................................ ..............................6 2.4 Access to Transit ............................................................... ..............................8 3. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ................ .............................10 3.1 Promote Transit Use ........................................................ .............................10 3.2 Promote Car Pooling ....................................................... ..............................1 l 3.3 Promote Van Pooling ...................................................... .............................11 3.4 Promote Bicycle Use ........................................................ .............................12 3.5 Promote Tel ecommuting .................................................. .............................12 3.6 Promote Staggered Hours ................................................ .............................13 3.7 Promote Flex -time ........................................................... .............................13 3.8 Move Majority of Deliveries Outside of AM/PM Peak Hours .....................13 3.9 Integrate TDM Efforts Through Campus Transportation Coordinator ......... 13 3.10 Metro Commuter Services Support ............................... .............................14 3.11 Travel Demand Management Plan Budget .................... .............................15 3.12 Proposed Evaluation Program ........................................ .............................16 4. SUPPORTING AGENCIES .............................................. .............................17 4.1 Metro Transit ................................................................... .............................17 4.2 Minnesota Valley Transit ................................................. .............................17 4.3 Southwest Metro Transit .................................................. .............................17 4.4 I -494 Corridor Coalition .................................................. .............................17 4.5 Metro Commuter Services ............................................... .............................18 Best Buy Campus December II, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -i Best Buy Campus December Il, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -ii 1.0 GOAL OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN This Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Best Buy Campus in Richfield, Minnesota, identifies actions to be taken by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy), with support from Metro Commuter Services and other transportation organizations. It includes strategies to manage travel demand and minimize site - generated traffic during peak traffic periods. The development of this TDM Plan has been done in coordination with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, Metro Commuter Services (MCS), and the I -494 Corridor Commission. 1.1 GOAL The TDM Plan goal is to cut the trips to the Best Buy Campus in each peak hour by 450 to 750 trips. 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE GOAL Best Buy will pursue the following objectives and strategies to achieve its TDM Plan goal. 1.2.1 Objectives and Strategies Promote Transit Use • Build a transit friendly Campus • Increase transit service to the Campus • Provide financial incentives for transit use • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate transit information widely and regularly Promote Car Pooling • Provide preferential parking spaces • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate car pool information widely and regularly Promote Van Pooling • Provide preferential parking spaces • Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate van pool information widely and regularly Promote Bicycle Use • Build a bicycle friendly Campus • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -1 Promote Telecommuting • Adopl' corporate policies which encourage telecommuting • Evaluate policies to identify barriers Promote Staggered Hours • Identify groups of employees whose jobs are applicable to working staggered hours • Identify appropriate schedules outside of the peak travel hours Promote Flex -time • Adopt corporate policies which encourage flexible work arrangements • Concentrate business meetings in core business hours • Program employee activities during the AM and PM peak hours Move Majority of Deliveries Outside of the AM and PM Peak Hours • Schedule weekday truck and service deliveries outside the AM and PM peak hours (This does not include Fed Ex and UPS -type deliveries) • Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible 1.2.2 Integrate All TDM Plan Efforts Through a Campus Transportation Coordinator Establish the position of Campus Transportation Coordinator in Year 2001 Give the Coordinator the Authority to Implement the TDM Plan Give the Coordinator the Authority to Pursue Corporate Policies which Promote Travel Demand Management 1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF GOAL 1.3.1 TDM Plan Goal Best Buy has identified a goal with the measurable objective of reducing the number of daily trips in the AM and PM peak hours by 450 to 750 at its new Campus. 1.3.2 Rationale for TDM Plan Goal This goal has been based on the results of the Employee Distribution Inventory conducted in May 2000 and the Employee Survey conducted in July 2000. The Distribution Inventory identified high concentrations of employees living in south Minneapolis, and in the south, southwest, and west suburbs of Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Prior Lake, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -2 The Employee Survey had a 30 percent response rate (approximately 1,300 employees) and indicated the following for those "likely" or "most likely" to try alternative modes of transportation: • 23% willing to try car pool • 16% willing to try the bus • 25% willing to try a van pool With these two key pieces of information, Best Buy met with the three service providers in these areas to demonstrate the opportunities to provide feasible bus service to the site as well as influencing opportunities to expand service along the I -494 Corridor with other large employers. In response to these visits, a number of actions are taking place. • Metro Transit has prepared a draft service plan that includes five routes to the Best Buy Campus site. • Both Southwest Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit are working directly with Best Buy now to set up car /vanpools to the existing locations. Encouraging car /vanpool use now, will begin to change the mindset of employees to alternative modes of transportation. • Best Buy will continue to work with the service providers to provide bus service to the site and to expand the car / vanpool programs. • Twelve zip code parties are taking place in Fall 2000 to develop car /van pools and distribute information. 1.3.3 Incentive to Implement Successful TDM Plan A key incentive for Best Buy to implement a successful TDM Plan is to avoid the need to replace the 476 parking spaces that will be lost to the I -494 widening in the Year 2011. Those parking spaces would be replaced in the parking ramp structure at a cost of approximately $5.7 to$6.3 million dollars. Since the TDM Plan is not required for traffic mitigation, this establishes a tangible target, with a financial incentive to Best Buy, for a successful TDM Plan. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -3 1.3.4 Achieving the TDM Plan Goal The site plan shows 7,500 parking spaces, of which 300 spaces are allocated for visitor parking, indicating that 4% of employees would need to use alternative times /modes of transportation. With the loss of 476 parking spaces due to I -494 widening, at least an additional 6% of employees will need to join the alternative times /modes group. This could be achieved, as follows: Mode # of Peak Hour Trips Reduced Bus 225 Car Pools 200 Staggered Hours 100 Flexible Hours 75 Van Pools 75 Telecommutina 75 750 Staggered Work Schedules Best Buy has already identified approximately 100 employees who will work staggered hours (as shown above) and will need parking, but will commute outside of the peak travel hours. These include cafeteria, janitorial, Fitness Center and daycare staff. Flexible Work Hours In addition, Best Buy will promote flexible work hours for employees. Approximately 16 percent in the AM.and 30 percent in the PM of employees surveyed indicated a preference to start/end work outside of the peak travel hours. 1.3.5 Success of TDM Plan The Success of the TDM Plan is dependent on a number of factors, including: • Financial benefit/cost savings • Decreased commuting time • Decreased commuting stress • Bus service to the site Best Buy Campus December II, 2000 . Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -4 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 INITIAL STEPS FOR TDM PLAN Best Buy has undertaken a number of initial actions to develop a successful TDM Plan for the new Best Buy Campus, including the following: • Developed and Administered a Survey of All Employees. The survey, administered during the week of July 10, 2000, has provided helpful information on employee commuting habits and the steps to be taken to encourage employees to use alternative forms of transportation. Metropolitan Council was involved in the development of this survey. • Compiled an Employee Distribution Inventory. The inventory was conducted in May 2000 and identifies the home location of all full -time employees to help determine the origin of work trips to the new Best Buy Campus (i.e. the "travel shed "). Conducted Initial Meetings With Representatives From Transportation Organizations. Prior to the issuance of the Draft TDM Plan, Best Buy representatives met with representatives from Metro Transit, the City of Richfield, MnDOT and the 1 -494 Corridor Coalition to discuss and share ideas, and get input on initial elements of the TDM Plan. In May 2000, the Golden Triangle Transportation Management Association (TMA) was officially launched, in a partnership between the City of Eden Prairie, the Metropolitan Council, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Best Buy met with representatives from the Golden Triangle TMA based in Eden Prairie which is the location of existing Best Buy offices. Best Buy joined the Golden Triangle TMA in July 2000 as an active participant with a $5,000 annual financial commitment. • Held initial meetings with Hennepin County. Best Buy met with Hennepin County in April 2000 to discuss site design features that would support and encourage transit use and/or car and van pooling to the Project Site. • Incorporated "Transit-Friendly" Design Features. One of Best Buy's objectives has been to develop a transit - friendly site design. Coordination meetings have been held with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Metro Transit, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Metropolitan Council, the I -494 Corridor Commission, the developer, and the transportation consultant to accomplish this goal. Access to transit has been incorporated into the site plan with a bus turnaround into the site from 76"' Street, with appropriate turning radius, access and drop -off. Employees who ride the bus will wait inside the building protected from the weather and have good site lines to view the approach of the bus. The Penn Avenue South northbound bus stop will be located just north of the Best Buy access drive. This is the shortest and safest route for transit riders to access the building. In addition, it has the least impact to peak hour traffic movements at this access point to the Campus and allows Best Buy Campus December Il, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -5 adequate distance for the bus left -turn movement to go west on 76`h Street. The southbound Penn Avenue bus stop is anticipated to be directly opposite the northbound stop. • Designated a Human Resources Employee. Best Buy has designated a Human Resources Employee for the next two years to explore the feasibility and implementation of a number of strategies and policy decisions-to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the peak hour. 2.2 EXISTING POLICIES Best Buy currently uses a number of travel demand management strategies at its existing facilities to support employees' use of alternative modes of transportation to single occupancy vehicles. They include: 0 Designated preferential parking was initiated in January 1998 for approximately 120 car /van pools at existing facilities, indicating that approximately 4 percent of Best Buy employees either car or van pool. • Began a telecommuting policy in some departments in 1999. • Provided bike racks for 40 bicycles at the existing Best Buy facilities. • Began the informal use of flexible work schedules by some employees. • Currently working with Southwest Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit to set up car /vanpools at existing Best Buy office locations. • Twelve zip code parties are taking place to develop car /van pools (started September 2000). 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.3.1 Overview The proposed Best Buy Campus will be located north of Interstate Highway 494 (I -494), west of Interstate Highway 35W (I -35W), and south of 7e Street, between Penn and Knox Avenues in Richfield (Project Site or Site). The Project Site is approximately 43 acres in size, and is currently fully developed. The Best Buy Campus is expected to be completed in late summer of 2002. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the Site by constructing four to five buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking facilities for 7,500 cars (the expected level of redevelopment), and a maximum of 1.9 million square feet and parking for 9,500 cars. The Project will also include road improvements on 76`h Street from the intersection with Penn Avenue east to the I -35W west ramps, on Penn Avenue between 76a' and the access to Best Buy Campus December ll, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -6 Southtown just north of 80th Street where the Penn Avenue bridge over I -494 will be completely rebuilt. The Project will be constructed as one complete development and no future phases are anticipated. Best Buy's current office facilities are located in nine separate locations within the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, accommodating approximately 3,200 employees. The expected level of development of the Best Buy Campus would accommodate 7,500 employees. Work Hours — The proposed campus will operate similarly to Best Buy's existing office buildings. Most employees work standard eight to nine hour days, Monday through Friday, with flexible work hours generally between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Amenities — The office complex will include standard workstations; office spaces; conference and team spaces; file and storage space; and adequate on -site employee parking. A common use area will include an employee cafeteria, a day care facility, a fitness center, and a convenience store with dry cleaning pickup. Conceptual Design — Two building layout concepts are now being considered for the project. Both could accommodate the expected and maximum square footage and parking spaces by adding floors to one or more buildings and levels to the parking ramps. These conceptual alternatives are further described below and in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Site Access - Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue and on 76`h Street at Newton Avenue. 2.3.2 Design Alternatives Two alternatives are being evaluated in the DEIS. Each of these alternatives has an expected development scenario (Option A) and a maximum development scenario (Option B) as follows: Option A: The total space developed for the expected development would be 1,500,000 square feet. The parking spaces provided would total 7,500. Option B: The total space developed for the maximum development would be 1,900,000 square feet. The parking spaces provided would total 9,500. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -7 Alternative 1 - Site Plan Alternative Alternative I includes five buildings that would be clustered around a central pond that would extend out in two directions to form water features among the buildings. An additional one -story common use area would be constructed between two of the buildings. The five office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of three stories and a maximum of 11. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps — one on the south of the Project Site, one at the northwest corner of the Site and one along the northeasterly portion of the Site, ranging in height from two levels to five levels. A surface lot would also be included along the southern portion of the Site. Alternative 2 - Proposed Project Alternative 2 includes four buildings, located in the southwest half of the Project Site, which would be connected by a one -story common use area, with several ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the Site. The four office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of six stories and a maximum of nine. Parking would be provided primarily in one large parking structure on the northeast half of the Site. This structure would have from five to six levels. A surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the Site. 2.3.3 76th Street Reconstruction Alternatives The City of Richfield will require upgrades to 76th Street between I -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of the Project. However, the preliminary design for these improvements has not yet been determined. Therefore, the DEIS analyzes three different road improvement alternatives for 76th Street, including one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway with some combination to the north and south of the existing right -of -way. 2.4 ACCESS TO TRANSIT 2.4.1 Existing Services There is a park -and -ride lot on the north side of 76th Street at Oliver Avenue South just across the street from the Project Site. This lot is shared with the Woodlake Lutheran Church. Existing bus service to the Site is provided by Metro Transit Routes 4, 35C, and 46/47. Route 4 is a local all day service along Penn Avenue between Downtown Minneapolis (Downtown) and the Site; the 35C is an express bus with 20- minute service between Downtown and the Site during the peak hours; and the 46/47 provides all day service via 35W between Downtown and the Site. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -8 The existing Route 590 currently uses 82"d Street as the east -west route between I -35W and Edina. Discussions with Metro Transit indicate that this route could be rerouted to use 76th Street with a stop at the Woodlake Lutheran Church to provide additional service to the Site. 2.4.2 Future Services Metro Transit is constructing the new 82"d Street/ I -35W Transit Hub that would provide additional bus service near the Site. Additionally, Metro Transit is evaluating transit service in the area as part of its "Transit Redesign" initiative. Since meeting with Metro Transit, they have developed a draft service plan that includes five routes to the Best Buy Campus site in Richfield. It is anticipated that new bus routes will be in place when the Best Buy Campus becomes operational in 2002. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -9 3.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN This section describes the Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Best Buy Campus and the programs and strategies to support Best Buy employees in the use of alternative modes of transportation, telecommuting, staggered work hours, and flexible work hours. Best Buy proposes to undertake the actions described below. 3.1 PROMOTE TRANSIT USE Build a transit friendly Campus • Incorporated design features at the 76th Street entrance to the Site to accommodate buses, including a convenient area for passengers to wait inside the building with good site lines to view the approach of the bus. • Investigate installing an automatic signal device that gives preference to buses exiting the Site at 76th Street. • Construct a bus stop on Penn Avenue to provide convenient access for employees. This will reduce traffic flow interruptions caused by buses. • Construct passenger waiting areas that incorporate conduit and other features to accommodate the installation of electronic signs /monitors to display real -time transit information, when available. Increase transit service to the Campus • Continue to meet with Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit and Southwest Metro Transit to discuss service to the Best Buy Campus site. • Continue to coordinate with Metro Transit and others to incorporate transit features and amenities into the Site. • Continue to participate with transit providers to change transit routes to increase bus ridership to the Project Site and surrounding area. Provide financial incentives for transit use • Offer employees discounted bus passes through the MetroPass and /or TransitWorks! programs. • Provide on -site sale of bus passes to Best Buy employees. • Provide transit- related tax benefit information to Best Buy employees. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program. GRH is available to all employees who ride the bus, carpool, vanpool, bike or walk to work at least three days per week. Eligible employees who complete a GRH registration form receive two vouchers for a bus or taxi ride home in the event of an emergency. Registration is renewable upon voucher expiration. Disseminate transit information widely and regularly • Provide materials to inform employees of available bus routes, stops and schedules. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -10 • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Transit web site for trip planning services. • Construct an information kiosk located centrally in the commons area to provide information on bus service and other transportation alternatives. • Conduct several Commuter Fairs annually in conjunction with Metro Commuter Services to inform and assist employees in learning about alternative transportation opportunities. • Promote alternative modes of transportation as part of the Bus/Bike Or Pool (B- BOP) program undertaken each spring by Metro Commuter Services. This one - day event promotes using alternative forms of transportation. 3.2 PROMOTE CAR POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide up to 275 parking spaces for car poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services. t Disseminate carpool information widely and regularly • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Commuter Services web site which offers an online ride matching service and other information on forming car and van pools. • Provide information on ridesharing and other transportation alternatives as part of Best Buy's regular internal communications with employees. 3.3 PROMOTE VAN POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide up to 25 parking spaces for van poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Continue to explore opportunities for vans to be provided to vanpoolers through SouthWest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • . Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.I This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -11 Disseminate van pool information widely and regularly • Prrovide tax benefit information to vanpoolers and offer the Commuter Check program. (The Commuter Check program is a voucher program that allows employers and employees to take advantage of federal and state tax breaks.) 3.4 PROMOTE BICYCLE USE Build a bicycle friendly Campus • Provide bike storage for up to 80 bicycles (this is an approximate number, it will be adjusted to fulfill Best Buy employee needs). • Provide shower and locker facilities in the fitness center. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.2 Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly • Promote alternative modes of transportation as part of the Bus /Bike Or Pool (B- BOP) program undertaken each spring by Metro Commuter Services. This one - day event promotes using alternative forms of transportation to the single occupant vehicle. 3.5 PROMOTE TELECOMMUTING Adopt corporate policies that encourage telecommuting • Best Buy has a policy that encourages the practice of telecommuting in some departments, it is currently used by very few of its employees. Evaluate policy to identify barriers • Best Buy has assigned a task force to investigate the barriers to telecommuting and ways to increase its use. 3.6 PROMOTE STAGGERED HOURS Identify groups of employees whose jobs are applicable to working staggered hours • Approximately 100 employees (of the 7,500) will provide services such as maintenance of the building, cafeteria help, etc. The staggered work schedules for these employees will move trips outside of the AM and PM peak travel hours. Although these employees will need parking, they will have staggered work hours and arrive in shifts outside of the peak traffic periods. 2 This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -12 Identify Staggered Schedules outside of the peak travel hours #/Tvue of EmuIovees Hours 50 Janitorial staff 3:00 pm to 2:00 am 30 Cafeteria staff 6:00 am to 3:00 pm 5 Fitness Center staff early and late starts 30 Daycare staff (staggered) 6:00 am to 6:00 pm 3.7 PROMOTE FLEX -TIME In addition to staggered work schedules, Best Buy will promote flexible work hours for employees. Adopt corporate policies that encourage flexible work arrangements • Provide flexible work arrangements for employees (with supervisors' permission) that encourage employees to arrive and/or leave outside of peak hour travel times. Concentrate business meetings in core business hours Program employee activities during the AM and PMpeak hours • Program employee activities during the peak hour to encourage travel at non -peak periods, ie: Fitness, Wellness Programs 3.8 MOVE MAJORITY OF DELIVERIES OUTSIDE OF THE AM AND PM PEAK HOURS Schedule weekday truck and service deliveries outside the AM and PMpeak hours • Best Buy will implement a policy that encourages truck and/or service deliveries to occur outside of Monday through Friday peak -hour traffic times.3 Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible 3.9 INTEGRATE ALL TDM PLAN EFFORTS THROUGH A CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR Establish the position of Campus Transportation Coordinator Best Buy will designate a Campus Transportation Coordinator (Coordinator) for the Best Buy Campus, who will be responsible for implementing, administering, and monitoring the programs described in the TDM Plan.4 3 This would not include Fed Ex and UPS -type deliveries. 4 This will be a 100% Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position for the first three years, 2001 -2003. After the first three years, the position will be evaluated to determine the appropriate time commitment. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -13 Specifically, the Coordinator will be responsible for the following: • Maintain on -site information kiosks. • Distribute new employee orientation information. • Oversee the on -site sale of transit passes. • Provide information on transportation alternatives to employees. • Inform employees and administrators of associated tax benefits. • Oversee Best Buy's ridesharing programs. • Communicate with Best Buy employees on a regular basis regarding transportation alternatives. Give the Coordinator the Authority to Implement the TDM Plan • The Coordinator will have the opportunity to connect to the regional ridematching software provided by MCS. The Coordinator will then be able to ridematch employees on demand, giving them options for car or vanpooling including individuals with which to pool, park -and -ride locations, pool registration, the Guaranteed Ride Home registration and local bike routes. • The Coordinator will also have the ability to connect to the Metro Transit internet site to do on- demand bus trip planning for employees. • The Coordinator will coordinate its services and programs with those offered by the various transportation providers in the area. Give the Coordinator the Authority to Pursue Corporate Policies which Promote Travel Demand Management The Coordinator will serve as Best Buy's liaison with transportation providers in the area. 3.10 METRO COMMUTER SERVICES SUPPORT Metro Commuter Services (MCS) will support the implementation of the Best Buy Draft TDM Plan as follows: • Take the lead in rideshare matching for the formation of car and vanpools by employees. MCS is the regional clearing house for rideshare matching. • Provide information to Best Buy on the MetroPass and TransitWorks! programs, and other discounted bus pass options. • Provide the Best Buy Campus Transportation Coordinator with information packets concerning transportation choices for distribution to all Best Buy employees. • Provide information to Best Buy employees on the Guaranteed Ride Home program sponsored by MCS. • Assist Best Buy with promotional events and other initiatives related to informing employees of available transportation alternatives. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -14 W Q a H z z z A W ri A 0 w W r ry W .a N fl 13 r =s �q C U � o O O O O O O O O O O cQ O O O N N r r r 6�4 r r r r bN9 0 U 0 0 0 0 o O °v° o 0 0 0 L. 0 o o ° o A v> 69 r [� N r 116 N O O r r -••� 69 N [— 69 69 69 69 69 O O O a' O 6o9 ON 69 69 y W O M a 0 � ° o 0 ° a, o o F U ' r3 -Z .sz • V N �V, W o O x N st O ti Q M +�. 69 Q N '4)tn UUto!) o �U ° o In 000 o 4 ti o�� o O U w cd A W cd {i o V w va o°o o o ° �cd ° om w 9 O 5 z a _w o in O 0 ca ;6 Q. V) O c* w a cls N lo y '�' 4: w v, �.� o .� N s~ . E"'r Z 'y ° eQ ) N _ ° b o = ° N a iz j o � o A U a ww n 0m O P. r ry W .a N fl 13 r =s �q C U � o O 3.12 PROPOSED EVALUATION PROGRAM 3.12.1 Survey Employees As noted earlier, Best Buy has conducted a survey of its employees' current commuting habits and needs. • The Best Buy Commuter Survey was developed in coordination with the Metropolitan Council. • The survey findings will be used as a base -line to evaluate the effectiveness of the TDM Plan. • Best Buy will survey employees one year after move -in to the Best Buy Campus to determine commuting patterns and needs. This will help determine how the TDM Plan is working. Follow -up surveys may be implemented, with assistance from MCS, every two years to monitor the effectiveness of the TDM Plan. 3.12.2 TDM Plan Status Report The Campus Transportation Coordinator will review the TDM Plan one year after move -in to determine its effectiveness, and will document the results in a Status Report. The Status Report will be sent to MCS for review and recommendation and to the Metropolitan Council for review. Subsequent reviews will take place every two years. The Status Report will document the initial survey of employees, efforts of Best Buy to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles and the results in terms of number of transit users, car poolers, bikers, pedestrians, and employees taking advantage of flex -time, staggered hours, and telecommuting options. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -16 4.0 SUPPORTING AGENCIES The following agencies are expected to provide services that directly support Best Buy's TDM plan: Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, SouthWest Metro Transit, the I -494 Corridor Commission and Metro Commuter Services. Currently, there is very little bus service provided in the vicinity of the Project Site. Coordination with each of these agencies will be needed to provide increased transit service to the Site in order for Best Buy to achieve its TDM goals. An overview of each agency is provided below. 4.1 METRO TRANSIT Metro Transit is the largest transit provider for the Twin Cities metropolitan area and operates as a division of the Metropolitan Council. Metro Transit's service area includes the City of Richfield. 4.2 MINNESOTA VALLEY TRANSIT Minnesota Valley provides a variety of public transit services to residents in Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan, Prior Lake, Savage and Rosemount. Major destinations from these cities include downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, the Mall of America and the Minnesota Zoo. A large number of existing Best Buy employees live in the area served by Minnesota Valley Transit. 4.3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT SouthWest Metro provides public transit services to the residents of Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Shakopee to destinations throughout the metropolitan area. A large number of existing Best Buy employees live in the area served by SouthWest Metro Transit. 4.4 I -494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION The I -494 Corridor Commission is a Joint Powers Organization (JPO) of seven cities that are working together to reduce congestion along the I -494 corridor by working with affected businesses and public agencies to reduce travel demand. Their mission is to promote the improvement of I494 from the Minnesota River in Bloomington to I -94 in Maple Grove, in order to increase the people- moving capacity of I -494, and to improve the productivity and convenience of businesses and residents throughout the region. Members include the Cities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. Partners include the Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, Maple Grove Transit, Plymouth Metrolink and Hennepin County. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -17 4.5 METRO COMMUTER SERVICES The development of this TDM has been done in coordination with Metro Commuter Services (MCS), the Twin Cities area regional commuter transportation agency. As part of the Metropolitan Council, MCS promotes the planning, development and implementation of commuter options that decrease traffic congestion by improving both the effectiveness and efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure. MCS offers direct assistance to employers who seek to promote commuter options. For example, MCS works with employers to assess the current transportation situation and commuting needs of its employees through the MCS Commuter Survey. MCS also assists employers through the Finding Alternative Sources of Transportation (FAST) Plan. Other services offered by MCS include ride matching services, subsidies for start-up vans of five or more passengers, and the Guaranteed Ride Home program. MCS also provides transit information; MCS can identify all the routes and park -and -ride lots available to employees for their commute. In addition, MCS can investigate the option of reverse commuting from inner city to suburb, and from suburb to suburb, thereby broadening the available employee pool. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -18 0 Is • AGENDA SECTION: PCLL)hG ctrf.n AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # =' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Plaza Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Plaza Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Plaza Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Dorothy Krieger is the owner of the establishment. Her husband, Hal Krieger, is the manager. Neither individual has a known criminal record. 1211 PlazaPawnRenewal A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City. The $1500 bond will be provided as soon as possible. There were four Public Safety contacts with Plaza Pawn from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with four contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint involving graffiti. Plaza Pawn was notified and no further complaints have been received. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES Payment of the $1500 bond is received. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue their pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts • List of Officers VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Plaza Pawn representative PLAZA PAWN OFFICERS Dorothy Krieger Owner Hal Krieger Manager • is PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS O October 1999 — September 2000 PLAZA PAWN The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one theft, one received stolen property, one vandalism, and one burglary alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 4 4 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 4 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (3) Alarm (1) (1) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 0 0 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) OInspections /Licensing (0) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one theft, one received stolen property, one vandalism, and one burglary alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • is AGENDA SECTION: IOU- AGENDA ITEM # 7 A REPORT # 3 a,? J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 11 TUBE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. II BACKGROUND I On November 29, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mark Nichols is the owner of this establishment; James Thomas Blanche is the General manager; and John Alan Kunst is the acting Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1211 MetroPawnGun Renewal Mr. Nichols also owns Nichols Electronics, 1511 South Fourth Street in Minneapolis, MN, and he and his wife own Metro Pawn and Jewelry, 8820 Lyndale Avenue, Bloomington, MN. A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City. The $1500 bond will be submitted as soon as possible. There were 24 Public Safety contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with 13 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint this past year which involved an inoperable vehicle. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. was notified and no further complaints have been received. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. 1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES 0 N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A FM ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS Breakdown of Public Safety contacts List of officers VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Mark Nichols, Owner • James Thomas Blanche, General Manager • • fb Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. Officers Mark Nichols Owner James Thomas Blanche General Manager John Alan Kunst Store Manager • • L PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 — September 2000 Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one theft, one received stolen property, three suspicious persons, one threat, one suspicious vehicle, one follow -up investigation, one suspicious activity, one check forgery, nine burglary alarms, two robbery alarms, and one welfare check. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 13 24 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 22 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (11) Alarm (4) (11) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 3 2 Assists (1) (2) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections /Licensing (2) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one theft, one received stolen property, three suspicious persons, one threat, one suspicious vehicle, one follow -up investigation, one suspicious activity, one check forgery, nine burglary alarms, two robbery alarms, and one welfare check. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 0 • AGENDA SECTION: P0_b/ /G 1AEa qyS AGENDA ITEM # tp,L REPORT # 3ca% 0' 11 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Lt-'in /,, 4 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Subeck, Incorporated, d /b /a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Subeck, Incorporated, d /b /a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 27, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Subeck Incorporated, d /b /a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Scott Bechtel and Ketsana Bechtel are the owners of the establishment. Ketsana Bechtel continues to 1211 KetsanaRenewal serve as the General Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. The building and property continue to be owned by JSB Corporation, and the lease between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing General Star Indemnity Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 1999 through October 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 96% of the sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on -sale wine sales accounted for 4% of the total sales. There were three Public Safety contacts with Ketsana's Thai Restaurant from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with five contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 2000 regarding Ketsana's Thai Restaurant. On -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of an on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In March and July 1999, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. For their first offense, they paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. For the second offense, they paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. They have received no citations in the year 2000. LJ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Scott and Ketsana Bechtel, Owners of the establishment Ketsana's Thai Restaurant Ketsana Bechtel Owner and Manager Scott Bechtel Owner • • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 — September 2000 Ketsana's Thai Restaurant The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were theft and one property damage hit & run. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 5 3 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 2 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (2) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 3 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections /Licensing (2) (0) Medical /Fire (1) (0) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were theft and one property damage hit & run. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • • AGENDA SECTION: j0aA C'Ac t I/ q5 AGENDA ITEM # 6 k REPORT # ?o21rj J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: _ 1i C� SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Or 0, n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d /b /a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d /b /a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On November 12, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d /b /a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice - President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Kiang continues 1211 RedPepperRenewal to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mr. Kiang has no known criminal record. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Carlson Real Estate Company continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage has been received showing Farmers Insurance Group as affording the required coverage. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 98.98% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on -sale wine sales accounted for 1.02% of the total sales. There were two Public Safety contacts with Red Pepper from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares to five contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 2000 regarding Red Pepper. On -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. Red Pepper has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL None D. LEGAL None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Ricky Kiang, Owner of the establishment U Kiang's Red Pepper Inc. Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Ricky Kiang President, Vice - President, Secretary and Treasurer \J • • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 through September 2000 Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant The criminal contact from October 1999 through September 2000 was one Burglary alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 5 2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 1 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (0) Alarm (5) (1) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 0 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections /Licensing (0) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (0) The criminal contact from October 1999 through September 2000 was one Burglary alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 • AGENDA SECTION: P(/�_ I [ G f �Qr //)Q5 AGENDA ITEM # ca IJ REPORT # 3� �J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Frenchmans, 1400 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Frenchmans, 1400 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Frenchmans. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Mary Blake continues to serve as President. Dean Blake is serving as Vice - President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mary Blake will also continue serving as the General 1211 FrenchmansRenewal Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A 10 -year contract deed with William and Joan Snyder continues to be in effect with all payments current. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Country Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 1999 through October 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 54% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on -sale wine sales accounted for 46% of the total sales. There were seven Public Safety contacts with The Frenchmans from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with seventeen contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 2000 regarding The Frenchmans. On -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In July 1999, The Frenchmans was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This is their only violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dean and Mary Blake, Owners of the establishment • • is The Frenchmans Directors and Officers Mary Blake President and General Manager Dean Blake Vice - President, Secretary, and Treasurer E • F_ ►-- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 through September 2000 The Frenchmans The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: two suspicious persons, one burglary alarms, one property damage accident, one follow -up investigation, and one residential burglary. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 17 7 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 14 6 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (11) (5) Alarm (3) (1) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 3 1 Assists (2) (1) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections /Licensing (1) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: two suspicious persons, one burglary alarms, one property damage accident, one follow -up investigation, and one residential burglary. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • • AGENDA SECTION: PabhG/l� <.0 AGENDA ITEM # &_T REPORT # a 4 =' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: M REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: %l BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d /b /a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d /b /a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d /b /a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Richard Bruce Thompson continues to serve as President, and Richard Orville Thompson serves 1211 FiresidePizzaRenewal as Vice - President. Michelle Thompson serves as Secretary and Treasurer. Richard Bruce Thompson continues to serve as General Manager of the restaurant. is None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, David Miller, continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance will be provided as soon as possible. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has been submitted. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 92.5% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on -sale wine sales accounted for 7.5% of the total sales. There were ten Public Safety contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with three contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Thompson's Fireside Pizza in 2000. On -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Proof of liquor liability insurance must be submitted. • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Bruce and Michelle Thompson, Owners of the establishment • �'A 1] Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. Fireside Pizza Directors and Officers Richard B. Thompson Richard O. Thompson Michelle Thompson Richard B. Thompson President Vice - President Secretary and Treasurer General Manager • • • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 through September 2000 Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: three suspicious persons, two suspicious vehicles, two property damage accidents, one harassing phone call, and one found property. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 3 10 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 9 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (9) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 1 1 Assists (1) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections /Licensing (0) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: three suspicious persons, two suspicious vehicles, two property damage accidents, one harassing phone call, and one found property. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) lIl�`1' AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # =maim STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 Pccb1 ��l -1�, -teas (ol-4 3a3 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY fie, NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: i7 .gin �, n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis - Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2000, the City received an application and other required documents for the renewal of their club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Billy Stone serves as President; Don Sutherland serves as Vice - President; Mervyn Becker now serves as Treasurer; and Roger Wysong is serving as the new Club Manager. A copy of the list of officers is attached to this letter. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1211 LegionRenewali All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. The $10,000 bond will be submitted as soon as possible. The required proof of liquor liability and workers' compensation insurance coverage have been submitted and show CGU insurance affording the coverage. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 29% of the total sales while liquor sales accounted for 71 % of the total sales. There were 33 Public Safety contacts with the American Legion from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with 48 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There were no Environmental Health complaints received during this time period. Club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with resolution No. 8808, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on -sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In October 1999, the Richfield American Legion was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on -sale and Sunday liquor licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES Receipt of the $10,000 bond. • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers 0 • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • American Legion club officer • 0 Mpls — Richfield American Legion Billy Stone Don Southerton Mervyn Becker Roger Wysong President Vice - President Treasurer Club Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS O October 1999 — September 2000 Mpls- Richfield American Legion The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one suspicious activity, three suspicious persons, one domestic, one found property, one parking violation, two drunkeness, six disturbances, two theft, one no -pay, one warrant arrest, one property damage hit & run, and seven burglary alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 48 33 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 37 27 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (27) (20) Alarm (10) (7) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 11 6 Assists (1) (1) Traffic (1) (0) Inspections /Licensing (3) (0) Medical /Fire (6) (5) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one suspicious activity, three suspicious persons, one domestic, one found property, one parking violation, two drunkeness, six disturbances, two theft, one no -pay, one warrant arrest, one property damage hit & run, and seven burglary alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) C • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # �- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 & 3aa REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CmusTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: X L CO SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d /b /a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d /b /a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. III. BACKGROUND I On August 24, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.5555, Inc., d /b /a Four Nickels Food and Drink. City Council approved the re- issuance of their club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses on October 9, 2000, for their new location at 6715 Lake Shore Drive. This application is for renewal of their 2001 license. 1211 VFWRenewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has not changed. Harry LaVan serves as Commander; Boyd Tate serves as Sr. Vice Commander; and Gerald Hager serves as Quartermaster. The on- premise manager is Gin Ng. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramarcy Park Cooperative. The $10,0000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Commercial Union Insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period from August 1999 through July 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 10% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 90% of the total sales. Food totals are significantly lower than normal as a result of the size their building relocation site while their new building was being constructed. There were two Public Safety contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.5555 from August 1999 through July 2000. This compares with four contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding the V.F.W. in 2000. Club on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on -sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In July 1999, Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They were also cited in August 2000. This was their second violation. They paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on -sale and Sunday liquor licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL D. LEGAL IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Gin Ng, Manager of establishment V.F.W. 1999 Post Officers Harry LaVan Commander Boyd Tate Sr. Vice Commander Gerald Hager Quartermaster Gin Ng On- premise Manager • s 6 PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS August 1999 — July 2000 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST 5555 The criminal contact from August 1999 through July 2000 was one drunkeness. This compares to four contacts from the previous year. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 4 2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 1 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (1) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 0 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections /Licensing (0) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (1) The criminal contact from August 1999 through July 2000 was one drunkeness. This compares to four contacts from the previous year. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • j 9 p��� � i AGENDA SECTION: l Q tt1b 1 Gf'K�l-i' //)C S AGENDA ITEM # (0 REPORT # 3 a• l J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: to SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for GR of Minn., Inc., d /b /a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for GR of Minn., Inc., d /b /a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for GR of Minn., Inc., d /b /a The Ground Round. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: . The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Thomas J. Russo serves as Director; Mark Lawless serves as President and Treasurer; Richard Armstrong, Jr. now serves as Secretary; and Eric Krejcha serves as the on 1211 Ground Round Renewal premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, A.G. Bogen Company, is in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Royal Indemnity Insurance Co. of America as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been submitted. A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 60.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 39.5% of the total sales. There were 40 Public Safety contacts with The Ground Round from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with 25 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 2000 regarding snow on the sidewalk. The Ground Round was notified and no further complaints have been received. On -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of an on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license. The notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In March 1999, The Ground Round was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They have not been cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth in the year 2000. • I* III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The Ground Round staff THE GROUND ROUND Officers and Directors Thomas Russo Director Mark Lawless President & Treasurer Richard Armstrong Secretary Eric Krejcha On Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS 0 October 1999 through September 2000 The Ground Round The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: two vandalism; three thefts; one disturbance; two suspicious vehicles; one parking violation; four fire alarms; two suspicious persons; three vehicle thefts; one malicious mischief; one domestic; two disorderly conduct; two burglary alarms; one drunkenness; one follow -up investigation; one theft, no -pay; and one property damage, hit and run accident. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 25 40 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 22 28 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (19) (22) Alarm (3) (6) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 3 12 Assists (0) (4) Traffic (2) (0) Inspections /Licensing (1) (2) Medical /Fire (0) (6) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: two vandalism; three thefts; one disturbance; two suspicious vehicles; one parking violation; four fire alarms; two suspicious persons; three vehicle thefts; one malicious mischief; one domestic; two disorderly conduct; two burglary alarms; one drunkenness; one follow -up investigation; one theft, no -pay; and one property damage, hit and run accident. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • AGENDA SECTION: f'j b% j ci l k f-In 1,9S AGENDA ITEM # (0E REPORT # a© STAFF REPORT =Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1 7\ G► - SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: IT _ LV-1, /n 1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Inc., d /b /a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Inc., d /b /a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. III. BACKGROUND I On October 16, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Inc., d /b /a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchell Law continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mitchell Law and Sherri ( Paisan) Law are sole owners of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1211KhansRenewal The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $10,000 Bond has been received showing Old Republic Surety Company affording the coverage. The required proof of liquor liability insurance and proof of workers' compensation have been supplied and show Great American Insurance Company affording the coverage. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 92.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 7.1 % of the total sales (gift certificates accounted for .4% of the total sales). There were nine Public Safety contacts with Khan's from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with seven contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 2000 On -sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In July 1999, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They have not been cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth in the year 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mitchell Law KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE Officer and Directors Mitchel Law President Sherri (Paisan) Law Vice President • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 — September tember 2000 p Khan's Mongolian Barbeque The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one suspicious vehicle, three thefts, and four burglary alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 7 9 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 8 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (4) Alarm (2) (4) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 2 1 Assists (1) (1) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections /Licensing (1) (0) Medical /Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: one suspicious vehicle, three thefts, and four burglary alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • AGENDA SECTION: / if L ik-ar),ws AGENDA ITEM ## rpQ REPORT ## 3 / 5 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: to REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: a BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2001 for Americana Dining Corporation d /b /a Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Americana Dining Corporation d /b /a Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 23, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Americana Dining Corporation d /b /a Champps Sports Cafe. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. William Baumhauer still serves as President and CEO; Donna Depoian serves as Vice- 1211 ChamppsRenewal President and Secretary; Frederick Dreibholz now serves as Vice - President and Treasurer; and Neal Heikkila now serves as the on- premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial, LTD., is in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing General Accident Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 65% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 35% of the total sales. There were 48 Public Safety contacts with Champps Sports Cafe from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with 72 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received four complaints this past year regarding Champps. Three of the complaints involved garbage cans on the dock with no lids and black "soot" on the walls. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and Champps were notified and staff received no further complaints. The other complaint involved snow on the sidewalk. Champps was notified and staff received no further complaints. On -sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of an on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In July 1999 and November 1999, Champps Sports Cafe was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days for their first violation. For their second violation, they received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. They have not received any violations in the year 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Champps staff • s • • Americana Dining Corporation Champps Sports Cafe Officers and Directors William Henry Baumhauer Donna Louise Depoian Frederick Jon Dreibholz Neal David Heikkila President Vice - President & Secretary Vice - President & Treasurer on- premise manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS fa October 1999 — September 2000 Americana Dining Corporation Champps Sports Cafe The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were two property damage accidents, four thefts, six disturbances, four noise complaints, one no pay, two suspicious persons, two suspicious vehicles, one juvenile curfew, five burglary alarms, three drunkeness, one check forgery, and one domestic. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 72 48 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 60 32 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (48) (27) Alarm (12) (5) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 12 16 Assists (5) (4) Traffic (1) (1) Inspections /Licensing (6) (4) Medical /Fire (0) (7) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were two property damage accidents, four thefts, six disturbances, four noise complaints, one no pay, two suspicious persons, two suspicious vehicles, one juvenile curfew, five burglary alarms, three drunkeness, one check forgery, and one domestic. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 • n • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 �C 3/S BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: �^ _ ce& REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d /b /a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d /b /a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 27, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d /b /a Don Pablos. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Prentiss Hall now serves as President; and Lansing Patterson now serves as Vice - President 1211 DonPabloRenewal and Secretary. Martin Thurnblad is serving as on- premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by United Pacific Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 74% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 26% of the total sales. There were 45 Public Safety contacts with Don Pablos from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with 33 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Don Pablos during the past year. On -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In July 1999, Don Pablos was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They received their second violation in October 2000. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Don Pablos staff • • 0 • Don Pablo's Operating Corporation Don Pablos Officers and Directors Prentiss Jay Hall President Lansing Suhr Patterson Vice - President and Secretary Martin John Thurnblad on- premise manager • i • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 1999 September 2000 Don Pablos The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: nine thefts, nine burglary alarms, one robbery alarm, two property damage accidents, one no -pay, one check forgery, two suspicious persons, four drunkeness, one bike theft, one narcotics, one threat, two property damage hit & run, one warrant arrest, one welfare check, one child abuse, one open door /window, and one vehicle theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 33 45 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 28 39 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (14) (29) Alarm (14) (10) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 5 6 Assists (1) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections /Licensing (2) (1) Medical /Fire (2) (4) The criminal contacts from October 1999 through September 2000 were: nine thefts, nine burglary alarms, one robbery alarm, two property damage accidents, one no -pay, one check forgery, two suspicious persons, four drunkeness, one bike theft, one narcotics, one threat, two property damage hit & run, one warrant arrest, one welfare check, one child abuse, one open door /window, and one vehicle theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • RPFF"_1 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 Palle 116rzo, 0, 68 31-7 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® rC44 /1 SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Er ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d /b /a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 L ndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d /b /a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lvndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d /b /a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from their original application in October 2000. Lucius Fowler is the President of the organization. 1211 HoulihansRenewal Joseph L. Martin now serves as the Chief Financial Officer. The on- premises 40 manager is Stephen Kneeland. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The property being leased by Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar is owned by Richfield State Agency, Inc. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Fireman's Fund Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. There are no Public Safety or Environmental Health contacts for this establishment as it has not opened yet. On -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. With the issuance of Houlihans Restaurant & Bar's license, there are now four on- sale intoxicating liquor licenses available. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. • C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S:) Deny the request. This would mean the applicant would not be able to serve on -sale intoxicating liquor. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Houlihans Staff. 0 • 0 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar Officers Lucius Ludlow Fowler Joseph L. Martin Stephen Harris Kneeland President Chief Financial Officer On- Premises Manager C • AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # =09a STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 I UD hc. %�ec+a-inc►s %A 3I� REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® 11 G� SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: " t —X /,, n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2001 on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi - Chi's, Inc., d /b /a Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi - Chi's, Inc., d /b /a Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 27, 2000, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi - Chi's, Inc., d /b /a Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Roger Chamness serves as President; Robert Trebing, Jr. serves as Vice - President; Todd Doyle serves as Secretary; and Robert Gonda is serving as Treasurer. Rochelle 1211 ChiChiRenewal Michel now serves as the on- premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate, and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Maro -Max Company, continues to be in effect with all lease payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1999 through September 2000 and indicates that food sales accounted for 65% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 35% of the total sales. Public Safety had 81 contacts with Chi -Chi's from October 1999 through September 2000. This compares with 166 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received four complaints regarding Chi -Chi's in the past year. One complaint was in regards to snow on the sidewalk; one was for graffiti on the wall; and two were regarding inoperable vehicles in the parking lot. In each case, Chi -Chi's staff was notified and Environmental Health staff received no further complaints. On -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 22, 2000. In April of 1999, Chi -Chi's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They were cited again in July 1999. They paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Chi -Chi's received their third violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth in August 2000 and will be appearing before the City 10 Council on January 8, 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� iContinue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2001, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Chi -Chi's Staff Lr- I • • Chi - Chi's, Inc. Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante Directors and Officers Roger Keith Chamness President Robert Thomas Trebing, Jr. Vice - President Todd Eugene Doyle Secretary Robert Dale Gonda Treasurer Rochelle Nan Michel On- Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS 0 August 1999 — July 2000 Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante The criminal contacts from August 1999 through July 2000 were: one warrant arrest; ten disturbances, six suspicious persons, four suspicious vehicles, four burglary alarms, eleven thefts, one order for protection, one no pay, one threat, one check forgery, one disorderly conduct, one welfare check, one property damage accident, one found property, two follow -up investigations, one suspicious activity, two assaults, one property damage hit & run, one drunkeness, and one received stolen property. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • 1999 2000 TOTAL CONTACTS 166 81 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 80 52 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (78) (48) Alarm (2) (4) MISC. NON - CRIMINAL 86 29 Assists (12) (3) Traffic (1) (1) Inspections /Licensing (64) (21) Medical /Fire (9) (4) The criminal contacts from August 1999 through July 2000 were: one warrant arrest; ten disturbances, six suspicious persons, four suspicious vehicles, four burglary alarms, eleven thefts, one order for protection, one no pay, one threat, one check forgery, one disorderly conduct, one welfare check, one property damage accident, one found property, two follow -up investigations, one suspicious activity, two assaults, one property damage hit & run, one drunkeness, and one received stolen property. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • C� AGENDA SECTION: 1. wwn AGENDA ITEM # �' H REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 JOHN STARK, REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration a resolution approving the Business Subsidy Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and CSM Investors IL I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution approving the Business Subsidy Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authoritv and CSM Investors II. IL BACKGROUND In 1999, the Minnesota State legislature approved the Business Subsidies Act. This law requires that certain types of developments which receive more than $100,000 in public assistance must enter into a business subsidy agreement with the government entity providing such assistance. The contents of a business subsidy agreement are based, in part, on the business subsidy criteria established by a governmental entity. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) established its business subsidy criteria on November 15, 1999 (see attached). 1211 csmsub It has been determined that the commercial redevelopment planned by CSM Investors II (CSM) for the west side of Lyndale Avenue and east side of Aldrich Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets is to receive public assistance from the Richfield HRA to a degree which requires a Business Subsidy Agreement. The other two portions of the Lyndale Gateway development did not require such an agreement because they were exempted as housing and /or non - profit uses. The attached Business Subsidy Agreement with the Richfield HRA reflects the public assistance to CSM that has previously been approved by the HRA as part of the Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM. The subsidy, as identified in the agreement, is $1,925,000 as land write down for the site to be acquired. The Business Subsidy Agreement states that the development will create at least five new jobs on the redevelopment site, each paying no less than $10 per hour, excluding benefits. For the purpose of this agreement, new jobs are defined as jobs which did not previously exist in the state of Minnesota prior to the date of the agreement. It has been determined that all of the public financing that is subject to the Business Subsidy Act is being provided by the Richfield HRA rather than the City of Richfield. The City Council, therefore, is being asked to approve the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement. This Agreement was approved, upon the completion of a public hearing, by the Richfield HRA on November 27, 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota State law requires the execution of a Business Subsidy Agreement for certain types of public assistance, including the type of public assistance which is to be granted to CSM for the redevelopment of a portion of Lyndale Gateway. • The Richfield HRA approved Business Subsidy Criteria on November 15, 1999. • The Richfield HRA conducted a public hearing and approved a Business Subsidy Agreement with CSM Investors II on November 27, 2000. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Public funding for CSM's redevelopment of the Lyndale Gateway area cannot proceed without the execution of a Business Subsidy Agreement. • C. FINANCIAL • The public funding identified in the amended Contract for Private Development with CSM is consistent with the attached Business Subsidy Agreement. D. LEGAL • Legal staff has reviewed the Business Subsidy Agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Do not approve the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement. • Defer approval of the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement to a later date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Business Subsidy Agreement between the Richfield HRA and CSM Investors II approved by the Richfield HRA at its November 27, 2000 meeting. • HRA Business Subsidy Criteria, adopted on November 15, 1999. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT is MEETING • A representative of CSM. 0 RESOLUTION NO. is RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHROTIY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CSM INVESTORS IL WHEREAS, a public hearing on the approval of a business subsidy agreement with CSM Investors 11 has been held before the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on November 27, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. at the Richfield City Hall located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota after proper notice; and WHEREAS, the HRA approved the business subsidy agreement; and WHEREAS, the Business Subsidy Act provides that City Council approve such as agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: A business subsidy agreement in the amount of be $1,925,000 to be used for land write -down is approved. Adopted by the City Council for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of is December 2000. ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this 18th day of December, 2000, by and between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, ( "Grantor "), and CSM Investors II, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, ("Grantee') WITNESSETH: 1. Grantor and Grantee are the parties to that certain instrument entitled Contract for Private Redevelopment approved on January 18, 2000, and subsequently amended on August 21, 2000. 2. The January 18, 2000, Contract provides for ,financial assistance to the Grantee that constitutes a "business subsidy" for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act (Chapter 243, Article 12, Laws 1999) ( "Act "). 3. The Act requires that a business subsidy may not be provided until the parties have entered into a business subsidy agreement that complies with the requirements of the Act. 4. This Agreement is intended to constitute a business subsidy agreement for the purposes of the Act. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and in the • Contract, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows. 1. Definitions. The terms used in this agreement shall have the meanings given them in the Contract and the Act unless a different meaning is clearly indicated. 2. General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: a. The subsidy provided to the Grantee involves use of funds currently available to the Grantor for the payment of costs incurred by the Grantee in performing certain land assembly, including acquisition, relocation and demolition on the Redevelopment Property as more fully described in the Contract. The subsidy has an estimated value for land write -down assistance of up to $1,925,000. The public purposes for the subsidy are as described in the Business Subsidy Criteria adopted by the Grantor. b. The goals for the subsidy are: to secure development of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property, and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section (c) hereof. c. If the goals described in clause (2) are met, the Grantee shall have no obligation to repay the payments to the Grantee described in the Agreement d. The subsidy is needed because site development costs make development of the Minimum Improvements financially infeasible without public assistance, all as determined upon approval of the TIF Plan. e. The Grantee does not have a parent corporation. 3. Job and Wage Goals. Within two years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion of the Minimum Improvements (the "Compliance Date "), the Grantee shall cause directly or indirectly, the creation of at least 5 new jobs on the Redevelopment Property (excluding any jobs previously existing in the State as of the date of this Agreement and relocated to this site) and shall cause the wages of such new employees on the Redevelopment Property to be no less than $10.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and job goals described in this paragraph are met by the Compliance Date, those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Redeveloper's continuing obligations under sections (e). The Grantor may, after a public hearing, extend the Compliance Date by up to a year, provided that nothing in this Section will be construed to limit the Grantor's legislative discretion regarding this matter. 4. Remedies. If the Grantee fails to meet the goals described in Section (b)(2), the Grantee shall repay to the Grantor upon written demand from the Grantor (a) a "pro rata share" of the amount of subsidy expended by the Grantor. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: a. if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the jobs created, divided by the jobs required; b. if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of is jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; C. if any more than one of clauses (i) through (ii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages , not to exceed 100 %. Nothing is this Agreement shall be construed to limit the Grantor's remedies otherwise available to it under this Contract. In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any other remedies available to the Grantor for failure to meet the goals stated in Section (b)(2), the Grantee agrees and understands that it may not receive a business subsidy from the Grantor or any grantor (as defined in the Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Grantee satisfies its repayment obligations under this Section, whichever occurs first. 5. Reports. The Grantee must submit to the Grantor a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2002 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated in Section (b)(2) are met; (ii) two years after the benefit date; or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section (d). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Act. The Grantor will provide information to the Grantee regarding the required forms. If the Grantee fails to timely file any report required under this section, the Grantor will mail the Grantee a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Grantee fails to provide a report, the Grantee must pay the Grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum . aggregate penalty payable under this section is $1,000. 6. Approval. This Agreement shall not be effective until approved by the City Council, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the City Council resolution of approval being affixed to this Agreement. • • BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA I. Purpose This document includes the criteria to be considered by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( "Authority ") to evaluate requests for business subsidies. It is the intent of the Authority in adopting these criteria is to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993- 116J.995 (the "Act "). The Authority hereby adopts the definitions contained in the Act for application in the criteria. II. Goals and Objectives It is the Authority's intent to advance the following goals and objectives in granting business subsidies: a. All projects, by not later than the benefit date, must be consistent with Richfield's comprehensive plan and any other plan or guide for development of the community or a sub -area of the community. b. Business subsidies must be justified by evidence that the project cannot proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the grantee must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the "but for" test. The grantee will be required to provide all documentation necessary for the Authority to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. C. Grantees will be required to enter into an agreement with the Authority that is consistent with statutory requirements, including a commitment to continue the business at the site for a minimum of five years after the benefit date and compliance with the specific jobs and wages goals established for the project. III. Business Subsidy Criteria The Authority recognizes that every proposal is unique. Nothing in these criteria shall be deemed to be an entitlement or shall establish a contractual right to a subsidy. The Authority reserves the right to modify these criteria from time to time and to evaluate each project as a whole. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating a request for a business subsidy: a. Increase in tax base. While an increase in the tax base cannot be the sole grounds for granting a subsidy, the Authority believes it is a preferred condition for any subsidy. b. Jobs and Wages. It is Authority's intent that the grantee create livable wage jobs at the site. This may include jobs to be retained but only if job loss is imminent and demonstrable. C. Economic Development. Projects should promote one or more of the following: 1. Encourage economic and commercial diversity within the community; 2. Contribute to the establishment of a critical mass of commercial development within an area; 3. Provide basic goods and services, increase the range of goods and services available or encourage fast - growing businesses; 4. Promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup; 5. Promote the retention or adaptive reuse of buildings of historical or architectural significance; 6. Promote additional or spin -off development within the community; 7. Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. IV. Compliance and Reporting Requirements. a. Any subsidy granted by the Authority will be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the Richfield city council. b. It will be necessary for both the grantee and the Authority to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. Is • • C • AGENDA SECTION: C c>n seji+ AGENDA ITEM # CG- REPORT # 3 j q STAFF REPORT =Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Or REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: City Council confirmation of City Manager's appointment of a Hearing Examiner, Paul Wasko. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Confirm the City Manager's appointment of Paul Wasko to a two -year term as a Hearing Examiner. III. BACKGROUND I The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where unique circumstances and undue hardship are present. The Ordinance provides for the appointment of Hearing Examiners by the City Manager subject to confirmation by the City Council. Paul Wasko's appointment expires December 31, 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 1211 Hearing Examiner • Mr. Wasko has experience, training and knowledge in land use issues and 40 warrants reappointment. • Mr. Wasko has served as an Hearing Examiner since 1997. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Defer confirmation to a later Council meeting. • Deny confirmation of the appointment. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • • C ppppp,- I AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 ccn se,-f 5Fr ,/3 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: City Council confirmation of City Manager's appointment of a Hearing Examiner, Connie Murray. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Confirm the City Manager's appointment of Connie Murray to a two -year term as a Hearing Examiner. 111. BACKGROUND The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where unique circumstances and undue hardship are present. The Ordinance provides for the appointment of Hearing Examiners by the City Manager subject to confirmation by the City Council. Connie Murray's appointment expires December 31, 2000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 1211 Hearing Examiner2 • Ms. Murray has experience, training and knowledge in land use issues and warrants reappointment. • Ms. Murray has served as an Hearing Examiner since 1985. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Defer confirmation to a later Council meeting. • Deny confirmation of the appointment. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 0 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 C D03W-� REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NANIL, Tiro.- REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAmz,. Tiir.r DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Ef - A _ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: u �) ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution authorizing the execution of year two of the landscaping partnership agreement between MnDOT and the City of Richfield that would fund plantings at the Wood Lake Nature Center. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing execution of year two of the Landscape Partnership Agreement between MnDOT and the Citv of Richfield at the Wood Lake Nature Center. II. BACKGROUND In order for MnDOT to construct a soundwall along the stretch of 1 -35W that runs past the Wood Lake Nature Center, the removal of 393 trees along the west edge of the Nature Center was necessary. Although the removed trees were entirely located within MnDOT right -of -way, MnDOT has graciously offered mitigation for the loss of these trees. Nature Center Manager Karen Shragg has worked with MnDOT foresters to establish a landscape partnership plan. The plan focuses on development of the FOWL Children's Forest, a habitat restoration project on the east side of the Nature Center. This past planting season, Wood Lake staff, with 1211 Wood Lake -MnDOT Agreement help from volunteers, began the planting project already with $9,000 worth of trees, shrubs and plants. The agreement with MnDOT will provide an additional $13,000 over the next two planting seasons. The resolution will authorize the execution of this second year of the partnership and will release the funding to the City. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • MnDOT policy requires the approval of a resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement before proceeding with year two of the partnership. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The FOWL Children's Forest project has begun with the planting of $9,000 worth of trees, plants and shrubs in 2000. This landscaping partnership provides the Nature Center with the necessary funding to continue the three -year project. • As a provision of this partnership, Nature Center staff has agreed to be responsible for the labor and materials for planting and future maintenance of the Children's Forest. C. FINANCIAL • Without this Landscape Partnership Plan with MnDOT, the financial feasibility of proceeding with the Children's Forest project would be uncertain. D. LEGAL The plan has-been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not approve the resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Copy of the Landscape Partnership Agreement between MnDOT and the City of Richfield. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE COMMUNITY ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR WORK PERFORMED IN THE WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER ALONG INTERSTATE 35W. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor, and Samantha Orduno, City Manager, are authorized to execute the agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield, Wood Lake Nature Center, for year two of the Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for work performed in the Wood Lake Nature Center along Interstate 35W between January 1 and December 31, 2001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Wood Lake Naturalist Tom Moffatt is hereby authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. r� ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk EA Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • • APPENDIX IV OFFICE OF STATE OF MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT �XpMQ�,E oN�'y The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Re: State cost landscape materials acquisition by the City for use along T.H. Mn /DOT AGREEMENT NO. S.P. -969 (T.H. ) State Funds ORIGINAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE (None) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "Mn /DOT ", and the City of , Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". WHEREAS the City is about to perform landscaping along Trunk High- way No. from to within the corporate City limits in accordance with City - prepared plans, specifications and /or special provisions designated as the Landscaping Plan ", which project has been designated by Mn /DOT as State Project No. -969 (T.H. ); and WHEREAS the City has requested participation by Mn /DOT in the costs of landscape materials acquisition in accordance with the terms of Mn /DOT's "Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program "; and 12 WHEREAS Mn /DOT is willing to participate in the costs of the land - scape materials acquisition as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS Minnesota Statute Section 161.20, subdivision 2 (1996) au- thorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway sys- tem. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION BY THE CITY Section A. Landscape Materials Acquisition The City shall acquire landscape materials in accordance with Mn/ DOT - approved City plans, specifications and /or special provisions designated as the " Landscaping Plan ". Landscaping shall be performed by City forces in accordance with Mn /DOT- approved City plans, specifications and /or special provisions which are on file in the City's office and in Mn /DOT's Office of Environmental Ser- vices in Oakdale., and are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. Section B. Purchase•Order to be Furnished to Mn /DOT The City shall, within 7 days after ordering the landscape materi- als, submit to Mn /DOT's Landscape Programs Coordinator in Oakdale a copy of the purchase order for the landscape materials. Section C. Direction, Supervision and Inspection Landscape materials acquisition performed in accordance with this Agreement shall be under the direction of the City; however, the Mn /DOT cost participation landscape materials to be acquired under this Agreement shall be open to inspection by Mn /DOT's authorized representatives. The City shall give Mn /DOT's Landscape Programs Coordinator five days notice of its intention to receive delivery of the landscape materials. Responsibility for the control of the Mn /DOT cost participation landscape materials acquisition covered under this Agreement shall 13 be on the City and shall be carried out in accordance with Mn /DOT- approved City plans, specifications,and /or special provisions des- ignated as the Landscaping Plan ". The City must verify whether or not nursery vendors are under a Gypsy Moth Compliance Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the "MDA ", and the United States Department of Agriculture or under an MDA Japanese Beetle Quarantine. All plant material shipped from nursery vendors sub- ject to quarantines must be accompanied by a Current Certificate of Compliance for gypsy moth and /or Japanese beetle. To determine if vendors are subject to quarantines, call the MDA Supervisor of Plant Regulatory Services at (612) 296 -8388. Section D Completion of Materials Acquisition and Installation The City shall cause the acquisition and installation of landscape materials to be started and completed in accordance with the time schedule in the Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program Project Application, which is on file in Mn /DOT's Office of Envi- ronmental Services and is made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. The completion date for the landscape materials acquisition and instal - lation may be extended, by an exchange of letters between the ap- propriate City official and Mn /DOT's Landscape Programs Coordina- tor, for unavoidable delays encountered in the performance thereof. Section E. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations The City shall, in connection with the acquisition of the landscape materials, comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, including Minnesota Statute Section 16B.101 (1996), and all applicable ordi- nances and regulations. Section F Right -of -Way, Easements and Permits The City is hereby authorized to work on Mn /DOT right -of -way for the purposes of installing and maintaining the landscape materials, including any necessary replacement of landscape materials that fail to survive. 14 The City shall, without cost or expense to Mn /DOT, obtain all rights -of -way, easements, construction permits and /or any other permits and sanctions that may be required in connection with the installation of landscape materials. Prior to advance payment by Mn /DOT, the City shall furnish Mn /DOT with certified copies of the documents for those rights -of -way and'easements, and certified cop- ies of those construction permits and /or other permits and sanc- tions required for Mn /DOT landscaping. ARTICLE II - MN /DOT COST Section A. Basis Mn /DOT's full and complete share of the costs of the landscaping to be performed along Trunk Highway No. from to within the corporate City limits under State Project No. -969 (T.H. ) shall be equal to the delivered cost of the landscaping materials acquired in accordance with the " Landscaping Plan ", however, the maximum obligation of Mn /DOT under this Agreement shall not exceed $ , unless the maximum obligation is increased by execution of an amendment to this Agreement. -It is estimated that the cost of the landscape materials acquisition is $ Section B. Pavment Mn /DOT shall pay to the City an amount equal to the delivered cost of the landscape materials, not to exceed the maximum obligation, after the following conditions have been met: 1. Encumbrance by Mn /DOT of Mn /DOT's total cost share. 2. Execution and approval of,this Agreement and Mn /DOT's transmit - tal of same to the City. 3. Provision by the City to Mn /DOT's Landscape Programs Coordinator of copies of the purchase orders for the landscape materials, as provided for in Article I, Section B. of this Agreement. 4. Provision by the City to Mn /DOT's Landscape Programs Coordinator of certified copies of the documents, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article I, Section F. of this Agreement. 15 • 5. Provision by the City to Mn /DOT's Landscape Programs Coordinator of a written request f,or' payment, accompanied by copies of sup - plier invoices for the landscape materials acquisition and de- livery. ARTICLE III - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. installation and Maintenance by the City After acquisition of the landscape materials, the City shall in- stall the landscape materials along Trunk Highway No. and pro- vide for the proper maintenance thereof, without cost or expense to Mn /DOT. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, removal and replacement of all materials that fail to survive. Criteria for maintenance and replacement are shown and described in EXHIBIT "A ", Maintenance Responsibilities Plan and Schedule, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. Section B. Responsibilities of the City The City shall, in connection with the landscape materials acquisi- tion, installation and maintenance, comply with the following con- ditions: 1. Use of Mn /DOT right -of -way shall in no way impair or interfere with the safety or convenience of the traveling public in its use of the highway. 2. Preserve and protect all utilities located on lands covered by this Agreement, without cost or expense to Mn /DOT. 3. As required by Minnesota Statute 216D (1996), notify Gopher State One Call System (1- 800 - 252 -1166) at least 48 hours before any excavation is done.on this project. 4. No advertising signs or devices of any form or size shall be constructed or shall be permitted to be constructed or placed upon Mn /DOT right -of -way covered by this Agreement. 5. Upon completion of the installation of landscape materials and during performance of maintenance operations, restore all dis- 16 turbed areas of Mn /DOT right -of -way so as to perpetuate satis- factory drainage, erosion control and aesthetics. Any use of Mn /DOT right -of -way permitted by this Agreement shall remain subordinate to the right of Mn /DOT to use the property for highway and transportation purposes. This Agreement does not grant any interest whatsoever inland, nor does it establish a permanent park, recreation area or wildlife or waterfowl refuge facility that would become subject to Section 4(f) of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1968. Section C. Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statute Section 16B.06, subdivision 4 (199.6), the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Mn /DOT and the City relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by Mn /DOT and the City, and either the leg- islative auditor or the State auditor as appropriate. Section D. Cancellation of Agreement Mn /DOT may cancel and terminate this Agreement for any cause or reason, including Mn /DOT's desire to use any portion of Mn /DOT right -of -way subject to this Agreement for transportation purposes, by giving the City written notice at least 90 days prior to the date which such termination shall become effective. Upon cancella- tion of this Agreement, the City will be required to restore and return the area to a condition satisfactory to Mn /DOT's District Engineer at Section E. Claims All employees of the City and all other persons employed by the City or volunteering in the performance of landscape materials ac- quisition, installation and /or maintenance covered under this Agreement shall not be considered employees of Mn /DOT. All claims that arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Min- nesota on behalf of the employees or volunteers while so engaged and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the employees or volunteers while so engaged on landscape materials acquisition, installation and /or Til is Section F. Nondiscrimination The provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 181.59 (1996) and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section G A -7reement Approval Before this Agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and receive approval of State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his authorized representative. ARTICLE IV -.AUTHORIZED AGENTS Mn /DOT's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Scott Bradley, Landscape Programs Coordinator, or his successor. His current address and telephone number are 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55.128, (612) 779 - 5076. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is I , or his /her successor. His /Her current address and telephone number are () maintenance covered under this Agreement shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility . of Mn /DOT. is Section F. Nondiscrimination The provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 181.59 (1996) and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section G A -7reement Approval Before this Agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and receive approval of State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his authorized representative. ARTICLE IV -.AUTHORIZED AGENTS Mn /DOT's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Scott Bradley, Landscape Programs Coordinator, or his successor. His current address and telephone number are 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55.128, (612) 779 - 5076. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is I , or his /her successor. His /Her current address and telephone number are () IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By — By Director Office of Environmental Services Date By Approved: By — Date District Engineer By Date CITY OF Mayor City Manager State Design Engineer DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved as to form and execution: By Assistant Attorney General Uj By Date • 9 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # '15L> REPORT # -,5/1 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ❑ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT NAME, TITLE SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of conducting a City Council meeting on Tuesday, December 26, 2000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Cancel the City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 26, 2000. III. BACKGROUND I The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Monday evening of each month. The fourth Monday in December is Christmas Day so the Council is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, December 26. Items for the December 26 Council meeting can be carried over to January 8, 2001. Therefore, it is suggested that the regular Council meeting scheduled for December 26 be canceled. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Past practice has been to cancel the Council meeting on the fourth Monday of December due to the Christmas holiday weekend. 1211 cancel B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City Council business can be carried over to January 8, 2001. • This item has been placed on the December 11 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made if the meeting is canceled. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Do not cancel the December 26 Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • • • 0 AGENDA SECTION: aons 'r4 AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # ,Z3 10 =Oda STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Er PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Naeff; TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approving of a temporary parking permit for Steve Jensen for property at 7200 Cedar Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the temporary parking permit for Steven Jensen at 7200 Cedar Avenue. II. BACKGROUND Mr. Steve Jensen has asked the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to lease him the vacant parcel at 7200 Cedar Avenue so that he could reduce the amount of on- street parking connected with his businesses at 6958 Cedar Avenue. Mr. Jensen currently operates a transmission repair shop at that location and wishes to move his Smith & Nielson operation into that site also. The Smith & Nielson operation needs to move from 6409 Cedar Avenue because it is being purchased by the City for the realignment of the Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) and 66th Street interchange. Mr. Jensen has room in the existing transmission shop at 6958 Cedar Avenue to incorporate the relocated business. However, he does not have enough off - street 121 Uensen.doc parking to satisfy his needs. He meets the requirements of the zoning code for parking (43 spaces) but finds that actual parking needs are more than the code requires. Jensen is working on a long -range solution that would allow parking to be developed on the Minnesota Department of Transportation land across Cedar Avenue from 6958 Cedar Avenue. However, the State will not be ready to lease the land. until spring and it will take a few months after that to construct the lot. Therefore, Jensen is seeking an interim solution of off - street parking at 7200 Cedar over the winter and spring months. Jensen owns residential properties on 18th Avenue behind the Transmission Shop that he considered removing, rezoning, and using for parking. Staff discouraged him from doing this at this time because it appears that it will be some before these properties are purchased for airport noise mitigation. In the meantime, it is desirable to keep the residential character of the area as long as possible. The lot at 7200 Cedar Avenue has been unoccupied for several years. Jensen originally sold it to the HRA. The HRA purchased it at an opportune time and plans to own it until it is possible to proceed with redevelopment of a larger site area. It is bordered by commercial uses to the south, twin homes to the west, and apartment garages to the north. Jensen proposes to cut the brush in the middle of the lot and trim the vegetation on the west side property line to make it more useable. On November 20, 2000, the HRA agreed that the lot should be leased to Jensen for an interim period of six to nine months. 40 Mr. Jensen must vacate the property at 6409 Cedar on December 15, 2000. It is now too late in the year to improve the proposed temporary parking lot according to standard City specifications. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a temporary permit for a parking lot, notwithstanding the requirement for a dust free surface, provided that Mr. Jensen plow the parcel, restore it to its original condition, and that the temporary use be terminated within one year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The lot can be leased on an interim basis without harming its redevelopment potential. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The auto - related uses already have substantial on- street parking. The interim use of the 7200 Cedar Avenue property will help mitigate the problem. However, some on- street parking is likely. The ultimate solution will come next summer when a new lot can be constructed across Cedar Avenue from the Transmission Shop. • Neighborhood compatibility also needs to be considered. It is staffs opinion that the proposed parking use will be compatible with the adjoining uses. Mr. Jensen has talked to the adjacent one and two family homeowners. • The interim parking lot would not be in compliance with ordinances regulating parking lots. It would not be paved nor would there be curbing, for example. C. FINANCIAL • The HRA will receive fair compensation for the land that has been vacant. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not approve the temporary parking permit. and require the cars to be parked on the street. V. ATTACHMENTS Illustrative parking lot layout. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Steve Jensen, owner of the Transmission Shop and Smith & Nielson. • • I I ZI �I 41 tL I 7.2 N D ST. (34' -s" ± w10t) cup-R P R vacANr LOT - . TEMPORARY PARKING RoPE"RTr LINE ,_ r] ' N II -30 -OD SCALE: I"= 24' • • is AGENDA SECTION: aon -s AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # .409 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: J2 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: . Q BRAD SVEUM, ACTING ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of rejecting bids for fire pumper. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid minutes /tabulation, reject all bids received for a fire pumper, and authorize readvertisement for bids. III. BACKGROUND I Unit #7982, a 1979 fire pumper, is fully depreciated and was scheduled to be replaced in 1999. The account maintained by the Central Garage for the replacement of this particular vehicle and equipment will contain $220,000 in 2001. Within the Central Garage fund there is also a reserved retained earnings account for the purchase of fire apparatus. The balance of this reserve, as of November 6, 2000, is approximately $177,000. A formal bid opening was held on October 23, 2000. Bids were received from two vendors. 1211 RejectFire III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The apparatus was scheduled for replacement and has fully depreciated in value. Because of the one -year lag time for delivery, this order should be placed as soon as possible for 2001 expenditure. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Neither bidder met contract specifications. If the unit is readvertised for bid, every effort will be made to assure the vendors clearly understand the specifications for the fire pumper body configuration. C. FINANCIAL • Sufficient funds are in the Apparatus Replacement Account and the Reserve Retained Earnings accounts for this purchase. D. LEGAL The bid opening was held in accordance with legal requirements. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council could authorize purchase of a new fire pumper at this time from the low bidder, General Safety. However, should this option be selected, the second bidder may, possibly claim acceptance of the October 23, 2000 bid is non- responsive under Minnesota state statutes. V. ATTACHMENTS Bid minutes and tabulation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening October 23, 2000 11:00 a.m. OPurchase of One New Fire Rescue Engine Bid No. 00 -07 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the purchase of one new Fire Rescue Engine, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 27, 2000. Present: Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Brad Sveum, Acting Assistant Chief /Fire Marshal Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Option 7 Option 8 $2200.00 $638.00 Affadavit I Statement VENDOR Bid Security Non- Of EEQ Base Bid Option 1 Collusion Requirements Trade In GENERAL A $139,216.00 $18,000.00 SAFETY 5% Provided Provided B $ 93,777.00 Credit EQUIPMENT C $232,293.00 Option 2 Affadavit Statement Option 5 Option 6 VENDOR Bid Security Non- Of EEQ Base Bid Option 1 Charge Collusion Requirements Trade In A $152,687.00 $6,500.00 TOYNE 10% Provided Provided B $ 91,765.00 Credit C $244,452.00 Option 7 Option 8 $2200.00 $638.00 Affadavit I Statement VENDOR Bid Security Non- Of EEQ Base Bid Option 1 Collusion Requirements Trade In GENERAL A $139,216.00 $18,000.00 SAFETY 5% Provided Provided B $ 93,777.00 Credit EQUIPMENT C $232,293.00 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 $11,000.00 Charae NO BID $656.00 Credit $2190.00 Credit $6263.00 Credit Option 7 Option 8 $2200.00 $638.00 Affadavit I Statement VENDOR Bid Security Non- Of EEQ Base Bid Option 1 Collusion Requirements Trade In GENERAL A $139,216.00 $18,000.00 SAFETY 5% Provided Provided B $ 93,777.00 Credit EQUIPMENT C $232,293.00 The Deputy Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 13, 2000 City Council Meeting. Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 $9,995.00 Charge $4,500.00 Charge $665.00 Charge $2,970.00 Charge $6,700.00 Charge The Deputy Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 13, 2000 City Council Meeting. Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk Option 7 Option 8 $1,093.00 ea. $406.00 ea. Charge Charge The Deputy Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 13, 2000 City Council Meeting. Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk r is AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # 5A REPORT # 309 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE BY CITY MANAGER: REVIEWED ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a traffic safety award in the form of a $3000 mini - grant. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department to enter into an agreement with the MN Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, and the acceptance of a $3000 mini -qrant from the agency for the Safe & Sober Challenge. II BACKGROUND I The Public Safety Department, Police Division, received notification that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety had judged the Richfield Police Division's efforts to decrease impaired driving and to increase the use of seat belts to be exceptional. The reward for the Department's efforts is additional funding for the department in the amount of $3000. The grant award must be used for traffic safety purposes and as additional funding to benefit the Richfield Police Division. It can be used for overtime traffic patrolling hours; traffic safety - related equipment such as stop sticks, radar, PBTs or fatal vision goggles; printing of traffic safety materials such as pens or bumper stickers; 1211 SafeAndSoberGrant or to purchase small incentives imprinted with traffic safety messages such as pens or caps. toRichfield Police has taken a special interest in promoting seat belt use at high schools to encourage youth to begin the habit of using seat belts. The Division has also conducted safe and sober enforcement waves and seat belt usage checks. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In the past, Richfield has participated in the Safe & Sober Communities programs and received funds to pay overtime to officers to work on traffic enforcement. This grant is given as a reward for the Department's efforts. Richfield has some of the highest traffic volumes in the state due to being bounded on three sides by major highways and being bisected by 1 -35W. Additionally, Penn, Lyndale, Nicollet and Portland Avenues carry large amounts of traffic going into and out of Minneapolis. • Because of frequent traffic congestion on these routes, motorists routinely use residential streets in an attempt to by -pass congested areas. This results in a myriad of traffic violations and occasional accidents. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Grant funds will be used for overtime traffic patrolling and /or other traffic safety - related programs and /or equipment. C. FINANCIAL The amount of money granted to the Department totals $3000. D. LEGAL A resolution signed by the City's authorities must be submitted prior to acceptance of the mini - grant. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S� • The Council could disapprove the resolution allowing Richfield Public Safety to enter into the agreement to accept the funds. This would prevent Richfield from receiving any funds from the Office of Traffic Safety in connection with this grant. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety to enter into agreement and accept grant funds of $3000 from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. i RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAFE AND SOBER MINI -GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has desired to protect the health of its citizens by improving traffic safety and participating in the Safe & Sober Challenge; and WHEREAS, under the provision of the Highway Safety Act (P.L.89 -563), the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has federal funding to promote traffic safety; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has judged the Richfield Public Safety Department, Police Division's efforts to decrease impaired driving and increase seat belt use to be exceptional and wants to reward those efforts by providing additional funding for the department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Richfield Public Safety Department, Police Division, will enter into an agreement with and accept a mini -grant of $3000 from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the period from December 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of is December 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk