07-10-00 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Call to Order
Roll Call
6:00-6:45 p.m. Annual meeting with Community Services Commission
• Discussion of outdoor pool renovation options as determined by Outdoor
Pool Task Force
Staff Report No. 17
• Discussion of proposal to construct skate park in cooperation with cities of
Edina and Bloomington and Southdale YMCA
• Staff Report No. 18
II. 6:45-6:55 p.m. City Manager announcement regarding Public Safety
Department reorganization
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes. of (1) Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2000; (2) Regular City
Council Meeting of June 26, 2000; and (3) Special Joint City Council/HRA Study Session
of June 29, 2000
PRESENTATION
Presentation by Paul Anton regarding Best Buy's Economic Impact Study
Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and
address on the Speaker's Register for the record.
2. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. 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 aanroval.
• A. Consideration of approval of Memorandum of Understanding between Minnesota
Department of Transportation, City of Richfield and City of Bloomington related to
Penn Avenue bridge project S.R. No. 157
B. Consideration of approval of engineering agreement with BRW, Inc. to design
replacement of Penn Avenue bridge S.R. No. 158
C. Consideration of approval of resolution supporting 1-494 Corridor Commission's
efforts to secure federal funds for rebuilding of 1-494/35W interchange and other I-
494 infrastructure and services S.R. No. 159
D. Consideration of approval of plans, ordering project and authorizing ad for bids for
paving of 7600 block of Garfield Avenue S.R. No. 160
E. Consideration of approval of setting August 30, 2000 and September 6, 2000 (if
necessary) as Special City Council meetings to review and discuss 2000
Revised/2001 Proposed budget and preliminary tax levy prior to certification to
County S.R. No. 161
F. Consideration of approval of resolution granting new lawful gambling license and
investigation fee waiver for Fred Babcock Post #5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive S.R.
No. 162
G. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering
preparation of assessment roll for 1.999 removal of diseased trees from private
property and setting date of hearing for August 14, 2000 S. R. No. 163
H. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering
preparation of assessment roll for 1999 77th Street Maintenance and setting date of
hearing for August 14, 2000 S. R. No. 164
I. Consideration of approval of resolutions declaring costs to be assessed and ordering
preparation of assessment roll for 1999 LHN Maintenance and setting date of
• hearing for August 14, 2000 S.R. No. 165
J. Consideration of approval of resolution proposing to specially assess costs of current
services provided within 77th Street project area for January 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2001 and setting public hearing for August 14, 2000 S.R. No. 166
K. Consideration of approval of resolution proposing to specially assess costs of current
services provided within LHN project area for January 1, 2001 through December 31,
2001 and setting public hearing for August 14, 2000 S.R. No. 167
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment in Section 1200.03
increasing number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses available within City of
Richfield from seven to eighteen
Staff Report No. 168
•
Notes:
6. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning property at
1100 East 66th Street from general commercial to medium density multi-family
residential
Staff Report No. 169
Notes:
7. Public hearing regarding request to amend Comprehensive Plan guide plan
designation for 1100 East 66th Street from high density single family residential to
community commercial
Staff Report No. 170
Notes:
0
8. Public hearing and consideration of resolution granting final approval of subdivision for
MinnStar Builders, Inc.
Staff Report No. 171
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
9. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code
Section 1, Subsection 310.13 describing appointment and placement of relatives
Staff Report No. 172
Notes:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
10. Consideration of Final Scoping Decision Document for Best Buy campus project
•
Notes:
Staff Report No. 173
11. Discussion of affects of proposed regional transportation improvements on Richfield
Staff Report No. 174
Notes:
AIRPORT BUSINESS
12. Discussion of implementation plan for 2000 legislative grant of $5 million for airport
mitigation
Staff Report No. 175
is Notes:
CORRESPONDENCE
Notes:
COUNCIL CHOICE
13. Council discussion items
Notes:
14. Claims and payrolls
15. 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: Prop. Ordinance
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 172
z:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
Fo..
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading consideration of amendment to the City Administrative Code Section 1,
Subsection 310.13 describing the appointment and placement of relatives.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance
amendment to the City Administrative Code Section 1, Subsection
310.13 describing the appointment and placement of relatives, and
schedule the public hearing and second reading for August 14, 2000.
III. BACKGROUND I
Several situations have come up recently that warranted the evaluation of the
"Appointment and placement of relatives" policy. The current policy stipulates that
relatives who are closer than second cousins by blood or marriage cannot be
employed in the same work group, but spouses can work together as long as no
employee would exercise supervision of his/her spouse.
DAWN WEITZEL,
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
STEVEN L. DEVICH,
TRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME TLE
r
In comparison with other cities' nepotism policies, the City's policy is more
restrictive in relation to immediate family. A recommendation is being made to
41 amend Section 1, Subsection 310.13 to eliminate the current language and
instead read:
310.13 Appointment and placement of relatives. The city will not employ relatives under
any of the following circumstances (for purposes of this subsection a "relative" shall be
defined as an employee's mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, sister, brother, son,
daughter, spouse, mother-in-law, father-in-law, stepmother, stepfather, stepchild, aunt,
uncle, niece, or nephew):
1) Where one employee will supervise a relative.
2) Where one employee will be responsible for auditing the work of a relative.
3) Where confidentiality of the City would be compromised.
4) Where a conflict of interest would arise from such employment.
Where a possible violation of these provisions relating to the employment of a relative
exists, the City Manager must consult with the City Attorney to determine whether the
implementation of this policy is consistent with applicable federal and state laws and
regulations.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY I
• Subsection 310.13, Appointment and placement of relatives, will
enable the City to become less restrictive and equitable in its hiring of
employee relatives.
• Making this hiring policy less restrictive will not compromise the
integrity of City services.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Subsection 310.13, Appointment and placement of relatives,
allows the City flexibility in the hiring of relatives, yet also allows for
circumstantial limits.
• In order to meet publishing requirements for the second reading of an
ordinance amendment it is recommended that the public hearing and
second reading be scheduled for August 14, 2000.
C. FINANCIAL
• None.
D. LEGAL I
• In order to provide the requested hiring enhancement, the City Council
must approve an amendment to the City personnel ordinance.
i There is no other legal restriction prohibiting a municipality from hiring
relatives for City positions.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Do not amend the ordinance.
• Defer discussion to another date.
• Amend only a portion of the section presented.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Administrative Code changes
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
• BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310.13
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 310.13 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield
entitled "Appointment and placement of relatives" is hereby amended:
310.13 Appointment and placement of relatives.
GewsiRs by bleed 9F by FnaFF;age Will Ret be .e
dec+sieas-Qtthe s
The citv will not emplov
relatives under anv of the followina circumstances (for purposes of this subsection a
"relative" shall be defined as an emplovee's mother. father. Grandmother. arandfather,
sister. brother. son. dauahter. spouse, mother-in-law. father-in-law. stepmother.
stepfather. stepchild. aunt. uncle. niece or nephew):
• 1. Where one emplovee will supervise a relative.
2. Where one emplovee will be responsible for auditina the work of a relative.
7'
3. Where confidentiality of the Citv would be compromised.
4. Where a conflict of interest would arise from such emDlovment.
Where as possible violation of these provisions relatina to the emplovment of relative
exists. the Citv Manaaer must consult with the Citv Attornev to determine whether the
implementation of this volicv is consistent with applicable federal and state laws and
reaulations.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
MOAN STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 8
REPORT # 171
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAMr, TinE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
TURF
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Gy
•
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing on a final plat of Lyndale Gateway 2nd Addition for MinnStar Builders, Inc.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a
resolution granting final approval of a subdivision for MinnStar
Builders, Inc.
IIL BACKGROUND
MinnStar Builders is submitting a final plat for phase III of the Lyndale Gateway
redevelopment project. Phase III consists of 40 townhome units. The plat, Lyndale
Gateway 2nd Addition, divides the property into four lots with one 10-unit building
per lot. A common interest community plat will be filed, separating ownership of the
individual units, when the units are sold.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
. A. POLICY
• N/A
0710plats
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A declaration of covenants will be used to address cross access and
other issues of common interest.
• A seven-and-a-half foot drainage and utility easement is provided on
the north and south side of the property and a five foot drainage and
utility easement is provided on the east side of the property.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current on June
28, 2000.
• The Council approved a preliminary plat on November 22, 1999.
• Approval of the plat is contingent upon the developer submitting title
evidence, a declaration of covenants, and the common interest
community plat to the City Attorney for review.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Approve the plat with revisions.
• Do not approve the plat.
i ' V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution granting final approval of a subdivision
• Attachment A: Lyndale Gateway Second Addition, Final Plat
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Kevin Clark, MinnStar Builders
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL OF A
SUBDIVISION FOR MINNSTAR BUILDERS, INC.
WHEREAS, MinnStar Builders, Inc. ("Applicant") has requested preliminary and
final approval to combine and subdivide several tracts of land located generally between
Garfield Avenue and 1/2 block east of Garfield Avenue, north of 77th Street and south of
76th Street in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be 'known as LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND
ADDITION; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed plat of LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND
ADDITION was held on Monday, July 10, 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 LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION satisfies the
requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances.
2. Preliminary and final approval is granted to the Applicants for the plat of
LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION, subject to the following conditions:
• The developer shall submit title evidence to the City Attorney for review.
• The developer shall submit the declaration of covenants and the common
interest community plat to the City Attorney for review.
3. This Resolution shall be null and void unless within the time limit required by
Subsection 500.29, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code, the Applicant files
the final plat with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, as may
be appropriate. The time period provided by that ordinance is hereby
extended to 180 days.
2000.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
_ N8951'22'E ?. `134,45
1 V I 1
' ()
DRAINAGE AND
ao -- UTIU7Y EASEMENT
F _ T of
•,1
r I .. • .. ---1 --5 -
134.q
se9se•2rE '
m 1
IV
K
,I.' Old
134.38
<[ SB9'SB'21'F '
I n
O 1`II
P 00
3 t=1
:li - ^1 fA
... I ,?1131.35 `5:. e ,
I "'
4-
AN C ?I
t ORArNAOE D
so l u"I EASEIAENT?=T '! t
I 58950 WW 134.32
n
1
Scale. In feet.
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS ASSUMED
° 50 70D ISO O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT
LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION
R.T. DOC. NO.
JUN 0 2 2000
KNOW ALL MEN 81 THESE PRESENTS' That Minnelar Bupd". Inc., o Minnesota Corporation, fee
ln•r o1 the fdbwbg described Propoly situated I. the Ccunly of Hennepin. State of Minnesota to
Lots 10, 11, 12.'13, 14, 15, and 16. Block 6, SUNSET TERRACE, according to
the geerded plat thereat.
Nos eoueed the some to be arwyed and Plotted as LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION and does
as ,at.
hereby ere, y donate and dedicate to the public for Public use larever the drainage and utility easements.
nown an
In -itnea, -hereof said -innator Budder, Inc.. a Minnesota Cerperatbn, has caused these presents
to be signed by its pMPW officer this day of 200___
Signed. Minnstor Builders, be., a Minn esoto Corporation
By ------- ----- It.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument -as acknowledged before me this day PI
of Minntlor Buptlrs, =nc., p Minnesota Corporation on behalf Of or ton.
publk highways to be dealgnaled an Old plot. RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Notory Publl,
My County' Minnesota---
I hereby certify that 1 how surveyed and platted the land deaerlbed an this plot as LYNDALE
GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION; that this plat I. o --tract representation of said aurwY. that dl distances
ore eorreClry shown en paid plat In feet and hundredths 01 a fact; that pa monuments how been
correctly plae•d M the gountl as Mom an said plot; that the puleida boundary lines art cartClly
designated on said plot; d thot intr. ors no -etiande, as doMatl In MS 505.02, Subd. 1, or
This Plot of LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDIRON was apDrowO and oCCepled by the City Counc2 of
Richfield. Minneaolo at regulp, meeting thereof hold thin _ _ day of
200__ If apPlleable, Ina wllten -__-ants ontl noommandolbna el
Inc Cammisfioner of Transportolian and the Corn ly Highroy Engineer Aa by
w been see.
d the
City or the preser t, 30 day period has elapsed Nhaut raeeiP( of such com men(and
recommendations. as provided by Minneselo Slaluto.. Seat;_ 505.03. Subs. 2.
CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By -------- -------- ------------- - Mater
By ------ -------------------' City Manager
TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that lose
Coled this payable M 200 --- and prior years have been paid for the land
deacr3sd on this plat. . D ---- -------- day of
------------- 200_-_.
Patrick H. O'Connor, Hennepin County Auditor By _____
_ ____ ______ Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to Minn. Statutes. Section 3638.565 (1969). this Plat has bean aPP-d this-__- day
-1 ---------- . 200----'
Lloyd E. Par, Land Surveyor ---
Min, ..ato License No. 18421
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoin9 sorwyor'a eerNpeola -as acknowledged before me thin _
200-- by Lloyd E. Pew, Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 18421,
Notary Public, ,Count Minneaolo
My aammi-Wen aspire, y'
Gary F. Caswell, Hennepin County Surwya, By
REGISTRAR OF TITLES. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I her-ebylilacthis Certify that the -IthN plot of LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION was feed far retard In
This day of -_----______
of _____-_ -'dock __- M. _-______. 20P
Michael H, Cunnilf. Registrar of Titles
'17 Hansen Thorp
Pellinen Olson Inc..
Engineers • S-nlayms - Landscape Architects
Y
I
f
Pal I G 14c&r `^9
AGENDA SECTION: p-G.&n6e4lt-
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT # 170
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: LL
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing on a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan guide plan designation for
1100 East 66th Street from R-SFH (high density single family residential) to C-C (community
commercial).
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion deny the request
for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
IL BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's
zoning classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that
one category of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these
properties was rezoned by the City Council in December, 1999. A second group
• was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2000 and by the City
Council on April 10, 2000. Based on testimony given at the Council hearing, the
City Council asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the rezoning of two
properties, 1100 East 66th Street and 6612 15th Avenue. The City Council also
0710compplanamend
asked the Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan classification if
the zoning is not to be changed. The owner of 1100 East 66th Street has also
. requested that the property not be rezoned and that the Comprehensive Plan be
amended to provide a commercial classification for this property.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City is addressing the issue of making its zoning ordinance
consistent with its Comprehensive Plan by rezoning properties where
the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the zoning
is inconsistent.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Comprehensive Plan envisions primarily residential uses
surrounding Veterans Memorial Park. The Plan recognizes that some
neighborhood commercial may be appropriate, but that residential
should be the primary use. The Plan also envisions Community
Commercial and Offices uses on East 66th Street to the east of 1100
East 66th Street.
Specifically, the Plan states, "The desirable sites along the south side
of West 66th Street across from Veterans Park should be converted to
high-quality townhouses or patio homes as the existing multiple
dwellings and commercial sites near the end of their useful lives. The
12th Avenue intersection should remain as a commercial corner,
extending one full block to 13th Avenue on both sides of West 66th
Street. The remaining three blocks to the east should be limited to
office uses. Single-family, high-density (RSF-H) should serve as a
transition use on all sides of the commercial and office areas."
(THREE-16)
• If the property at 1100 East 66th Street is not rezoned to a residential
district, then it is appropriate to consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan so the zoning will not be inconsistent with the
Plan.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL I
• On May 30, 2000, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and
mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
• Four out of five votes are required to approve a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• Recommend that the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan
designating the property at 1100 East 66th Street as Community
Commercial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment A: Map of land uses around the property
• Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
• Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the
property
• Attachment D: Request from Bernie and Ratna Malawaaratchy
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
• Glen Schumann, Moss & Barnett, representing the property owners
• Bernie and Ratna Malawaaratchy, owners of Bernie's Montessori, 1100 East
66th Street
9
0
Land Uses Near 1100 E 66th Street
Attachment A
63rd St.
T
-
1I I- I I
I I I i I I I I '?'-I I I? I
I f I I? I I ? 1 i ?
1 I { -I F-T- I I 1 ffI I I
l I II 1 I I I i I ' { I i I I I I I
I 1 j I I? I I I I i I I I I I I I I
E 800 0 800 1600 Feet
Commercial
Apartment
Duplex
Residential
Quasi-Public
School
Church
Vacant
Park
May 2, 2000
Q
a
O
a
Zoning Classifications Near 1100 E 66th Street
--- 0
Attachment B
63rd St.
66th St.
I Industrial
C-2 General Commercial
x R Single Family Residential
0 MR-1 Tvw Family Residential
Wfi MR-2 Mufti Res - Med. Density
800 0 800 1600 Feet ® PC-2 Planned Gen. Comm'I.
May 3, 2000
9 0
Comp Plan Classifications Near 1100 E 66th Street
Q
F-?
I I E I i i
PFI I I I i C ??-
I I I I i ,
rf?
[7"
I I ? I I I I 1 ? ? i 1 I
I I I I I
{ I { 1 1 { H i
1 I i
I I ? ? i i lI II
1100 E 66th St. -{?
Y?J
Neil ION
I I I I ?I I I I I I ?
I I ? I ! !-! ? I I I I I
[=R F-F--I
NA
I I i i! I I I I I
N
S
900 0 900 1800 Feet
t„rwud.iyew.gp?rt?mMyuNlgMry mnp p,? ' ??
Q
Attachment C
83rd St.
86th St.
Community Comm'L.
Neigh. oomm'I.
Rao. Comm'I./Office
Com. Comm'Lloffice
Office
Single Family Res.
S. F. Res: High Dens.
Multi Res.- High Dens.
Public
Park
Church
School
Quasi Pub. - Utility
May 3, 2000
Q
a.
ATTACHMENT D
LAW OFFICES
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFEssioNAL ASSOCIATION
HmtM:W J RATBLLE PETER A. XOLLRR 4800 NORWEST CENTER JOSEPH G. MATE NOWSKI TIMOTHY L. GUSrw
THOMAS A. En LEE. M RICHARDI IMJM STEVEN T. HBILAND -.ti,.,-; LWRIKENS
JAMBS B. O'BRI N ERVIN M. BUSCH 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET WILUAMA. CUMMING
JOSEPH A. MANDERNACH
EDWARD L. WINER SUSAN C. RHODE - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129 JAYMES D. LITLEJOHN
WILLIAM N. KOSIER THOMAS AL HUGHES MICHAEL R. NIXT
WII,UAM A. HAUG NICE HAY JAMBS P. BALDWIN
CHARLES. A. PARSONS, JR THOMAS A. JUDD TELEPHONE (612) 347-0300 VINCENT J. FAHNLANDER OP COUNSEL
THOMAS R. HARMS DAVID W. LARSON JAN M. WAGNER I.n A. HENDERSON
RICHARDJ.J.:;-,-.., DRUM M. GREW FACSIMILE (612) 339-6686 PHWJ.YOUNc
ROBERT]. LURES CABS S. WELL REHM.
JAMBS A- RL:L.L.,a_-, GLEN B. SCHUMANN ]ON M. IYNJALA
THOMAS R. SiHMMN JAM"X SEVERANCE .,_J,i:,., R. CULBERT RETIRED
1. MICHAEL HIRSCH M. CECI,IA RAY MATHEW M. MEYER VERNE W. MOSS
EDWARD J. BLOMM S JOSEPH E. KLEIN WR M S DIRECIDIALNUMBER DAWN M. ENU7SON JAMES H. H.oL,L-
JEFFREY L. WATSON NANCY M. KLSKIS PAUL] . YSCHOUT STANLEY L STASEIL
THOMAS J. SHROYER BARRY LAZARUS (612) 347-0282 KELLY M. MCSI PATRICK P. FLAHERTY
DAVID P. JBNDRZSJEK RONALD A. EISENBERG JEFFREY W. POST WAYNE A. HEROOTT
CURTIS D. SMITH PAUL B. ZISLA ANN X. PHILIJI S MICHAEL L FLANAGAN
DAVE P. SENDER BRIAN T. GROGAN WRrDWS E-MAIL ADDRESS MEGAN J. HHERTZLBR PAUL VAN VMLKENBURG
MITCHELL H. COX J. MICHAEL COLLOTON - H. LB PHAN W. SCOTr HERZOG
MICHAEL J. BRADLEY ERIC J. OISEN schumamGeQ moss-bamC1S-COm JBRRIB M. HAYES PAUL G. HEIMANN
April 27, 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Julie Urban
Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Bernie's Montessori School
Dear Julie:
Enclosed please find the original Zoning Application and Exhibit A.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
(? C r
Glen E. Schumann
GES abc -
Enclosure
328024/1/#67193.2
B A4
Since
a 1896
9?t"'Jeys ax
r
0 EXHIBIT A
Applicant requests that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to conform the zoning
classification of the Subject Property to C-2, the present zoning classification and existing use of
the Subject Property.
Rezoning of Subject Property has been initiated by the City of Richfield Staff. During
review of the proposed zoning change, members of both the Planning Commission and City
Council. have expressed concern about the appropriateness of the Comprehensive Plan's zoning
classification for this property. Since the issue of the proper zoning classification for the Subject
Property is before the Planning Commission, now for the fifth time in the last year and a half
(three times for the City Council), the applicant believes it is appropriate for this issue to receive
full consideration and final resolution.
Applicant believes that the Property is appropriately zoned Commercial C-2 for the
following reasons:
1. Presently, the Montessori School and Davcare Center is best served by a
C-2 classification, which permits both uses. ,
2. Goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan are to provide a
road map for future land use decisions, such as the location of housing and
commercial development. Commercial Development is clearly recognized
as a permissible (and desirable) use of properties immediately bordering
660i Street. The City's own zoning map and the existence of commercial
facilities along 66 h Street. evidence the same. Amending the
Comprehensive Plan to conform to the existing use of the Property, which
is consistent with the existing commercial uses along this stretch of 660i
Street, is consistent with the City's long-term vision for development of
this commercial corridor.
3. The highest and best use of the Subject Property is its current C-2
commercial use. The property is facing 660i Street which is at present,
arguably, the busiest commercial street in Richfield. In the years to come,
the volume and commercial nature of this traffic are likely to increase due
to the new airport runway, and the Cedar Avenue developments with
proposed high rise office buildings, high rise apartment complexes,
shopping malls and possibly a light rail transit station. Work on the
Express Bus Stop at the intersection of 35W & 660i Street has already
started. The Lyndale Avenue and 66 h Street developments are fast
nearing completion. All these development will increase. traffic along 66th
Street and make it a busier commercial street. It would not be prudent, at
this juncture, to change commercial zoning on a property bordering 660i
Street to residential.
331203/1
•
4. The Montessori property is not distinct from all of the other properties
along 66a' which are used commercially. The property next door to 1100
East 66a' Street is a property zoned commercial C2 (King Oscar
Restaurant). Practically all properties located along 66a` Street between
l la` Avenue and Cedar Avenue are commercial properties. There is no
basis for singularly carving out this property and reclassifying it, when
none of the other properties are being reclassified.
5. The only reason the City previously reviewed the zoning classification of
this property was that the size of Bernie's day care operations required a
Conditional Use Permit. The owner could have developed the property
with a permitted commercial use without City review. Had a permitted
commercial use been exercised, the City would not be considering, merely
two years later, reclassifying the property to a residential use. The present
owners should not be penalized for having developed the property as a
school and day care facility.
•
6. We believe that the only reason that the Comprehensive Plan shows the
property with a R-SFH classification is that a single family residence,
clearly inappropriate for a commercial district along the, very heavily
traveled 6e Street, previously stood on this spot. The previous owner
Wyatt & Jacqueline Lewis tried to sell, without success, the 1100 East 66a'
Street property as a residential site for about one year before Bernie's
made a Conditional Offer to Purchase subject to the City of Richfield
approving their Plans to operate a Montessori School and Child Care
Center at this site.
7. Hennepin County has valued 1100 East 66a' Street property as a
commercial property which is higher than for non-commercial properties.
Higher property taxes are also paid. It is unfair to change the zoning
because it would be impossible for this property as "residential" to be
worth the value placed for property tax purposes. It is nothing but fair for
Bernie's who pay property taxes at Commercial classification to demand
that the zoning be retained as Commercial.
8. There has been comment that the property should be rezoned residential
because it sits across the street from the park; but Bernie's property is
hardly unique in this aspect.
•
We believe that the following points are also relevant to the decision which is to be made
in this matter:
A.. Neighbor's have alleged in their recent City Council meeting that there
was a "promise" that the property would be rezoned as a condition of
granting the conditional use permit. This is not true. While the Planning
Commission in March of 1998 recommended to the City Council that the
331203/1 _ 2
910 property be rezoned to MR-2, this recommendation was not, after much
discussion, adopted by the City Council. Both the minutes of the City
Council and the Conditional Use Permit are devoid of any requirement or
suggestion that the zoning classification of the Subject Property be
changed.
B. Following the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit in
1998, and in reliance on the terms of the Conditional Use Permit (which
did NOT require rezoning of the Property), applicants acquired title to the
Property, removed the single. family _ home, built a . commercial grade
building to specifications required by the City of Richfield (including a
sprinkler system, modified access, and landscaping), all at a cost in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. In reliance upon the terms of the
Conditional Use Permit, which did not mandate a zoning reclassification,
applicant's lender lent money for the project. The Property continues to
be taxed as commercial property and will no doubt be taxed similarly in.
years to come. In short, applicant has made a significant investment in the
community in reliance on the specified terms of its Conditional Use
Permit and the assurance that a rezoning of the Property was not required.
C. Concerns raised by the neighbors two years ago have proved unfounded,
yet the same issues continue to be raised by the neighbors without factual
support or foundation. Fear of the unknown and mere speculation or
allegation must fail in light of two years of harmonious use of the Property
as a business permitted in a C-2 Commercial zone.
•
331203/1 3
AGENDA SECTION: AIRPORT BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 175
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NA&E, TITLE
•
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
El
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a policy to develop a plan for the spending of the $5 million legislative grant
north of 66th Street.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Direct staff to prepare a plan for the spending of the $5
million legislative grant based on the following policies:
1. Purchase residential property that has a low frequency noise
impact of 87dB or higher.
2. Concentrate acquisition activities in the area of the City north of
66th Street which is most affected by the low frequency noise.
3. Purchase single family houses first since they are more vulnerable
to noise than are apartment buildings that have less exterior
surface per dwelling unit. Then, purchase any apartments on the
block.
4. Avoid a voluntary buy-out program.
5. Create a phased removal process by which applications are
secured for each subsequent phase.
6. Commence the acquisition as soon as possible with expenditure of
funds by end of this year.
II. BACKGROUND
The 2000 Legislature provided the City of Richfield with a grant of $5 million to
purchase land within the first two blocks of Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77). The
legislation requires Richfield to develop and submit a plan that contains the
following elements to the Chairs of the House and Senate Tax Committees:
• Residential units purchased or to be purchased, by location and type of unit.
• Cost of acquisition or the estimated cost of acquisition of the units.
• The cost of demolition or relocation of buildings, including any offsetting savings
from buildings to be relocated or other salvage.
• The cost of relocation of utilities.
• The cost of any other site preparation for development.
• Plans for sale and use of the cleared land, including estimates of the value of the
land after clearance and site preparation.
• The plans for the ultimate use of the properties acquired or to be acquired.
The $5 million grant will only buy 20 to 30 houses. It is staff's recommendation that
the first area to be purchased is that area north of 66th Street.
There are 82 homes and 88 apartment units in the blocks north of 66th Street that
are touched by the 87dB low frequency noise contour. It is estimated that $25
million will be needed to purchase properties in this area. It is hoped that additional
grants will be authorized by the Legislature to complete the purchase of all of the
homes and apartments in the 87dB blocks, north of 66th Street.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Rationale
The policies in the recommended action would allow the City to
acquire the most adversely affected residential properties near the
north end of the new 17-35 Runway. All of the properties are in the
87dB area where noise consultants maintain is incompatible with
residential uses. The noise insulation conducted in recent years by
MAC does not mitigate against low frequency noise.
The recommended policies would also provide the best opportunity
along the corridor for the most timely redevelopment of non-residential
uses to compensate for the loss of tax revenue.
Land sale revenues from the area could also be used to purchase
additional homes south of 66th Street.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The most potentially controversial policy is the one related to voluntary
purchases. The recommended policy avoids a voluntary buy-out
program. If there was a voluntary program, this would result in some
properties being acquired and others remaining. The neighborhood
would begin to resemble parts of the inner city where random
•
abandonment has occurred. This would not be good for the people who
are not acquired immediately or for those on the edge of the area.
• There is also the issue of which residential properties are taken first - the
single-family homes or the apartments. It is recommended that the
homes betaken first because the apartments are better able to withstand
the low frequency noise because they present less exterior surface
toward the noise source.
C. FINANCIAL
The City of Richfield and other taxing jurisdictions will lose several
thousand dollars in tax revenue afterahe properties are acquired.
D. LEGAL
• The legislation says that a plan has to be submitted by December 15,
However, funding can be applied for in October. In order to meet that
date, the draft plan needs to be accepted by the City Council within
the next month so that it can be reviewed by several agencies before
submittal.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Take no action.
• Revise the policies in the recommended action.
A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
is
•
AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 174
J
JULY 10, 2000
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
El'
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 111"' 1 / ?ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Transportation Update
J
0
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is requested. For discussion purposes only.
II. BACKGROUND
The attached article is proposed for inclusion in the August 2000 issue of the Your
City Newsletter as the featured article. City staff would like to discuss with the City
Council the implications of the proposed transportation improvements described in
the newsletter article and their impact on Richfield.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• No policy issues are being considered. The discussion will focus only
on the status of various transportation projects.
A
0710Transportation
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
Transportation remains an important issue to Richfield and periodic
• updates to Council are appropriate.
C. FINANCIAL
. There are no financial issues associated with this report.
D. LEGAL
. N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Draft text of the Transportation Feature article for the August 2000 Your City
newsletter.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
. None.
•
0
YC: 0800Transportation Feature
Your City
August Issue 2000
Transportation Feature Article
Metro Traffic Conaestion
Everyone is experiencing traffic congestion as the Twin Cities region grows. But do you
realize that most of the regional highway network hasn't kept pace with the ever expanding
Twin Cities metro area?
I-35W/62 Crosstown Commons
After years of study and debate, work will finally begin next year on the 62 Crosstown
Commons portion of I-35W. Construction will take four years to complete and cause
serious disruption as ramps and mainlines are closed for substantial lengths of time.
MnDOT has alerted City staff that the 62 Crosstown will need to be closed at 1-35W for
many months at a time so that adequate room is available to replace bridges in confined
space. Mike Eastling, Richfield's Director of Public Works, explains, "The new bridges
need to be built in the same general area as the old ones that will be torn down. There isn't
room to build a temporary bridge."
MnDOT, in staging the project, hopes to keep 1-35W open as much as possible, similar to
the arrangement they have in the work on 1-35W south of 66th Street where they have
been able to keep 1-35W traffic flowing even though some ramps in Richfield have been
closed from time to time.
Traffic on the 62 Crosstown will be forced to divert to other routes. MnDOT advises
motorists well in advance of a major construction project to seek alternate routes. Traffic
that normally uses the 62 Crosstown Highway will be encouraged to use 394 to the north
and 494 to the south. Local traffic will be detoured onto 66th Street in Richfield and east--
west streets in Minneapolis. Fortunately, the new 1-35W bridge at 66th Street will be
operational and be able to handle additional traffic.
The staging plan for the Crosstown Commons section of 1-35W is complex and its impact
on traffic will vary with each stage of the construction project. As the project proceeds,
public notices of any changes in access to both 1-35W and 62 Crosstown will be issued by
MnDOT. For additional information, call Len Sandstrom at 651-634-2087.
66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 Interchange
Work has already begun on the east side of TH 77 to build new ramps from 66th Street. In
2001 a new bridge will be on the north side of the existing bridge to handle additional traffic
expected when the new air cargo facility is opened on the east side of TH 77. Work will
also begin on the west side ramps connecting 66th Street to the state highway. "All four
ramps have design deficiencies today and really need to be replaced," explained Tom
Foley, Richfield's Transportation Engineer.
There will be times when ramps to and from Highway 77 will not be open due to
construction in 2000 and 2001. Ultimately, the new interchange will create a much safer
is means to gain access to the freeway.
1-35W/494 Interchange
A decision on the design of the new I-35W1494 interchange has been stalled since 1995.
The City of Richfield on its own initiative decided to reopen the debate about what kind of
interchange should be built to replace the inadequacies of the current one. A team of
MnDOT, Met Council, Federal Highway Administration, Bloomington and Richfield staff
have an updated plan which is consistent with the 1995 1-35W Environmental Impact
Statement
Richfield's design study was completed in early 2000. It has already produced impressive
results. MnDOT has accepted the design proposed by the study's report and has been
refining it based on technical reviews. Richfield officials had hoped that the report would
generate renewed interest on the part of MnDOT to hasten reconstruction of the I-35W1494
interchange. Fortunately, two projects that are considered part of the overall interchange
area have received MnDOT support to begin construction by 2001. They are the
replacement of the Penn Avenue bridge and a new bridge spanning 1-35W to connect 79th
Street and 80th Street in Bloomington.
Penn Avenue Bridge
City officials are planning to begin construction of the new Penn Avenue bridge in the
summer of 2001. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2002.
Plans for the new bridge anticipate its construction in two parts. The existing bridge will
remain and continue to carry traffic during the first stage of construction. The first stage will
be built just west of the existing bridge. In the second stage traffic will be shifted onto the
new bridge and the old bridge will be torn down. The second part of the new bridge will be
built.
Similar to the 24th Avenue interchange on the east side of the Mall of America, the new
Penn Avenue bridge will offer a high operating capacity to reduce traffic delays commonly
experienced by motorists today. The Best Buy proposal will enable Richfield to jump start
the construction of the new 494/1-35W interchange by building the Penn Avenue bridge
much sooner than MnDOT had planned.
76th Street from 1-35W to Penn Avenue
With the approval of the Best Buy development, improvements would be necessary to 76th
Street between 1-35W and Penn Avenue and on Penn Avenue from 76th Street to the new
Penn Avenue bridge. These improvements may also occur in 2001 or 2002 depending on
the scheduling of all related road work.
Lyndale Avenue Bridge
A design for the Lyndale Avenue bridge has been selected that is similar to the one for the
new Penn Avenue bridge. This high capacity bridge will ease traffic congestion fora
commercial area that already carries heavy traffic volumes.
The proposed schedule for the Lyndale Avenue bridge is tied to securing the necessary
right of way in Bloomington. At this time, construction of the new bridge will begin in 2002
with completion anticipated in 2003.
• Staging of construction will be similar to the staging plan for the new Penn Avenue bridge.
However, the first stage of the new bridge will be built to the east of the existing Lyndale
Avenue bridge. Similar to the case on Penn Avenue, traffic will be able to use the existing
Lyndale Avenue bridge while the first stage of the new bridge is under construction. The
existing bridge will remain and continue to carry traffic during the first stage of construction.
Working in cooperation with the City of Bloomington, additional plans call for the
reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street in Richfield to 82nd Street at the same
time that the Lyndale Avenue bridge is under construction. This will be done to minimize
disruption to motorists and businesses in the area.
0
79th Street/80th Street Bridge
While not in Richfield, a new bridge is proposed to cross 1-35W to connect 79th Street east
of the freeway with 80th Street on the west side of 1-35W in Bloomington. The new bridge
will provide needed relief for the 1-35W/494 interchange until the interchange is rebuilt. The
79th Street/80th Street bridge has already received funding but its construction has been
delayed for several years pending a decision by MnDOT on the preferred design of the
reconstruction of the 1-35W/494 interchange. The new 79th Street/80th Street bridge must
be compatible with the new 1-35W/494 interchange design.
To break this stalemate, the City of Richfield invested in a design study of the 1-35W1494
interchange that has generated MnDOT support for the 1-35W/494 interchange design and
an acceptable design for the new 79th Street/80th Street bridge.
Once the new bridge is completed in 2002 or 2003, Bloomington will have a continuous
reliever arterial network paralleling 494 similar to Richfield's parallel arterials of 77th Street
and 76th Street. The new 79th Street/80th Street arterials will also relieve east-west traffic
now using Richfield's east-west arterials by encouraging Bloomington traffic to stay on the
Bloomington side of 1-494.
77th Street Underpass of TH 77
Construction of the 77th Street underpass of Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) should begin in
2002 and last two or three years. City staff is in the process of purchasing the necessary
right of way for the project. This project will provide a new alternate route to the airport and
access to 1-494 at the 24th Avenue interchange.
Transportation Project
0
1-35W/62 Crosstown Commons
66th Street and Trunk Highway 77
Interchange
When
2001 to 2004
2000 to 2001
1-35W/494 Interchange
Penn Avenue Bridge
Lyndale Avenue Bridge
79th Street180th Street Bridge
76th Street from 1-35W to Penn Avenue
77th Street Underpass of TH 77
Not programmed (or 2011 and beyond)
2001 to 2002
2002 to 2003
2001 to 2002
2001 or 2002
2002 to 2004
0
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPORT # 173
J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
d
E, TITLE
VATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the Final Scoping Decision Document for the Best Buy Campus project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the Scoping Decision Document for the Best Buy
Campus project. A
III. BACKGROUND
The scope of the proposed Best Buy Campus project requires that an
environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared. The first part of the EIS
process is to prepare a scoping environmental assessment worksheet (EAR. The
scoping EAW determines what items should be studied in the EIS and the
methodology to be used.
The following items will be addressed in the EIS:
• Potential for Environmental Hazard
• Connection to Public Water Supply
• Erosion and Sedimentation
• Surface Water Runoff
• Wastewater Treatment Methods
• Groundwater - Potential for Contamination
JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE C. PALMBORG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
0710EAW
• Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks
• Traffic
• Vehicle-Related Air Emissions
• Traffic Related Noise
• Cultural Resources
• Visual Impacts
• Compatibility with Comprehensive Plans and Land Use Regulations
• Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services - Roads
• Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services - Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm
Sewer, Police and Fire, and Utilities
• Cumulative Impacts
• Social and Economic Impacts
The following items will be addressed in the EIS in lesser detail:
• Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
• Appropriation of Ground or Surface Water
• Stationary Source Air Emissions
• Nearby Resources - parks and trails
• Traffic as it relates to MnDOT ramp metering practices
The following items will be excluded from the EIS:
• Cover types
• Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
• Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
Wetlands/Surface Waters
• Abandoned Wells
• Water-Related Land Use Management Districts
• Water Surface Use
• Animal Manure
• Geologic Hazards
• Construction Odors, Noise and Dust
• Nearby Resources
Written comments were received from five state agencies, the City of Bloomington,
Benschoof & Associates on behalf of Walser Automotive, and five residents. In
addition, 11 residents provided verbal testimony at the public information meeting.
A summary of the comment letters and verbal comments are included in Appendix
B of the Scoping Decision Documents. Responses to the comments are provided in
Appendix A of the document.
A schedule for the EIS process can be found on page 14 of the Scoping Decision
Document.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The items to be studied in the Draft EIS are important to
understanding the impacts of the proposed Best Buy Campus project.
The items to be excluded from further study are not relevant to the
proposed project. It is appropriate to exclude irrelevant items to
reduce the scope and bulk of an EIS and concentrate on items with
potentially significant impact.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The next stage in the process will be to prepare a draft EIS. The draft
EIS will provide information on the impacts of the project and potential
mitigation of those impacts. The impacts of two project alternatives
and a no-build alternative will be analyzed.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• An EIS is required for the proposed Best Buy Campus project.
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.2100, Subp. 3 require that a final Scoping
Decision Document on the EAW be issued.
• Minnesota Rules Part 4410.2100, Subp. 1 defines the purpose of the
scoping EAW as to identify only those potentially significant issues
relevant to the proposed project, fine the form, level of detail, content,
alternatives, time table for preparation and preparers of the EIS, and
to determine the permits for which information will developed
concurrently with the EIS.
The draft Scoping Decision Document and Scoping EAW were
distributed according to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
mailing list.
• Notification of the availability of the document and of a public
information meeting was published in the EQB Monitorand the Sun-
Cument. A 30-day public comment period was provided from May 14
to June 14, 2000. A public information meeting was held on June 7,
2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Decide not to adopt the Scoping Decision Document.
• Adopt the Scoping Decision Document with amendments.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Scoping Decision Document for the Best Buy Campus
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Walter Rockenstein II, Faegre & Benson
• Beth Kunkel, BRW
0
•
SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT
for the
Best Buy Campus
July 10, 2000
•
Responsible Governmental Unit:
City of Richfield
Proposer:
Best Buy Co, Inc.
0
0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................4
3.0 ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................................5
3.1 No-Build .......................................................................................................................6
3.2 Development Alternatives ............................................................................................6
3.3 76"' Street Reconstruction Alternatives ........................................................................7
4.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..............................................7
4.1 Issues to be Excluded from the EIS ..............................................................................7
4.2 Issues to be Addressed in Detail in the EIS ..................................................................9
4.3 Issues to be Addressed in Lesser Detail in the EIS ........................................13
5.0 SCHEDULE AND CONTACTS ............................................................................................14
6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................................................15
6.1 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................15
6.2 Coordination and Permits Required ............................................................................15
APPENDIX
A Responses To Comments
B Comment Letters
•
Best Buy Campus
Scoping Decision Document
July 10, 2000
Page 2
J
1.0 SUMMARY
In accordance with Minnesota Rules Part 4410.2100, Subp. 6, this document is the Scoping
Decision Document for the Best Buy Campus project. The purpose of this document is to decide
on the issues and alternatives to be contained in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the project. This Scoping Decision Document is based on the available information documented
in the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Scoping EAW). The draft Scoping
Decision Document and Scoping EAW were distributed according to the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) mailing list. Notification of the availability of the document and of the Public
Information Meeting was published in the May 14, 2000 EQB Monitor and the May 24th and 31St
issues of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. A public information meeting was held on June
7, 2000 to receive comments on the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Document. The Scoping
Decision Document has been revised to respond to substantive comments received.
The Scoping Decision Document for the Best Buy Campus discusses the following:
Project Description: This section provides a brief overview of the proposed project.
Alternatives: This section describes the two proposed project alternatives. Potential road
reconstruction alternatives are also described. The No-Build Alternative will be addressed as
required by the EQB rules.
Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts: This section identifies the issues that will be
analyzed in the EIS. It also specifically lists the issues that will not receive further analysis in the
EIS.
Schedule and Contacts: This section presents the project schedule and RGU contact.
Agency Coordination and Permit Decisions: This section identifies the permits for which
information will be developed concurrently with preparation of the EIS. Agency coordination is
also generally discussed.
ADDITIONS TO THE SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT
The primary areas of this Scoping Decision Document that have been modified as a result of
comments received on the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Document are found in Section 4.0
and generally include:
• Addition of eight additional intersections to the traffic analysis,
• Addition of a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey on the Wally McCarthy parcel within the
site,
• Addition of four issues to be discussed in less, but appropriate, detail including the landscape
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 3
benefits of each alternative to wildlife, the determination of need for dewatering during
construction, the impacts of traffic on nearby park and pedestrians, permit needs for
emergency diesel generators, and discussion of MnDOT ramp metering practices.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Best Buy Campus redevelopment is located north of Interstate Highway 494 (1-
494), west of Interstate Highway 35W (I-35W), and south of 76'h Street, between Penn and Knox
Avenues in Richfield. The project area is approximately 40 acres in size. The site currently
includes 55 single-family residences, 13 duplexes, 7 apartment buildings (3 apartment complexes
or 79 apartment units), and several commercial buildings including car dealers, car repair
facilities, small manufacturing facilities, print shops, retail store, grocery store, and a member-
only lodge facility. The site is currently fully developed and has a high percentage of impervious
surface due to the extensive surface parking areas, commercial buildings, homes and roadways.
The only areas of pervious surface are found in the residential lawn areas and scattered
landscaped boulevards.
Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy) proposes to redevelop the site by constructing four or five
buildings with up to 1,900,000 square feet (sq. ft.) and parking facilities for up to 9,500 cars.
The project may also include road improvements on 76th Street north of the project site and on
Penn Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets, which are required to accommodate site-generated
traffic. The proposed Best Buy Campus will require the acquisition, demolition and
redevelopment of the existing commercial and residential parcels. Property purchase negotiation
will be conducted from April 2000 through January 2001. The majority of acquisitions will take
place in March 2001 with demolition of structures following. Grading and construction will
commence in April 2001 with construction complete by August 2002.
Best Buy's current office facilities are located in eight separate locations within the City of Eden
Prairie, accommodating approximately 3,200 employees. This number is expected to increase up
to 5,500 employees by the 2002 move date. All office staff, excluding the printing and call
center operations, will be relocated to the new Best Buy Campus in Richfield after
redevelopment is complete in 2002. The new campus is being designed for up to 9,500
employees to accommodate future company growth. The maximum size of the development will
be based on the results of the EIS analysis and Best Buy's ongoing estimates of future growth.
The purpose of consolidating the current facilities into one location, with a campus-like setting,
is to increase the productivity and efficiency of Best Buy's operations and to provide their
employees with improved access.
Approximately one year ago, Best Buy began exploring options for consolidating their offices
into one location. They started by evaluating a) expansion of existing facilities, b) retrofitting
existing office space, or c) developing office space in a new location. Of the alternatives that
were reviewed, the field was narrowed to a) the expansion of the existing facilities, b) new
development in the Richfield location, or c) new development in the Hopkins area. After
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 4
weighing each site based on projected costs, site layout, proximity to employee base, existing
infrastructure, existing bus service and overall economics, the Richfield site was selected as the
most feasible and desirable location for the corporate campus. A more detailed description of
this selection process will be provided in the EIS.
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. Security staff are on site twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week. Essentially all current corporate employees, except the print production
and call center departments, would be relocated to the new campus. Adequate space has been
included in the development plan to accommodate anticipated growth and space needs.' The
office complex will include standard work stations, office spaces, conference and team spaces,
file and storage space, adequate on-site employee parking, employee cafeteria, day care facility,
fitness center, and convenience store with dry cleaning pickup.
The Best Buy Campus would be constructed as one complete development. There are no future
phases anticipated. The project schedule calls for occupancy of the new office space to be
phased in between May and November of 2002. Negotiations with property owners within the
project area have commenced and will continue through the end of this year. However,
acquisition of parcels will only occur after the major project approvals have been obtained, now
anticipated to occur by January of 2001.
There will be four to five structures. The buildings will be from two to twelve stories containing
up to 1,900,000 sq. ft.. In addition, there will be one to three parking structures with up to seven
levels. Specific engineering and architectural designs have not been developed at this time.
Building frame is to be constructed of structural steel or cast-in-place concrete. Building exterior
is expected to be architectural precast or face brick and glass.
Since the site is currently developed, complete demolition of existing structures is required for
the redevelopment of this site. Demolition will commence following acquisition of the
properties and upon final approval of the plans and environmental documents. Demolition is
expected to take approximately three months.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
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 characteristics of the proposed development are
provided in the following concept alternatives.
3.1 NO-BUILD
The no-build alternative will be addressed in the EIS as required by the EQB rules.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 5
0 3.2 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Best Buy is currently developing site layout alternatives. The general parameters for the layout
alternatives are: a minimum expansion size with 1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 parking spaces;
and a maximum expansion size with 1.9 million sq. ft. and 9,500 spaces.
Two building layout concepts are now being considered for the project. Both could
accommodate the minimum and maximum square footage and parking spaces by adding floors to
one or more buildings and levels to the parking ramps. Each plan is further described in the
following Alternatives section. These alternatives are conceptual at this time and will be refined
and further described in the EIS.
ALTERNATIVE 1
In the first concept, five buildings would be clustered around a central pond, which also
extends out in two directions to form water features among the buildings. 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. The five
office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of three stories and a maximum of
12.
Parking would be provided in three structured ramps - one on the south, 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.
Access to the site would be located on Penn Avenue, Knox Avenue, and on 76th Street at
Newton Avenue.
Alternative 1 A: The total space developed would be 1.5 million sq. ft. The parking
spaces provided would total 7,500.
Alternative 1 B: The total space developed would be 1.9 million sq. ft. The parking
spaces provided would total 9,500.
ALTERNATIVE 2
In the second concept, four buildings, located in the southwest half of the site, would be
connected by a two story common use area, with several ponds located along the
southerly and southwesterly side of the property. The four office buildings would vary in
heights, with a minimum of six stories and a maximum of 12.
Parking would be provided primarily in one large parking structure on the northeast half
of the site. This structure would have from five to seven levels. A surface lot would also
be provided along the southern portion of the site.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 6
Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, Knox Avenue
and 76'h Street at Newton Avenue.
Alternative 2 A: The total space developed would be 1.5 million sq. ft. The parking
spaces provided would total 7,500.
Alternative 2 B: The total space developed would be 1.9 million sq. ft. The parking
spaces provided would total 9,500.
3.3 76th STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
Additionally, the City of Richfield may require upgrades to 76th Street between I-35W and Penn
Avenue, as part of this project. However, the preliminary design for these improvements has not
been determined. Therefore, the EIS will look at three different road improvement alternatives
for 76`h 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 some
combination to the north and south of the existing right of way.
4.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The EIS will assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The assessment of
impacts will be guided by the preliminary environmental analysis presented in the Scoping EAW.
The general criteria used to select issues for further analysis in the EIS are as follows:
• The potential for significant environmental effect.
• Adequacy of information provided in the EAW.
• Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects.
• Extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory
authority.
4.1 ISSUES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EIS
Based upon work done in the preparation of the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision
Document, it has been concluded that the potential for significant environmental impacts does
not exist in the following areas and additional study of these areas is not required in the EIS. The
following table outlines each potential impact area and defines the scope and/or rationale for
excluding it from the EIS. The number in parentheses refers to the correlating question in the
EAW.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 7
•
Table l: Issues to be Excluded from the EIS.
POTENTIAL IMPACT RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION FROM EIS
AREA EVALUATION
(EAW Question #)
Cover types (#10)
Fish, Wildlife and
Ecologically Sensitive
Resources (#I I a)
Rare, Threatened or
Endangered Species
(#I lb)
Wetlands / Surface
Waters (#12)
Cover type changes are not significant, as documented in the
Scoping EAW.
The project will not result in adverse impacts to fish, wildlife
and ecologically sensitive resources, as documented in the
Scoping EAW.
The project will not result in adverse impacts to rare, threatened
or endangered species, as documented in the Scoping EAW.
The project will not result in adverse impacts to any surface
water, as documented in the Scoping EAW.
• Abandoned Wells (#13) The project will require abandonment and sealing of numerous
existing wells for project construction. Abandonment will be
completed in accordance with current regulations, as
documented in the Scoping EAW.
Water-Related Land Use The proposed project will not involve floodplain fill or other
Management Districts water-related land use districts, as documented in the Scoping
(#14) EAW.
Water Surface Use (#15) The project will not affect surface water use, as documented in
the Scoping EAW.
Animal Manure (#18d) I The project will not require disposal of animal manure.
Geologic Hazards (#19a) No geologic hazards are expected, as documented in the Scoping I
EAW.
Construction Odors, Construction related odors, noise and dust will be minimized
Noise and Dust (#24) through the use of best management practices and will comply
with current regulations, as documented in the Scoping EAW.
Nearby Resources (#25b, The project will not affect nearby resources (prime farmland,
c, d, e) parkland, scenic vistas, other unique resources), as documented
in the Scoping EAW. Historic or architectural resources will be
included in the EIS as described in Section 4.2.
•
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 8
4.2 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN THE EIS
Based on a review of existing information and previous studies of the project site as documented
in the Scoping EAW and the comments received on the draft Scoping Document, the following
issues will be addressed in the EIS:
Potential for Environmental Hazard (#9)
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 1 ESA) will be completed to determine the
potential for environmental hazards on the existing site. The EIS will detail the findings of the
Phase 1 ESA and describe any mitigation necessary.
Connection to Public Water Supply (#13)
Initial review of the public water supply has been discussed in the EAW. This issue will be
further evaluated in the EIS and a plan for necessary infrastructure improvements will be
developed. This analysis will include the potential impacts to the City of Bloomington water
main that currently runs through the project site.
Erosion and Sedimentation (#16)
Specific erosion and sedimentation control measures will be evaluated and incorporated into the
project design to protect water quality, in accordance with Watershed District requirements, and
included in the EIS.
Surface Water Runoff (#17a, b)
A storm water management plan will be developed to address storage and pretreatment of runoff
to protect water resources, in accordance with City of Richfield and Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District requirements. In addition, details of a surface water management plan will be included
in the EIS.
Wastewater Treatment Methods (#18a, b, c)
The existing wastewater contribution of the project area and the projected wastewater
contribution of the proposed project will be identified in the EIS. The change in contribution
will be evaluated with respect to the capacity of the regional interceptor. Potential improvements
to the existing facilities, if required due to the proposed project, will be identified. No industrial
wastewater will be produced at this site.
Groundwater - Potential for Contamination (#19b)
Potential groundwater contamination due to soil conditions will be assessed and proposed
mitigation measures will be addressed as part of the EIS. This analysis will be based on the
potential contaminants identified in the final Phase 1 ESA report.
Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks (#20)
A Phase 1 ESA will be completed to determine the potential for encountering environmental
hazards during site construction. The EIS will detail the findings of the Phase I ESA and
describe any mitigation necessary. The potential for solid and hazardous materials to be
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 9
generated on site will be addressed in the EIS based on standard operating procedures of Best
Buy's existing offices. The methods for disposal of solid and hazardous waste will be described
in the EIS.
Traffic (#21)
Intersections to be Analvzed for EIS: A detailed traffic study will be conducted for the EIS that
will look at the intersections on 76th Street and Penn Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the site
in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersections that will be included in this analysis
include:
1. 76th Street / York Avenue
2. 76th Street / Penn Avenue
3. 76th Street / Newton Avenue
4. 76th Street / Knox Avenue
5. 76th Street / I-35W West Ramp
6. 76th Street / I-35W East Ramp
7 77th Street / Lyndale Avenue
8. Lyndale Avenue / I-494 North Ramp
9. Lyndale Avenue / 1-494 South Ramp
10. Penn Avenue / 77th Street (Site Access)
11. Penn Avenue / I-494 (Single-Point Intersection)
12. Penn Avenue / Southtown Access
13. Penn Avenue / 80th Street
14. Penn Avenue / 82nd Street
15.82 d Street / Knox Avenue
16. 82nd Street / I-35W West Ramp
17.82 d Street / 1-35W East Ramp
18. 80th Street / Knox Avenue
The analysis of 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersections identified above will also evaluate
signal progression on the two roadways to determine the impacts of signal spacing on 76th Street
and Penn Avenue.
Initial analysis of traffic distribution to and from the project site indicates that the proposed
development will not have a significant affect on a number of intersections, therefore these
intersections will not be included in the traffic analysis. These include:
1. Xerxes Avenue / Southtown Drive
2. Xerxes Avenue / 80th Street
3. France Avenue / 80th Street
4. 76`h Street / France Avenue
Process and Methodolo2v: The traffic study will estimate the trip generation from the site for
each alternative and determine the approach direction distribution for site-generated traffic. The
study will also estimate increases in background traffic for the forecast year. The traffic
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 10
generated by the site will be assigned to the adjacent roadway system and intersections, and a
peak hour capacity analysis will be conducted to determine the existing and forecast levels of
service at the intersections. Traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed
project will be identified as part of this analysis.
The trip generation for the site will be based on the typical schedules of Best Buy employees.
The study will determine an appropriate reduction in the trip generation to account for transit and
travel demand management. The study will identify the travel demand management and transit
policies that could be implemented to achieve the reduction in peak hour trip generation assumed
for the site. Specific traffic demand measures to be implemented will be identified for inclusion
in a Travel Demand Management Plan for the project.
Construction Traffic: Potential impacts such as detours that must occur during building
construction and road upgrade will be analyzed and mitigation measures will be identified in the
EIS.
Vehicle-Related Air Emissions (#22)
The EIS will contain a detailed analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) in the vicinity of the project
that will be used in support of an Indirect Source Permit Application for the project. The
analysis will use recent CO monitoring data from the I-494/France Avenue area for existing CO
levels and will use computer modeling to predict future CO levels at various locations. The
results will be compared to applicable state standards. The air quality analysis will be
coordinated with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for concurrence on the
planned approach and analysis.
Traffic Related Noise (#24)
Project-generated traffic noise impacts will be evaluated and discussed in the EIS. The analysis
will compare predicted future noise levels to existing levels and to applicable state noise
standards. Residential properties will be identified as sensitive receptors. The noise analysis will
be coordinated with the MPCA.
Cultural Resources (#25a)
Based on the review and response from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding
the project site a Phase I survey will be conducted for the Wally McCarthy site for is potential
historic architecture. This survey will reference previous cultural resource surveys completed in
this area. The results of this survey will be included in the EIS.
Visual Impacts (#26)
Visual effects of the proposed structures in relation to the surrounding neighborhood will be
evaluated and discussed in the EIS. A shadow cast study will be completed and results included
in the EIS.
Compatibility with Comprehensive Plans and Land Use Regulations (#27)
Compatibility with the City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan and with surrounding land uses
will be evaluated and discussed in the EIS. The discussion will be coordinated with the
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page II
0 Metropolitan Council.
Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services - Roads (#28)
The EIS will further review the need for expanded road infrastructure. Potential improvements
will be coordinated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A traffic demand
management plan (TDMP) will be developed to address actions that will be taken to reduce the
peak hour trip generation from the site. Generally, the TDMP will outline actions to encourage
transit use and ridesharing. This may include things such as application of Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technologies, expansion of transit service to the site, rideshare
incentives and on-site coordination and information, and other on-site or adjacent improvements
to facilitate transit use and ridesharing.
Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services - Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Police and
Fire, and Utilities (#28)
Calculations will be made to determine if any additional capacity is needed in the watermains
and sanitary and storm sewers. Location and adequacy of utilities will be reviewed and plans will
be designed in conjunction with the local utility providers. Use of police and fire services will be
discussed in the EIS.
Cumulative Impacts (#29)
Cumulative impacts of the proposed development will be addressed in relation to necessary
transportation improvements. Cumulative impacts will include other redevelopment projects, if
any, that are currently planned and approved for the area.
Social and Economic Impacts (#30)
Changes to the community and impacts from displacement of residents will be discussed in the
EIS. Existing site valuations will be compared with projected site valuations to show the
expected increase in taxes (or tax increment) in the project area. Tax base consequences as a
result of the possible Tax Increment Financing will be documented.
4.3 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIS IN LESSER DETAIL
Four issues recommended to be scoped out of the EIS were identified during the Scoping EAW
comment process as needing discussion in the EIS. It is recognized that the level of analysis of
these issues is very specific, requiring a lessor level of analysis. Therefore they will not be
discussed with the same level of detail as the issues identified in Section 4.2. Additionally, there
was one area related to the traffic analysis that will be discussed in general terms as well. The
scope of analysis to be included in the EIS for these issues is outlined as follows:
Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources (#11 a)
The project will not result in adverse impacts to fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive
resources, as documented in the EAW. However, as requested by the DNR, the various project
alternatives will be analyzed based on their relative benefits to wildlife habitat.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 12
Appropriation of Ground or Surface Water (#13)
Dewatering is not anticipated to be necessary for facility construction.. The potential need for
dewatering activities will be determined to the extent feasible based on the current site plans and
existing water level data. The results will be coordinated with the DNR to determine if a permit
is necessary, and documented in the EIS.
Stationary Source Air Emissions (#23)
A MPCA permit may be required for the proposed emergency diesel generators. The EIS will
identify the permit thresholds for generators, and the size and location of the generators, to
determine the potential permit needs.
Nearby Resources -parks and trails (#25c)
The proposed project will not directly take parkland or trails. The proposed reconstruction of
76th Street and increased traffic volumes on 76th Street will be analyzed, however, to determine
the impacts on pedestrians and bikers.
Traffic (#21)
In addition to the traffic study being conducted for the numerous intersections near the project
site, a general analysis will be prepared regarding the current metering practices applied by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and how they may need to be modified as a result of
this project.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 13
0 5.0 SCHEDULE AND CONTACTS
The preliminary schedule for the completion of the EIS for the Proposed Project is outlined
below:
Table 2: Anticipated Review Schedule
EVENT/ACTIVITY DATE COMMENTS
Start EIS Scoping Period EQB Monitor publication and distribution of
May 15, 2000 Scoping EAW. g
Scoping Meeting At least 15 working days after EQB Monitor N
June 7, 2000 publication.
End Scoping Period Close of the 30-day comment period.
June 14, 2000
Scoping Decision
July 10, 2000 Must be issued within 15 working days of end
of Scoping period, unless extension is
approved by Project Proposer.
EIS Preparation Notice July 24, 2000 Must be issued within 45 days of the Scoping
in EQB Monitor Decision.
Maximum 280-day EIS Process begins.
Publish DEIS August 21, 2000
I
EQB Monitor publication.
Start Public Comment
Period
Public Meeting September 13, At least 15 working days after EQB Monitor
2000 publication.
End DEIS Comment September 28, At least 10 working days after public meeting.
Period 2000
FEIS Notice October 30, 2000 EQB Monitor publication.
End of Comment Period November 13, At least 10 working days after EQB Monitor
2000 publication.
EIS Adequacy Decision December 11, At least 5 working days after end of comment
2000 period.
Notice of EIS Decision December 26, Final notice in EQB Monitor.
2000 JI
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 14
The Responsible Governmental Unit for this project is the City of Richfield. The contact person
for the project is:
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
6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION
6.1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Information for the required permits will be gathered concurrently with the EIS preparation.
Permits and approvals will be applied for at the appropriate time and are identified in Table 3.
6.2 COORDINATION AND PERMITS REQUIRED
The EAW is being sent to all coordinating agencies for review and comment and the final
Scoping Decision will reflect the concerns and comments of these agencies.
Coordination will take place with a number of agencies as part of the permitting process as listed
in the response in Table 3. Other key issues include:
• Grading and drainage issues will be reviewed and coordinated with the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District
• Air quality and traffic noise issues will be reviewed and coordinated with the MPCA
• Coordination with MnDOT is underway regarding currently planned and potential future road
improvements.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 15
Table 3. Permits Required
UNIT OF GOVERNMENT I TYPE OF APPLICATION I STATUS
State
Minnesota Pollution Control National Pollution Discharge To be applied for
Agency (MPCA) Elimination System Permit
Indirect Source Permit (ISP) To be applied for
Air Emissions Registration Permit To be determined
for the emergency generators
Sewer Extension Permit f To be determined
Minnesota Department of Drainage Permit To be determined
Transportation (MnDOT) Off-site Road Improvements To be determined
Minnesota Department of Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be determined
Natural Resources (MnDNR)
Minnesota Department of Abandonment of Water Wells To be determined
Health (MnDH)
Local
City of Richfield Scoping Decision ( Pending with RGU
EIS Adequacy Decision To follow EIS
preparation
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ( Pending
Planned Unit Development Plan To be applied for
and Rezoning
Final Development Plan To be applied for
Conditional Use Permit To be applied for
Utility Vacations To be applied for
Right-of-way Vacations To be applied for
Preliminary Plat Approval To be applied for
Final Plat Approval To be applied for
Demolition Permit To be applied for
Building Permits To be applied for
Utility Permits To be applied for
Adoption of Official Map for I-494 k In process
Housing Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan and In process
Authority Public Financing
Regional
Nine Mile Creek Watershed Grading and Drainage Permits To be applied for
District
Metropolitan Council Designating 1-494 for RALF loan In process
funds
Comprehensive Plan Amendment In process
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 16
APPENDIX A:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 17
0 APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
A total of twelve comment letters on the Scoping EAW/Draft Scoping Decision Document were
received as follows:
• Minnesota Department of Transportation
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Minnesota Historical Society
• Metropolitan Council
• City of Bloomington
• Benshoof & Associates
• Five concerned citizens (listed below)
Verbal comments were recorded from ten individuals at the public information meeting on June
7, 2000 held at the Richfield City Hall.
The comment letters and a summary of verbal comments are included in Appendix B. Responses
to the substantive comments on the Scoping EAW and draft Scoping Document are summarized
below.
•
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT)
Comment 1: Preliminary Design
MnDOT staff commented that they will continue to work with the City of Richfield and the
developer on the following:
• The proposed surface parking on the south side of the proposed development should be
limited to areas not required for I-494 reconstruction
• Infrastructure improvements required for adequate site access
• Weave section analysis for the south bound 35W off-ramp to west bound I-494 with the
off-ramp to Penn Ave, for the east bound I-494 between the on-ramp from Penn Ave.,
and for the east bound I-494 off-ramp to south bound 35W; and
• The transit lane designation on the inside lanes of I-494.
Response: The developer will continue to work with MnDOT and the City to address these
issues.
Comment 2: Traffic Analysis
MnDOT requests that the traffic study be reviewed by their traffic staff.
0 Response: The traffic analysis will be included in the EIS, as stated in the Scoping EAW,
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 18
and will be coordinated with MnDOT staff.
Comment 3: MnDOT requests that the EIS include a site plan with hydraulic computations and
drainage area maps showing existing and proposed conditions and addressing 100-year storms.
Response: The draft EIS will include hydraulic analysis to determine the potential impact
to MnDOT rights-of-way. Drainage impacts will be coordinated with MnDOT staff.
Comment 4: MnDOT notes that modifications to 76th Street must meet State Aid rules and
policies.
Response: The design alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS for 76th Street will include
State Aid requirements.
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA)
Comment 1 & 6: Permits and Contacts
MPCA points out that in addition to the Indirect Source Permit (ISP) and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) needed for the project, a Sewer Extension
Permit, and a Registration Permit (in the event that emergency generators are installed) may also
be required.
Response: The Scoping EAW identified the potential need for an ISP and a NPDES General
Permit for the project. The Sewer Extension and Registration Permits have been added to the
list of Permits Required (Table 3, Section 6.0).
Comment 2: Erosion, Sedimentation and Water Quality
MPCA states that Best Management Practices will need to be a part of the NPDES permit. Also
the treatment ponds proposed should be compliant with the NPDES requirements.
Response: As stated in the Scoping EAW, a grading and erosion control plan will be
included in the EIS, which will incorporate Best Management Practices. The storm water
management plan will also be designed to comply with local and state requirements.
Comment 3: Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
The MPCA suggests that the developer consider the possibility of reusing the residential
structures by moving them to new locations, and/ or reusing building components to reduce the
solid waste deposited at a demolition landfill. They also noted that the structures should be
checked for asbestos-containing materials and removal should comply with appropriate disposal
requirements.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 19
Response: The project proposer will consider options for relocation or reuse of on-site
structures and components. The feasibility of these options will be based on the timing of
property acquisition, the construction schedule and the time frame available to remove site
materials.
As noted in the Scoping EAW, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is being
completed to identify any potential contaminants and storage tanks on site. The removal and
disposal of hazardous wastes, such as asbestos, will be conducted by a licensed contractor.
Storage tanks, if present, will also be removed according to state regulations and permit
requirements. The removal methods will be discussed in the EIS based on the findings of the
Phase I ESA.
Comment 4: Traffic
The MPCA states that the Transportation Management Plan completed for the project should be
included in the EIS. The project proposer should also coordinate with the I-494 Transportation
Management Organization regarding traffic operational problems and implementation strategies
for the TMP.
Response: A draft Traffic Demand Management Plan (TDMP) will be included EIS.
Comment 5: Air quality
The MPCA states that the approach to address air quality issues as summarized in the Scoping
Document is adequate to fulfill the EIS requirements. They also note that the monitoring data
used must be current, and that any roadway improvements assumed in the air quality analysis
should be identified.
Response: Comment noted. Monitoring data from I-494 and France Avenue (spring 2000)
will be used for this analysis. The EIS will document the road way improvements assumed
for the air quality analysis.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MnDNR)
Comment 1: Natural Resources
The MnDNR letter recommends that the Final Scoping Decision Document be amended to
include Wildlife Resources. The analysis of this issue need not be extensive, but does warrant
further examination in the EIS of "which alternatives, if any, affords the greatest potential habitat
benefit"
Response: Wildlife Resources will be added to the Scoping Decision Document and studied
in the EIS as recommended to address the potential wildlife habitat benefits of the alternative
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 20
landscaping plans and storm water ponds.
Comment 2: Water Quality
The MnDNR also requests that downstream waters which receive runoff discharge be identified.
If these waters include Nine Mile Creek and the Minnesota River, then opportunities to improve
runoff quality should be also be identified.
Response: The storm water management plan will be included in the EIS and will discuss
receiving waters and the methods incorporated in the project design to improve water quality.
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICE (SHPO)
Comment: The comment letter submitted by the SHPO Government Programs & Compliance
Officer states concurrence with the conclusion in the Scoping EAW that no known
archaeological or historic sites occur within the project area. They recommend that the only area
of the site requiring additional survey for potential historic architecture is the McCarthy
dealership. A Phase I survey should be completed for this portion of the project site.
Response: A Phase I survey will be completed for the McCarthy dealership, which will
include review of the work done previously along this segment of the I-494 corridor. The
results of the Phase I survey will be incorporated into the EIS.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Comment 1: Natural Resources
Staff wrote that the environmental issues were adequately addressed in the Scoping EAW.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2: Housing
Comments on Housing focused on the City of Richfield's housing goals for rental housing and
affordable rental and ownership housing. The Met Council discussed the availability of
affordable housing in the context of the loss of units that would result from this redevelopment.
They suggest that the City should assist displaced renters as a result of this redevelopment
project.
Response:
A review of the changes to the community and resulting impacts on the total housing
numbers will be included in the Social and Economic Impacts section of the EIS.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 21
Comment 3: Wastewater Systems
The Met Council indicates that additional information related to a number of wastewater issues
will be necessary in the EIS. Specifically recommended to be included in the EIS were the
locations in which the project would be connected to the City of Richfield's sewer system, flow
forecasts, long term capacity of the 33 and 36 inch interceptor, and determination of current
discharge rates and amounts.
Response:
As described in the EAW, the EIS will identify existing wastewater quantities, proposed
wastewater quantities generated by the site, the size and location of connections to the public
sanitary sewer system, and the existing capacity of the system.
Comment 4: Transportation
A request was made to include the following additional intersections for assessment because of
the existing congestion of the I-494/I-35W interchange which results in the likelihood of local
road systems being used to bypass this interchange:
I-494/I-35W Interchange - all movements
Penn Avenue and 80th Street
Penn Avenue and 82nd Street
82nd Street Ramps to I-35W
Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street
Lyndale Avenue and 1-494 East Bound On-Ramp
Lyndale Avenue and I-494 West Bound Off-Ramp
Response:
A detailed traffic study of a number of intersections in the immediate vicinity of the site will
be included in the EIS. All of the intersections listed above will be added to the study, with
the exception that the Lyndale and 76th Street intersection which will be replaced with the
Lyndale and 77th Street intersection. The interchange at I-35W and I-494 will not be included
in this analysis as the regional traffic volumes using this interchange are significantly higher
than the amount of site-generated traffic. Therefore the incremental impact is not projected
to be significant.
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
Comment 1: Item 7- Project Magnitude Data
The City commented on the need to explore all feasible alternatives and stated that "an
additional, less intense development alternative should be added and evaluated".
Response:
The City and Best Buy have determined that a development comprising 1.5 million square
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 22
feet is the minimum size necessary to meet Best Buy's office space requirements. Since
meeting Best Buy's office space requirement is the purpose of the project, a smaller
alternative would not meet this purpose and need not be analyzed in the EIS. (See Minn.
Rules Part 4410.2300, Subpart G. which provides in part, "An alternative maybe excluded
from analysis in the EIS if it would not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project
. . .")
Comment 2: Item 13 - Water Use
Bloomington comments on Water Use and Water Supply Changes focused on the potential
relocation of major water mains and the possible disruption of water supply to the City of
Bloomington during and following construction. The City of Bloomington requested that Best
Buy or its representatives meet with the Bloomington Utilities staff to discuss the relocation of
water supply lines.
Response: The Scoping EAW included coordination with the City of Bloomington
regarding the potential relocation of the water main and associated impacts. These impacts
will be identified in the EIS and coordination with Bloomington will continue.
Comment 3: Item 13 - Water Use
Bloomington requested that a limited analysis be prepared on dewatering, including identification
of the volume of dewatering required, where the water will flow, its impact on storm sewers and
receiving waters and required permits.
Response:
As stated in the Scoping EAW, it is not expected that dewatering will be required. However,
if dewatering is determined to be necessary based on site plans and preliminary water level
estimates the EIS will include information on such aspects of the operation such as volume,
location of runoff, and impacts on storm sewers. As stated in the Scoping EAW, the
developer will work with the MnDNR to determine if a Groundwater Appropriation Permit is
required.
Comment 4: Item 21 - Traffic
Bloomington comments on Traffic with regard to "timing of street and highway capacity
improvements to mitigate traffic impacts". Bloomington suggests a broader area for traffic
analysis in order to fully account for the impact of the additional employees commuting to the
site. Bloomington requests the following intersections be added to the peak hour traffic analysis:
• Penn Avenue & 80th Street
• Penn Avenue & 82nd Street
• I-35W & 82nd Street
• Knox Avenue & 80th Street
• Knox Avenue & 82nd Street
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 23
• York Avenue & 76th Street
• Xerxes Avenue & Southtown Drive
• Xerxes Avenue & 80th Street
• France Avenue & 80th Street
Bloomington's comments also indicate the need for traffic studies that analyze both the current
impacts and impacts following the development. The EIS should take into consideration all
background development in Richfield, Edina, and Bloomington.
Response: The revised list of intersections to be analyzed for the EIS is provided in Section
4.3 of the Scoping Decision Document. Most of the intersections suggested by Bloomington
have been incorporated into the traffic analysis except for the Xerxes Avenue intersections at
80th and Southtown Drive and France and 80th. Initial traffic analysis indicates these three
intersections will not have a significant change in their level of service as a result of this
project based on current intersection configurations, capacity and traffic volumes.
Comment 5: Item 21 - Traffic
Bloomington also suggests that a "full discussion" of "proposed travel demand management"
mitigation is needed. This should involve transit and ridesharing assumptions, needed transit
improvements, and the feasibility and timeframe for implementing those improvements.
Response: As stated in the response to the MPCA's comment # 4, a draft Traffic Demand
Management Plan will be included in the draft EIS.
Comment 6: Item 21 - Traffic
Bloomington requests that construction impacts of nearby road projects be included in the traffic
analysis including the impact of Penn Avenue construction on Lyndale Avenue and the impact of
76th Street construction on the 79th/80th Ring Route and 82nd Street.
Response: Road construction impacts on traffic will be addressed in the EIS to the extent of
identifying the timing of planned road construction projects in the area and whether or not the
existing traffic will need to be detoured or if the roads will remain open during construction.
As stated in the scoping EAW, the EIS will identify potential detour routes for the 76th Street
construction. The Penn Avenue and Lyndale Avenue bridge projects are planned to remain
open during reconstruction with minimal shutdown time periods.
Comment 7: Item 22 - Vehicle-related Air Emissions
Bloomington suggests that the impacts from Vehicle-related Air Emissions to be discussed in the
EIS should include Bloomington intersections as well as Richfield intersections.
Response: The intersections included in the air quality analysis will include those
intersections that will operate at level of service D or worse as a result of project-generated
traffic projects. If intersections in Bloomington ft this criteria due to the Best Buy
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 24
development, then these intersections will be included in the air quality analysis.
Comment 8: Item 27 -Compatibility with Plans
Bloomington points out that the two site plans do not account for the I-494/I-35W Interchange
Study Preferred Alternative. The compatibility of the development with the right-of-way needs
of the streets in this area needs to be discussed in the EIS.
Response: The compatibility of the proposed development with the planned road
improvements on Penn Avenue, I-494, and 76th Street will be addressed in the EIS.
Comment 9: Item 29 - Cumulative Impacts
Bloomington comments that a discussion of anticipated future development projects in the area
should be included in the EIS in the Cumulative Impacts section.
Response: The cumulative impacts discussion required in an EIS will cover all projects
proposed and approved for development.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC
Comment l: Traffic and Intersections
The reviewer notes that the traffic analysis should include the following intersections and road
areas:
• 76th Street and France Avenue
• 76th Street and Xerxes Avenue
• 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue
• I-494 and I-35W
• Nearby local streets
Response:
See response to Metropolitan Council comment # 4. For the revised list of intersections to be
included in the traffic analysis, see Section 4.2 of the Scoping Decision Document. The
intersection at 77th and Lyndale has been included for evaluation in the EIS. Initial analysis
shows that France and 76th and Xerxes and 76th have been designed to adequate capacity;
they will not be included in the traffic evaluation. It has been assumed that the commentor
intended to mean York and 76th instead of Xerxes and 76th. The York and 76th intersection
has been added to the traffic analysis. Based on the analysis of the intersections to be studied
in the EIS, recommendations for intersection improvements would be made to all
intersections projected to operate at a level of service D or below, to minimize traffic using
local neighborhood streets.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 25
Comment 2: Methodology
The commentor su ests thre
gg e additional areas of traffic analysis that should be considered: a)
traffic impacts on a longer term basis, i.e., in 2010 or 2020 following the highway improvements
on I-494 and I-35W; b) traffic analysis should account for ramp metering policies applied by
MnDOT; and c) traffic analysis needs to address impacts if the current I-494/I-35W concept plan
is not feasible.
Response: The traffic analysis will be completed for the year 2003 and the year 2022. The
traffic analysis will discuss the metering practices currently applied by MnDOT and how they
may need to change based on the results of the traffic study. A detailed analysis will not be
completed on the I-494/35W interchange since the bulk of that traffic volume is regional and
not specific to this development.
Comment 3: Other Traffic-related Issues
The commentor identifies three other general potential impacts from the redevelopment. They
suggest that consideration needs to be given to transit improvements needed to service Best Buy
employees and implementation of such improvements. They also suggest the impact on the
safety of pedestrians needs to be analyzed. The final traffic related comment suggests that access
impacts to existing development also be addressed.
Response: The transit improvements necessary for this project will be included in the draft
Traffic Demand Management Plan, which will be included in the EIS. The pedestrian and
bike safety issue will be addressed along with the 76'h Street alternatives discussion in the
EIS. Access changes that result from the proposed redevelopment project and their impacts
on adjacent development will be analyzed in the EIS.
Comment 4: Traffic-related Noise
The commentor indicates additional areas of the community surrounding the Best Buy Campus
proposed location that need to be evaluated for noise impacts. It should also be determined if
State standards would be violated for any of the Alternatives and over longer term scenarios
(2010 and 2020).
Response: All of the roads in and around the proposed development are exempt from the
state standards except I-494 and I-35W. However, for comparison purposes, a detailed noise
analysis will be included in the Draft EIS. This analysis will include sensitive noise receivers
(residences) where traffic levels will significantly increase (double). Typically, traffic level
changes of 100 percent are required to cause a 3 decibel (dBA) increase, which is considered
a perceptible change in noise levels. The average human ear is incapable of perceiving
changes in a time-varying sources (like traffic-generated noise) that are less than 3 dBA.
•
Best Buy Campus July J0, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 26
I-494 and I-35W are the only nonexempt roadway in the study area. Given the large existing
and No-Build traffic volumes on 1-494, it is unlikely that the development will cause traffic
volume increases approaching 100 percent. The traffic volume changes will be documented,
and those sensitive sites that are near roadways with traffic level increases approaching 100
percent will be included in the noise analysis. Specifically, residential areas on 76'h Street
north and west of the proposed project will be included in the analysis for comparison with
the state standards. The noise analysis will be completed for the years 2003 and 2022.
The detailed noise analysis will include analysis of the peak daytime hour and nighttime
hours for one year after build-out, including Build and No-Build alternatives. The daytime
hours are defined by the MPCA as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The nighttime hours are defined
by the MPCA as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The peak hour during these two time periods is
typically the p.m. peak hour (varies between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. per intersection) for the
daytime hours, and 6:00 to 7:00 a.m. for the nighttime hours.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC AND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION MEETING
There were verbal comments from ten individuals who attended the Public Information Meeting
held in Richfield on June 7'h, 2000. Commentors included:
Deb Nordmarken
Barbara Jerich
Marian Miller
Mike Dillon
Stan Cromer
Larry Wozniczka
Dorothy Johnson
Peggy Handt
Vernon Knudsen
Shirley Fowler
Eight of the ten comments pertained to traffic issues, two inquired about the possible economic
impacts on the City, and there were general positive and negative comments about the proposed
development. Essentially all of these comments were concerning potential impacts rather than
the scope proposed in the Scoping EAW or the Draft Scoping Decision Document. Most of
these concerns have already been addressed in the responses to other comments listed above.
The five remaining public comment letters were received from individuals, including:
Larry Wozniczka
Robert Hall
Peggy Handt
Marilyn and Robert Hanson
Lynda Durst
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 27
0 Larrv Wozniczka
Comment 1: Traffic
Mr. Wozniczka's comments about traffic concern the impact of the road designs and traffic
increases on 76th Street following the construction of the Best Buy Campus. He suggests an
alternative road alignment on 77th Street should be analyzed. He also requests that the issue of
pedestrian and bike traffic in relation to the park (Item 25.c.) be included in the EIS.
Response: The traffic volumes on 76th Street will be included in the analysis completed for
the EIS. The alternative alignment on 77th Street does not meet the purpose of the proposed
project and therefore will not be analyzed in the EIS.
As noted in the response to the Benshoof comment #3, impacts to pedestrian and bike
movements in relation to Donaldson Park will be studied along with the 76th Street
alternatives in the EIS.
Comment 2: Infrastructure
This comment addresses the need to define all costs to the city which may relate to tax increment
financing (TIF).
Response: Quantifiable city services and infrastructure impacts will be evaluated in the EIS.
TIF impacts will be discussed in the EIS in the Social and Economic Section of the EIS.
Comment 3: Land Use Regulation Compatibility and Compliance
This comment indicates that there is a need to evaluate whether the Best Buy Campus
development meets with existing ordinances without the assumption that variances will be
granted under a PUD.
Response: In the EIS, the compatibility of the development will be reviewed and evaluated
in the context of a number of factors, including the existing land use plan and policies for the
city and the proposed amendment to the land use plan. The EIS will address potential
impacts and mitigation measures, as necessary.
Comment 4: Social and Economic Impacts
The commentor states that an evaluation of the net impact on general fund revenues, with and
without the development, needs to be examined. Inflationary, fiscal disparity and the potential
for non-TIF improvements pertain. Options, such as the use of only a fraction of the project and
less than the maximum 25 year term are worthy of evaluation. Net changes to other property
taxes during the TIF term is an issue.
Response: A comparison will be done of the cost of quantifiable City of Richfield services
and potential revenues in the development area with and without the development. The
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 28
evaluation will include potential public improvements to be funded with sources other than
TIF. An analysis of the impact on the school district will also be done.
Beginning upon the completion of the construction of the development, about $2 million of
the annual taxes paid by Best Buy will go into the fiscal disparities fund that is distributed to
Twin Cities' communities, including Richfield. No attempt will be made in the EIS to
determine the specific impact on Richfield's fiscal disparities benefit/contribution. The
impending addition of several large projects (e.g. the Mall of America in Bloomington) to the
fiscal disparities pool in the next few years make it impossible to accurately estimate the
impact of the Best Buy Campus development on the City's fiscal disparities
benefit/contribution.
The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) explored a variety of financing
options before entering into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Best Buy. According
to the terms of that contract, forty-seven percent (47 percent) of the new taxes (tax increment)
are going to Best Buy site assembly costs. If the Best Buy campus appreciates faster than
projected, the bonds will be retired early and the TIF district could expire sooner than
scheduled.
Robert Hall
Comment 1: The commentor suggests that the number of vehicles projected to use the site is
under estimated by not including visitors.
Response: The make up of the site-generated traffic numbers will be described in the EIS.
Comment 2: The commentor suggests that the traffic numbers used for Penn and 76th Street
need to take into account the current traffic using the frontage road.
Response: The traffic analysis will take into account the re-routed frontage road traffic.
Comment 3: The commentor states that the Scoping EAW omits the impact of 76th Street and
the development project on existing residences and pedestrians/cyclists..
Response: The impacts of the three 76th Street alternatives will be evaluated in the EIS, as
was described in the Scoping EAW. This analysis will include the impacts to existing
structures and homeowners. The impacts due to traffic, traffic-related noise, building heights
and locations, and lighting are representative examples of the issues that will be evaluated in
the EIS with regard to the surrounding land uses, including residential properties. The 76th
Street alternatives will also include an evaluation of impacts on pedestrians and cyclists.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 29
• Comment 4: The commentor points out an error in the description of Donaldson Park.
Response: Comment noted. The correct location and description of this park will be
included in the EIS.
Comment 5: The commentor suggests that the 76th Street intersections at Humboldt and Oliver
should be added to the traffic analysis, as well as other intersections on 76th Street west of Penn
Avenue.
Response: The intersections to be evaluated in the traffic analysis have been expanded to
include the York and Lyndale intersections with 76th Street, west of Penn Avenue. See
response to the Benshoof comment #1 regarding impacts to smaller intersections.
Comment 6: The commentor suggests that the departure direction should be included as well as
the approach direction in the traffic analysis.
Response: The traffic analysis takes into account traffic entering and leaving the site.
• Comment 7: The commentor is looking for an explanation of how the proposed project will
impact local taxes.
Response: See response to Mr. Wozniczka comment # 4.
Pe22v Handt
Comment: The commentor provides general comments on the potential impacts due to traffic
and air quality.
Response: The scope of the impact analysis for these issues was described in the Scoping
EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document.
Marilvn and Robert Hanson
Comment: The commentor suggests that the segment of 70th Street West between Penn Avenue
and Xerxes Avenue be included in the traffic analysis.
Response: The traffic analysis methods are based on intersections that could potential
operate at level of service D or worse due to project generated traffic. Initial analysis does
not indicate that these intersections will change significantly due to the project. See methods
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 30
description in Section 4.2 of the Scoping Decision Document and responses to other traffic
related comments provided.
Lynda Durst
Comment: The commentor requests that sound barriers be included in the analysis for the 76th
Street improvements.
Response: Sound barriers are not a required mitigation measure since 76th Street is exempt
from state noise standards. However, the analysis will evaluate the potential noise benefit
that noise barriers may have on the residential area north of the 76th Street improvements.
Best Buy Campus July 10, 2000
Scoping Decision Document Page 31
•
APPENDIX B:
COMMENT LETTERS
0
f
Best Buy Campus
Scoping Decision Document
July 10, 2000
Page 32
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 62
Roseville, MN 55113
June 12, 2000
City of Richf ield
Attn: Julie Urban
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Julie Urban:
SUBJECT: Best Buy Campus
Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #EAW00-016
NE Quadrant of I-494 & Penn Ave.
Richfield, Hennepin County
C.S. 2785
The Metro Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the Best Buy
Campus Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Please address the following comments
prior to further development:
• Mn/DOT will continue to work with the City and developer to address the following issues:
? The surface parking on the south side of the development should be limited to areas not
required for I-494 reconstruction.
Ease of access to the development is not assured without improvements to the existing
infrastructure.
? Analysis of the degradation of the weave sections between SB 35W off-ramp to
WB I-494 with the off ramp to Penn Ave., along with the section of EB 1494 between
EB on-ramp from Penn Ave. and the EB 1-494 off=ramp to SB 35W should be made.
? Designation of the inside 14' lanes on I-494 as transit lanes has not been made.
If you have any questions regarding these issues please call Wayne Norris in our Preliminary
Design section at (651) 582-1295.
• As stated in the EAW, Mn%DOT would like to review the detailed traffic study that will be
conducted for the EIS that will be evaluating both AM and PM peak hour intersections. If
you have any questions regarding these traffic concerns please contact Lars Impola in our
Traffic section at (763) 797-3126.
An equal opportunity employer
City of Richfield
June 12, 2000
Page 2
It is difficult to determine the hydraulic impact to Mn/DOT right of way at this time and a
stormwater drainage permit may be required. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff
must be maintained. The site plan we review for this development should include hydraulic
computations and drainage area maps showing existing and proposed conditions and
addressing i 00-year storms. Any questions regarding MM/DOT's drainage issues should be
directed to Don Berre in our Water Resources section at (763) 797-3090.
• As you know, 76`b Street is Municipal State Aid Route 361, therefore any modifications to
76'h Street must meet State Aid rules and policies. If you have any questions regarding these
issues please contact Tom Leibli in our State Aid section at (651) 582-1372.
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, and
comprehensive plan amendments to:
Sherry Narusiewic2
Mn/DOT Metro Division - Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
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.
0
City of Richfield
June 12, 2000
Page 3
This letter represents the transportation concerns of Mn/DOT Metro Division. Other
environmental concerns raised by a wider Mn/DOT review may be forwarded to you in a
separate letter. If you have any questions regarding this review please call me at (651) 582-1468.
Sincerely,
'=?(M ggm",49-/??
Sharon Anderson
Transportation Planner / Local Government Liaison
Cc: Gerald Larson - Mn/DOT Environmental Services
Della Kolpin - Best Buy Company, Inc.
TOTAL P.04
•
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 LafaN cite Road 10
SI. Paid. Minnesota 55155-40 JUN 13 2000
,?
0
June 9, 2000
Julie Urban, AICP
Planning & Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Best Buy Campus
Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) &
Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD)
Dear Ms. Urban:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Scoping EAW and DSDD for the Best
Buy Campus project. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 11 a, Fish and Wildlife Resources, identifies that "[w]here appropriate, landscape design would
include planting of native trees and shrubs that would provide habitat and food source for urban wildlife."
This approach is a positive project feature given that the current site condition affords little or no wildlife
habitat. Although this is not an issue meriting detailed analysis, we do believe that the environmental
impact statement (EIS) should discern which alternative(s), if any, afford(s) the greatest potential habitat
benefit. We therefore recommend that the Final Scoping Decision Document (FSDD) be amended to
include Wildlife Resources within Section 4.2, however with the distinct caveat that the analysis not be
extensive. Rather, only enough detail should be provided to inform future decisions and the proposer of
the relative habitat benefit afforded across alternatives to potentially affected wildlife species.
In offering this recommendation, we recognize that the 1997 rule revisions to the Minnesota
Environmental Review Program eliminated the need for an EIS to address.both significant and minor
issues. This offered, we believe that guidance offered in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
publication Guide to the Rules on this topic supports inclusion of this issue, specifically:
"However, although this revision removes any legal obligation to include minor impacts, in some
cases the need for public education may be an overriding reason to be inclusive;" page 10.
is
Given that the project represents an improvement of the current condition through habitat creation, we
believe this outcome merits further, albeit limited, examination in the EIS.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 9 1-888-646-467 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
OW Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Q Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
Julie Urban, AICP
June 9, 2000
Regarding issues discussed in Item 17, Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff, part "b" should indicate
whether runoff reaching the storm sewers ultimately discharges to Nine Mile Creek and then the
Minnesota River. If the answer is yes, then the EIS should consider whether opportunities to improve
runoff quality are present, especially through utilization of measures that facilitate infiltration of runoff
rather than surficial discharge. Section 4.2 of the FSDD should incorporate this evaluation in the surface
water management plan, details of which will be included in the EIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
Draft EIS when they respectively become available.
9229 if you have questions about this letter.
We look forward to receiving your FSDD and the
Please contact Bill Johnson of my staff at (651) 296-
Sincerely,
•AD?
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Environmental Planning and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Russ Peterson, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Della I. Kolpin, Best Buy Co., Inc.
420000838-0002
BESTBUYSCOPE.WPD
2
June 14.2000
ECEOVE.p
JUN 14 2000
Ms. Julie Urban
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
RE: Best Buy Campus Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Ms. Urban:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has completed a review of the above
referenced document. We have the following comments on the scope and other items of
information.
Item 8. Permits and Contacts: As noted in the EAW, an Indirect Source Permit is required for
this project. Your initial point of contact is Mary Hoffman Lynn at (651) 297-2331. If municipal
sanitary sewer is extended to any of the project's buildings, a Sewer Extension Permit will also
be required. Your contact person for this permit is Don Perwten at (651) 296-7762. If more than
five acres of land is disturbed, a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for construction activities is required. This must be obtained prior to onset of
construction. Your initial point of contact for this permit is Keith L. Cherryholmes, Ph.D. at
(651) 296-6945. A Registration Permit may be required for the emergency generators. Your
contact for the Registration Permit is Roxana Dorsey at (651) 296-7554.
Item 16. Erosion and Sedimentation. The conditions of the NTDES General permit include
best management practices regarding erosion. Again, your contact is Dr. Cherryholmes.
Item 17. Water Quality_ Surface water runoff. It is indicated in the EAW that storage and
treatment will be provided in proposed stormwater ponds, that will be evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is indicated that National Urban Runoff Program
Criteria will be used to evaluate design criteria. These ponds should also be compliant with the
NPDES general permit requirements. Your contact is Dr. Chenyholmes.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY)
St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes , Duluth • Mankato a Marshall - Rochester - Willmar; rvww.pca.state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed or. recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
Ms. Julie Urban
Page Two
Item 20: Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks. The demolition of 55 single-family
homes, 13 duplexes, 7 apartment buildings and several commercial buildings is expected to
generate a considerable amount of demolition debris. Since landfill capacity continues to be an
issue, and since moderately priced housing is at a premium, the Agency recommends that the EIS
include options for re-use of the 55 single-family homes. One option would be the donation of
the homes to an appropriate charity, such as Habitat for Humanity, who could then refurbish the
home on a new lot. The contact at Habitat for Humanity is Ryan Karis at (612) 331-4090.
If the dwellings can't be moved, then opportunities for re-use of fixtures and/or recycling of
components, like flooring, interior trim and fixtures, and structural wood should be investigated.
The Green Institute Deconstruction Program can provide further information. Your contact there
is Julie Larson or Bob Alf, both at (612) 728-9388.
Any debris that is residual after moving houses or salvaging material should be deposited in an
appropriately permitted demolition facility, preferably not a municipal solid waste facility.
Structures should be checked to see if asbestos is present before demolition, and any asbestos
removal should be performed by a contractor licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Disposal in an appropriately permitted facility is required. Your initial contact point at the
MPCA is Jeff Connell at (651) 297-727 1.
General guidance relating to storage tanks is available from our Customer Assistance at
(651) 297-8387.
Item 21: Traffic. The staff notes that a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) which includes
traffic demand management strategies will be completed for the project. The TMP should be
included in the EIS. In addition to any identified roadway improvements needed to support the
project, the project proposer should coordinate with the I-494 Transportation Management
Organization and implement traffic demand management strategies to address traffic operational
problems identified in the traffic study. Your contact at the Agency is Mary Hoffman Lynn.
Item 22: Air Quality: The Scoping Document has identified traffic and air quality impacts
among those issues needing additional analysis in the EIS. The EIS will contain a detailed traffic
study and a detailed analysis of the carbon monoxide impacts in the project area, and will identify
mitigation measures, and any planned roadway improvement projects that will be required to
accommodate project traffic and alleviate these impacts. The staff deems this approach adequate.
Lastly, as noted in the Scoping Document, new air quality monitoring for background carbon
monoxide must be conducted or most recently collected data in the project area must be used in
the air quality analysis conducted for the project. Additionally, any planned roadway
improvements assumed in the air quality analysis should be identified.
Item 23: Stationary source air emissions.- We note that the emergency diesel generators are
identified in the Scoping EAW as potentially requiring a permit from the MPCA. Specifically, a
Registration Permit may be required. Your initial point of contact for this issue is Roxana Dorsey.
Ms. Julie Urban
Page Three
Thank you for this opportunity to review this scoping EAW_ Should you have any questions or
concerns regarding this review, please contact me directly at (651) 296-8643.
Sincerely,
e44 G( /??
Eric J. Kilberg
Planner Principal
Operations and Planning Section
Metro District
EJK:gs
•
•
P9 ? 0 L ?L?
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOGIET_?', JUN 2 0 2000
By
June 16, 2000
Ms. Julie Urban
Planning & Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: EAW - Best Buy Campus
Richfield, Hennepin County
SHPO Number: 2000-2608
.,, Dear Ms. Urban:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the above-referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to
responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites
Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in
Minnesota Rules 4410.1600.
The response to question 25a acknowledges that an initial cultural resources review of
the project site was completed by BRW and submitted to our office. We have reviewed
that submittal, and agree with the recommendation that the McCarthy dealership merits
a phase I survey. That survey should take into account the previous evaluation work on
the 1-494 corridor that was completed several years ago.
Contact our office at 651-296-5462 with questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
1
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs & Compliance Officer
cc: Garneth Peterson, BRW
3t."> l?l Ll.t)Gt; l?tti'Lt:? 1111) ?? 1{S'1'/ SUS"1' I'11'L. 1?1\?\1:?U"1 1 .;. [fir -IVUO I fa.l:l'lll)\f:: t,.>t-296-6126
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
June 14, 2000
Julie Urban
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Best Buy Campus-Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)/draft SDD
Metropolitan Council District 5
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18260-2
Dear Ms. Urban:
Metropolitan Council staff has conducted a review of this Scoping EAW 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 40 acres. It includes the demolition of single-family
homes, duplexes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures to accommodate the
construction of four to five office buildings, with up to a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet, to
create office spaces for up to 9,000 employees. The alternative with the maximum square footage
will include parking spaces for up to 9,500 cars.
In May 2000, the city submitted to the Council a comprehensive plan amendment for an 1 I -acre
site, which is a part of the area covered under the EAW. The Council found the comprehensive
plan amendment incomplete for formal review because of a lack of wastewater information.
The staff review has concluded that the Scoping EAW is incomplete with respect to some
regional concerns and raises issues of consistency with Council policies. Lack of adequate
information results in Council staff being unable to make an EIS determination for some regional
purposes. Council staff has also determined that an EIS is needed in some areas.
Council staff offer the following comments:
Natural Resources (James Frost, 651-602-1078)
The scoping EAW has adequately addressed the environmental issues that need to be considered
in the EIS. The Council reserves the right to comment further on the completion of the EIS.
Housing (Guy Peterson, 651-602-1418)
When Richfield submitted its updated comprehensive plan (1997-2007) it acknowledged
household and housing unit growth through 2010 of about 1000 households greater than
the Council had forecast for 2010. Even with this much higher anticipated growth, the
city's LCA housing goals for rental housing and affordable rental and ownership housing
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
Julie Urban
June 14, 2000
Page 2
negotiated with the Council in 1995 would not require the addition of more of these units
by 2010 if units affordable in 1995 remain so through 2010. Because the city's baseline
LCA indices were so high, it could see all of these nearly 1000 housing units be at market
rate and still have total housing numbers in the community for all rental housing and for
affordable rental and ownership housing that will be within the sector benchmarks and
above their goals.
Removing these 160 units and eliminating the opportunity to possibly develop 105 new
units, the addition of which would have been possible on this 40 acres if not for this
redevelopment proposal, will not impede the city from maintaining its levels of housing
affordability represented by its LCA housing goals. If Richfield does grow by 1000
households by 2010 and we presume that all of the duplex units, existing apartment units
and 105 potential new units that can no longer be built there were all lost "affordable"
rental units, the city will need to add about 20 new affordable rental units over the decade
to maintain its 2010 LCA affordable rental housing goal. However, because it is likely
that many units "affordable" in 1995 may have experienced rent increases that might
affect their affordability, the city should make efforts to advance affordable rental
housing proposals wherever possible in this fully-developed community. In addition, it
should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as the result of this
redevelopment since, unlike homeowners, they will not be compensated in the same
fashion for the loss of their homes.
The employment opportunities presented by the 1800+ jobs that may result from this land
use change represent significant potential employment opportunities that may benefit the
city's 5000+ renter households.
Wastewater Systems (Kyle Colvin, 651-602-1151)
The Draft EAW describes the proposed project and land use change from the city's current plan
for a 40-acre site located in the area of 76th Street and Penn Avenue. The area is in the
commercial/retail/office area along the I-494 strip and is located within the city's "I-494 West"
sub-area planning district. (See 1997 Comprehensive Plan Update.). The demolition will also
include the removal of two auto dealerships, and several commercial buildings. The new plan
appears not to accommodate any residential dwelling units.
Sanitary Sewer Discharge and Comparison with System Capacity
The EAW does not specify the location(s) in which the project would be connected to the
sanitary sewer system. The EAW does indicate that 25% of the project area is currently served
through direct connections to the interceptor and that the remaining 75% of the site is currently
served through local sewer laterals. Any connections made to the local sewer would convey flow
to a city owned lift-station where it would then be pumped to and discharged into interceptor 1-
RF-491 at 77th Street and Knox Ave.
The capacity of the 33 and 36 inch interceptor (1-RF-491) which is located along the north
boundary of the project site is 11.9 and 13.7 MGD respectively. Historically, the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services (MCES) has identified interceptor 1-RF-491 as containing some
Julie Urban
June 14, 2000
Page 3
long-term capacity concerns. In 1997, as part of the review of the city's comprehensive plan
update, the MCES reviewed the additional city-wide connections proposed under the update, and
determined that as outlined, the growth would not have an adverse impact to the Metropolitan
Disposal System (MDS).
The current EAW does not provide any flow projections as a result of the proposed development.
It does indicate that wastewater flow projections would be included with the information
provided in the EIS.
The 1997 plan update, indicated that the I-494 West area would have 94 additional residential
connections and 17.5 acres of additional/redeveloped commercial areas. Using an average flow
generation rate of 250 gpd per residential connection and 3,000 gpd per acre of commercial land
use, these increased connections and land use changes would generate about 76,000 gpd.
The EAW also indicates that in addition to the 1.5 to 1.9 million square feet of office space use,
the development will include employee amenities such as a day care facility, employee cafeteria,
convenience store, and a health fitness center. Based on these numbers it would be safe to
assume that the additional flow from the new use(s) would be greater than 76,000 gpd as stated
in the 1997 update.
It is also important to note that the 40-acne commercial/office campus site is only a small part of
• the overall I-494 West sub-area (approximately 1/3 of total area), which brings up another
question: Is the forecasted growth within the other areas of sub-area I-494 West still applicable?
For this reason, the MCES must find the Scoping EAW incomplete until we can review
additional information related to flow forecasts to determine the long-term capacity needs of
interceptor 1-RF-491.
RECOMMENDATIONS
An EIS has been determined necessary in the following area:
Transportation (Mark Filipi, 651-602-1725)
Given the congestion of the I-494/1-35W interchange, the EIS needs to assess more
intersections than the Scoping EAW lists. It is highly likely that employees or visitors of
the site will use more of the local road system to bypass the I-494/I-35W interchange, if
heading to the south or east. Therefore the following intersections should be added to the
list of intersections to be analyzed in the EIS to provide information to assess the impact
of the development on both the regional road system and the road systems of adjoining
communities.
Intersections Requested to be Added:
I-494/1-35W Interchange - all movements
Penn Avenue and 80" Street
Julie Urban
June 14, 2000
Page 4
Penn Avenue and 82nd Street
82nd Street Ramps to I-35W
Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street
Lyndale Avenue and I-494 East Bound On Ramp
Lyndale Avenue and I-494 West Bound Off Ramp
The following is needed before an EIS determination can be made:
Wastewater Systems (Kyle Colvin, 651-602-1151)
The city needs to provide additional flow projections for each connection point to 1-RF-491 for
those connections within the area depicted in the attached map. Once this information has been
reviewed, the Council will then analyze the system and determine if the proposed land use
changes as outlined in the EAW will have an adverse impact to the MDS. Therefore, flow
projections as outlined below are necessary before an EIS determination can be made.
The information from the city needs to include flow projections for 2010 and 2020. The current
comprehensive plan on file at the Council does not provide any flow projections nor does it
provide any information as to the current flow volumes generated in this sub-area planning
district (I-494 West). The flow projections should be expressed in terms of average daily flow
volumes, either gallons per day (gpd) or million gallons per day (MGD).
The city should also determine the current discharges for those current uses within the proposed
commercial/office campus site that will be eliminated as part of the redevelopment of the area.
The MCES is aware of two automobile vehicle wash systems located at two automotive
dealerships. It is our understanding that these facilities will also be removed from the site as part
of the redevelopment. Therefore, the estimate for current discharge conditions from the proposed
site should include the discharge to the system from the two automotive wash facilities.
This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on
the EAW. 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,
l
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
oil City of
Bloomington, minnesota
Gene L. Winstead
June 5, 2000
Julie Urban, AICP
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Best Buy Campus
Dear Ms. Urban:
Mark Bernhardson
E R U V`
U - 8 2000 11,
On June 5, 2000, the Bloomington City Council authorized transmittal of the following comments for
consideration and response in the Best Buy Campus Scoping Decision Document as well as inclusion in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
1. Item 7 Project Magnitude Data
Development Alternatives (p. 6)
• In relevant sections, the EIS should address the relative impacts and mitigation required of the 1.5
million square feet alternatives (IA and 2A) and the 1.9 million square feet alternatives (113 and 2B).
In order to explore all feasible alternatives as described in the Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410-
4410.7900, an additional, less intense alternative should be added and evaluated.
2. Item 13 Water Use
Water Supply Changes (p. 13)
Two large water mains (42" and 36") that supply a large percentage of Bloomington's water supply
bisect the project site. Unless the site plan is adjusted to avoid the high cost of relocation, the EIS
needs to include detailed information on the proposed relocation of these mains, the impact on the
Bloomington water supply, and how the relocation schedule fits with the Bloomington Water
Treatment Plant construction schedule which places an unusually high reliance on the Minneapolis
water supply during its construction and during the peak demand Sunirner months (April i Sa' -
September 30"'). If the mains will be relocated, permits, inspection, and testing by Bloomington
Utilities will be required. Please meet with Bloomington Utilities staff to discuss the details of any
relocation of the supply lines.
3. Item 13 Water Use
Dewatering (p. 14)
As an issue to be addressed, but in a less detailed analysis section of the EIS, information should be
provided and analysis should be prepared on dewatering, including the volume of dewatering
required, where the water will flow, its impacts on the storm sewers and receiving water body, and
required permits.
4. Item 21 Traffic
Potential Traffic Routes and Intersections to Be Analyzed (p. 19)
Bloomington's primary concerns regarding the project are traffic impacts and the timing of street and
highway capacity improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. The EIS should look beyond the
An Em.c)io,
Ms. Julie Urban, AICP
June 5, 2000
Page 2 of 2
immediate vicinity and fully consider the traffic impacts that 9,000 potential employees plus visitors
will have on streets and intersections within a broader area. Given the number of employees and
visitors who will approach from the south (especially on I-35W), it is vital that the EIS assess traffic
impacts and identify improvements needed on Penn Ave., the 79'/80`'' Street Ring Route, and 82nd
Street in Bloomington. In addition to the intersections proposed, the EIS needs to also analyze
impacts and improvements needed at Penn/80"', Penn/82nd, 82nd/I-35W, 80"'/Knox, 82nd/Knox,
76"'/York, Southtown Drive/Xerxes (currently a four-way stop), 80'h/Xerxes, and 80'h/France. The
EIS should analyze traffic impacts both before and after all proposed roadway improvements are in
place and should consider-background development in Richfield, Edina, and Bloomington. Include a
list of background development assumptions used in the traffic study.
Item 21 Traffic
Process and Methodology (p.20)
The EIS needs to include a full discussion of transit and ridesharing assumptions used in the
transportation analysis, proposed travel demand management (TDM) mitigation, and how those TDM
measures will be implemented and enforced. The EIS also must analyze needed transit improvements
and feasibility and timeframe for implementing those improvements.
6. Item 21 Traffic
Construction Traffic (p. 20)
The EIS needs to fully assess the impacts to area streets caused by construction of the proposed
infrastructure improvements to accommodate the project. For example, what impact will construction
on Penn have on Lyndale, or construction on 76"' Street have on the 79"'/80"' Ring Route and 82nd
Street. The Scoping EAW indicates that roadway construction will be occurring on Penn and
Lyndale at the same time, which is not desirable timing.
7. Item 22 Vehicle-Related Air Emissions (p. 21)
The EIS should include Bloomington intersections in its assessment of emissions impacts.
Background air quality levels should be based on on-site monitoring rather than estimates.
8. Item 27 Compatibility with Plans (p. 24)
The two site plan alternatives do not reflect the I-494/1-35W Interchange Study Preferred Alternative.
Alternatives should be reviewed to assess compatibility with the proposed 1-494/Penn off ramp, I-494
right of way needs, and right of way needs along Penn Ave. and 76`'' Street.
9. Item 29 Cumulative Impacts (p. 25)
The EIS should discuss how anticipated future development and redevelopment projects in the area
will interact with this project to create cumulative impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Best Buy Campus Scoping EAW. If you have any questions
regarding this 1 r, pleas tact Larry Lee, Community Development Director, at (952) 948-8947.
Sincerely _ /
Gene Winstead
Mayor
\planning\eaweis\bestbuy\Comments on Scoping EAW
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD. SUITE TWO / HOPKINS. MN 55343 / (952) 238-16671 FAX (952) 238-1671
•
June 14, 2000
Ms. Julie Urban, AICP
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue S.
Richfield, MN 55423
tEC 0%#
REFEr
JUN 1 4 2000 1
RE: Comments on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Best Buy
Campus
Dear Julie:
On behalf of the Walser Automotive Group, Inc, we have reviewed the Scoping
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Best Buy Campus dated May 15, 2000.
Based on this review, we have identified several comments under section 21, Traffic and
section 24, Odors, noise and dust. All the comments pertain to additional items that we
believe need to be addressed in the EIS for this project. In our judgment, all the items
need to be addressed in an equal and comprehensive manner for all development
alternatives, including the no build option, identified on pages 6 and 7 ofthe Scoping
Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
Our comments regarding additional items that need to be analyzed are organized by sub-
heading under the two sections, with comments not covered under any of the sub-
headings addressed last. Our comments, with a brief explanation for each, are presented
next.
$ection-, 1. Traffic - Inters ions To Be AnAL zz for EIS
a) Add intersection of 76* Street and France Avenue. For motorists traveling
between the Best Buy Campus and the west on 1.494, the France Avenuell-
494 interchange is a principal alternative to use of the pemAvenue/I-494
interchange. Since we would expect a significant portion of these motorists to
use the France Avenue route, a need exists to analyze impacts at the existing
intersection of 7611 Street and France Avenue.
b) Add intersection of 76" Street and Xerxes Avenue. For the same reasons
as expressed under point a), needs exist to address impacts at this intersection.
c) Add intersection of 776 Street and Lyndale Avenue. For motorists .
traveling between the Best Buy Campus and the east on I494, the use of 77'b
Street to Lyndale Avenue is a principal alternative to use of the Penn Avenue
interchange. This intersection needs to be analyzed because it already is
heavily utilized.
0
Ms. Julie Urban 2 June 14, 2800
d) Add consideration regarding level of service impacts an mainline
operations for I4% and 11-35W. In order to understand .the implications of
the Best Buy development on the regional highway system, it is imperative to
address level of service impacts on these freeway facilities.
e) Add analysis of through traffic impacts on nearby local. streets. Given the
congestion that occurs now and in the future at nearby intersections, it is
highly important to project the increased use of local streets for through traffic
and to assess the impacts that would be caused.
motion 21. Traffic`ProcqlB Pd Mejtdology
In addition to analyzing the traffic impacts in the year after completion of
the development (i.e. 2003 needs also exist to analyze traffic impacts for
two other scenarios: a) period after 2003 when major construction would
be occurring on I494 in the Penn AveuuelI-35W interchange area and.b)
longer-term basis, 2010 or 20209 after principal roadway improvements
have been implemented. The interim, construction period needs to be
examined in this situation because major reductions in capacity on I494 and
in accessibility via nearby interchanges such as Penn Avenue likely will occur
during the construction period- Thus, it is important to determine the impacts
of the development traffic during this period when major construction is
occurring on I-494. Since the roadway system is intended to serve long-term
traffic needs, it is imperative to determine how the proposed development
relates with longer-term traffic forecasts and needs for satisfactory traffic
operations.
g) The traffic analyses need to fully account for the ramp metering policies
and practices applied by MnMOT. Specific reference should be made in
the analyses to the effects of the ramp metering on intersection levels of
service, queuing, distribution of Best Buy-traffic among the available
directions and routes, and potential use of local streets for through traffic.
h) The analyses need to address the fundamental question regarding the
traffic impacts and outcomes if the City's current concept plan for the I-
49411? 35W/Peno Avenue area is not feasible. This concept plan is different
from alternatives addressed in the I-494 EIS and has not been fully examined
in terms of its impacts or feasibility. We understand that Mn/DOT staff
currently are analyzing this concept and have hired a consultant to simulate
traffic movements along the entire I494 strip to make we that the design
would not create bottlenecks at high traffic volumes.
Ms. Julie Urban 3 June .14, 2000
S=tion 21. Traffic • Othq
• i) Thorough 'analyses need to be performed regarding impacts on transit
facilities and services. In addition to examination of the impacts on existing
transit facilities and services, consideration needs to be given to the needs for
transit service improvements and Best Buy's role in implementing any transit
service improvements.
J) Thorough. analyses are needed regarding impacts on safety for pedestrian
and bicycle movements. A significant number of children and adults walk.
and ride bicycles to and from nearby parks and schools. Careful consideration
needs to be given to the impacts on safety for these movements caused by the
increased traffic under the alternative developments.
k) Thorough analyses are needed regarding any impacts of the proposed
development on access patterns for existing developments. What
Properties. would experience achange in access due to the development? To
what extent would these changes cause adverse impacts? To the extent that
adverse impacts would be created, can these impacts be effectively mitigated?
These issues pertain. to an properties that would experience access changes,
including Galyan's, which would lose An existing access route, businesses in
the Southtown Shopping Center area, which would be impacted by the loss of
direct access between I-35W and Penn Avenue, and homes along 760 Street,
which would incur greater delays in gaining access to 7611 Street:
lion 2kOdors. not n s - c.RelatedNoise
1) Address noise implications at an key receptor locations. In addition to the
residential properties on the north side of 761° :Street as referenced in the
Scoping EAW, noise analyses also need to be performed at all other locations
where traffic increases may cause noise impacts. One example involves
residential properties on both sides of 76& Street west of Penn Avenue.
at) The noise analyses need to address all alternatives relative to their
'conformance with State noise standards. For both the 2003 and longer term
(20I0 or 2020) scenarios, the noise analyses need to address all alternatives,
including the no build option, to determine whether the State standards would
be violated at any receptor locations.
I appreciate your consideration of the comments expressed in this letter and your follow
through to ensure that the transportation analyses for.the'Best Buy Campus EIS
effectively account for all the items that I have mentioned.
Sincerely,
BBN F:& ASSOCIATES, INC.
amen A Benshoof
TOTAL P.04
Comments from Public Information Meeting
Scoping EAW
Best Buy Campus
June 7, 2000
Deb Nordmarken, 6933 Sheridan Avenue
concerned about traffic impacts
traffic on 70th Street is currently heavy; it serves as a short-cut for the neighborhood
the development will add traffic to the neighborhood on 70th Street
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue (also submitted written comments)
- Traffic: The alternatives fail to consider the concept suggested in the Comprehensive Plan
which is to improve Knox Avenue and 77th Street as the main arterial.
- The issue of bike and pedestrian access on 76th Street needs consideration.
- Infrastructure: The EIS needs to consider the cost to the City of every form of City services,
including administrative services.
- Ordinance Compliance: There needs to be an evaluation of all ordinances, including. setback,
building height and green space requirements and consider what variances will be given for
the project. The City should not just assume that, because it will be a PUD, variances should
be granted to every regulation.
- Economic Impacts: The Scoping EAW doesn't provide enough detail on the impact of the TIF
being provided. The EIS should explore other financing options (e.g. doing only a partial TIF
district, a district for less than 25 years) and provide the net change to property taxes.
Barbara Jerich, 3948 West 50th Street, Edina
- The traffic impacts cannot be mitigated.
- There will be impacts on local residents and the entire region.
- The increased traffic will impact pedestrians.
- The noise and air pollution will increase.
- The City should select the no-build alternative.
Dorothy Johnson, 7717 Chicago Avenue, #401
She is concerned about the potential increase of traffic and speeds on 77th Street because of
the development.
It is currently difficult for the elderly living at 7717 Chicago Avenue to cross 77th Street.
Removal of the frontage road will make traffic on 77th Street worse.
Marian Miller, 7316 Grand Avenue
At times, she can't get across the freeway or onto the freeway at Lyndale Avenue. How can
this system accommodate the development?
- Kids cross 35W on 76th Street with their bikes to get to the middle school. The development
will make this more difficult and dangerous.
- The area at 76th Street from France to Lyndale Avenue experiences traffic difficulties during
rush hour. The worst bottleneck is around Penn Avenue.
- Concerned about safety issues.
Peggy Handt, 7545 Colfax Avenue
- She is concerned about taking houses on her side of the street.
- She can't get out of her driveway during rush hour at times.
Mike Dillon, 6521 5th Avenue
- He asked who pays for the study.
- He questioned whether there is any outside review by an uninterested party.
- He questioned how he could believe a study that's funded by someone with an interest in a
positive outcome.
Vernon Knudsen, 6909 5th Avenue
- He stated that traffic on I-494 is currently bad so where will these cars go?
- Because TIF is being used, the development won't help residential taxpayers or the school
district.
Stan Cromer, 6833 16th Avenue
The City is overextending itself for a corporation that may not be successful in the future.
He would rather see other land uses such as restaurants.
Traffic will cause chaos everywhere.
The street system is not designed for 9500 cars.
- The EIS needs to look at the traffic situation today.
- He's upset about the treatment of Walser.
Mike Dillon, 6521 5th Avenue
- The EIS should explain what economic benefits existing Richfield residents will receive from
the development.
Shirley Fowler, 6916 Penn Avenue
- There are several enormous Best Buy buildings in Eden Prairie, and Best Buy should continue
to use those buildings and not move to Richfield.
0
Larry Wozniczka 7 77
,
6744 Wentworth Ave. S.
Richfield MN 55423
June 7, 2000
City of Richfield
Julie Urban, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield MN 55423
Dear Julie,
This letter responds to the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Dated May
15, 2000, for the Best Buy Campus. Expansion of the following topics is requested:
1. Traffic
2. Infrastructure
3. Ordinance Compliance /Visual Impacts
4. Economic Impacts
1. Traffic
Item 21 needs to consider increases in traffic on 76th Street due to the vacation of existing
streets, frontage roads, and the loss of I-35W exit to Penn Avenue via I-494. Design alternatives such an
improved Knox Avenue-77th Street and move of the 76th Street entry to 77th Street deserve evaluation.
Related to the project, but outside its boundaries, is improvement of the I-494 frontage road west of Penn
Avenue. That concept for completion of the 77th Street detached frontage road to the west of 1-35W is
proposed in Richfield's Comprehensive Plan, Volume Three, J., as "improving Knox Avenue and West
77th Street as the commercial connection to support proposed Regional Commercial sites on both sides of
that upgraded street." This project could provide a commercial traffic route away from, and possibly
reduce traffic on, 76th Street. The use of 76th Street for general pedestrian and bicycle traffic is found in
other plans, and the statement in Item 25. c. that "This issue will not be addressed" needs to be amended.
2. Infrastructure
Item 28, Impact on infrastructure and public services, needs to define all costs to the city, down
to administrative services which may relate to, or be paid for by, tax increment financing (TIF).
3. Ordinance Compliance/ Visual Impact
Item 27, Compatibility with plans and land use regulations, needs to evaluate all ordinances for
setbacks, green space ratios, etc. without the assumption that, as a planned Unit Development (PUD),
variances will be granted.
4. Economic Impacts
Item 30 mentions economic review of the City's tax base. Tax increment financing has been
assumed in public discussions to date. An evaluation of the net impact on general fund revenues, with
and without the development, needs to be examined. Inflationary, fiscal disparity and the potential for
non-TIF improvements pertain. Options, such as the use of only a fraction of the project and less than
the maximum 25 year term are worthy of evaluation. Net changes to other property taxes during the TIF
term is an issue.
Thank you for including the above in the EIS evaluation.
Sincerely,
CLrryOZniczka
June 12, 2000
? r??Fr t 2 ^^!}'1
City of Richfield J
Attn: Julie Urban y 1
6700 Portland Ave. S
Richfield MN 55423
Dear Ms. Urban
The following are my comments based on the Scoping Environmental Assessment
worksheet and the draft scoping decision document for the Best Buy Campus prepared by
BRW and Faegre and Benson. I regret that I was unable to attend the public hearing on
June 7.
My first concern is the number of cars used for the study is being substantially
underestimated in that it does not include:
a) the number of vehicles likely to be visiting the site as vendors or other typical business
visitors. Best Buy should be able to document (from sign-in records) how many persons of
this type currently visit and should be able to make projections based on the substantially
increased number of employees it anticipates being housed there. Even if Best Buy were
. able to totally balance its work schedules, there would be about 700 additional cars per
hour.
b) Also not included are the numbers of cars that currently use the service road to reach
Galyans or the apartment buildings that are presumed to remain after development. If
there is no access for them other than on Knox, certainly traffic volume on Penn and 76th
Street will substantial increase.
c) There is mention that the "City of Richfield may require upgrades to 76th Street
between I-35W and Penn Avenue .... (with) alternatives that widen the roadway to the
north... some combination to the north and south." This item does not mention the
possibility (likelihood) that any widening to the north would require the condemnation and
removal of several more houses in Richfield. This is a serious omission! If this project is to
proceed, I highly recommend that traffic be diverted through the Best Buy development
on 77th Street and traffic be denied easy access on 76th Street_ This is especially
important when considering the city's apparent interest in making 76th Street more
attractive to cyclists and pedestrians. Best Buy can connect its campus with over or under
walkways for the safety of their employees.
On page 9, Off-site to the North, you state that Donaldson Park "contains two ball
fields..." In fact, Donaldson Park and the West Middle School area have at least 5
baseball/softball fields, two soccer/football fields and two skating/multiple use sites.
On page 10, the document conveniently does not mention residential in the surrounding
land use. This would seem to once again dismiss the two blocks of homes and two
apartment complexes that are to remain. Additionally, it does not address the impact on
the homes that are in the immediate Vicinity and are likely to be affected by the project.
On page 19, your list of intersections to be analyzed for EIS inexplicably omits 76th and
Humboldt and 76th and Oliver; both are likely to become alternate routes for north-bound
traffic that is not willing to wait for signal lights on 76th and Penn. This already occurs.
Additionally, because drivers will take Oliver as an alternative route, they will then attempt
to access Penn on 75th, 74th and 73rd street. These intersections should also be included
in the analysis for EIS. Further, there is no mention of any intersections west of Penn.
Several citizens from that area have already testified that they will be impacted.
On page 20, the study only estimates toe approach direction. It should also study the
departure direction.
On page 23, I am alarmed to see that your intent is not to address the designated parks,
recreation areas or trails section! First, consider the afore-mentioned corrections
concerning the ball fields and the safety of the participants, many of whom travel on 76th
Street, 75th Street, 73rd Street and on Humboldt and Oliver avenues. For accuracy, you
should note that the boundaries of Donaldson Park do not border 73rd street at any point,
to my knowledge. Additionally, you have omitted the other parts of the complex that are
jointly used by the school and the city for recreational activities.
Regarding economic impact, I have never seen any explanation of how the development
will impact the taxes of other businesses and homeowners until the city realizes any benefit
from the Best Buy project.
Thank you for permitting me to make these observations. I hope that they will be
considered and reflected in your planning and evaluation.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Hall
7309 Oliver Ave. So.
Richfield MN 55423
•
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process
Proposed Best Buy Campus
•
Scoping EAW Comments:
1TUG< r.tr-Gi][??JU? .?/ 7t?i?iSllEilnniP I Y ??1'Y1YY3[?v
j) .? cU t l? tom- ??A1?-.?.?? 1
GJ Wm& r1K! FT /C IS V CI G-*,ie.
4 P `
p c,/7 ra-? &Acy v>za4 .
C.id 15-D od at?t op`rm j - ° ? S al4a w
Lam/ ?,v n,?a - ?l -1z"ri s c
_ ?aGl< h
93
C
Name:
v
r-7
Address. VC ?nl Ave
Submit written comments no later than 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 14, 2000. Submit
comments to:
Julie Urban
Planning 8 Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
•
Questions about the EIS process or the project can be directed to Julie Urban or
John Stark, Community Development Manager, at 612/861-9760.
20/z0'd SSBT LZ9 2T9 'c4WOD S2!GMOM wjon 1.b:80 0002-ZT-Nnr
JUN-13-2000 08=47 UofM WORKERS COMP. 612 627 1655 P.03i03
42 rAff
E
? ,
-Oe Ar -4 u-?"75
1??,s
c
a y we TOTAL P.03
MAY 3 1 2000
CAI
Th/Z
?'?vD /S' ti`o T -x b ?nI 007-
T r} TF A EE / 6-?,cw/v .¢d---c
70
//S ?? s ib ?/? T /L ,,ST?e?? r ?i rfl ?Qo?? s /S
0A / 4 X LSD M M 0 T ?DiQ /??< S, ????
oo/? To ?.? R?Si D E?J TS' eZ e,4, 6 S,E /77-57 ?FJS Y
C'LQ G ?' G u L PL y /)- C?o,r/ T -7;?t j,' +B- S T' bay
??o?'L? Lo.vG 'a ?'/?D ??d a/'SE Gl1?STJoT?
R ? FF ? C ?o ? qS ? ? ?/? >°o c. L ?/ r-i o??? ?r?D ,4 /? T ff? ?E
RL?INr?p 6v? 4j 61/.24/ TY OG L) v"in/,?.- or/ 7 VIS
%.Rsc E IVo aJ
14'p""r11-YW e /9elgl!?RT 7AII,<61d
6.9 ?Z4
46
y,P. ??s;.o?.?TS _ _ __
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process
Proposed Best Buy Campus
Scoping EAW Comments:
J
et?
J.'2.???:?i
?.--
-49 ?F r-f"?0&4-194'
t? Y (7 ?' ; ? ??C./?1 (? 4i r /" ?-G" )? /N f ,? ? `?,X ?t/ L?rC/Y Ct _ Y) /.( ... ?? 11 / / 7/11/ /I `?' L
1&4
`6
?4loi?.? FIo>?,r??? /?r?/,? u-? !?/.J (??f.'S-??L ? u1h?? 6V?? ?'`?
Name:
Address: 74?-- '/,'S-
Submit written comments no /aterthan 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 14, 2000. Submit
comments to: e?
Julie Urban E C E a v E'er
Planning & Zoning Administrator I
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
r y
JUN 1 4 2000
;1
Questions about the EIS process or the project can be directed to Julie Urban or
John Stark, Community Development Manager, at 612/861-9760.
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT # 169
?ada STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 12, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
1
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
CQ D_, rCC
??%L SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property at 1100
East 66th Street from C-2 (general commercial) to MR-2 (medium density multi-family
residential).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Conduct second
reading and adopt an ordinance amendment rezoning 1100 East 66th
Street from C-2 (general commercial) to MR-2 (medium density multi-
family residential).
IIL BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities' zoning ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's
zoning classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that
one category of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these
properties was rezoned by the City Council in December, 1999. A second group
was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2000 and by the City
Council on April 10, 2000. The City Council referred two properties from the second
0710rezone66thSt
group, 6612 15th Avenue and 1100 East 66th Street, back to the Planning
Commission for review. On May 30, 2000 the Planning Commission held a
separate public hearing on the rezoning of both properties. The rezoning of 6612
15th Avenue was approved by the City Council on June 26, 2000.
The City Council requested additional information from Planning Commission and
City Council records regarding 1100 East 66th Street. Minutes and staff reports
from 1998, when the property was developed as a day care facility, are included as
attachments.
The Council also requested the following information:
• Did the City place reauirements on the construction of the day care facilitv that
are specific to the C-2 zonina classification? Building codes are determined by
the type of occupancy, which are classified in the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
The requirements placed on the construction of the day care facility were
determined by the UBC occupancy class (Group E) and the number of children
served; they would apply in any zoning district . The setbacks applied to the
building were specific to the C-2 district. The Zoning Ordinance establishes
requirements for items such as landscaping, stormwater management, trash
enclosures, and lighting. These requirements are applied to all land uses except
single and two-family residences, regardless of the zoning district.
• List the permitted and conditional uses for the C-2 and MR-2 districts: See
Attachment J
• How is the propertv currently taxed? Commercial, non-homestead
• Provide a letter from the Citv Attornev as to whether or not downzonina this
propertv would be a taking: See Attachment K
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The property at 1100 East 66th Street is zoned C-2 (general
commercial). It is currently used as a day care facility. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as single family
residential, either low or high density. The proposed zoning is MR-2
(medium density multi-family residential).
• In 1998, following the public hearings relating to the day care facility,
the Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriate to
treat day care facilities similar to schools and that both uses should be
considered appropriate uses in residential districts. The Commission
reviewed the reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and developed an
ordinance amendment that would treat day cares, schools and
churches similarly in all residential districts. The amendment was
approved by the City Council in 1998. The ordinance now lists
licensed day care facilities as conditional uses in the MR-2 and the C-
2 zoning districts.
• In 1995, the Legislature passed language that states, in cases of
conflict between a City's Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the
zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the Plan. Up
until that time, the zoning superseded the Plan in cases of conflict. In
1998, the Planning Commission held several study sessions on this
issue and determined that the best way to address the statute would
be to rezone those properties where the land use and Comprehensive
Plan are consistent but the zoning is not. Rezoning these properties
would bring the zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan without creating nonconforming uses. They made the decision to
recommend the rezoning of these properties, in part, because of the
issues that were raised with the development of the day care facility at
1100 East 66th Street and the problems caused by the inconsistency
among the land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan. There is no
clear direction from the state level as to how to comply with the
statute.
B. CRITICAL. ISSUES .
• The day care facility is consistent with the residential classification in
the Comprehensive Plan; however, the commercial zoning could allow
a future commercial use that would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• A discrepancy in the Planning Commission minutes from March 24,
1998 was raised at the May 30, 2000 Planning Commission hearing.
The Planning Commission had approved an amended version of the
minutes at their meeting in April, 1998. The unamended version was
erroneously placed in the official record. The Commission reviewed
the record and determined that the version of the minutes in the
official record was the unamended version. They directed staff to
place the correct version in the official record. The discrepancy had to
do with which Planning Commissioner made the motion to approve
the conditional use permit for the day care facility.
• Testimony regarding traffic caused by the day care was raised two
years ago and again at the Planning Commission hearing. The
Planning Commission did not find traffic to be relevant to the rezoning
issue. A memo describing traffic counts before and after development
of the day care facility is attached for information.
C. FINANCIAL I
• The property owner has constructed a commercial-quality building and
believes the change in zoning classification would have a negative
impact on the future reuse of the property. The property owner views
her business as both a school and a day care facility. Because of the
ages of the children she serves (six years and under), it is appropriate
to consider the land use of the facility a day care. The fact that
"school' programs and services are being provided does not impact
this land use definition. The current use of the property as a day care
facility is a conditional use in the C-2 district and would be a
conditional use in the MR-2 district, so the current use would continue
to be a legally conforming use.
D. LEGAL
• The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning of this property
again on May 30, 2000. The Commission held two votes. The first
vote to rezone the property failed 3 to 4. After additional discussion, a
second vote was taken and the rezoning of the property to MR-2 was
,approved, 6 to 1.
• The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on June 12, 2000.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and
mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the
subject property.
• Four out of five votes are required to approve a rezoning.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Decide not to rezone the property.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
• Attachment A: Map of land-uses around the property
• Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
• Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the
property
• Attachment D: Minutes from Planning Commission hearing, 3/24/98
• Attachment E: City Council Minutes, 4/13/00
• Attachment F: Planning Commission staff report, 3/24/98
• Attachment G: City Council staff report, 4/13/98
• Attachment H: Zoning Ordinance, Section 521.65 (MR-2 provisions relating
to licensed day care facilities)
• Attachment I: Zoning Ordinance, Section 526.27 (C-2 provisions relating to
licensed day care facilities)
• Attachment J: List of permitted and conditional uses in the MR-2 and C-2
zoning districts
• Attachment K: Letter from legal counsel regarding the issue of taking
property without just compensation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
J
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
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 (46) is amended to read as follows:
(46) M-3 That area between the weg-t'i"° of 4Ith ven u° a line distant
160 feet easterly from the west line of 11th Avenue and parallel thereto and the
center line of 13th Avenue, and between the center line of 66th Street and a line
distant 250 feet northerly thereof and parallel thereto; except Lot 17 Eliason Second
Addition.
B. Section 12, Paragraph (39) is added to read as follows:
(39) M-3 Lot 9. Block 2. Eliaison Fourth Addition.
• C. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 1100 East 66th Street from C-
2 to MR-2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
0 0
Land Uses Near 1100 E 66th Street
0
Attachmen
t A
Q
1
v
U
FT-1 n 63rd St.
I I I I ??-{ +, y1 ?+
I -- ? I i t-1 rn I
I ? i I I
i I I I I I
i I I W
rH L-
m
FT F,
I f I I 1, i i ,
I I 1 1 i
I
i I I
I I ?--?--{ I I
I I l i i 1 1 ? 1 I I
I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
?I
I j ,?-I I I I I
I I I I II III
I I 1 i 111, I-?I LWJ
I
Fp ? M IFHFF
I 1 II
-I1 I
I I I II I I?? +?I I 1 I I I I i
1 1 I
C-b .
I
800 0 800 1600 Feet
FFMfl
T 1 rl -'??G ? e
I I I 1 I ? 1 a til. '? I
I I I I I 1 1 ?.qfl ? W ?
66th St.
Commercial
Apartment
Duplex
Residential
Quasi-Public
School
Church
Vacant
Park
May 2, 2000
Q
72 d
t! w
p r
a
•
a'
a
Zoning Classifications Near 1100 E 66th Street Attachment B
a a
I Industrial
C-2 General Commercial
x 0 R Single Family Residential
MR-1 Two Family Residential
We MR-2 Multi Res - Med. Density
800 0 800 1600 Feet ® PC-2 Planned Gen. Comm'I.
63rd St.
66th St.
May 3.2000
0 0
Comp Plan Classifications Near 1100 E 66th Street
a
....
I I I ?
I I I I i
I I I I
I I I I i ,
I I , i
I I 1 i I I
10 ON pw N*,^*
' - ?-
1 I i t I I
I I I I ' ' i i I I I
I I I I 1 1 I I i , , I I I
FRI
_Rn
r -T
I
1100 E 66th St.
-- ------ -- --
N
I
I I I ? ? ? I i? I I
I I I { I I '' ? ? ?? I 11?
I I? i 1 11 j I i j I I I? ?I ? ? i I I I I I I
I I ?1 I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I 11 I 1 I I I ' ? j I I ( I I
+6
900 0 900 1800 Feet
0
Attachment C
63rd St.
66th St.
Community Comm'L.
Neigh. comm'I.
Reg'I. Comm'1./Office
Corn. Comm'I./Office
Office
Single Family Res.
S. F. Res.- High Dens.
Multi Rea.- High Dens.
Public
Park
Church
School
Quasi Pub. - Utility
May 3, 2000
a
$ Q
O
a
Al- l-ACH MENY 0
March 24, 1998
Page 4
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved the purchase of a portion of the Soo Line
property located to the east of 300 West 78th Street in December, 1997. He. further stated that
staff and the HRA propose to combine and re-split the two parcels to develop a 134-unit hotel on
the southern half and a restaurant on the northern half. Mr. Melin added that the proposed uses
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Melin stated that the railroad
would be left with 50' of right of way (25' off of center) and that the proposal is for the purchase
of a strip of land 66' wide.
M/Bjorklund,. S/Meter to adopt the resolution finding that the proposed acquisition and
disposition of the Soo Line property is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carved: 8-0
98-CUP-3,1100 East 66th Street
ITEM #4 Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori School
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care
facility for up to 90 children
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a day care for up to 90
children. He noted that this was the continuation of a public hearing that had begun during the
regular Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1998. He added that the applicants had
searched for alternative sites without finding a suitable location. Mr. Melin then reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the property and the possible conflict between
the two. Confirming that the City's legal counsel had been contacted, Mr. Melin stated that
counsel reviewed the situation and determined that the most defensible position was that the
development was not compatible with the site due to the Comprehensive Plan designation. He
continued by stating that the applicants worked with the architect to redesign the building- and
hired a transportation engineer to conduct a study of the site. The engineer determined that the
intersection would not be overburdened by the increased traffic. Mr. Melin further stated that
the County denied any request for a curb cut onto 66th Street. In addition, he stated that the
applicants met with four neighbors (three households) for mediation, and that all parties came to
mutually agreeable conclusions regarding the issues at hand. Continuing, Mr. Melin reviewed
the landscape plan, fencing, buffering, pedestrian crosswalks, and the possible rezoning of the
property.
Responding to questions from Commissioners Gepner and Kilian, Mr. Melin stated that
the applicants paid for all additional costs for traffic studies and architectural costs that were
requested by the Commission from the regular meeting one month prior. He further stated that if
the day care were to locate there and subsequently close, the site could become any retail --
business that is permitted in a C-2 district.
March 24, 1998
Page 5
Commissioner Gepner stated that the decision that was now handed forth by the City
attorney's office regarding the incompatibility of the development with the Comprehensive Plan
designation was much more definitive that the response that had been given during the study
session earlier in the month. Mr. Melin replied, stating that the City had requested that the
attorneys give a more definitive answer. Responding to a request from Chairperson Linnihan to
better explain the decision, Corrine Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, stated that the City requested
that the attorneys give an opinion of the most defensible position. She stated that legally, the
most defensible position is to find that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion ensued during which the attorney's position was clarified for the Commission.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Mr. Melin stated that before the
Comprehensive Plan's most recent revision, the property was designated for mixed-use,
including commercial, residential, and office.
Following a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, the Commission discussed the
possibility that a moratorium be placed upon all properties located within the City in which the
zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation is in conflict. Ms. Thomson stated that a
decision had to be made on the issue at hand before any action on a moratorium was made due to
a law which requires the City to make a decision on conditional use permits within 60 days. Ms.
Thomson further responded to a question from Commissioner Meter, stating that the
development could be approved based solely upon the zoning. She added that the attorney's are
not attempting to dictate to the Commission which way to decide the issue. Ms. Thomson
reiterated the fact that counsel found only that the most defensible position, legally, is to find
that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Melin responded to questions from Chairperson Linnihan and Commissioner Meter,
stating that a daycare that is operated from a house is an accessory use, not the primary use. The
proposed daycare is a primary use for the property and therefore, a conditional use permit would
need to be obtained. He further stated that rezoning the property to MR-2 would remove the
possibility that a billiard hall could be opened on the property.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that he and his wife had operated their business in Richfield
for ten years, but that the church where their business is currently located would like the
Montessori School to vacate by the end of summer. He further stated that he had gone through
mediation which had been requested by the Commission. He added that the landscape, traffic,
and building design issues had been resolved with the neighbors who attended ,mediation.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that a search
for alternative sites had been conducted, including several middle schools located in Richfield.
Dawn Knutson, attorney for the applicants, stated that she had reviewed the issue
concerning the apparent inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code.
She stated that in her opinion, Montessori Schools and day cares are permitted uses in the C-2
district. She further stated that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Knutson reviewed several of those goals,
policies, and objectives, stating that the proposed development met each of them. She further
stated that the primary desire for the location is to be a transition area between commercial and
residential and added that the daycare would be both commercial and residential, providing a
March 24, 1998
Page 6
home for children during the daytime hours. Ms. Knutson continued by stating that the RSFH
designation that is listed on a map in the Comprehensive Plan is not defined anywhere in the
Comprehensive Plan, and it therefore cannot be determined that the proposal does not meet the
Comprehensive Plan based solely on that criteria. She closed by stating that the opinion that the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is defensible.
Ms. Thomson responded to a question from Chairperson Linnihan; stating that the public
hearing did not need to be reopened since a public hearing had already been conducted.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the
business would not be able to be operated efficiently with only 60 children. Mrs.
Mallawaaratchy continued by stating that, she -was licensed with the State to operate a daycare
from kindergarten through elementary-aged children. She added that 10 to 15 percent of the
children in her care are siblings, pointing out that the traffic would be somewhat decreased due
to that fact.
Mr. Melin- responded to a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, stating that the
assumptions in the BRW traffic study commissioned by Mr. and Mrs. Mallawaaratchy may need
to be adjusted to reflect fewer siblings than anticipated.
Chairperson Linnihan asked where the four neighbors who attended mediation lived, and
whether or not they were in close proximity to the proposed daycare. Jan Owen, 6535 11th
Avenue, stated that she and her husband had both attended mediation and were directly to the
• north of the property in question. She further stated that she was pleased with both the redesign
of the building and the traffic signals that had been proposed around the neighborhood.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Dmytrenko, Ms. Owen stated that she felt that the
bus stops along l l th Avenue would be safer with the proposed stop signs and pedestrian
crossings.
Three pages of signatures requesting that the Commission deny the recommendation for
a conditional use permit were given to Chairperson Linnihan. The three pages were then passed
to each Commissioner.
Chairperson Linnihan re-opened the public hearing. He stated that topics would be
limited strictly to those issues that had been raised since the previous Planning Commission
meeting.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11 th Avenue, stated that she feels that cars will make U-turns in the
driveways of the neighbors rather than driving through the neighborhoods. She further stated
that she thinks that Mr. and Mrs. Owens and have achieved success through mediation with the
Mallawaaratchys only because there are issues between them and the current owners.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that she has _three children that
attend Bemie's Montessori School.. She added that parents come at all different times of the day
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and that there is never any problem with traffic at the current - - -
• location.
March 24, 1998
Page 7
Jody Johnson, 73rd Street and Pillsbury Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori is both
economical and well-run. She added that she is disappointed that the neighborhood opposes this
use when there are so many other negative uses that could be put on the property.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori offers children.
an education as well as daycare. She further stated that she feels that her children are better
prepared for school because of their experiences at Bernie's Montessori. She added that when
she picks up and drops off her children, she sees only two or three other parents at the same time.
Anne Carl, 70th Street and Columbus Avenue,, stated that one daughter had attended
Bernie's Montessori and that one son is current attending the school. She -stated that she only
sees two or three other parents in the morning and only one in the evening.
Randy Curtis, 6821 Humboldt Avenue, stated that his two children attended the school
and that there are no alternatives in Richfield.
Carol Newby, 6400 11 th Avenue, stated that she moved into the neighborhood because it
was stable. She added that she is not questioning the quality of Bernie's Montessori, rather she
is questioning whether or not this is an acceptable location for the daycare.
Greg Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue, requested that a stop sign be located at the intersection of
65th Street and 12th Avenue.
Terry Stadther, 6404 11th Avenue, stated that he is still concerned with traffic. He added
that the intersection of 11th Avenue and 64th Street will become a major intersection and that
without traffic control, children living in the area will be endangered. He further stated that he
would not have purchased his house if the daycare had already been located there.
Carol Rinder, 6420 11 th Avenue, stated that the deer, raccoon, fox, and other animals
that inhabit Veteran's Memorial Park will be endangered if the daycare is allowed to open. She
further stated that parents who are dropping off and picking up their children will leave their
engines running. She added that the house has historical significance, MAC has already spent
thousands of dollars renovating the property, pedestrians will be endangered by the increased
traffic, other options for daycare exist in Richfield, and that the money spent on architectural
costs hasn't been wasted because the architectural plans can be used for another site.
Ms. Sikes, 6604 5th Avenue, stated that she is the parent of a graduate of Bernie's
Montessori. She stated that she supports the excellent work at Bernie's Montessori School.
Barbara Donaghy, 7229 Oak Grove Boulevard, stated that other daycare centers in
Richfield are at capacity and that the only other options to Bernie's Montessori are located in
Edina and Bloomington.
Betty Peltola, 6421 11th Avenue, stated that the lot is not large enough to place a
daycare. She further stated that the City should underwrite all of the applicant's expenses. -
March 24, 1998
Page 8
Karen Mullvain, 6409 11th Avenue, stated that a Montessori is not a residence, adding
that the Commission should not approve the daycare out of guilt.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the house will not be demolished, adding that he has
spoken to two contractors who are both interested in moving the structure to another site.
M/Hadley, SBjorklund to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 9-0
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Hadley, stating that in case a 4-4
vote were to occur, the item would move forward to City Council with no recommendation.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Ms. Thomson stated that if the
Commission found that this use was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the
Commission would be required to find that any other proposals in which the same set of
circumstances were found was also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Kilian stated that this is not an issue related to daycare, rather it is an issue
of the zoning ordinance versus the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that he ran a traffic
simulation and determined that the parking lot would not be sufficient enough to handle the
traffic.
Commissioner Bjorklund stated that many other uses could be located on the property
and that commercial uses line 66th Street. She also added that traffic is a major issue with this
proposal.
Commissioner Meter stated that there could be possibilities for traffic control other than
stop signs. He further stated that he felt that the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Hadley stated that changing the residence to a commercial' property would
be changing the character of the neighborhood. He felt that that is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Gepner stated that he was disappointed with staff's recommendation to
deny the request. He further stated that he sees the Comprehensive Plan as visionary instead of
as a rock solid document. He added that the BRW traffic study allayed his fears regarding traffic
and that he would like to see the study open to the general public.
Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan should be
kept intact and that ambiguities should be addressed. She added that the daycare is preferable to
other uses and that she felt that it meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Further discussion involved clarification of the conflict between the zoning ordinance -
• and the Comprehensive Plan.
March 24, 1998 j
Page 9
M/Meter, S/Gepner to find that. the-proposed Montessori School and daycare center are
consistent wilhibe Comprehensive Plan. and to recommend approval of the conditional use
permit at l 100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stigulations:
ction plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved
ty Development Director.
e eWyow he submitted to and approved by the Public Wnr&
3. That a sediment and erosion control plan he submitted to and annmved by the
FILUc Works Director.
4. That the business maintain the appropriate state- coin and city licenses.
5. That a resolution annrovi,be conditional use permit be recorded with the County,
pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462:36. subdivision 1.
6_ That the property he rezoned to MR-2.
Motion carried: 6-2 (Hadley and Kilian opposed)
NEW BUSINESS
PC Letter #13
ITEM #5 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow institutional uses in multiple family zoning districts
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that
properties zoned MR-2 did not allow religious institutions as either permitted or conditional
uses. He further stated that the City Council determined that an oversight may have occurred
when the zoning ordinance was drafted. The Council requested that the Planning Commission
review the issue and consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow religious institutions, schools. and daycare centers as conditional uses in the MR-1. MR-2-
and MR-3 zoning districts with the condition that such uses he located on a collector or arterial
street or with an access nlacement such that the annlicant enn demnnctrate that cionifirant trnffe
will not be
Motion carried R-Q
PC Letter #14
ITEM #6 Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to stormwater management policies
Al TAGf rAr-n I c
Council Meeting Minute
Item #12
-8- _ April 13, 1998
City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 84 regarding the request from
Bernie's Montessori School for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 4,160
square foot building at 1100 East 66th Street fora Montessori school and day care facility
for 90 children. He. summarized and discussed the following issues:
• Access
• Traffic
• Neighborhood impact
• Trees and landscaping -
• Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
• Recommendation for approval and basis of recommendation
•
Bernadette Mallawaarately, 13751 Shannon Parkway, Rosemount, the applicant,
stated that she had operated the Montessori School at St. Peter's for the last ten years.
She proposed construction of a 4,160 square foot building at 1100 East 66th Street for the
Montessori School and day care for 90 children. She stated the hours of operation would
be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. She reviewed the need for the school and day
care services. She requested the City Council to grant the conditional use permit.
Council Member Stokes asked about kitchen facilities and trash removal.
Ms. Mallawaartely stated there is no kitchen and that the children bring their
lunches.
Jeff McElmory, P.O. Box 26396, Minneapolis, architect for the project, indicated
there would be limited trash since there is no food preparation. He reviewed the inside
disposal of diapers. He indicated trash would be picked up like any other site.
Dawn Knutson, Hessian & McKasy, PA, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the
process used with the neighbors who participated in mediation. She noted that a learning
institution did not require a conditional use permit (CUP) but that the daycare did require a
CUP. She read the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that the
Planning Commission found the proposal to be consistent with according to their
interpretation. She discussed the following issues regarding the proposal:
• Responsive to identified needs of clients
• Children's quality of life
• Building design to look like a residence
• Current C-2 zoning would allow retail and other similar uses without a CUP or
further approval from the City
• The proposed use would have less impact than other potential uses
777
Council Meeting Minute -9- i~.
site.
•
•
• Community support
• Montessori square footage standards
April 13, 1998
Dennis W. Manson, 6901 Park Avenue, inquired about traffic and parking at the
Jeff McElmory, architect for the project, stated there would be 20 parking stalls on
the site. He indicated 9-10 stalls would be used by school staff. He described how
parents drive in, park, bring the children into the building, and then leave the site at
intervals.
Bob Fritzke, 6529 11th Ave, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic, storage of trash containing diapers, and that the site is not
appropriate for day care.
Sandra Mueller, 6521 Fifth Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about reserving the single family house on the site, the availability of other day
care facilities in the area, the undesirability of Montessori programs, and not wanting her
neighborhood park overrun by children.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP
citing the positive impact of the programs at Bernie's and the importance of keeping this
educational opportunity in Richfield.
Linda Robinson, 500 East 73rd Street #3, stated that the issue in question is not
the Montessori program but the site.
Judy Johnson, 7339 Pillsbury Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing
the quality of the school and the fact that children are the lifeblood of the community.
Kevin Scott, 5030 35th Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing the
quality of the education and the negative impact that other commercial uses would have
on the neighborhood.
Tony Heppelmann, BRW, Inc., traffic consultant for the applicant, presented and
summarized the traffic study (agenda pages 12-10 through 12-14) conducted regarding
the proposed Montessori and day care facility at 1100 East 66th Street. He reviewed trip
generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, capacity analysis, other traffic
considerations, and conclusions related to the location of the facility at this site.
Bob Fritzke, 652911 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic and a conflict.with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jack Swan, 6409 2nd Avenue, inquired about trash removal from the site. --
Tissa Senanayake, 1812 Turquoise Trail, Eagan, stated that the trash is put in
plastic garbage bags and put in a trash container outside.
Council Meeting Minute -10- April 13, 1998
Council Member Sandahl asked if the school would be willing to build an enclosure
for the trash recepticle.
Mr. Senanayake answered affirmatively.
Sid Zochert, 6501 11 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about the use not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, devaluation of
his property, the goal of the City to support replacement housing, the traffic statistics
presented by Planning Commissioner Bill Kilian, and traffic.
Carole Rinder, 642011 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns regarding the size of the parking lot, traffic, safety of children, opposition of
neighborhood, inappropriateness of the site; Bill Kilian's traffic analysis, property values,
historical significance of the house, the availability of other day care in the..area, and
preservation of the residential area. She stated that she had talked to her lawyer about
obtaining a restraining order and injunction to stop the project and asked those interested
in participating to contact her.
Mary Starleaf, 6505 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
the size of the site, traffic, and Bill Kilian's traffic analysis. She suggested King Oscar's as
an alternative site.
Wyatt Lewis, 1100 East 66th. Street, stated that his parcel is larger than King
Oscar's. He indicated he felt-there was reasonable access getting onto 66th Street. He
stated he bought the property five years ago because it was zoned C-2 and it had been on
the market for a year. He indicated they had planned to establish their business at this
location. He stated that subsequently they opened their business in Eagan instead. He
stated .that because the house is located on 66th Street there has been little interest in it
as a residential property. He indicated he had been approached by several who were
interested in developing the parcel for commercial use. He stated that he felt Bernie's
would be the better use for the community and minimize the impact on the neighborhood,
especially since it would not be open nights or weekends. In response to a question from.
the Mayor, Mr. Lewis stated that if this proposal is not approved, he would sell the
property to one of the commercial interests who have approached him.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concern about the size of the site and traffic on 11th Avenue. She suggested the City buy
the site for multi-family residential development.
Karin Giesie, 2239 East Old Shakopee Road, spoke in support of granting the CUP
stating that the site would not be appropriate for residential development.
Janet Holman, 6524 12th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concern about traffic.
Tashika Sykes, 6604 Fifth Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing her
observations that traffic does not cut through her neighborhood and the need for a school
like Bernie's in Richfield.
Council Meeting Minute -11- April 13, 1998
Frank Sable, 6521,11th Avenue, asked if the property could be rezoned to
residential.
City Attorney Thomson reviewed the methods by which a property may be rezoned.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that traffic is an issue with
any development and discussed the Comprehensive Plan. Dawn Knutson, attorney for
the applicant,` stated that the property is zoned for commercial, a traffic study was done,
and that the home will be moved and not demolished.
Shelly Rhymers, 6401 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic and safety.
M/Sandahl, S/Susag to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Member Rosenberg reviewed her experiences with the Richfield Fun Club
which had about 90 children indicating that the parking was not a problem there and didn't
believe it would be a problem at this site. She stated support for the Montessori program.
She stated she was glad that day care children used the park.
M/Rosenberg, S/Susag that the proposed resolution entitled "Resolution for
Approving a Conditional Use Permit" be adopted.
Council Member Sandahl suggested the following two additional stipulations to the
conditional use permit:
• That the owner must install a trash enclosure on the property at a location to be
specified by the Public Safety Director, within 30 days after the Public Safety
Director notifies the owner that a trash enclosure is warranted. .
• That the entrance drive must be angled so as to direct exiting traffic to
southbound 11 th Avenue.
City Attorney Thomson suggested that the Council also adopt the "Basis of
Recommendation" as set forth in Council Letter No. 84 as its findings of fact.
Council Members Rosenberg and Stokes agreed to amend the motion to accept the
addition of the two suggested stipulations and findings of fact to the resolution.
Council Member Stokes stated that she previously ran a similar operation at 81 st
Street and Nicollet Avenue. She stated she had served on the Planning Commission and -
Comprehensive Plan Committee. She read a section of the Comprehensive Plan which
called for the consolidation of East 66th Street commercial uses at the 13th Avenue - - - --- --
intersection. She felt the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was not for
scattered commercial use and therefore she would not support approval of the CUP.
M
Council Meeting Minute -12- _ April 13, 1998
Council Member Sandahl stated he would support approval of the CUP. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and a vision, however, changes will occur. He stated
that the alternative commercial uses which would be allowed at this site would have
significant impact on the neighborhood. He stated that there probably will be some traffic
that would use 11 th Avenue. He stated it was his experience in using a 90 student day
care facility that he rarely saw other parents arriving or departing at the same time. He
stated that it was the Council's job to sort out for the community whether the impact
overshadows the benefit to the community.
Council Member Susag indicated the order of priority for the right of land use is: 1)
current use; 2) zoning; and 3) Comprehensive Plan. He stated the City has adopted the
Comprehensive Plan as their vision. He indicated the City should move toward changing
zoning to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.-
Mayor Kirsch indicated that Bernie's had looked at this property prior to the new
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the property owner has the right to sell to other
commercial uses that would have a large impact on the neighborhood. He stated he
would support approval of the CUP.
The motion restated with inclusion of the accepted amendments to the resolution:
•
M/Rosenberg, S/Susag that the following resolution be adopted with the addition of
the following two stipulations:
• That the owner must install a trash enclosure on the property at a location to be
specified by the Public Safety Director, within 30 days after the Public Safetv
Director notifies the owner that a trash enclosure is warranted,
• That the entrance drive must be angled so as to direct exitinq traffic to
southbound 11 th Avenue;
and, that the Council adopt the Basis of Recommendation as set forth in Council
Letter No. 84 as its findings of fact, and, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it.
be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 8569
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1100 EAST 66TH STREET
Motion carried 4-1. (Stokes opposed) This resolution appears as Resolution No.
8569 in Resolution Book No. 68.
0 Item #13
ATTACHMENT F
Planning Commission Letter
March 24, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 4
Case #: 98-CUP-3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Continuation of discussion of conditional use permit to allow
construction of a day care facility
Applicant/Owner: - Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, owner of Bernie's Montessori School,
Inc.
Location: 1100 East 66th Street
Zoning:
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Comp. Plan:
References:
Zoning Code:
C-2 (general commercial)
Single family residential
Commercial
High Density, Attached, Single Family Residential
(see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Section 526.27; Section 546.05
Public Notices Notice of the Planning Commission's continued consideration was
mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the
subject property. In addition, notices were sent to owners and
occupants in the 6400 blocks of 11th and 12th Avenues. -
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of April 13, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a
day care for 90 children. The applicant will be applying for a state license to
serve 60 children. The building will, however, be built to accommodate future
growth of up to 90 children. The applicant currently operates a montessori
school for children ages 4 to 6 at St. Peter's Church. The proposed day care - --
• would also provides services to infants and toddlers.
Issues: 1. Compre ,sive Plan: The property is zoned C-2- . _neral commercial)
_ and day care facilities are conditional uses in the C-2 district. The zoning
ordinance states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit
unless it finds that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the area for high density, attached, single family housing
(RSFH), so the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Building Design: The proposed building has been redesigned to give it
more of a residential appearance.
3. Access: Access to the parking lot is from l lth Avenue. Hennepin County
will not grant a permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty-sixth Street is
a minor arterial, and the County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials
from individual properties for safety reasons.
4. Parking: Twenty parking spaces will be provided on the site. City parking
standards require one space for every five children, for a minimum
requirement of 18 spaces. The City's parking standards for day care
facilities is similar to that of other cities (see attachment).
5. Traffic: Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with BRW, Inc.,
prepared a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The
analysis is attached.
6. Neighborhood Impact: The applicant attended mediation with four
neighborhood residents. According to the mediators, the neighbors were
okay with the changes made to the building's appearance. They preferred
an access onto 66th Street, but if the entrance were to be on 11 th Avenue,
they asked that a "no right turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit.
The neighbors also asked that stop signs be installed at 64th Street and the
entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the entrance to the
park. The latter requests will be forwarded to the City's traffic committee.
7. Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately twenty trees on the
property and two boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to
accommodate the proposed construction. Additional trees would be
planted as part of the proposed development. Note: This is private
property, and the City does not have the authority to prohibit people from
cutting down trees located on private property.
8. Buffering: The play activity area is located to the west of the building, 20
feet from the north property line. The fencing on the north side of the play
area would be a solid fence, the remainder would be chain link. Evergreen
trees would be planted on the north side of the area to provide a buffer
from the adjacent residential uses. There are also three evergreens located
along the north property line that currently provide a buffer.
9. Rezoning: At the previous hearing, a question was raised about the process
for rezoning property. A rezoning can be initiated in the following three
ways: the City Council can initiate it; the Planning Commission can initiate
it; the owner of the. property and 50 percent of the property owners within
300 feet of the property to be rezoned can petition for a rezoning.
0
•
•
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional
use permit at 1100 East 66th Street with a finding of fact that the
proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Recommend that the City Council rezone the property at 1100 East
66th Street from C-2 (general commercial) to R (single family
residential).
3. Recommend that the City Council authorize the Planning
Commission to conduct a study of all properties in the City with
zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
consider rezonings of these properties.
Basis: 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as High
Density, Single Family Residential (RSFH). The proposed use is
inconsistent with this designation.
2. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a
conditional use permit, the City must find that the proposed use is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation.
3. Although the property is zoned C-2 (general commercial), state
statute states that in cases of conflict between a City's
Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the zoning ordinance shall be
brought into conformance with the Plan.
4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed application, the City
zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined
that there is not a sufficient legal basis to approve the application
because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05,
Subdivision 6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance has not been met.
•
Alternative A. R. )mmend that the City Council approve. request for a
Recommendations: conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with
90 children with the following stipulations:
1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be
submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Director.
2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to the Community
Development Director.
3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and
approved by the Public Works Director.
5.. That a, stormwater management plan be.submitted to and
approved by the Public Works Director.
6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and
city licenses.
7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be
recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes
section 462.36, subdivision 1.
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a
conditional use permit for a day care for 60 children.
C. Recommend that the. City Council pass a 6-month moratorium on
development of all parcels with a land use that is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan but has zoning that is inconsistent, and
authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of the
parcels.
•
•
of.
f _ CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-
2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 25. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid
interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas. shall _ be located and designed in a manner which mitigates
visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and
c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
•
546.05. Conditional use aermits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any
use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the
City pursuant to this subsection.
Subd. 4. Plannine Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be
set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer
whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application.
Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it
finds that all of the following conditions will be met:
a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban
design guidelines;
c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified
in Section 541 of this code;
•
d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements;
e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare;
and
f) there is a pi: , need for such use at the proposed locatio.. A
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the
granting of such conditional use permit.
•
CJTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
Agenda April 13, 1998
•
is
ATTACHMENT G
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a
Montessori school and day care facility for 90 children at 1100 East 66th Street.
Backaround:
The applicant, Bemie's Montessori School, is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot
building to house a day care for 90 children. The applicant currently operates a Montessori
school for children ages four to six at St. Peter's Church. She wants to relocate in the area
and expand the school to add day care for infants and-toddlers.
The building would be located on the north side of the property with the play activity area
located to the west of the building, 20 feet from the north property line. The play area
would be fenced, and the applicant proposes to plant evergreen trees and preserve three of
the existing evergreen trees on the north side_ of the property to provide a buffer from the
adjacent residential uses. The fencing on the north side of the play area would be a solid
fence, the remainder would be vinyl-coated chain link.
Twenty parking spaces would be provided on the site. City parking standards require one
space for every five children, for a minimum requirement of 18 spaces. There is no speck
area designated for dropping off and picking up children; the parking stalls would be used
for this activity.
A significant amount of grading is needed to create a relatively flat area for construction.
Retaining walls will be constructed on the north, east and south sides of the building and
parking lot.
Access: Access to the parking lot is from 11 th Avenue. Hennepin County will not grant a
permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty-Sixth Street is a minor arterial, and the
County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials from individual properties for safety
reasons.
Traffic: In response to neighborhood concerns about potential traffic generated on 11th
Avenue by the day care, the applicant hired Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with
BRW, Inc., to prepare a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The analysis
indicates that approximately five vehicles would use 11th Avenue to and from the north
during the peak hours (see attached analysis). Traffic is a main concern of area residents.
The analysis also indicates that both the parking lot and the intersection will function
adequately.
Neighborhood Impact: The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant go
through mediation with the neighbors to try and resolve some of the differences raised at
the first Planning Commission hearing. An invitation was sent to the neighbors on the --
notification list to participate in mediation. Four neighborhood residents participated in
mediation with the applicant. According to the mediators, the neighbors were satisfied with
changes the applicant has made to the building's appearance. They preferred an access
onto 66th Street, but if tt'w entrance were to be on 11 th AvenLe, they asked that a "no right
turn' sign be installed at the parking lot exit. The neighbors also asked that stop signs be
installed at 64th Street and the entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the
entrance to the park. The latter requests have been forwarded to the City's Traffic
Committee for review.
Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately 20 trees on the property and two
boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed
construction. At a minimum, three large evergreens on the north side of the property are
preserved as part of the proposed landscape plan. Additional trees would be planted as
part of the proposed development.
Comprehensive Plan: The property is zoned C-2 (general commercial); however, the
Guide Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, designates the area for high density, attached,
single family housing (RSFH), more comonly-called townhomes. The Zoning Ordinance
states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the
proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The issue of the Comprehensive Plan consistency was explored by staff when the
application was first submitted. At that time, staff determined that the underlying zoning
should take precedent over the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney later determined
that it is the City's zoning ordinance that requires consistency with the Plan for conditional
uses; therefore, the City cannot approve the proposed day care without finding it to be
consistent with the Plan. A majority of the Planning Commissioners found that although the
• proposed day care does not exactly match the guide plan designation of townhomes, it is
consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. Two Commissioners
found that the day care was not consistent with the guide plan designation_ and therefore
voted against approval of the conditional use permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care for 90 children at.
1100 East 66th Street with the following stipulations:
1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved by
the Community Development Director.
2. That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development Director and
a landscape escrow be submitted.
3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. - - -
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director. --
6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses.
7. That a resolution app ving the conditional use permit be ru%;orded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. On March 24, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 6-2 to recommend approval of
the conditional use permit.
2. According to the Planning Commission's interpretation, the proposed day care is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan goals and objectives indicating consistency are as follows:
• IMPLEMENTATION: The primary intent and purpose of the 1997-2007 Plan
update is to adopt .a plan that can and will be a:useful tool in.future zoning and
redevelopment decisions. For this reason, the Plan is focused on concepts that
are described as goals and objectives. The Subarea Plans are looked upon as
examples of how those areas of the--City might be redeveloped by applying these
goals and objectives, rather than the more typical view of the Plan as a
"blueprint" for development. (FOUR-2)
• OBJECTIVE: Encourage and support a diversity of compatible non-residential
land uses that are accessible and responsive to the needs of Richfield and
adjacent communities. (ONE-7)
• OBJECTIVE: Encourage the development of viable and responsive
neighborhood commercial services. (ONE-7)
• • GOAL: Achieve a standard of land use that is reflective of the "home town"
character of Richfield. (ONE-8)
• PLAN PROPOSAL: Reinforce existing and create new well-defined boundaries
for all commercial developments and provide transitional use areas that protect
and improve adjacent residential areas. (ONE-10)
3. The property is zoned C-2 (general commercial) which allows for commercial uses to
be developed on the property. The proposed day care is a conditional use in the C-2
district.
4. The proposal meets the required zoning standards for new construction in the C-2
district, including setback, lot coverage and performance standards.
5. The proposed parking meets the City's parking standards.
6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and. mailed to property owners
and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 1100
East 66th Street with the following findings of fact:
The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a conditional use permit,
the City must find that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and
•
objectives of the V.?mprehensive Plan. The Compre4.aive Guide Plan designation
for 1100 East 66th Street is RSFH (high density, single family attached housing).
The corrollary zoning districts for this designation would be the Rand MR-1 zoning
districts. These districts do not allow a day care of this size.
• The City Council has reviewed the proposed application, the City Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined that it cannot approve the
application because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05, Subdivision 6(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance has not been met.
• The traffic from the proposed day care would have an adverse impact on the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
•
•
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Planning Commission first heard this request on February 24 but continued action until
March 24 to allow staff and the applicant to address several issues, including the
Comprehensive Plan consistency question.
Staff had originally recommended approval of the application given that the zoning is C-2
and the Comprehensive Plan states that the Guide Plan is intended to be a guide, not a
blueprint for development. Legal counsel reviewed the issue and decided that denying the
application was most defensible, however, they instructed the Planning Commission that it
is still the Commissions' role to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. A majority of the
Commissioners concluded that, in interpreting the Plan, they must consider not only the
Subarea Plan graphics but the stated goals and policies and therefore recommended
approval
The Commission suggested that the day care property be rezoned to MR-2 (medium
density multiple residence) to prevent the possible future reuse of the building by a non-
compatible commercial business. They plan to review all instances in the City where the
zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommend rezonings where
appropriate. The Commission will also compare the differences in regulations for day care
facilities and schools. Public and private elementary and high schools, and other similar
learning institutions are permitted uses in the C-2 district, requiring only City Council
approval of an off-street parking permit. Staff might have considered Bernie's Montessori
School a school, permitted in the C-2 district. Only the day care portion of the operation
would have required a conditional use permit.
A public hearing on the conditional use permit application is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on
Monday, April 13, 1998. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield
City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1100 EAST 66TH STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of a conditional use permit for a day care for 90 children on land
generally located at 1100 East 66th Street, legally described as:
Lot 9, Block 2, Eliason Fourth Addition
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the
conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A conditional use permit is issued for a day care for 90 children, as described
in City Council Letter No. on the Subject Property legally described
above.
0
2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions
before an occupancy permit can be issued:
That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director.
That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development
Director and a. landscape escrow be submitted.
That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Director.
That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved
by the Public Works Director.
• That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the
Public Works Director.
• That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city
licenses.
That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota
statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
3. The 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 13th day of
April, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Attachment H
521.65. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1 The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the
MR-2 District, and are, subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of
this code.
Subd. 9. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that significant
traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) designated pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site; and
c) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which abuts a
residential parcel. (Added, Bill No. 1998-10)
521.72. Minimum lot size. setback and height requirements for non-residential uses. Subdivision
1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to non-residential uses in the MR-2
District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum 1Qt cover4ge ((principal stnictnre)i 30 percent.
Subd. 6. Minimum setbgck requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet.
b) Side:
(i) interior: 20 feet
(ii) streetside: 30 feet
c) Rear: 25 feet.
(Added, Bill No. 1998-10)
0
ATTACHMENTI
526.27. Conditionai uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the
C-2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this
code.
Subd. 26. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid
interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas shall.be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and
c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
526.29. Lot area. width. death, and cover4a. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this
section apply in the C-2 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area: 9,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width
a) Interior lot: 75 feet.
b) Comer lot: 90 feet.
Subd. 4. Minimum lot depth : 100 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum imnervious surf4ce cover: 85 percent.
526.31. Required building setback end maximum height. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards
set out in this section apply in the C-2 District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum hei gW :
SIDE SIDE MAXIMUM
BUILDING FRONT REAR INTERIOR STREETSIDE HEIGHT
PRINCIPAL { 35 Ft. { 20 Ft. { 20 Ft. { 25 Ft. {{ 40 Ft.
ACCESSORY { 35 Ft. 8 Ft. { 20 Ft. { 25 Ft. {{ 15 Ft.
0
Attachment J
•
Permitted uses
MR-2 District
• Multi-family dwellings (excluding cluster home developments) with eight or fewer units
• Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities with eight of
fewer units
• Minor public utilities
Conditional uses
• Multi-family dwellings with nine to 25 units
• Cluster home developments
• Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities with nine to
25 units
• Accessory day care facilities serving more than three persons licensed by the appropriate
governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities licensed under
Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than six persons, or as
otherwise permitted by law
• Accessory foster family homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities serving
more than three children, or as otherwise permitted by law
• Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning institutions
• Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages
• Licensed day care facilities (Added, Bill No. 1998-10)
• Accessory roof-mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of
the roof.
• Major public utilities.
• Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the City
pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
C-2 District
Permitted uses
• Shopping centers or similar multi-tenant developments with 100,000 square feet or less of gross
floor area.
• Retail, service, and office uses with 50,000 square feet or less of gross floor area (excluding
those uses listed in Section 526.27 of this code). Permitted uses may exceed the 50,000 square
foot size limitation if located within. a shopping center or other multi-tenant building. Such
permitted retail, service, and office uses include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) antique stores or secondhand goods stores that do not require a license under Section
1186 of the City Code;
b) bowling alleys, pool halls, or arcades;
Attachment J
•
•
•
c) carpet, decorating, or paint stores;
d) Class IV (take out only) restaurants which do not provide drive-up window service;
e) clothing or shoe stores;
f) computer, duplicating, or office products stores;
g) craft stores;
h) dry cleaning service or self-service laundries;
i) fabric, sewing, or tailoring stores;
j) financial institutions without drive-up window service, including currency exchanges
licensed by the State;
k) furniture or appliance sales stores;
1) general merchandise or drug stores;
m) gift or book stores;
n) hardware stores;
o) municipal liquor stores;
p) music stores;
q) nursing or rest homes;
r) offices, business or professional;
s) photography studios or film development;
t) printing establishments or book binding shops;
u) stereo installation services within an enclosed building;
v) taxi or limousine services;
w) tire or auto/motorcycle parts stores;
x) tree trimming services with no outdoor storage of trimmings. or materials;
y) veterinarian clinics;
z) other retail, service, and office establishments of the same general character as those
enumerated above, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
• Governmental buildings and public libraries, including their appurtenances.
• Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning institutions.
• Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages.
• Adult business establishments as defined and regulated under Section 1196 of the City Code.
• Minor public utilities.
Conditional uses
• Shopping centers or similar multi-tenant developments with over 100,000 square feet of gross
floor area.
• Retail, service, and office uses with over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless located
within a shopping center or other multi-tenant development.
• Funeral homes, provided the lot abuts an arterial or collector street.
• Theaters
• Uses which provide drive-up window or teller service, (excluding Class III restaurants)
• Class I (full service) restaurants and Class H (traditional/cafeteria) restaurants
• Class III (fast food/convenience/drive-in) restaurants
Attachment J
• Hotels/motels
• Hospitals and medical clinics
• Auto or boat sales/lease lots
• Service stations, service station/convenience stores, and conversion of a service station to a
service station/convenience store
• Automobile detailing establishments licensed under Section 1195 of the City Code.
• Car washes licensed under Section 1125 of the City Code.
• Accessory car washes
• Public-mechanical garages
• Public-auto body garages
• Pawn operations, secondhand goods operations which require a license under Section 1186 of
the City Code, auction houses, and consignment auction houses
• Gun or ammunition sales/repair
• Tattoo establishments
• Single family dwellings that comply with the R-1 District provisions and requirements, as set
out in Section 521.17 of this code.
• Two-family dwellings that comply with the MR-1 provisions and requirements, as set out in
Section 521.37 of this code; and
• Multi-family dwellings that comply with the MR-2 District provisions and requirements, as set
out in Section 521.59 of this code.
• Cemeteries (may include mausoleums and crematories) that comply with the R District
• provisions and requirements, as set out in Section 521.07, Subd. 10 of this code.
•. Apartments within commercial buildings which exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area.
• Licensed day care facilities
• Accessory roof-mounted antennas which extend higher than 15 feet from the antenna's point of
contact with the building to the highest point of the antenna, provided that they conform to
Section 425 of the City Code. (Amended, Bill No. 1996-21)
• CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than 15 feet from the antenna's point
of contact with the building to the highest point of the antenna, provided that they conform to
Section 426 of the City Code. (Added, Bill No. 1996-21)
• CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code.
(Added, Bill No. 1996-21)
• Major public utilities.
• Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the City
pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
0
UD-46-OU iD;45 rrom-ncnirtul 4 Urmt% TD1LJJlaJiU i-,4L t UL/YV r'41 0
ATTACHMENT K
470 PiIWWr C-Sucr
200 South 51ad7 Str=
M'utncapolis Mid 55W2
(612) 337-9300 relephone
(612) 337.9310 6
e 7.1 R T E R a http /1www.kennedy-dravcn.cOm
K^R&N !L COLE
AWXWy 0 Law
Dirt= DW (612) 337-9212
6mnil kcok0 enneoy-!'raven.c m
June 28, 2000
Mayor and Richfield City Council Members
City of Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
6700 Portland Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Property at 1100 East 66th Street
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Corrine Thomson asked me to evaluate whether or not the proposed regulation of property at 1100
East 66 h Street would give rise to a "taking" of property which requires compensation under the
constitution.
ac ual Banc 'rouO
The City is considering dowrizoning property at 1100 East 600 Street from C-2 (commercial) rn
MR-2 (medium-density multiple family housing). The property was purchased in April 1998. At
the time they purchased, the owners intended to put in a day care facility. At the time of purchase,
the land was zoned C-2, and was guided for high-density single family residential use.
In 1998, the owners sought and obtained a CUP to construct a day care facility on the property.
The propcity owners have constructed a day care facility on the site. The facility may be used by up
to 90 children, who may be up to six years old. Since the property was purchased, the assessed
value has tripled in value (due largely to construction of the building). The property is classified as
commercial for tax purposes.
Day care facilities are a conditional use in both the C-2 and MR-2 districts.
0 KRC-171191901
RC IOU-5
U4-14-UU 14:44
June 28, 2000)
Page 2
Ana s i
•
•
r(OW-AGllYCUI Y UKAMA
TUIL44tai/U 1-114 r. U41 U4 r-41D
The takings clauses of the state and federal constitutions require that a landowner be compensated if
property is regulated too restrictively. The applicable tests under state and federal law are
somewhat different. A land use regulation generally does not give rise to a taking under the
Minnesota constitution unless it deprives the property of all reasonable use. Dowttzoning the
property from C-2 to Mil-2 would not give rise to a taking under this standard, because the property
could be put to a number of different uses. Specifically, the property could continue to be used for a
day care center. Numerous additional uses are available under the MM-2 zoning classification.
A land use regulation constitutes a taking under the federal constitution in two situations. First, a
categorical taking" occurs if the regulation destroys the entire value of the property. There would
not be a categorical taking here, because the downzoning would not eliminate the entire value of the
property; the property could be used in a number of ways, as noted above. Second, if a regulation
diminishes but does not completely destroy the value of property, a taking may still occur based on
the facts and circumstances of each case. In makiag this type of determination, courts look at such
things as (l) the nature of the regulation, (2) the extent to which the regulation affects the value of
the property; and (3) the legitimate investment-backed expectations of the property owner_
The first factor the courts consider is the nature of the regulation. Zoning regulations which balance
public and private interests are less likely to be determined a taking than other kinds of regulations.
The rationale for this is that all property owners benefit - at least to some extent -- from a system
for ordering development.
The second factor considered by the courts is the effect of the proposed regulation on the value of
the property- The rezoning would have a very limited effect on the value of the property here, since
under the rezoning the property can continue to be used for its current use, which was recently
constructed. The rezoning does not make the current use nonconforming in any way.
The third factor is the extent to which the regulation interferes with the legitimate investment-
backed expectations of the property owner. An investment-backed expectation can arise from the
land use regulations that are in effect when the property is acquired which are reflected in the
property's purchase price. For example, if a property owner purchases a commercially-zoned
property at a higher price because of its zoning, that owner has an investment-backed expectauon in
a commercial use of the property. On the other hand, if an owner purchases commercially-zoned
property at a price comparable to residential properties and lower than commercially-zoned
properties, that owner does not have an investment-backed expectation in a commercial use.
KRC'-141919v1
KC 160.5
UO-LO-UU I9•46 ffUW-=MIQW i Y LRRYGY- - TOI LJS7 tlJlU I iL f.U4/U4 f'410
June 18, 2000]
Page 3
Any interference with investment-backed expectations would be very limited, because the proposed
zoning will attow the use for which the property was purchased and is used.
All three of the factors indicate that the proposed rezoning would not give rise to a taking under
federal law. Based on the facts known to us, there would not be a taking under either the federal or
state constitutions.
Very truly yours,
KENNEDY & CRAVEN, CHARTERED
-- - tom--.. ?" -
Karen R. Cale
KRC:cm
cc: Corrine H. Thomson
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 5
REPORT# I6$
=Oda STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
•
Dg 7)CLk S-0#
SIGNATURE
1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 1200 that would
increase the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses within the City of Richfield from
seven to eighteen.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and hold a public hearing and by motion: approve an
ordinance change in Section 1200.03 that would increase the number
of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses available in the City of Richfield
from seven to eighteen.
III. BACKGROUND I
The City of Richfield currently issues licenses for the following categories of alcohol:
Intoxicating Liquor
• Wine
• On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor
• Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor
0710AIco
Intoxicating Liquor
City ordinance currently states that there can be a total of seven intoxicating liquor
licenses issued to establishments. Five of the seven intoxicating liquor licenses are
spoken for. There are also two club licenses for the VFW and the American Legion
but because those establishments are not open to the general public, they are not
considered to be on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. They may sell on-sale
intoxicating liquor but do so under a "club" license. State statute allows for a city of
Richfield's class to issue up to 18 on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
Wine
City ordinance states that there can be a total of seven wine licenses `issued to
establishments. Currently, five of the seven wine licenses are spoken for. State
Statute does not address the number of wine licenses a community may have.
On-Sale/Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor
City ordinance states that there can be a total of 15 on-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses
issued for establishments. Currently, 12 of the 15 on-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses
are spoken for. State Statute does not address the number of on-sale 3.2 malt
liquor licenses a community may have.
Off-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses are not restricted by number. Currently, there are a
total of 11 establishments that sell off-sale 3.2 malt liquor.
Public Safety staff has had several discussions with staff in the Community
Development Department regarding future development projects in the City and
how those projects will impact alcohol licensing needs in the future. Community
Development staff has identified several projects that in the very near future will
support a total of three to four establishments that most likely will be requesting
alcohol licenses. In most cases, it appears their requests will be for a full on-sale
intoxicating liquor license; however, wine may also be requested. The development
projects will most likely involve two at the Woodlake Centre location, one at the
restaurant project adjacent to the Candlewood site, and one at the City Bella
location.
At the June 13, 2000, City Council meeting, Council Members approved the first
reading of this ordinance amendment and recommended that staff proceed with
increasing the number of licenses from seven to eighteen, rather than the twelve
that staff had proposed. Eighteen is the number that a City of Richfield's class (2nd
class) is allowed to have by State Statute.
1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY I
At a June 7, 1999, City Council Study Session, it was the consensus
of the Council that staff would be asked to provide further information
regarding zoning, density, and location regulations related to liquor
licenses and options regarding future availability of the number of
liquor licenses in the City. The City's Planning Commission was
forwarded the matter for their review.
• In a September 17, 1999, memorandum to the City Council, a
summary of the Planning Commission's review of the issues was
presented. The Planning Commission reviewed the issues at two
study sessions and offered the following feedback:
• The Zoning ordinance considers restaurants serving alcohol as
conditional uses and limits their location to collector and arterial
streets. Restaurants serving alcohol cannot be located in the C-1
(neighborhood commercial) district.
• The existing licensing requirements provide many regulations to
monitor and control the service of alcoholic beverages.
• Some other cities have additional location requirements for
restaurants that serve alcohol; e.g., they need to be located a
certain distance from residential, schools and churches. The
Planning Commission believes that there is no clear evidence that
these distance requirements are necessary or would alleviate any
alcohol-related problems in Richfield.
• The Planning Commission considered some additional restrictions.
but decided that rather than try to develop generic regulations to fit
every situation, it is better to review each case individually and
apply appropriate conditions to each situation when warranted.
• It would be appropriate to increase the number of liquor licenses to
accommodate the potential demand for licenses in redeveloped
areas. Not having liquor licenses available could negatively impact
the success of redevelopment projects.
Based on its review, the Planning Commission does not recommend
any changes to the existing ordinance relating to restaurants that
serve alcohol.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Increasing the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses from
seven to eighteen would result in licenses being available prior to the
completion of development projects which would mean that potential
tenants would know licenses are available to apply for at the
beginning of their negotiations with developers.
• Increasing the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses would
also mean that staff would not have to return to Council several times
to make a request for an increase in licenses and would seem to be a
more efficient and proactive way of meeting future development needs
and issues.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
0 N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to do nothing at this time which wold mean that
requests for on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses would be reviewed as they
occur on a case by case basis. It would also mean that the total number of
on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses might need to be increased several times
based on the number of requests made for a license.
• The Council could decide not to increase the total number of on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses beyond the current number. This would mean
that all the new development projects in the City would not be able to obtain
on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. for their establishments.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City ordinance code 1200.03.
• Study Session minutes from June 7, 1999.
• Council Memorandum dated September 17, 1999.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None expected.
•
0
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION XII
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
BY AMENDING SECTION 1200 ENTITLED INTOXICATING LIQUOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XII of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Intoxicating
Liquor' is hereby amended:
2000.
•
1200.03. License: general rule. No person, except wholesalers or
manufacturers authorized under state license, may directly or indirectly deal
in, sell, or keep for sale any intoxicating liquor for sale without first having
received a license to do so as provided in this subsection. Licenses shall be
issued only to hotels and restaurants. No more than seven eiahteen licenses
may be issued.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Study Session Minutes -6- June 7, 1999
• We recommend the HRA consider recording land inventories at the lower of cost or
market within the appropriate HRA funds.
• We recommend the City adopt a written policy on liquor inventory matters.
• We recommend the City account for grants consistently, in accordance with GAAP.
• Interfund loans are now recorded in the financial statements.
• We recommend that the City continue to address Y2K issues.
• We recommend the City consider general recommendations regarding fraud
prevention and strategic pricing.
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, questioned the TIF bond amortization
schedule on pages 127-128 of the Comprehensive Annual Report, the "unaudited" label on
the schedule of personnel expenditures on pages 131-132, and the costs of sub-contractor
firms.
Mr. Tautges stated that he would have to refer to the TIF plan to answer the
amortization question.
Acting City Manager Devich stated staff would prepare a response.
Mr. Tautges stated the pages are labeled "unaudited" because it is supplemental
statistical data and outside the scope of the audit.
0
Item # IV DISCUSSION WITH CITY` ATTORNEY REGARDING STATE LAW
REQUUIREMENTS` UNDER MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW, GIFT'
LAW AND MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT.
S.S. LETTER NO. 18
City Attorney Thomson discussed and answered questions about state law
requirements regarding the attorney-client privilege, Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the
"Gift Law", and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
After Council discussion it was the consensus of the City Council that a written
protocol explaining statutory requirements, procedures, ground rules, and expectations be
provided by staff to the Council prior to the conduct of a Closed Executive Session dealing
with the attorney client privilege or not public data.
Item #V DISCUSSION OF INCREASING NUMBER OF ALCOHOL LICENSES
AVAILABLE WITHIN RICHFIELD. S. S. LETTER NO. 19
Health Administrator Christensen reviewed Study Session Letter No. 19 regarding
discussion about increasing the total number of alcohol licenses available in the City of
Richfield.
Study Session Minutes -7- June 7, 1999
Discussion followed regarding the impact of different options in how many licenses
are available. State Statute allows for a City the size of Richfield to issue up to 18
intoxicating liquor licenses. City ordinance currently allows for seven intoxicating liquor
licenses. The Community Development Department staff has identified three major
projects in the City that in the near future will support a total of six establishments that
most likely will be requesting alcohol licenses.
It was the consensus of the City Council that staff provide further information
regarding zoning, density, and location regulations related to liquor licenses and options
regarding future availability of the number of liquor licenses in the City.
Item #VI STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES. S.S. LETTER NO. 20
Acting City Manager Devich reviewed Study Session No. 20 regarding the status of
the following airport issues:
Airport Legislative Initiatives
• State Legislature created an Airport Impact Zone and will receive $30 million of
general obligation bonds from the MAC to spend on land use conversion within the
to zone pending FAA approval.
• The State Legislature also created a Governor's airport community stabilization
funding task force to which the City must appoint a representative.
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC)
• The expert panel is working on the draft plan and the next meeting will be held on
June 23 at 3 p.m. at the main terminal.
MASAC
• The last meeting was May 25 and focused on corridor use.
CARE Team
• The status of the CARE Team and its relationship with the City will be decided at
the June 10 CARE Team meeting.
Item #VII DISCUSSION OF MERGER OF CONSOLIDATED POLICE AND FIRE
ACCOUNTS INTO PERA. S.S. LETTER NO. 21
Acting City Manager Devich reviewed Study Session Letter No. 21 regarding the
new pension law which provides for the merger of consolidated police and fire account into
PERA and makes the City eligible to receive its residual fund assets. He stated that he
would notify PERA that the City has no objection to merging its local consolidated relief
accounts with the PERA Police and Fire Fund.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
91 September 17, 1999
Council Memorandum No. 128
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Review of Liquor License Issues by Planning Commission
Council Members:
In June, the City Council considered the question of whether or not to amend the City
Code and increase the number of liquor licenses to the maximum number allowed by State
Statute. The Council asked the Planning Commission to review the land use and zoning
issues relating to facilities that serve alcohol and provide information back to the Council.
The Planning Commission reviewed the issues at two study sessions and offers the
following feedback:
• The Zoning Ordinance considers restaurants serving alcohol as conditional uses and
limits their location to collector and arterial streets. Restaurants serving alcohol cannot
be located in the C-1 (neighborhood commercial) district.
• The existing licensing requirements provide many regulations to monitor and control
the service of alcoholic beverages.
• Some other cities have additional locational requirements for restaurants that serve
alcohol (e.g. they need to be located a certain distance from residential, schools and
churches). The Commission believed that there is no clear evidence that these
distance requirements are necessary or would alleviate any alcohol-related problems in
Richfield.
• The Commission considered some additional restrictions but decided that, rather than
try and develop generic regulations to fit every situation, it is better to review each case
individually and apply appropriate conditions to each situation when warranted.
• It would be appropriate to increase the number of liquor licenses to accommodate the
potential demand for licenses in redeveloped areas. Not having liquor licenses
available could negatively impact the success of redevelopment projects.
Based on its review, the Planning Commission does not recommend any changes to the
existing ordinance relating to restaurants that serve alcohol.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
Copy: Planning Commission
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4K
REPORT # 16 7
40
STAFF REPORT
=maim
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR
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 resolution relating to the 2001 maintenance assessments, LHN
(Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet) redevelopment area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution proposing to specially assess for
the costs of current services provided within the LHN project area for
the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, and to set
the public hearing date for August 14, 2000.
III. BACKGROUND I
On January 26, 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6372, which established a
service in the LHN area (approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue) which would be specially assessed. The special assessment to
commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of
assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount. All
single family, two family and multiple family residential property within this area were
I eliminated from the special assessment levy.
0710 LHN01assess
In 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the LHN area related to maintenance of
property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb
while the City is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the City
does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, these costs are directly
assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be
assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include,
but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following:
1. Landscaping, including tree trimming;
2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer;
3. Snow removal in winter;
4. Sidewalk deicing;
5. Painting and repair of wood furniture;
6. Trash removal;
7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement;
8. Irrigation maintenance.
9. Ornamental street light maintenance
These items are extra services provided directly to the LHN Redevelopment Area and do
not include services provided to the entire City. For example, all City streets are swept
twice a year, and for this service there would be no charge to the LHN maintenance
assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the LHN area would be an
assessable item.
Estimated a nd actual costs for LHN maintenan ce services 1989-1999 are:
Year Estimated Actual
1989 $43,151.19
1990 $44,560 $43,539.10
1991 $44,153 $43,825.22
1992 $46,484 $47,005.26
1993 $45,050 $34,866.01
1994 $45,115 $44,635.70
1995 $45,516 $36,105.50
1996 $46,080 $48,118.39
1997 $47,730 $31,208.46
1998 $49,165 $39,127.73
1999 $50,640 $47,480.80
2000 $45,000
2001 $50,000
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established policy for assessing
the costs.
• This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the LHN
Redevelopment Area.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated cost of the maintenance assessments for the LHN
Redevelopment area will be $50,000.
D. LEGAL
• Section 825, Subd. 2. states that "the City Clerk, under the Council's
direction, shall publish notice that the Council will meet to consider the
undertaking of current services and the levying of special assessments to
pay costs thereof."
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed
to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would
suffer if limited maintenance was performed.
V. ATTACHMENTS I
• Resolution proposing to specially assess the costs of current services
provided within the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) project area for the period
January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
9 None.
is RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF
CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN)
PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as
follows:
1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which
are conterminous with the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, for
the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City.
2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by
the City in the district, with the costs of such services to be specially assessed
against benefited property within the district:
• Snow, ice or rubbish removal;
• Weed elimination;
• Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private
property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26;
• Installation or repair of water service lines;
• Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets;
• Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees;
• Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways;
• Operation of the street lighting system;
• Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent
to street right-of-way;
• Maintenance of Civic Plaza;
• Snow removal and other maintenance of streets;
• Painting and repair of wood furniture;
• General maintenance, including repairs and replacement.
3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of
every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special
assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each
square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an
equal amount for maintenance of common are. Exempt from the special assessment
levy shall be all single family, two-family, multiple family residential property within the
LHN redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties
shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said
• property.
4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this
Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and
the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The City Clerk shall also
give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing
shall be held on Monday, August 14, 2000, commencing at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned
services for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. The estimated
cost of providing all the aforementioned current services during that period is $50,000.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10h day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
9
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 41
REPORT # 166
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
9
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
' SIGNJURE
u .2,GWw.Q
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution relating to 2001 maintenance assessments for the 77th Street
redevelopment area.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution proposing to specially assess for
the costs of current services provided with the 77th Street Project
Area for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 and
to set the public hearing date for Monday, August 14, 2000.
II. BACKGROUND
Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs
to the special assessment district for the I nterstate/Lynd ale/N icol let (ILN) project
area, an approximate two-block area. The district included properties east of
Lyndale and south of 77th Street, and the properties were assessed for current
services required to maintain special landscape features and other public amenities
on or adjacent to the right-of-way.
On June 12, 1994, the City Council took action to support the continuance of
specially assessing a redefined ILN expanded 77th Street Project Area (from 1-35W
to Portland Avenue) for the period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995.
071077`h01 assess
On November 25, 1996, the City Council took action to support the continuance of
is specially assessing another redefined expanded (from 1-35W to Cedar Avenue)
77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 1996 through December 31,
1996.
For the most part, each owner is to be responsible for property to the curb while the
City is responsible for common areas such as street islands, the north boulevard
and sound wall. Although the City does do some maintenance work for individual
property owners, common areas continue to be assessed to the entire district.
Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be
limited to, one or more of the following:
1. Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things,
tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging.
2. Irrigation maintenance.
3. General maintenance including repair and replacement of lights, signs, curbs
and plantings.
These items are extra services provided directly to the 77th Street Project Area,
and do not include services provided to the entire city. Most of the routine
maintenance (mowing, weeding, litter cleanup) has been and will continue to be
contracted; leaving city crews to perform repairs on irrigation, lights and signs.
Estimated costs for the ILN/77th Street maintenance services from 1988 - 2001
were/are:
Year Estimate Actual
1988 $ 7,001.47
1989 $ 7,254 $ 6,135.54
1990 $ 7,514 $ 7,762.52
1991 $ 7,780 $8,855.46
1992 $ 8,894 $ 7,031.70
1993 -0-*
1995 $18,000 $10,569.06
1996 $33,795 $36,850.31
1997 $58,973 $44,729.90
1998 $74,765 $54,629.54
1999 $80,000 $76,674.70
2000 $75,000
2001 $85,000
* The 0$ estimate was provided to the Council in a 12/28/93 memorandum.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for
assessing the costs.
• Commercial property owners will be assessed on a per-square-foot
basis. However, all single family and multi-family residential
properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from
the special assessment levy.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated cost of the maintenance assessments for the 77th
Street area will be $85,000.
D. LEGAL
• Section 825, Subd. 2. states that "the City Clerk, under the Council's
direction, shall publish notice that the Council will meet to consider the
undertaking of current services and the levying of special
assessments to pay costs thereof."
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance
performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment
area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed.
V. ATTACHMENTS
I
• Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services provided to the
77th Street project area for the period January 1 through December 31,
2001.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF
CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which
are east of 1-35W and west of Cedar Avenue, for the purposes of assessing for
current services provided by the City.
2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by
the City in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against
benefited property within the District;
• The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of any unsound trees
from any street;
• The repair of sidewalks;
• The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent
to street rights-of-way;
• Trash and litter removal.
3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services
consists of each and every commercial lot and parcel of land within the District. It is
proposed that the special assessments on the commercial property be made on the
basis of area.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of a hearing
by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current
services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice
shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks prior to the
date of hearing. The City Clerk shall also give mailed notice of such hearing as required
by law. Such hearing shall be held Monday, August 14, 2000, commencing at 7:00
o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the aforementioned services
for the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. The estimated cost of
providing all of the aforementioned services during that period is $85,000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4T
REPORT # -169
STAFF REPORT
r
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAM, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
?j
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for 1999 LHN Maintenance, and consideration of resolution setting
the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for August 14, 2000.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and
ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 1999 LHN
Maintenance, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on
the proposed assessment for August 14, 2000.
III. BACKGROUND
The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment was established to
recover extraordinary maintenance expenses in the LHN (66th
Street/Lyndale/Nicollet) area. The Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area is
approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson
Avenue. City staff has determined costs of current services to be assessed for the
1999 maintenance of the LHN redevelopment area,
071OLHN99
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• . Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or
more of the following:
(a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks;
(b) weed elimination from streets or private property;
(c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from
private property, excluding and structure included under the
provisions of Minnesota Statues, sections 463.15 to 463.26;
(d) installation or repair of water service lines;
(e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets;
(f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound
trees from any street;
(g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees
on private property;
(h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys;
(i) the operation of a street lighting system;
(j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and
other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and
(k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial
redevelopment areas.
• Council ordered the work, and the work is done.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total
unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or
parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City
Code.
C. FINANCIAL
• Estimated and actual costs for the LHN maintenance services 1989-
2001 were/are:
Year Estimated Actual
1989 $43,151.19
1990 $44,560 $43,539.10
1991 $44,153 $43,825.22
1992 $46,484 $47,005.26
1993 $45,050 $34,866.01
1994 $45,115 $44,635.70
1995 $45,516 $36,105.50
1996 $46,080 $48,118.39
1997 $47,730 $31,208.46
1998 $49,165 $39,127.73
i 1999 $50,640 $47,470.80
2000 $45,000
2001 $50,000
Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of LHN are caused by a
number of factors. Weather determines water usage and irrigation
costs; street light knockdowns are never foreseeable and very
expensive; and the need to paint streetlights and repair concrete
varies from year to year.
D. LEGAL
No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in
attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed
necessary after the public hearing.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for 1999 LHN Maintenance.
• Resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for
August 14, 2000.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
•
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the
Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th
Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the
expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $47,470.80 for the
period of January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to
be $47,470.80.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for
such, maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a
copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City
Council thereof.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN
MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on
July 10, 2000, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of
maintaining the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area which is approximately
bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of
Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed
assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of August, 2000, in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the
agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all
persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an
opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to
the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City
Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described
in the assessment roll not less that two weeks prior to the hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4H
REPORT # 164
STAFF REPORT
=Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a E^*- \
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: +?-
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for 1999 77th Street Maintenance, and consideration of resolution
setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for August 14, 2000.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and
ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 1999 77th
Street Maintenance, and adopt the resolution setting the date of
hearing on the proposed assessment for August 14, 2000.
III. BACKGROUND
Since the 1988 construction of the short section of 77th Street around the Hampton
Inn, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along 77th
Street. The maintenance specifications required as part of the 77th Street
construction projects have now lapsed so the special maintenance responsibilities
rest entirely on the City. The maintenance functions, known as current services,
are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses.
City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the 77th
Street redevelopment area between 1-35W and Cedar Avenue.
071077th99
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Sectio n 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or
more of the following:
(a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks;
(b) weed elimination from streets or private property;
(c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from
private property, excluding and structure included under the
provisions of Minnesota Statues, sections 463.15 to 463.26;
(d) installation or repair of water service lines;
(e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets;
(f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound.
trees from any street;
(g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees
on private property;
(h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys;
(i) the operation of a street lighting system;
Q) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and
other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and
(k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial
redevelopment areas.
• Council ordered the work, and the work is done.
B. CRITICAL IS SUES
• On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total
unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or
parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City
Code.
C. FINANCIAL
• Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services
1988-2001 were/are:
Year Estimate Actual
1988 $7,001.47
1989 $7,254 $6,135.54
1990 $7,514 $7,762.52
1991 $7,780 $8,855.46
1992 $8,894 $7,031.70
1993 $9,200 $3,614.94
1994 $0 estimate in a 12/28/93 Council memorandum
1995 $18,000 $10,569.06
1996 $33,795 $36,850.31
1997 $58,973 $44,729.90
1998
1999 $74,765 $54,629.54
$80,000 $76,674.70
2000 $80,000
2001 $85,000
D. LEGAL
No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in
attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed
necessary after the public hearing.
V. ATTACHMENTS I
• Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for 1999 77th Street Maintenance.
• Resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for
August 14, 2000.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET
MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the 77th Street
Redevelopment Area the boundaries of which are approximately east of 1-35W and west
of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for
such maintenance amount to $76,674.70 for the period of January 1, 1999 through
December 31, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to
be $76,674.70.
1. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a
copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
2. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the
City Council thereof.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
40 RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET
MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on
July 10, 2000, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the
cost of maintaining the 77th Street redevelopment area, the boundaries of which are
east of 1-35W and west of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the
period of January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed
assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of August, 2000, in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the
agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all
persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an
opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior
to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The
City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less that two weeks prior to the hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4G
REPORT # 163
STAFF REPORT
=Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
f SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: t d
11 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased trees from
private property for the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, and consideration
of a resolution setting date of hearing.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and
ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll for the 1999
removal of diseased trees from private property, and adopt the
resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment
for August 14, 2000.
IL BACKGROUND I
Property owners of diseased trees have four options available:
1. Remove the tree themselves.
2. Hire and pay their own contractor.
3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal within 30 days.
4. Use the City's contractor and request that the cost of the tree removal be
assessed against their property tax.
0710TreeAssess
In the period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, 27 property
owners chose the fourth option.
1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The work has been done with prior approval from the affected
residents.
• Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all
special assessments.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL I
• The costs to be assessed for the removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees
on private property for the period January 1, 1999 through December
31, 1999 have been determined to be $23,942.47.
• The original source of funding to have the work done is through the
City's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. The property owner
may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before
October 10, 2000, for the 2001 taxes, the interest rate is eight percent
with payment spread over three years.
D. LEGAL I
• No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in
attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary
following the public hearing.
V. ATTACHMENTS I
Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the
proposed assessment roll for 1999 removal of diseased trees from private
property.
• Resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for
August 14, 2000.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
•
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1999 TO DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from
the following private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to
be incurred for such work during the period of January 1, 1999 through December 31,
1999 amount to $23,942.47.
Property Address
Across from 6304 West Pleasant Avenue
6441 Bloomington Avenue
6814 Humboldt Avenue
6300 Irving Avenue
7006 Logan Avenue
7445 Thomas Avenue
6604 Irving Avenue
6445-15th Avenue
7109 Penn Avenue
6812 Emerson Avenue
6817 Queen Avenue
7315 Pillsbury Avenue
6838 Penn Avenue.
7213 James Avenue
6718 Third Avenue
7200 Morgan Avenue
6629 Washburn Avenue
6924-14th Avenue
6208 James Avenue
6445 First Avenue
6404 Humboldt Avenue
6431 Logan Avenue
7608 Nicollet Avenue
6409-18th Avenue
7232 Morgan Avenue
6408 Grand Avenue
7539 Washburn Avenue
Property Identification Number
27-028-24-21-0095
26-028-24-14-0087
28-028-24-34-0096
28-028-24-21-0125
33-028-24-22-0006
32-028-24-41-0017
28-028-24-31-0018
26-028-24-13-0041
33-028-24-22-0126
28-028-24-42-0090
29-028-24-44-0013
34-028-24-24-0086
29-028-24-44-0003
33-028-24-24-0004
27-028-24-42-0120
33-028-24-23-0031
29-028-24-42-0153
26-028-24-43-0068
28-028-24-21-0120
27-028-24-13-0043
28-028-24-24-0002
28-028-24-24-0073
34-028-24-34-0003
26-028-24-14-0069
33-028-24-23-0036
27-028-24-23-0044
32-028-24-42-0106
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be
$23,942.47.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such
proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City
Council thereof.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of July, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1999 TO DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on
July 10, 2000, the City Clerk was directed to prepare the assessment of the cost of
removing diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield for
the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
Property Address
Across from 6304 West Pleasant Avenue
6441 Bloomington Avenue
6814 Humboldt Avenue
6300 Irving Avenue
7006 Logan Avenue
7445 Thomas Avenue
6604 Irving Avenue
6445-15th Avenue
7109 Penn Avenue
6812 Emerson Avenue
6817 Queen Avenue
7315 Pillsbury Avenue
6838 Penn Avenue
7213 James Avenue
6718 Third Avenue
7200 Morgan Avenue
6629 Washburn Avenue
6924-14th Avenue
6208 James Avenue
6445 First Avenue
6404 Humboldt Avenue
6431 Logan Avenue
7608 Nicollet Avenue
6409-18th Avenue
7232 Morgan Avenue
6408 Grand Avenue
7539 Washburn Avenue
Property Identification Number
27-028-24-21-0095
26-028-24-14-0087
28-028-24-34-0096
28-028-24-21-0125
33-028-24-22-0006
32-028-24-41-0017
28-028-24-31-0018
26-028-24-13-0041
33-028-24-22-0126
28-028-24-42-0090
29-028-24-44-0013
34-028-24-24-0086
29-028-24-44-0003
33-028-24-24-0004
27-028-24-42-0120
33-028-24-23-0031
29-028-24-42-0153
26-028-24-43-0068
28-028-24-21-0120
27-028-24-13-0043
28-028-24-24-0002
28-028-24-24-0073
34-028-24-34-0003
26-028-24-14-0069
33-028-24-23-0036
27-028-24-23-0044
32-028-24-42-0106
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed
assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
0
1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of August, 2000 in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7 p.m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to
pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons
owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an
opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice
the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be
given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two
weeks prior to the hearing.
By order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
July, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
M
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4F
REPORT # 162
mo' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 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:
Consideration of the request for a new lawful gambling license, with a waiver of the
investigation fee, for FredBabcock Post #5555, located at 6715 Lakeshore Drive.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Council approval of a lawful gambling license and waiver
of the investigation fee for Fred Babcock Post #5555, located at 6715
Lakeshore Drive.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2000, Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 submitted an application for a
new lawful gambling license for their new location located at 6715 Lakeshore Drive.
Their current gambling license was renewed in May 2000, however, a change of
address constitutes a request for a new license.
The applicant is proposing to conduct bingo on Sundays from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation
and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements.
0508VFW Gambling
Finally, the applicant is requesting the $100.00 investigation fee be waived.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to
review the request for the gambling license and make its review and
recommendation to the City Council.
• The applicant has complied with the state statutes and city code
pertaining to lawful gambling.
• The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested
is a benefit to the community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the new license
request, however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this
alternative.
• The Council could decide to not waive the investigation fee.
V. ATTACHMENTS
A resolution granting approval for the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 to
conduct lawful gambling.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Gambling Manager
0
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE FRED BABCOCK VFW POST
#5555 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING
WHEREAS, the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 has submitted an application for a
new lawful gambling license; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of
applications by local authorities; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the
application and finds the application to be in order;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Fred Babcock VFW Post
#5555, 6715 Lakeshore Drive.
2. The investigation fee be waived.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4E
• REPORT # 161
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
N TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: . /
SIGNATUR'
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to set special meeting for 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed Budget and setting
preliminary tax levy.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the dates of August 30, 2000 and September 6,
2000 (if necessary) as Special City Council meetings to review and
discuss the 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Tax
Levy prior to certification to the County on September 15, 2000.
II. BACKGROUND
Each year the City has held a Special City Council meeting to discuss the upcoming
budget and tax levy before adopting the preliminary levy. The meeting provides an
opportunity to present the key initiatives, issues and financial impact of the
Proposed Budget and Tax Levy. These meetings are televised to the public.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
0710Budget
• City staff is now in the process of preparing the draft 2000
Revised/2001 Proposed budget. Included in that draft document is
the proposed preliminary property tax levy for the City and for the
Richfield HRA. The Truth in Taxation statute requires that a
preliminary levy be adopted by the local units of government and
certified to the County Auditor on or before September 15 each year.
• In order to review the draft budget document with the City Council
prior to the September 15 deadline, it is necessary to establish at least
one special meeting.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
Because of the strict timeframe associated with the Truth in Taxation
process, this issue should be considered at the July 10, 2000 meeting
so that a date for special meetings may be established if the City
Council wishes to use that process.
C. FINANCIAL
• Draft budget documents will be available to Council Members on or
before August 18. This will allow some time for Council Members to
review the draft budget before the scheduled meetings.
D. LEGAL
• The Truth in Taxation statute requires that a preliminary levy be
adopted by local units of government and certified to the County
Auditor on or before September 15 of each year.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• The City Council could schedule meetings on different dates than those
suggested.
• The City Council could schedule additional sessions than those suggested.
• The City Council could decide not to schedule any budget meetings and
proceed with the preliminary levy at a regular City Council meeting before
September 15, 2000.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # 160
J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
GEORGE L. ATKINSON,
ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE.
REPORT PRESENTER:
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Y
( l'
SIGNATRE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: !
v -
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to approve plans, order project and authorize ad for bids for paving the 7600
block of Garfield Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve plans, order City Project No. 913-25-963, and
authorize ad for bids for paving the 7600 block of Garfield Avenue.
•
II. BACKGROUND
As part of the South Lyndale Gateway Redevelopment, Twin City Christian Homes
and Garfield Court Townhomes needed to remove old driveway aprons, install
driveway aprons at new locations, remove old sewer and water connections and
make new connections. This work will result in the destruction of the Garfield
Avenue street bed. The developers will replace the curbs on the street. As part of
the developers agreement, the City agreed to replace the blacktop (the street is
over 25 years old and in need of major maintenance even before the project). The
project was not identified in the adopted 2000 Capital Budget but will be added to
the Revised 2000 Capital Budget.
0710paveGarfield
Although work on both the Lyndale Avenue and Garfield Avenue streets was
originally scheduled for this year, the Lyndale part of the project was delayed, at the
developers request, until next year. However, the Garfield portion of the project
must proceed this season.
Staff has now split the entire project into two contracts and is requesting that
Council accept the plans for repaving Garfield, order the project and authorize staff
to advertise for bids.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Council and staff have worked to bring quality redevelopment to the
7600 Lyndale area. This project is just one more step toward that
goal.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• Richfield's Housing and Redevelopment. Authority (HRA) will originally
provide funding in the estimated amount of $65,000 to $70,000. The
HRA will be reimbursed from Municipal State Aid funds when work in
the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue is done in 2001.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could decide not to go forward with this project; however, staff has
committed to assisting in this development.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Plan of Garfield Avenue.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None known at this time.
0
•
•
a
J'
;plll-
HARRIETAVENUE
aw
GARFIELD COURT
TOWNHOMES
GARFIELD AVENUE
m
ti
TWIN CITY
CHRISTIAN HOMES
LYNDALE AVENUE
z
PREPARED BY:
¦ RICHFIELD
ENGINEERING
DIVISION
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4C
REPORT # 159
0
STAFF REPORT
=maim CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
•
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /
LJ
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNA RE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution supporting the 494 Corridor Commission's efforts to secure federal
funds for the rebuilding of 1-494 and identifying improvements to the 1-494/1-35W interchange
as Richfield's top priority for improvement.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution supporting the 1-494 Corridor
Commission's efforts to secure federal funds for the rebuilding of the
1-494/35W interchange and other 1-494 infrastructure and services.
IIL BACKGROUND
The 1-494 Corridor Commission has identified the interchange of 1-494 and 1-35W as a critical
infrastructure improvement that needs immediate attention. The City of Richfield, in
cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the City of Bloomington,
Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, and the Federal Highway Administration,
conducted a study of the 1-494/1-35W interchange. Various alternatives were discussed with
the City Council as the study was being conducted. The results of the study, including
identification of the problem, the solution/preferred design alternative and the impact, as well
as project details, are available in a document dated April 2000. An open house to receive
public comments on the design of the interchange is planned for early August.
•
0710Res494-35
Improvements to the 1-494 corridor, especially the 1-494/35W interchange, have
been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a high priority for
reconstruction. The findings of the interchange study need to be communicated
to elected officials at the federal, state and regional levels who make decisions
on major transportation projects. Various design alternatives for the 1-494/1-
35W interchange have been discussed with the public and the Richfield City
Council. The public will have another opportunity to review the design at a
public open house that is planned for early August.
0
III.
IV.
The approximate cost of the improvements is estimated at $125 million or more including the I-
494/1-35W interchange ($100-$130 million), the Penn Avenue bridge ($16 million, excluding
right of way costs), the Lyndale Avenue bridge ($11 million), and the 79th Street bridge ($7
million). The State of Minnesota has approximately $66 million committed for the project in the
years 2011 and beyond. The 1-494 Corridor Commission is continuing its search for innovative
funding partnerships that will increase funding for critical 1-494 roadway and transit
improvements and accelerate their construction. The Commission has asked each member
city to submit a resolution to elected officials notifying them of the importance of securing
federal funds to rebuild the 1-494/1-35W interchange and 1-494 improvements soon.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• Effort is needed to highlight the urgency to rebuild 1-494 and especially the 1-
494/1-35W interchange. Without these improvements traffic congestion, which
is already bad on 1-494, will continue to worsen causing significant delays and
forcing regional trips to spill over onto local streets.
C. FINANCIAL
• Although funding has been identified for portions of the proposed roadway
improvements related to the 1-494/1-35W interchange, funding for all segments
of the preferred design has not be secured. The 1-494 Corridor Commission is
actively seeking funding for improvement of 1-494 infrastructure from the
Minnesota River to 1-94 in order to increase its people-moving capacity and to
improve mobility for businesses and residents throughout the region
D. LEGAL
• N/A
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Council may choose to modify the proposed resolution.
Council may choose not to approve the proposed resolution. This would mean the
Council does not support 1-494 Corridor Commission's efforts to secure additional
funding for 1-494 roadway improvements.
•
V.
VI.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution supporting the 494 Corridor Commission's efforts to secure federal funds
for the rebuilding of 1-494 and identifying improvements to the 1-494/1-35W interchange
as Richfield's top priority for improvement.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING 1-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION EFFORTS
TO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE REBUILDING OF THE
1-494/35W INTERCHANGE AND OTHER 1-494 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission is a Joint Powers Organization (JPO)
representing the transportation system concerns of the seven cities of Bloomington, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission represents the transportation interests of
21 percent of the region's employers and 19 percent of the region's residents; and,
WHEREAS, the mission of the I-494 Corridor Commission is to promote the
improvement of 1-494 infrastructure from the Minnesota River to 1-94 in order to increase its
people-moving capacity and to improve mobility for businesses and residents throughout
the region; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission consistently supports a multi-modal
transportation system approach to exploring initiatives that might benefit the region as a
whole, and continues to actively participate as a member of multiple jurisdiction
transportation planning groups, such as the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, that seek
long-term funding solutions for Minnesota's transportation system; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission is actively involved in planning for the
needs of its member communities and the region as a whole by proactively developing
Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans and programs that increase 494 vehicle
capacity; by providing employers and developers with incentives that promote alternatives
to driving alone; by planning competitive transit services to employment centers around the
corridor; by adding bus shoulder lanes and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) ramp meter
bypasses at strategic corridor locations; by promoting transit-oriented site planning at new
development and redeveloped areas; by advocating for local land use changes supporting
TDM; and by overseeing 1-494 road reconstruction project staging to facilitate and
coordinate future planned road projects; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission is assisting MnDOT and the
Metropolitan Council in identifying a number of high-priority multimodal projects along the
494 corridor and how best to stage these projects to mitigate traffic congestion and delay
during 494 reconstruction periods; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission provides an ongoing stakeholder forum
for the planning of 1-494 reconstruction through regular meetings of the 494 Chamber of
Commerce Subcommittee, the 494 Engineers' Subcommittee and the 494 Transit
Providers' Subcommittee; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission, through the work of its member cities of
Bloomington and Richfield, has identified the interchange of 1-494 and 1-35W as a critical
infrastructure improvement that needs immediate attention; and,
WHEREAS, the approximate cost of the improvements is estimated at $125 million
or more and the State of Minnesota has approximately $66 million committed for the project
in the years 2011 and beyond; and,
WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission is continuing its search for innovative
funding partnerships that will increase or "speed up" funding for critical 494 roadway and
transit improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield
hereby declares its support of 1-494 Corridor Commission activities relating to the
procurement of federal funding to improve 1-494 infrastructure and services; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby
identifies improvements at the 1-494/1-35W interchange as a top priority of the City of
Richfield, and supports efforts to secure federal funding to provide improvements for the 1-
494/1-35W interchange as quickly as possible; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Honorable Congressman James Ramstad, Minnesota Third District; the Honorable
Congressman Martin Sabo, Minnesota Fifth District; the Honorable Congressman James
Oberstar, Minnesota Eighth District; the Honorable Congressman David Minge, Minnesota
Second District; the Honorable Senator Paul Wellstone; the Honorable Senator Rod Grams;
Governor Jesse Ventura; State Senator Jane Ranum, District 63; State Senator Dave
Johnson, District 40; State Representative Mark Gleason, District 6313; State
Representative Dan Larson, District 40A; the Chair of the Metropolitan Council
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB); the Chair of the Metropolitan Council Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC); the Chair of the Metropolitan Council; the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation; the Board of the Minnesota Transportation
Alliance; the Chair of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4B
REPORT # 158
STAFF REPORT
mada CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
NAME TITLE .
SIGNATUJZE/,
V
?e
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1 n / n
ITEM FOR COUNCIL- CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of consultant agreement to design the replacement of the Penn Avenue bridge
over 1-494.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a consulting engineering agreement with BRW,
Inc. to design the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge.
II. BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) relies on a memorandum of
understanding as a non-binding agreement to outline responsibilities of participating
agencies in implementing a highway project. The City of Richfield has drafted a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the City of Bloomington to replace the Penn Avenue Bridge over
1-494. MnDOT staff has reviewed the MOU, although it has not been signed yet by
any of the three parties.
City staff is proposing to hire the engineering consulting firm of BRW, Inc. to design
the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. The consultant has
submitted a work plan and cost estimate to perform the design work. The
agreement would be for $1,071,359.
0710PennAvDesignAgmt
City staff is proposing to use Municipal State Aid funds now to pay for the design
4 work until reimbursement can be made by tax increment bonds to be issued in early
2001. As added security the City has included a provision in its MOU with MnDOT
to have MnDOT reimburse the City at a later date for the cost of the design work if
the Best Buy Redevelopment does not occur.
City staff believes that the MOU with MnDOT offers adequate protection for the City
to use its Municipal State Aid (gas tax) funds to hire an engineering consulting firm
to design the bridge. If the Best Buy development were not built, MnDOT would
agree to reimburse the City for the cost of the design work at such time as MnDOT
chose to build the bridge.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Penn Avenue bridge over 1-494 is inadequate to handle existing
and projected traffic volumes and needs to be replaced.
• 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 bridge is
built within the next two years.
• BRW, Inc. is a qualified engineering firm with experience in bridge
design.
• The Penn Avenue bridge has been identified in the City's Capital
Improvement Program for construction in 2001.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• The replacement of the Penn Avenue bridge was a condition of the
Best Buy Company relocating to Richfield.
• The design proposal will hasten the replacement of the existing Penn
Avenue bridge and provide a high capacity bridge to accommodate
future traffic generated by development along the 1-494 corridor.
C. FINANCIAL
• MnDOT has agreed in principal to sign a non-binding MOU that it will
reimburse the City of Richfield for the cost of the design work if the
Best Buy Redevelopment proposal does not occur. In that case,
construction of the Penn Avenue bridge would be postponed until
adequate state trunk highway funds became available to finance the
project.
• City staff is recommending using Richfield's Municipal State Aid funds
to finance the design work so that it can begin in July 2000.
D. LEGAL I
• The City Attorney has been involved in discussions and the
preparation of the MOU. The MOU is not a binding document and
there is a certain risk involved until formal agreements with MnDOT
are signed to reimburse the City for the cost of the design work in the
event the Best Buy Redevelopment does not occur.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to reject hiring the engineering firm of BRW, Inc. This
would delay the schedule for building the Penn Avenue bridge as City staff
solicits proposals from other qualified engineering firms.
• Council may choose to delay approval of an agreement with BRW, Inc.
pending a signed MOU with MnDOT for the Penn Avenue bridge and
possibly another binding agreement with MnDOT assuring the City increased
protection for receiving a reimbursement for the cost of the design work.
This may delay the schedule for building the Penn Avenue bridge.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• The proposed work program and cost estimate for the design work submitted
by BRW, Inc. to replace the Penn Avenue bridge over 1-494.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
•
•
PENN AVENUE OVER I-494 PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL DESIGN
WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The following Scope of Services outlines in greater detail the tasks
required to fulfill the objectives of the project. Table 1 provides a
summary by task of the estimated hours for each project..
TASK LOc PROJECT COORDINATION
Description: Maintain project control through internal team
meetings, team meetings with City staff and through other forms of
communication,
Subtasks:
• Schedule and conduct initial meeting of Project Team,
Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, the City of Bloomington and the
City of Richfield -stafE-
- Identify roles of key personnel and establish
communication. procedures
- Review and concur in responsibilities of consultant,
Mn/DOT Bloomington, Hennepin County and the City of
Richfield
- Establish submittal requirements, review dates and overall
project schedule
• Establish need and frequency of ongoing Project Team
meetings/reviews. Participate in meetings and document
meeting minutes:
• Monitor progress and manage BRW- staff and subconsultants.
+ Prepare and submit monthly status reports on project
progress.
I'
.1.
. ?Y
0
JIJIV-_)W_aUVU 1CJ• 1J Li?w ?w --- --- ---- •?+`+
• Respond to requests for attendance at City-initiated meetings
to discuss project:
• Implement and oversee quality control plan.
• Assist City staff with funding determinations and cost splits.
• Ensure application of Quality Assurance/Quality Control
procedures
• Coordination meetings between bridge and roadway design
Deliverables: Project Schedule Chart, Meeting Minutes - Memoranda,
Status Reports - Memoranda
TASK 2.0:BASE MAPPING/SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEYS/ROW SASE MAP
Description: Obtain planimetric mapping and Digital Terrain Model
from Mn/DOT and prepare data for design application.
Subtas"
0 • Obtain electronic files of mapping and DTM.
• Verify base mapping through field reconnaissance.
• Incorporate base mapping comments from local agencies.
• Perform supplementary field surveys as needed.
• Supplement base map with topographic ground surveys for
areas needing verification or accuracy enhancement.
• Add as-built utility data as-base map layer.
• Conduct inplace ROW and property boundary surveys and
prepare landline basemap suitable` for utilization for ROW
basemap and individual parcel acquisitions. Includes
preparation of 7 acquisition exhibits/descriptions.
a ()
{r„y
r +i`•rli
..a
3
+A
`I
JVI\ JU GVUU aV a..i -1- -.w --- - " - - - - -
- -
• Conduct Bridge Survey and provide survey data to design
team.
Deliverables: Updated planimetric base map, bridge survey and
ROW base map.
TASK 5.0: GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
Description: Perform soil borings, investigate subsurface conditions,
determine R-values_and perform tests on selected.soil samples to
determine characteristics.
Subtasks:
• Develop soil boring program based on preliminary alignment
and profiles and review with MnDot for approval
• Drill shallow borings along roadway alignment in accordance
with approved program.
• Perform R-value-tests on representative soil samples as
needed to supplement existing data.
• Drill foundatiwborings at proposed bridge substructure units
and along retaining walls.
• Perform -laboratory testing on selected samples.
• Prepare report, diseussing exploration program, data obtained
and foundation recommendations.
Deliverables: Geote-chnieal Subsurface Investigation, Soil Boring
Logs, Discussions and Recommendations
TASK 4.0:.... STAFF APPROVED, LAYOUT /CONSTRUCTION LBUTS
Description: Preparation of geometric layouts and compliance with
MnDOT layout review process and preparation o£.plan set used to
determine right-of-way, either permanent or temporary, necessary to
construct the project.
r M i) r
•
•
JVIY-au._ Gt uu - - -.I- _w
Subtasks:
• Make revisions to Penn Avenue layout based on local agency
review comments.
• Make revisions to Penn Avenue layout based on MaDOT
review comments and resubmit layout for signature.
• Develop final typical sections and superelevation requirements
for Penn Avenue Bridge and ramps.
• Generate preliminary cross-sections and initial construction
limits.
• Develop preliminary retaining wall locations.
• Develop preliminary construction staging and traffic control
plans to determine need for temporary encroachment beyond
normal construction limits.
P. 'A
' -l
• Develop preliminary stormtrunk line locations and utility
relocation limits for temporary and permanent locations,
•
• Generate construction-limits based on all temporary and
permanent construction.
Deliverables. Staff Approved Layout/Construction Limits Map/ROW
Plan and parcel acquisition exhibits/descriptions
TASK 5.0: PERMIT APPLIfxATIM _.
Description: On behalf of the City, BRW will prepare and submit
applications and/or coordinate with all permitting agencies:
Subtasks:
,r
• Review proposed project with permitting agencies as
appropriate after preliminary plans and construction limits
have been prepared:
•
• Determine input requirements for permits and coordinate data
preparation with roadway designers.--
• Review critical permit requirements/commitments with
Mn/DOT and City.
• Coordinate and submit applications as necessary with the
following agencies: Board of Water and.S.oil_Resources;
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; MPCA Storm
Water Discharge,; Watershed Districts; Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission; Permit to Work in Mn/DOT ROW;
Permit to Utilize Mn/DOT Storm Drainage,
Deliverables: Permit Applications
TASK 6.0 FIELD SURVEY
Description: Perform field survey of the proposed project site and
provide three dimensional electronic data to be used in preparation of
bridge- survey sheet and-laying out of the bridge and- approach roadway
and ramps.
0 Subtasks:
• Collect three dimensional electronic data of site
topography
• Establish proposed centerline of bridge and ramps
Deliverables: Fie survey data.
TASK 7.0 PRELIK NARY BRIDGE STUDY AND PLANS
Description: On behalf-of the City, BRW will prepare preliminary
bridge plans for the Penn Avenue over I-434 Bridge and submit to
MnDot for review and'approval._
Subtasks:
• Evaluate construction staging of the bridge and related ramps
0
??ye
f.,
"'s
•
•
JUN-3U-LUUU l U • 10 DMW tiw
• Evaluate bridge and retaining walls architectural treatment
• Meet and discuss bridge alternatives and construction staging
with both cities and MnDot.
• Select final bridge type and construction staging plan
• Prepare preliminary bridge plans and submit to MnDot for
review and approval
Deiiverabtes: Preliminary bridge plans.
TASK 8.0 FINAL BRIDGE DESIGN AND PLANS
Description: Based on approved bridge preliminary plans, BRW will
prepare the final construction plans and special provisions for the
proposed bridge.
8ubtasks:
Summary of plan sheets are:
• General plan sheets
• Abutment plan sheets
• Steel plan beam sheets
• Deck plan sheets
• Bridge Standard plan sheets
Deliverables: Final bridge plans (as listed above).
TASK 9.0 FINAL ROADWAY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Description: Assemblage of all plan details and quantities in plan
documents package for bidding purposes.
5ubtasks:
J
j
0
J VIT JV LVVV aV'aV ?,.w ,w --- -.- ----
• This task includes the assemblage of all plan sheets described
in previous tasks plus final design and drafting of the
following: Title Sheets; General Layout; Environmentally
Sensitive Area; Erosion Control Plan; Estimated Quantities;
Tabulated Quantities; Earthwork Summary; Staging and
Traffic Control; Typical Sections; Existing Topo and Removals;
Alignment Plan and Tabulation; Planned Construction and
Profiles; Drainage Plans; Utility Plans; Sanitary Sewer/Water
Plans; Superelevation Details; Temporary
• Construction Plans; Soils Notes; Standard Plans; Construction ,i
Details,; Cross Section Layouts; Final Cross Sections
• Prepare Supplemental Specifications
• Compute all earthwork and quantity of materials for
construction:
• Perform Quality Control of all design and drafting procedures.
• Prepare detailed cost estimate,
• Deliverables: Final Roadway Plans (as listed above) -I Plan Sheets,
Special Provisions - Document, Cost Estimate -- Document
TASK I0.0 CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTATION
Description: Help prepare- the contract bid documentation.
Subtasks:
• Special provisions
• Boiler plates
Deliverables: Proposal. Documents
CITY OF RICHFIELD PARTICIPATION
RRW anticipates the City offUch&ld's role in the project would be similar to -
their role on the previous phases of the 77th Street project and would include:
•
•
•
-- ---- -- -- --- --- ----
Acquisition of Right-of-Way: This would include appraisals, offers,
negotiations with property owners, and closing.
Public Information and Outreach: It is anticipated that this would be a
joint effort between the City and BRW with the City providing newsletters,
and other mechanisms for the public to learn about the project and provide
feedback such as a project hotline. BRW would participate in meetings with
property owners and.others -to_ describe. the.project_ and.schedules and provide
other information needed by the City_
City Review and Approval of Plans: The City should review and approve
all plans and specifications. BRW will set up a systematic review process
that will emphasize approval of concept designs before final plans are
developed. BRW will provide the City with a schedule to indicate key review
milestones and will schedule review meetings to walk City staff through the
plans.
Contract Administration: It is expected that th?-.City-w li negotiate and
execute any necessary agreements with MnlDOT to allow for the transfer of
federal funds to pay, for right-of-way, preliminary engineering, and
construction engineering... The City would also negotiate agreements with the
consultant.
N
.l
" 4
•
0
D
r
T,
m:
TABLE i
PENN AVENUE OVER 1-494 ENGINEERING FEE ESTIMATE
WORK TASKS
1 PrOiect Coordination
2:Base MN In u lemental Hold Surveys iShtat-Way
3'430otelehAicibi Services
4 SU f ADbroved LsYf1WCOnstruOlon Limits'
5'Pi*mlt Alacliciir ions'
' 6 Fuld SuN9V
7;Prlalirnih ry rldge Study and Plans '
B Filial 8ri4pt Cksign'end Plans
9 Fitial Rabdwav 06natr ictibn Plans & Soaks
10 Zcintract bill i0cum$ntatl6n '
TOTAL HOURS; "
AVERAGE: HOURLY BILLING "TE
'
ESTIMATED LA130P COSTS
OVERHEAD COSTS 0 158.31
LABOR PLUS OVERHEAD
FEE 0 12%
LABOR + OVPRHE? D + FEE
OEQTiCHNIPAL S,USCONSULTANT
?EA DIRECTt'EXPENS?ES
TAL ESTIMATED COST
LEVEL 1 - Project Manager
LEVEL II -Senior Engineer/Planner
LEVEL III - Engineer/Planner
LEVEL IV- Technician
LEVEL V - Clerical
PERSON HOURS BY EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION
I 1 I 1 Total
Level 11 Level III Level till LEVEL IVI LEVEL Hour
1601 $01 401 01 30
tan 201 441 1401 4901 694
41; 121 21 01 18
6011 1201' 3001' „ 3001 788
21'' 121 241: 01 44
41' 811 ; 41' 2401 256
1211 1 241 1201' 36D1 51
2401'. '18001' 22001 24001 0 664
1201' 7401' 11001' 124101 24 4394
321? 461': 121 01 0 9
'854 1' 2;888 t 3.9421 0,200 1 58 A%742
$ 45 $ 34 25 $ 21 $ 14
'S 20,430 98,19'2 $ ' 94.550 $ 130,200 $ ' 612 $ ` 357,184
S' 586.458
$ 922,642
_$ 110.717
$ 1,033.359
$ 35,000
$ 3,000
' ? ? S 1,071:3591
$ 32AO2
$ 46.827
S 1.846
$ 59,863
S 3,420
$ 16,178
$ 34,474
`S '513,231
$ 315.362
$ 9.7s5
$ 1,033,359
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # 157
STAFF REPORT
..On CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNA RE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, the City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington related to the Penn Avenue
,i Bridge Project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Bloomington
to build the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494.
II. BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) relies on a memorandum of
understanding as a non-binding agreement to outline responsibilities of participating
agencies in implementing a highway project. The City of Richfield has reached an
agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Bloomington
to replace the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
has been prepared that outlines the duties of each party.
The City of Richfield would be expected to:
• obtain up to $7.0 million in a Right of Way Acquisition Loan (RALF loan) from the
Metropolitan Council to purchase right of way for the reconstruction of 1-494.
• provide MnDOT with a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) bond for $7.0 million.
0710PennAvMOU
• pass through a $7.0 million loan from the Best Buy Company as part of the
Interchange West Redevelopment Plan to MnDOT for construction purposes.
• apply for a loan of approximately $5.0 million from the State of Minnesota
Transportation Revolving Loan Fund to be used for both right of way acquisition and
construction. MnDOT would agree to repay both the interest and principal on the
loan.
The total funds amount to $26 million and would be used for right of way acquisition,
engineering and construction to build the new bridge.
I .III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 is inadequate to handle existing and
projected traffic volumes and needs to be replaced.
• The reconstruction of 1-494 including the Penn Avenue Bridge has been
identified as a priority of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge was a condition of the Best
Buy Company relocating to Richfield.
The Penn Avenue Bridge is a major transportation component needed to
accommodate increased traffic generated by increased development
occurring along the 1-494 corridor.
C. FINANCIAL I
• MnDOT has indicated its willingness to fund the Penn Avenue Bridge
through a package of loans and TIF bonds provided by the City of Richfield.
• City staff is proposing using Municipal State Aid funds to begin the design
work with adequate assurances from MnDOT that they will reimburse the
City in the event the Best Buy development does not get built.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has been involved in discussions and the preparation of
the Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU is not a binding document
and there is a certain risk until formal agreements are signed to assure
funding is in place.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to reject or modify the Memorandum of Understanding. This
may jeopardize the Best Buy Redevelopment.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• The draft Memorandum of Understanding for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project
between the MnDOT, the City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington.
• Maps showing the bridge and right of way needs.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation ("Mn/DOT"), the City of Richfield ("Richfield"), Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority ("RHRA"), and the City of Bloomington ("Bloomington").
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, Richfield, the RHRA, and Bloomington are.each authorized under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.016 to enter into agreements for the joint acquisition of lands by
eminent domain proceedings; and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 161.20, has determined that it is
necessary to construct highway improvements at the Penn Avenue Bridge over Interstate
Highway 494 in Richfield and Bloomington (hereinafter " Highway Project") within the area
shown on the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein (hereinafter "Highway Project Area" );
and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, Richfield, the RHRA, and Bloomington wish to proceed with a
construction project to reconstruct the 494/Penn Avenue interchange (the "Interchange")
including widening of the Penn Avenue Bridge and the modification of ramps and access lanes;
and
WHEREAS, construction of the Highway Project requires the acquisition of fee simple title to
portions of those properties lying within the Highway Project Area in order to widen Interstate
Highway 494, reconstruct the Interchange and make other related improvements contemplated
by the Highway Project; and
WHEREAS, the RHRA has entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated March 20,
2000 ("Redevelopment Contract") with Best Buy, Inc. ("Best Buy") for the redevelopment of
certain properties including those shown on the attached Exhibit B ("Richfield Affected
Properties"); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Contract contemplates that the Richfield Affected Properties
will be redeveloped, consistent with the Highway Project, with an office complex
("Redevelopment Project"); and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, in conjunction with the RHRA, has determined that it is in the best
interest of Mn/DOT and the RHRA to jointly acquire the Richfield Affected Properties for the
construction of the Highway Project and the Redevelopment Project; and
RJV-178527v6
RC125-213
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, in conjunction with Bloomington, has determined that it is in the best
interest of Mn/DOT and Bloomington to jointly acquire certain properties as shown on the
attached Exhibit C (`Bloomington Affected Properties") for the construction of the Highway
Project; and
WHEREAS, by combining resources and working together Mn/DOT, Richfield, the RHRA,
and Bloomington will more efficiently use resources; and
WHEREAS, Richfield, the RHRA, and/or Bloomington may receive a loan from the Right of
Way Acquisition Loan Fund ("RALF") administered by the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, RALF loans could be used for acquisition of the Richfield Affected Properties
and/or Bloomington Affected Properties; and
WHEREAS, the balance of project financing is expected to come from other Richfield, RHRA
and Bloomington funding sources, Mn/DOT funding sources, and other Federal, State, local and
private sources; and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, Richfield and/or the RHRA in the future will enter into necessary
cooperative construction agreements to construct, reconstruct and complete the Highway Project
and Interchange as described herein; and
WHEREAS, the construction activities described above are planned to begin in the year 2000
and be completed by the year 2002.
NOW THEREFORE, Mn/DOT, Richfield, the RHRA, and Bloomington agree as follows:
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is not a binding agreement.
2. Mn/DOT will consider agreements to provide or perform the following:
a. Such certifications, approvals, information or other filings as may be required by
the Metropolitan Council in order for Richfield, the RHRA, and Bloomington to
receive a RALF loan.
b. Funding in the amount of approximately $5 million, or as may be necessary to
complete the Highway Project, in relation to reconstruction of the Interchange.
Such funding could be provided by direct expenditures from the Mn/DOT budget,
later repayments of amounts loaned by Richfield, RHRA, or Best Buy, or such
other mechanisms as may be agreed upon by the parties.
C. Prompt and timely review and consideration of plans, proposals or other
information subject to Mn/DOT review in relation to the Highway Project and the
Interchange.
. RJV-178527v6 2
RC125-213
d. Prompt and timely review and certification of all appraisals and property
surveying and legal descriptions completed by Richfield, the RHRA, and
Bloomington in relation to the Highway Project and the Interchange.
e. Joint participation in acquisition of portions of the Richfield Affected Properties
and Bloomington Affected Properties identified in Exhibits B and C, whether by
eminent domain or direct negotiation.
f. Reimbursement to Richfield or RHRA, and Bloomington, and for compensation
paid to the owner(s) of the land identified in Exhibits B and C that is acquired in
relation to the projects described above. Such reimbursement could be provided
by direct expenditures from the Mn/DOT budget, later repayments of amounts
loaned by Richfield or RHRA to Mn/DOT from sources including a RALF loan,
or other mechanisms as may be agreed upon by the parties.
g. Reimbursement of the costs incurred by Richfield for planning and design work
related to the Highway Project, in the event Best Buy does not complete the
Redevelopment Project. The parties acknowledge that Mn/DOT plans to
complete the Highway Project and will use the planning and design work
procured by Richfield regardless of whether the Redevelopment Project is
completed. In the event the Redevelopment Project is not completed, Mn/DOT
would reimburse Richfield at such time as Mn/DOT makes use of the planning
and design work.
3. Richfield and/or RHRA will consider agreements to provide or perform the following:
a. Funding for the Highway Project provided by tax increment financing generated
by Richfield's Interchange West Redevelopment Plan in the amount of
approximately $7 million.
b. A loan in the amount of $547 million to Mn/DOT and/or Bloomington for the
Highway Project, upon repayment terms as may be agreed upon by the parties
with repayment expected in 2006, provided by tax increment financing generated
by Richfield's Interchange West Redevelopment Plan or a loan from Best Buy to
Richfield with loan funds passed-through to Mn/DOT.
C. Preparation of plans, proposals or other information subject to Mn/DOT review in
relation to the Highway Project, reconstruction of the Interchange, or work
performed in relation to the Redevelopment Contract for approval by Mn/DOT in
conformance.with and to the extent required by Mn/DOT state specifications.
d. A loan in the amount of $3-5 million to Mn/DOT and/or Bloomington with funds
provided by the Minnesota Transportation Revolving Loan Fund. The funds
would be used for acquisition of right-of-way needed to build the Penn Avenue
Bridge. Any remaining funds may be loaned to Mn/DOT to offset the cost of
RJV-178527v6 3
RC125-213
constructing the Highway Project.
4. Richfield and/or RHRA will endeavor to provide or perform, and may without further
agreement provide or perform, the following:
a. Obtain a survey and legal descriptions of the Richfield Affected Properties and
affected properties in the Highway Project Area, and perform such real estate
work tasks necessary to acquire needed property including, but not limited to, title
work, field title work, appraisal, and appraisal review.
b. Attempt to acquire the Richfield Affected Properties by direct purchase in the
name of the RHRA.
C. Prosecute any eminent domain proceedings in the name of the RHRA. The
RHRA shall document and obtain Mn/DOT approval prior to any direct purchase
or settlement of eminent domain proceedings concerning the Richfield Affected
Properties.
d. Use appraisers that are included on Mn/DOT's certified list of licensed appraisers.
e. Provide relocation assistance to the extent required by the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, and any amendments
thereto using relocation consultants approved by Mn/DOT.
5. Bloomington will endeavor to provide or perform, and may without further agreement
provide or perform, the following:
a. Obtain a survey and legal descriptions of the Bloomington Affected Properties
and perform such real estate work tasks necessary to acquire needed property
including, but not limited to, title work, field title work, appraisal, and appraisal
review.
b. Attempt to acquire the Bloomington Affected Properties by direct purchase.
Prosecute any eminent domain proceedings. Bloomington shall document and
obtain Mn/DOT approval prior to any direct purchase or settlement of eminent
domain proceedings concerning the Bloomington Affected Properties.
d. Use appraisers that are included on Mn/DOT's certified list of licensed appraisers.
e. Provide relocation assistance to the extent required by the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, and any amendments
thereto using relocation consultants approved by Mn/DOT.
6. Any agreements pursuant to this MOU, or other binding obligations between the parties
RJV-178527v6 4
RC125-213
to this MOU, will be made pursuant to written and properly executed and approved
agreement(s). Such agreements may include joint/cooperative construction agreements,
joint/cooperative acquisition agreements or such other agreements as may be made by the
parties.
7. All design and construction work in which Mn/DOT participates would be done in
accordance with Mn/DOT standards and specifications.
8. The parties will provide for the allocation of administrative, engineering or other costs in
relation to the projects described above. Upon completion of the Highway Project, Mn/DOT will
assume ownership and all maintenance responsibilities consistent with current maintenance
policies and procedures.
9. The parties shall comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statues
Chapter 13, as it applies to all data created, gathered, generated or acquired in accordance with
this MOU and subsequent agreements. The parties may keep and use copies of such materials
produced as a result of this MOU, as is necessary for records retention or use in further real
estate work, except to the extent limited by paragraph 2.g below.
I concur with this Memorandum of Understanding.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD
TRANSPORTATION
Richard A. Stehr Samantha Orduno
Metro Division Engineer City Manager
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
Michael Eastling
Director of Public Works
Mark Bernhardson
City Manager RICHFIELD HRA
City Attorney
Chairperson
Executive Director
RJV-178527v6 5
RC125-213
_ j I ? I I I ? I. I I i ? ?
i i __ I I I I ? I I I? I I I
I I I I, I IN ?_ I l i i t I?
t
_ r
I I ? I D lDD 20D 30D ...'?.? ... nDOJ I •uV-7, ;
?jj
--I F
-? -
Al
l ? ° E --J L R „ ° i• t ?._ ,..,.? _ _?_ ?lx ." x . ?_4_ emu,.- ?_-? J /?-6_ - _---- A?I _ ?I'' I `•\J 1r •'I .?G ?? __ _ _ I I _____ 'I I ..,.. ??
I 4 ?- 21- ? L: 3Z= ? " I I .CVO
I r? `I rnJ
[ 4 : r - x ...6••EPP, EBPN °. " ° ° .,, ?. x ..ego j d-- - .,, I -
JJ x ° ° ,k ° 6 ..`
,,. .?
.,. ,?s`??I,,. ,.... ...5..
-... ,., ...,.. -
_ I
Ir494
-------------
----------------- `_ .....:..:... son, !a.u'?%711??. .... . ,. .. i?/i.. - - "•%
- - x -- -___?? °..., --, 1, - -
I
x °
Ulf,
?jl
.?._ °? ??l_-_-_' \ ? ^?P I ?? = y.. i 11 ..s ? II I•° ____ _ ? 'ql '\_?I i? ` ,..i ,,...?,.. o.. j6 II" ° I?j j
1 r
18%mw El
-------------- -
I - l ?_• n _-°- .?-- ? of 1 I ?' ' I? ? -:'L? '?? `s
o3Y RTi 6's5' Q.?d B'S
I.
+ + + I+
• % ,.........., ?-?I i it ,_ ?- ,? ?-- - --- ? - - _ ? _ _
® ;Z Pena Av nue Bride Pro' t
}}
1---rti - rr '--?. _ I., • _?_ 1- ? . _ __.__ ? ? ?+ r ?; ? -? -eV 691 . x - -?-?-- `--?
- Y
uj -
--
I
Penn Avenue Bridge Ix o z
z
Right- of -way impact W W o 0 1DD 50 D DD
Ro O Z SCALE: 1 INCH 100 FEET
-779.57-
44
60
30
60 60 60
0
14o
f
77TH ST o fl
Penn Avenue Bridge -1- il
:
Right-of-way Impact 30,
i I 60 ;
- NN -- ??
TRACT A u
Future 1-494 0 9? 6739
® era ? 90 Sao A4& NO. s3T <??
a
Right-of-way Impact
I
P
i `
z I
%
a
P CC,)
14
-N doh L' Ory
?0 E I
° >.
3
N?5°2856 W
' d
0 361.61 °41'07°W N88 29 20 W -? R-232283 L-359,
`180.90 _ 569Ds
s2 29 79
_? _44 Nz1BSS6w
,, S c R ?? 581PsW
A?
30
?(N a? E
,
p o 1
ao
Z,
n
TURNBACK AREA TO_THE. CITY OF_RICHE'IELD SE OR. OF SW
. OF
SOUTH LINE of THE sw%,oF sECnoN 33 y?
NORTH LINE OF NE'/, OF SECTION 5 sv???B, RGE?24? nvp?28 sRCE D2433 ?? NORTH LINE OF NWY4 OF SECTION 4 939,00
--
988.14N69°48'57E INTERSTATE HWY. NO. 494 - 2624.81 N89°59'24 E -
N - PROPOSED ROAD R/W - bry? 0 0 bP? .
Og ti5 9? 6
m?
/ _ - y i.
2414` .. .??.???\. ?. - II - rnt ru;r.._i zs73z M7'7,m,/??? 344
° 69 126.29 ? . ? . S69°2B 53 E /... \ / nr., ... „ ?. I S88°57 58°E 20e, 75 57 73
156.82 589628'50"W S89-44- 34"W S09°16'41 W X98.14 S8 ---- ---°----'-" 33
445 S89°41'07°E
S8A°00?2B?W ss - I PAR AZ 01 b2°2 L-227,39 .EB
L=15474 --- - - -- R=1953 66
PAR.#2
t
L ? A=06°40'05' G ?
R-9800 Al V
PPR 90 N00'1507 Ik? ry???h?
6605 ° PROPOSED
ROAD R /W
PAR.#5
{ a 55
_ _ if J
A / r
a Y' r
.. ... _.. . __.... .. -- - ... ??
n O
: p?i?qq I J
t
• a,
41,
?.7
- 0 I
10,
50
z
i 4
I
_ I!
w j ll_;
z .
t liII