The URL can be used to link to this page

05-20-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 20, 1996 • REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) REGULAR HRA MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1996; (2) SPECIAL HRA MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1996; AND (3) SPECIAL HRA MEETING OF APRIL 29, 1996 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE HRA ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 2. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROPERTY AT 6529 EMERSON AVENUE TO ROCKPORT HOMES, INC. AND CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO SELL 6837 LOGAN AVENUE • ~ HRA LETTER NO. 24 3. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 6824 QUEEN AVENUE FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED NEW CONSTRUCTION HRA LETTER N0.25 4. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN MAXFIELD RESEARCH GROUP TO PROVIDE SENIOR HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM. HOUSING STRATEGIES HRA LETTER NO. 26 5. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL STATUS REPORT ON TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS HRA LETTER N0.27 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 7. CLAIMS AND PAYROLL • 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 861-9702. . HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 27 Agenda May 20, 1996 Issue Statement: Presentation of annual status report on tax increment districts. Backaround: In March 1993, the HRA established a development account to fund programs such as Richfield Rediscovered and the Community Apartment Program. Interest earnings from existing tax increment districts, primarily the LHN, are transferred to this account. At the time of those discussions, the HRA determined that an annual report should. be presented regarding the financial status of each project in the spring. Also, last year during the annual budget review, the HRA requested an inventory of all value agreements in the tax increment districts. Also attached is a listing from the Assessing Division of the assessment agreements. Recommended Motion: Accept the 1996 annual tax increment report by Sid Inman of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and Publicorp Inc.. • Basis of Recommendation: The HRA requested annual reporting on these projects. Alternative Recommendation: Delay presentation of the report. Discussion/Decision Mode: With this report, funds in the gross amount of $896,170 from the tax increment- projects will be transferred to the development account as approved in the 1996 budget as follows: Community Apartment Program Richfield Rediscovered Education Transformation Housing Cedar Avenue Business Study Richfield Rediscovered Program $ 62,350 $ 62,640 $ 10,060 $ 4,120 $757,000 Respectf submitted, James rosser • Executi ~ Director JDP:cak • x A a x U w F A a N N N A E~ Z W U Z. h ~, ~, .~ w a • H A I~ V M~1 A O ~D GT CT GCS I~-1 b~ ~ zN~~o ~A .~ o~ ~ ~ a ~ o , ~ N Y ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~b ~ ~ ~ ~b~~~ ~ N c. ^o~"x~ U 8 ~ ~ ~ .L~" ..r cn it 'b A .~ ~ r~' ~V-! ~ ,~ ^ ~ O O O A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ , °~' > Q , , Ts •~ 'rte ~ ° ° ~ O ' ° y •~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ y ~ y 'b C~ V ~ C. CJ ;~ U v . r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ y o ~ ~ N~ O b C~ ~ C ~ ' ~ O rl '~, ~ ~ O L ~ ~ y ~ O~~ ~ A N vi ~ ~ «~ `n v O b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N O~ Q N .~ ~ N . ~ 'T' ,0 'O b N •••~ ..y ~1 ~ O ~ O O • ~ ~ ~ y b b ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ •O ~ CCJ ~ O O ~ . eri ~3 ~ ~ ~ F~1 i~ . ~ti' O ~ ~ V 3 ~ fq d a i ~ ~ .c o ~ v~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ o x .~G~ • ~b ~ . o~ ~ ~~~ ~ F~ ~ a~ ~ ~' ~; z a~ ~ '~~ c g ~ ~ SO~~o o ~ ~ A .~ b E" S ~ , on ~ ~ 3 +..~ N a .~ ~ Z o0 r~ 7 F •~ ~ :ti ~ ~ ^' n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O b o U ~ ~ a' i •~ ~ .~ c ~ ~ a~ > U ~ oo a o $ ~ a ~ ~ m A ti O .O ~ , `i' ~ ~ . ~ N ~ 0~ O v ~ H ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ^'~ W . ., . ,~ a °' ~ t~ ~ • ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > +' W W it 3 0 ~'"5 ~.b O ~ '~ x ~ ~ a ~ ~ `~ ~~b ~ o '~ ~• x•' O • ~ y 3 U ~ ' ~I N N ~ ~ N y ~ a.+ ~ x ~.~ °~' A S O A ~A~.~ ab ~ Q ~ U ri N l7 r!' .. ~i ~ c~ v o v ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ .~ ~ ~ ~, ~ .~~~~ A O ~ O u to y ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ v1 ~ O U ++ ~~ O U U U O ~ .~ N ~ 4. ~., ~ C ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ V a+~b o ~ ~ c 3 ° ~ `~"' ~ O, ~ b b 'b U O 'C ~ '+~-~ w ~ ~ ti A O pp ~ ~z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w F O ~ ~~ Q' O ~+, U ,_, ~ +r v ~ .~ p r" ~ 4.~ ~ a~o~ v~ a ~ ~ °~"~ ~ ° ,~ ~. >~~~ U ° A ~ ~ ~ ~ ''' ~ - ~ i F ~ ~ o °o~ _ ~ A ~ ~~~~ b Z ~ w ~ ~ o ~ U W ~ ~ U O ,.~ ~ ~n ti U ~ ~ N 'C O O ~~ ~ ~ C O ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~, c~ ~ ,~ U ~, ~ 'r'" ~ pp y ~ C 'C C ~..0.~ m~ ~ ~n U ~ ~Ob ~ ~, ~ U~.~H ~ U~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 •~ r..~ ,~ U ~ y ~ ~ f.. c~ ~.+ ... A ~ w ~ x ~ ~ x . a i ~ ..~ ~ U O ~, ~ ~, ~ ~ H .~ w ° a E-~ ~ i ~--~ N M N c~ a ~o rl M .~ .o R! ~+ ~.+ U .~ Q !." U b ~--i U • • • A U L%1 ~I A a ~o o~ C1 e~ i ~--~ O ^' N '~ ~ b ~ ~ a~ o '~ ~ ~U a~ ~ o o ~ ~x ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. .b w0 .C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~' ~"~ F ~ ~ ~ a' ~ C 'C ~ ~ O ,""_, ~ ~ ° ~3 ~ ~ c°O D, 9 f14 ~, ~+ N o ~ ° U ~ ~ ~ .~ •~ .~ ~ '~ ~, ~ ~ .~ .C -d U ~ U~ ~~ ~~; .~ p (~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~; ,~ o ~~ .~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ °~' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~~ ~ ~ ~~ o ,~ ~ y ~ z ~, ,o °~ b ~ ;~ ~~ b 0 ~~ ~ ~ D ~ o~ ~; y ~ ~ a ~ w ~ A i Q G~ ~--~ N y U._..,, • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CCl o A ~ a U o > o ~ °~' ~ °~ •~ a n ° ' a~ ao ~ o ~ .~ Q,, •° o ~, ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ W ~r V ~ N A .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ v o $ `' ~ ~ c A ~ U ~ ~ ~ O • H h U ~ s y v~ cC ~r C/~ e-~ y ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ 3 c .~ .~ ~ ~ a ~ > U ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a ~ ~ ~ O v ~ ~ A ~ ~~ ~ ~ °' ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~; a ~ ~ ~° ou o ~ as °t..' ~ O v~ ~ A ~ ; ~, 3 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vii. ~~~ "" v~ O O c ~ rn y .~ U ~ ~ ~t caf o ~ o °' ~ a~ Ei ~~ .~ - J O O 'C ~~ f ~ x ~~ ~b~ O a 3 a.~ ~: ri ~ vi f~ A ~ c ~ U ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ 0 • ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ou c •~, ;ti ~ b ao ~ :~ O ~ ~ aq .ti ~ i 'x `~ ° ~ ~ o o i ~° •~ ~ a~ ~ o y Q U ~~' U ~ N ~+ 'b ~" r -+ ~ ~ ~ ~,. .~ ~ ~ V bA O +-+ y b4 i~ ; .~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O V [..~ ~ ~ ? .~ a ~ 'b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ x E-+ ~ o~ ~ o g U o~ ~ O ~ _ ~ V o ~ ~,,,, N ~ .r [~ ~ a cp ~ o A ~ c ~Q °~ a1 >, ~ U M 'b ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ c ~a a~ ~x U ~ >~ a ~ • o . b ~, -~ ~ y ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ y r-.~ " " ~ v~ c~ 'b ~ ~ O O O ~ y j 'C Q" +~ N ~ "d ~ O bA O ~ '~'' N ~ ~ ~" i-i U . ~ ~ ~~ ~ G OQ U~ Q v r.' o c'~ ~, a U ^." 5~3 ~ n ~ '- Q, ~ ~ A o ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ a~ Q ~ ~ O Q ~ ..., ~ ~ Q ~ V N U ~ U V ~ L~ N Q ~ b bA O O ~ ~D ~ ~ . ~ K ~~ ~ z H~ ~--i t~l M ~ a~ c~ a c~ a\ M cd 'O ~U-! A Q I~1 H "'d .-r ~x • • W F d A a F rV A a o~ o~ .~ a~ 0 U .,..i ~. U G' .~ Cd O y N U .b O i-. ... 0 b ~. a~ 0 b O ... A a a~ .~ U t". ..r L". ~~ ~. C." N tom. U Q .,.., 0 ~, 0 0 3 b O N b «t ~U~-!! r7 A a .~ H N a.> c~ ~L v~ cri U .~ ~.+ .,..~ Q U Q H H x v a~ U ....~ W E-~ A a H U A4 M~1 A A w 0 A A W 1~1 W hU a Di e~ 0 ... 0 U a~ ~"' U .r ~ 'C O N U ,~" b O P~ w b ;= w .~ ~~ 0 o ~ b ~, ~. ~~ .~ ~ ^~ dA O ~ O O ,~ O ,~ ~ ~~ p c ,~ ~ ... ~ 3 ~ ~ 0 •~ E ~ `~ ~ ~ w~ a~ ~ c a rl M A C~ ~o U Q Q ~ ~''+ W F ~ y ,~ A U a ,~ a F'' b H '-' A z ~ N W CJ a a • • c: .NOOtttA~CCMtt~1~CD~d'N~!')N~-1~ f~ c wMOtnI~~CCrO~tt~tACCaO~t~~N00 N CO O O O I~ N r CD CD 1~ r to to OD O CD CO In LA N I~ M O M M c~i I~ tcS Ci Oi c~ of O Ci f~ uS ui e~ cli W ~ "-'OOH ONNM OO .-OOMCpN 0000 U ~N" NCGOdwOC~ODMODM00~0~--1~I~ ~,Cv rr-rNNQ7Cht?~tLA000~COCC .'' m ~ ~ ` ~0'OI~Mr'~OMIANCOtAOd'OOf~O ° CpONOOMCOOtn~CnrMf~~}'f~-~OM ~ ~~ O~MOOpTCnMNCDf~MtnehOOrN O) E OrCrjl~rCpOCCCV ~OMr0~~01~ `- C~ rv N MtA00000rM1AI~COCOr r ~ V ..i r r r r r ~- N to C C r- ~ O NMttNOOOf~tAMrOf~tAMr00MOO N C +~MNMN•-OM~(D1AMNr00f~I~(OCD '" ~ Cp O CD M O tO M O I~ ~ r Op tp N 00 0~ N N ~k C V ~I~C'7000j~~~nd'~NOI~~MO00OOCDCC *+ LLJ:, C N Cp M O C9 N r O 0D f~ CO to M N r O O0 00 I~ f~ v.~ ~N`-'rNt000~I~r tACnMf~r~0000N N ~L ~~- rrrCVNNC7M~~eld~~~ ~ ~ m Z L O I~ OO OD M OO OO CD OD M a0 CO OO M M M OO OO O O OO OO W a0 OD CD OO OO OO O M M OO OO OO OO ~ Cp CO CD CC CO CO CD tp Cp CO tp CO CD CO CO CO CD ~ C ( ~ ~ } H ~ •~- O O ~ ~ ~ n _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r I f) , +' O O M N OO OO CD a0 OO OD M OO OO CO OO OO OO a0 MMMMM . O ~ NrrMM.MMMMMMM Z Z ~ C ~ O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V ~ N M 0 W O ~ B O O O +' ~ ~ ~ fD r A m C 0 ~~~ C D ~. co W 00000000000000000 0 I- ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ z a W W C D N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O ~ ~ Cn0000000)O»OOOOOO T U z _ g ~ M CD CD CG CO CO CO CO CC CO CC CO ~G CO O CC CO aD~r`r`~r;r;~r;~r;~~~~~~ ' ' ~ r ~ ~ ) 1.n In to ) to In Ln In In Ln l1 N to Ln In O O t1 to r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N , . , . .. , ~ . .. . ,.. . . . . N K ti a .. .. .. . ~ ,., .... .. ,. .. .. .. ~ ~ ~ Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N J ,,. OO OO OO OO M OO M OD M OO M OO M ao M OO M ' ' CO C 7C 7MM MMM('~C~7MC~MMMMMM( ~7 ~ C~ LC) Ln Ln In LQ lL) t1~ Ln In In Ln l1y Ln Ln L() In LL) r O U O ~ r T r T T r r r T T f T T T 1~ T T 'd CO CO CO CO CO CO Cp CO CD O CO OJ CO CC CO CO M ~ ' V . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t H ~ ~ ~ O CO CO ~D CC CO Cp Cp CO tp O O CD Cp CO CO d' ~~ ~ ~~t~tetd'efi'd'~~~~tctd'~d'~CO U U W U ` Z O^ O O O r N M~ tp CD (~ OO O O O r ~ J~~~~ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 } Q r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N m ti C CL U m L W T m co a m a a c 0 m ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn 0 ~ ao rn ~ O T ~ E "' (O -p ~ y m rn "" p '- > ~ccE LL m °. 3 m v o ° ~ ` v m U = N II > ~ ~ ~ tC N~ rn Q N m O y ~ y m r ~ U N ~ Y U m ~ C ~ ~ ~~ p C y} p V N m Q fA p. ~ O w n ~ ~ m ~ ~'~n'U ~~ ~a ~ ~ as O r •- ¢ •- r m >. ~. a W o J m p Q 0 O ~ LL p . .~ . ~Q y ~ ~ ~ ~ cV6 m w O ~ ~ ~ C J U cC N~ U L J U D ~i L U D C p p UJZLL.F-ZHQO~UDI-Q W r N (O ~ ~j ~C (~ CD _ LL U Z co w a. • • ... i~ d~ CO cG c0 CC CO CC CO co cC cC CG CO CG GC c0 GG C tAtAt~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 'C m ~ OD N 1~ f~ 1~ f~ 1~ I~ I~ i~ I~ 1~ 1~ t~ f~ I~ I~ I~ C U ~chCiMC+~C~MMMMM(hMMMMMMC~ W C +~ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V ~ ~MC'MMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM RS m c O~ O O O O O O O O O O O C O O M N N N ~ M M N ~~ rd' ~ r r ~ rn ~rn~~t~~~~nnl~~-~-~rnl~~ *~ C ++ to N ~D ~C ~O (O CC (G CC CO (D (C CO (O ~O CD CO CC ~ '- ~ 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C "•~ C U ~C7~ODOCOM00MODMMMMCDMMCDC ~w c ~NO~n-~rr~~r~~rr~~r`~~-~I~r~ V~ C M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N D ~ m Z C s- ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V c~ m } o °~ r` N ~ N ~Q ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ v O z c c ~ w W C ~ N_ O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 tp y ~ CO M ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ O c ~ ~. v ~a ~ 00000000000000000 ~ 'N-' N N ~ ~ ~; O ~ O O r Z Q Z ~ r r N v v ~ a a W ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ V Z ~ m ~ ~ ~ Q~U c N N tp O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O tf C O O C ~ N N to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Ln ~ ~ ~ ~ U~C) r W U i Z O~ M O O r N M~ M CO f~ a0 O O r ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r ~ Q~~~~ N N N N N N N N N N N N m C 0 •U y 3 m t O 'O c 3 0 U 0 _~ ri a 0 0 s U 0 c m >. a U m ('O ~ ch ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ L ~ w o U <O y ~_ C ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ y;o marn c o~°~~ ~~m~Q w 3~d mmo':a , ~ ~ C N W m '= F uNi ~~~a ~a_ ~ ~~ v ca .. mX UJZOH r N C9 .~ ~j U c a U n 3 a m W a m a m a rn _rn O Q a LL 0 J W LL U Z v w C7 a a • • • ~ NoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo C U ~ W C +.~ co ~ U_ ~, L ~ m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 m m .~. U C C M r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~k ~ "'' V C v ~ 'i W ~ m ~ " ~ C U ~ - ~ ~ m Z C ~ C ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ~ ~ } Zm~~ OZc~ ~ -W W Q a v N D H Z W W V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~C ~ W O O U ta-~a ~ N 00000000000000000 N a ~~ o ~ t~ - AA`` o000000000~000000 W i ~(' 'U ~ ~ ~ ~ cC U V W ~Z to COI~GOOOr N (~~ tf)t01~ 0000_ ~ J~~~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 } Q r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N m U C d U a m r W A m a a co rn rn T O n LL_ t 0 J W LL U D: Z w C7 a • • 01 C .- C U c~A W c N M ~ N N +`' m = T N L .. m O N ~ p M r .~.. U ~ C C •+ V ~L M ~_ ..+ ~ N } H ~ O +. m Z ~ C W VI r _V `~ r N O H Z w w oc v z a ~ - ~ ~ D ~ y ~ CWC s o ~ oa~~ J ~ ~ W LL _J 1~ OD ~ N M N 1~ ~ r M CO CC ~~ O N O O O N ~t CC O O O r co n n n to 00 M t'0 rn r n v O N M n v~ n n a~ M ~1') lA ~A O C'7 N N r 0 In O f? @7 N 1~ O O CO r N OD O M C7 X 0 0 0 OON 1~r CO In COtnC~OInOM~ tnCOONODOC7~ ~F ~t N O CD O O O th n •- O O N CD O N et r Op tO C7 r O n n n 000OnnCCtf)tnti'~'c~NNr~•••• rrNC~eh'd'OMLn i~ i~ i~ ~~ /~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i~ i1 ~~ ^~ i~ ~~ ~~ i- r CO O lA r M CO N n 01 M N N O N O O O O M O O N N ON ntA000~i'cDf7COtA00tt)C~CDnrO~t00000)*~ n eo co n r~ ~ n m ~n ch r 0 CO N o0 to O CO N oD tD N O O 00 00 CD ~ N O OD CO d~ N O 1~ to M `~ r d- CD ~ *~ ~ ~ O Cfl N N N N N N r r r r r~~~ r r r N 0 ~i~ ~~ ~~~~~~i ~..i r OnOOr t[)ChC70pt000~C'O~NnOrNNNC70 n tn000NCOC~NChnttN'~ODtAttnNOrON n C~ O O O N CD to n ~" r et n O M n r tC) O O O~ r n r °' O O M i ~nnn~~ n O ~ c OC OC ~tntf~~C OC OC OC cn D M~~ r O n Q~ Q) r to CO M 00 CO 0 0 M ~h N n O r N N N M 0 In O 01 O N CO M N M n~ N tt GD Lp et n N O r l1') N M O O O N C9 to n~ r d' n 0 C~ I~ r to 0 1A O In r 01 ~ ~ CO I~ OD ~ O r C'7 ~ tO ~ 00 O r N tfi to 1~ O O c~ v ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n co cc co m cc ca cc cc n n n n n n ao W U ~ Z CO n co O O r N th et ~n CO n ao Q1 O r N Ch et O CO n CO ~~~~~~ O O O O O 'O O O.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 } Q r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CD r O N 0 cc ~ rn ~ c o c ~ ~- ~ y C ~ U 3 U ~ ~ m `~N .. ~ Y «- tC N ~ ~ U J N r N C9 U G o. U .c m t w .fl m Q m a ~_ a LL O J W U Z co w C'3 a • • O O OCDNNMCOI~OO~OI~~tOCDODMM~'CGCDOMCM M C +-~ ~ O N etONr O)d'C~I~OCOOrtt *~tnOCDCOG0Ornt~1~ OOOr tACOCONOI~ODMOrtAMO~tt~Orr- 1~ ~- C U ~ C ~ r CO i~ I~ OD to r- GD 1~ CC I~ ~ C7 00 ~ ~= O N ~O N ~ OC OD 00 OCO~NN OD N : W ,d? ~ C N ~ OOCCOO~ODMODMCOeTOlAr1~~r ONOr00MI~NCOrtAOd'O~'OO~OOr-NChM , Ch ~ V r NNM'if Ln CD CO I~f~CO CO~~01000rr•=~r-TT r- M L m O N Z T r T r r r T T r r ~ ~ I~ OI~OOr-tnMMODtDOOMd'NI~OrNNNMO O +-' Rf r tAOOONCOMNMI~ N~OOLC»I~NOr1AN ~ CD } O f~OMl~rlflOIAOLAr C~O~ONMIAI~C)r r D ~rN~ ) ~ DO A ~ ~ ~ 1~ IMF- ~.~ O N tt M~}'t C C O I CO~O f ~COf O- M~t1~Ott~tptAtCtO'~GCOCCtOCOCCt~f~1~1~1~1~C0 N O ;~ ~ ~O M C O Z C C . W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ O aZ c ~ c _ W },~ ~ ~~ooooo0000000000000000 ~ Q c~ a~i} a~ oco 0 mF- ~••- O N M n~ ~ N U Z U ... C = W N Q~ I~ OD 00 OD OD OD 00 00 OD OD CO CO 00 OD 00 O O O O O O O OD +• ftf C M O tf~ 00 OD 00 00 CO 00 00 Ca OD OD OD CO OD 00 CO ~ ~ CO ~ CC CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CG CO CO CD Cfl CO CO t~ `~ti~~~ i ~ ~~-~ t~ ~ ~ N CC "- ~ O i 00 t C I f w l f~l LnMN OOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ '.- ~~ N N r r M M M M M M M M M M M M M N Z ~ ~ ~ - W L r r (p f~ d' N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x C~ ~ O ~ N r~ 11 O cLf ~ ZI~- E.~ tp O f~C~CDCON rNODO~t r ti NQ J N NNtnt1~C7 r ~ ~ (V r to Z ~ W U ~ CO I~ Op O 0 e- N M d' tp CD l~ CO O O r N M d' 1A CC I~ C0 ` ~ ~~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O } "~' r r ~ r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O V C Q U a 3 m L W m a a~ a CO T r a LL_ C D J W U 2 Z • ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATES AND LIMITED REVENUE TAX INCREMENT NOTES _ ..._, . ~, ;- ~ - ~'NY°~-rvY~ tt -- "' 1"Y _.,!_i... _. ~- , __ yr» _.._.... - ..L(. :.::.: ; ,:::>: ;: >. ,:...... 8 ~~r~d~1+~,H~~ I~~~o[t~t #L H ~~ R~e~el~ap~merr P~oJ+e~ /lea ~on~inu :d....... a~~#~ : > .:::.: : .:........... ~co eat .... ~ ~'~~ien#:::::..:> >::.:.:..:. .......:.:::.... Te~~ .... . July 31 Rainbow Foods Assessment Agreement and Minimum value $3,087,213 1991 Assessor's Certificate commencing January 2,1992 until April 1, 2001 July 31 U.S. Swim and Fitness Assessment Agreement and Minimum value $1,854,000 1991 Assessor's Certificate commencing January 2;1992 until April 1, 2001 December 21 Richfield State Agency - Limited RevenueTax Original principal amount of Note 1993 (Richfield State Agency 1983 Increment Note $226,817; amount of accrued interest improvements* and Woodlake from date of Note $80,415; total Medical Clinic) amount of payments $307,232 to be paid semi-annually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1,1996 until February 1, 2001 February 15 Amendment to Assessment Minimum value $5,039,831 1994 Agreement (Original commencing February 15,1994 until Assessment Agreement and January 2,1995; minimum value Assessor's Certificate dated $6,104,800 commencing January 2, 1983*) 1995 until last tax increment payment for LHN TIF District (year 2001) *See December 13,1983 entry C7 Page 2 December 9 Hampton Inn Assessment Agreement Minimum value $2,060,000 1985 and Assessor's Certificate commencing January 2,1988; minimum value $2,660,000 commencing January 2,1989; minimum value $3,402,000 commencing January 2,1990 unfit January 2, 2005 or last tax increment payment for ILN TIF District (year. 2011) April 29 The Shops at Lyndale Limited Revenue Tax Original principal amount of Note 1994 Increment Note (Phase I) $2,196,358; amount of accrued interestfrom date of Note $2,597,178; total amount of payments $4,793,536 to be paid semi-annually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1,1996 until February 1, 2012 April 29 Limited Revenue Tax Original principal amount of Note 1994 Increment Note (Phase II) $1,125,759; amount of accrued interest from date of Note $1,033,409; total amount of payments $2,159,168 to be paid semi-annually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1,1997 until August 1, 2010 March 18 Meridian Crossings Limited Revenue Tax Original principal amount of Note 1996 Increment Note (Phase I) $7,644,695; amount of accrued interest from date of Note $8,427,387; total amount of payments $16,072,082 to be paid semi-annually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1,1998 until. February 1, 2012 • Page 3 • Page 4 :...:: ;:.; >::;::: ';. ~ed~ir::~yen.ue .Bu~~n~~~:Airea:: CABA Redevelo ment Pro a area :>>>``'>.. p ... l ..: ..........pate........ _. .... :::::::>: «1~,...~ ' ~ ~~+amen#::. ....:........ Term...:... March 9 Copy Duplicating Products, Assessment Agreement Minimum value $5,343,000 1988 Inc. (CDP) and Assessor's Certificate commencing at time of construction completion (12/18/89) and until last increment payment for CABA TIF District (year 1996) March 9 Reimbursement Agreement Amount of reimbursement (principal 1988 and interest) $850,000 commencing annually from receipt of first tax increment (1990) until December, 1996 • Page 5 **Assessment Agreements required for particular Richfield Rediscovered property sales to builders when additional performance security measures required to guarantee minimum building value. • Prepared By: City of Richfield Community Development Department May Z0, 1996 Page 6 ,~ u • 0 0 0 ~s o 0 0 0 0 O O ~ 'fl O O O O M ~ ~ ~ 00 !~ O~ V~ O M t~ ~ et O oo ~ l ~ -• ~ v'~ ^' N N -.. ri y et N . ~ ti 'p O M ~ .fl 0 0 0 0 e ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ O O l~ o0 ~ ~ O et O ^~ M et l~ ~!1 "" N N ri ~ ~ N N H O O O O O O O O O O M ~O O 0 0 0 0 M ~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ n ~ 0 0 ~ ~ O O~ M M V1 ~ V'^ "' N N M h ~ O O O O O O M 00 O M ~ 00 O~ O O 00 N N M h O O O O O M O ~ O ~O N ~ O ~ 'd o0 l ~ O O~ O v1 N N M h O M O O ~ .r O ~ O ~ (~ ~ t~ O O O~ v7 "' N N .. ~ ~n O O O O O C~ er O~ O c+~ ~ O~ 00 O o0 ~ M O N h N N et ~C F "' g~ ° 0 0 oMO ° o vCi o 0 w a ° ° ° ~ ° ~ ~ i ~ o o ~~ o o ~ o~ v Z W N h ~ •-+ Q W ~ W E' o F.. ~ ~ o ^o N ~ ~ o o «„ y ~ ~ ~ M ~ \ M ~ ~ 01 ~ O`O W \ N N N C V N N F •.• o0 o`Y'o o~'o ~ oho ~ M O O N N N w U ~ W U C . ~ > L N ^ N y a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... oo '' oo ~ 'o L1 N Q V o =]. ° O O Cr ~ ~ N ~ ' = o ~ ~ o M o Za ~ er O o O ~ O M O N s ~ ' o~ O ~ ^ oo O ' ~ ~C ~ a ^ . ~ ' ~ O M N ~ N ~n N ~o N a- 4a ~ ~ o, M X 0 0 - ~ O O O ~ O O O p N GQ O ~ ~ ~ 'C _ 0 _ 0 0 O cY o O O ~ ~ C ~ M N N ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ t ~ M ^ i M ^ ~ N ~ L:. t G~ ~ N M 4:. .C = ~ ~ N M ~ N M ~ N M ~ N M ~ ^ ~ O O ~ ^ ~ ~ i i Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ v ~ i ~ ~ ~ p ~ i ° -~ N N -7 N N. ~. N N N ~ ~ N C~ ~~,. N N N N 3 N c ~i C+' C) iJ ~+ c~ a a~ A OA G+ .~ fA W W 0 d b r-I ~rl 4-1 U ~rl P4 4-I O 1~1 .,~ U ai U ~+ O • • 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o a 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 ~ M +n o n o~ ~ O 0~0 N M 0~0 ~ M ~ ~ ~ M V'1 1n ._ M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ n O O~ 00 00 N M 00 ~O ~O M V1 V) M O O O O O O O ~ n O n ~ n h ~ 00 V~ 00 M 00 M ~O M M 1A M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M h O O 'MV n ~ p ~ 00 O ~ M 00 M r+ ~O d• M V'1 M O ~ O O O O lA e}• N ri M t1 00 ~ 00 O ~ 00 O ~ ~D of M V'f M O O O O .. n 0 ~ ~ 00 o 0 h O N "' ~o v7 M ~O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ O M O~ O O ~O 'C ~O '~ l~ lA N N M ~O f'" O O O O O _M O O ~ W .. O N O O ..7 ~ O • ~ ~ M M ~ t~ O ~ O ~. ~ ~ O V ~ M i ~ h o0 O M ~ y ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ v .-i = F P ~ • U w Q Ca ,~ ~ ~ N N M v~ ~ ~ N ~' ~ ~ N ~ Ei ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O U N ~ N ~ N Lzl E"" p. 0~0 ~ ~. O O U ,n 0 O 00 N V'f ~ N U ` N ~'' ` N ~+ ~ ` ~ c i t ~1 ao x ° ° te c ~] - - a ' •x • x O ~~ O O C O •1C C ' 2C ~: y " z C. N y R= 00 O~ N O ' cC V O ._. 00 ~Mp y ~ ~ a. b~4 L h a' ti C ~ ~ °.,' ~ °o o ' i o c °o ° 3' ~ ° o ° y 3 ~ ° O V ~ > ~n ° s~e~ r, r , E O r, ~. ~ c%~ M ~ ~ 3 i ~ N. . • C C d• N ~ N N ~ ~ y ~ M N N et R L1 t Q ` [ N ~ N' V ~ N = ~ M O U ~O N ~ v i t = ~ N ~ Cis l~ N C7 M ~G 00 N 7 t/1 ~ -~ \O ~O [~ N N r-{ ~ ~ '~ r~l Ol ~~ ~ y~ •r1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Pr ~. ,~. ~ ~ b0 •~ 3 ~ i.l N y 3-1 'd U ~ ~ 4a~ ~ b ~ 0 ~~ ~ a~ x.41 ~ ~ U] CI UI ~ ~ ~ ~ y Ol •rl P ~ a ~+ a m b ~'b ~ ~vv~ ~a~i A.o •U S~-i .*~ ~ a ~ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 26 Agenda May 20, 1996 Issue Statement: Authorization to retain Maxfield Research Group to provide senior housing needs analysis to include short term and long term housing strategies.. Background: The HRA discussed Maxfield's research strategy at the April board meeting. Revisions and clarifications were requested. A copy of the revised proposal is attached. The proposal: • evaluates Richfield senior housing options in an environment of limited resources: townhomes, existing apartment conversion, new construction, and assisted living; • provides a focus group approach to securing .housing option feedback from seniors and senior representatives, • provides a survey of Woodlake Point, Lakeshore Drive, and. Village Shores to better understand those senior populations; • costs $9,700 as broken down into the following categories: a) site analysis guidelines b) demographic review c) senior housing market review d) assisted living review e) market interviews f) meetings with staff and HRA g) report; and • provides an optional attitudinal survey of Richfield seniors at an additional cost of $6,000 to $8,500. Although this additional survey work could be provided, the $9,700 portion may prove adequate. Rather than including the attitudinal survey with the initial phase an alternative would be a two step process; 1) prepare and provide the study; and 2) authorize the additional survey work later, after the study report has been received. This will give the HRA the greatest flexibility in evaluating how encompassing the Maxfield work should be. Recommended Motion: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with Maxfield Research Group to provide a senior housing analysis, as outlined herein for $9,700.00. .Basis of Recommendation: 1. Gathering accurate information regarding senior housing options will help the City attract appropriately sized and designed senior housing., 2. Senior housing assessment is a specialized field requiring consulting services. 3. Maxfield Research Group has conducted approximately 160 studies for all types of senior housing projects since 1.983. Recent studies make them very familiar with the south suburban market place. 4. The estimated cost is reasonable after comparison with other contractors. 5. A two step process; 1) provide the study; and 2) undertake additional survey work later, allows amid-point evaluation before incurring additional expenses. 6. Maxfield can respond within a 60 day time frame desired by the HRA for the initial study. 7. Funds are available to provide for the professional services. Alternative. Recommendation: 1. Modify the scope of services. 2. Select another consultant. 3. Defer a decision on a consultant. Discussion/Decision Mode: Tom Melchior, Maxfield Research Group's Executive Director will be at the HRA meeting to respond to any questions. Respec ully submitted, Jame .Prosser Executive Director JDP:ds C7 • • April 25, 1996 Mr. Bruce Nordquist City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Nardquist: Enclosed is our revised proposal for a study of senior housing needs itt Richfteld, Minnesota. Based on my previous conversations with City of lt~chfield staff and on the concerns expressed at the 1~RA mcettng last week, I have changed the proposal to include an examination of existing buildings~for senior housing as well as, addtttonal tntervtews to ascertain the desires of Richfield s seniors. I also want to uttltze the data gathered by the Local Strategy on Aging Task Farce in the late 1980'x. The proposal also shows an optional survey component which would questirnl Richfield seniors about their housing preferences. An important aspect of this study is to provide guidelines to evaluate proposals for senior housing when they are brought before the city. Besides a calculation of overall scitior housing demand, the study will segment the demand based on the level of servicos provided. We will describe and assess housing options ranginlg from very independent units (both rental and for- salc) to assisted living. In addition, we will provide guidelines for evaluating proposed senior housing sites. Thus, the study should function as a tool to assist the city for years to come in providing housing for Richfcld's older adult population, Plcasc call me if you have any questions about our proposed work program. If there is an aspect of the proposal you or the HRA Board wishes to revise, we are happy to discuss any changes with you to be sure that your goals are met by the study. Thank you again for asJ~ing us to submit a proposal for this study. We look forward to working .with you. Sincerely, MAXFIL'LD RES>rARCkI 4It4UP A Division of Apartment Search, lnc. Thomas it. Melchior Executive Director 6 t2-33$-0012 620 KICIC1rRNICK 430 FIRS' 612-338-0659 FAX MINNEAPOLIS, t l ~l~'I'~1~ +N ~ `E '~ 1a i h11 ~~ I `~f rlti< f I, INS • Apri125, 1996 Mr. Bruce Nordquist City of Richfield 6?00 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 CONTRACT FOR PRaFESSIQNAL SE~V'ICES Maxftctd Research Group proposes to provide market research and consulting services to the City of Richfield to identify the amount and types of senior housing supportable in the city. 'Chc study will examine: 1) two {Z) sites and provide guidelines for choosing a good senior housing sits; 2) senior growth trends and demographic characteristics fora study area including the City of Richfield and its primary draw area; 3) different types of senior housing and overall senior housing trends, including the potential to reuse existing multifamily buildings; and 4}current housing alternatives geared specifically to persons 55 and over with a focus on housing far persons G5 and over in the area. Rccommcndations will focus on the number of units grad different types of senior housing supportable in Richfield through 2000, overall demand potential to 2010, and suggestions far specific. senior housing project concepts. SCOPE OF SERrV'YCES A. Site Analysis {two sites/Site Evaluation Guidelines I . Tour sites, examine surrounding land use. 2. Examine access, of sfbility and proximity to community services. 3. Determine each site's appropriateness for senior housing. 4. Fravide guidelines for examining site characteristics far different types of senior .housing {independent, assisted living}, r: Cost: 6 t 2-338-0012 620 KICKERNICK 430 FIRS' 612-338-0659 FAX M1NN~APOLIS, 5600.04 ;~ i ~i~ i~,t~ ~r~ ~ ~~ • Mr. Bruce Nordquist April 35, 199b City of Richfield Page 2 B. Demographic Review I . Determine appropriate study area based on a likely draw area for senior housing in Richfield. 2. .Examine population, household, and employment growth trends. 3. Analyze age distribution of the older adult (age. 55 and over) population. 4. Examine senior (age b5 and over) population and. household growth trends. 5. Examine senior household income data by age of householder. 6, Analyze data ou senior household tenure by age of householder. 7. Examine data on resale housing values in the study area, Cost: $1,800.00 C. Sexuor Housing Market Review 1. Provide an analysis of different housing options available to seniors -subsidized and market rate, ownership and rental. {including general occupancy buildinss which attract seniors). Z. Inventory all senior housing, both market rate and subsidized, in and near the study area. 3. Collect data on rents, selling prices, unit mix and sizes, resident profile and ten- ure, aztd building features, services, and amenities including Lakeshore Village, VtTOOdlake Foint and Village Shores. 4. Interview leasing and sales agents regarding market trends and buyer/renter pref erences. 5. Catalog planned and proposed senior housing in the study area; and assess their impact on the market. Gost: $2,000.00 D. Nursing Home/Assisted Living Market Review . i . Ynventory assisted liviu~g/board and care facilities is the study area. Collect data on monthly fees, resident profile, services, and occupancy. 2. Collect data on rates, occupancy, case mix rating of residents at area nursing homes. 3. Review trends in service specialization, 4. Invemory community services available to seniors in Richfield. Cost: $1,800.00 Page 3 E. Market Interviews 1. ~ Interview church pastors, social service workers, .and others familiar with senior housing and support service needs. Approximately 10 to 12 interviews will be conducted. 2. Review data collected by the Local Strategy on Aging Task Force, conduct fallow up interviews if necessary. Cost: $X,000.00 F. MeetingslClient Contact l , Project orientation meeting with Maxfield Research Crraup :and City of Richiield staff at start of study. Z. Two {2) progress meetings during the course of the study. ~. One (1) fuial presentation meeting. • Cost: $700.00 a. Conclusions and Recom~mcndations/Rcport Preparation 1. Calculate current (through 1999} senior housing demand. 2. Project long-terra (through 2010) senior housing dentand. 3. Recommend housing concepts to meet short-term dcrnand (type of project, unit mix, sizes, pricing, services, and features). Include examination of the potential to re-use existing buildings as well as for new cottagesltownhouse style projects. 4. Provide guidelines for evaluating housing concepts geared to specific target mar- ketswithinthe overall senior market. Focus on identifying gaps. in housing needs. 5. Report preparation. Cast: $1,800.00 Total Cost of Staff Time far Study: ~ ~~ COST OF SERVICES The work outlined in the Scope of Services will be performed for Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($9,700.00), plus out-off pocket expenses, and payable as (allows: a}Four Thousand Dollars {$4,000.00) due upon execution of this agreement; b) expenses as they are incurred: and billed on a regular .basis (expenses are billed at our direct cost and consist of items such as data Pale 4 purchases, long-distance telephone, postage, photocopying, mileage, and travel costs), estimated at Three Hundred Dollars ($344.44); and e) the balance of the contract amount due in installments on a monthly basis at Maxfield Research Crroup's discretion. Any. additional research or meeting time requested by the Client beyond .that set forth in the accompanying Scope of Services will be billed at our normal hourly rates for staff time. 'W'ORK PRODUCT Findings will be presented in a bound Market Feasibility Study format. The market fEasibiiity study is accepted by many lenders, limited partners, investors or governmental bodies who require such documentation to satisfy their financing criteria. COMP]LETiON TIME The work outlined under the Scope of Services will be completed within sixty (64) days from the receipt of the signed contract and initial payment, unless, delayed by unexpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or by written agreement o£ the parties. FAYMENT All invoices are payable to Maxfield Research Group or Apartments Search, Inc. within fifteen (15) days of receipt of an invoice showiag the work completed and the direct cost for expenses. A finance charge of one and one^half percent (1.5%}per month will be added to the unpaid balance of each invoice not paid within thirty (34) days. OPTIONAL ATTITUDINAL SURVE''Y OF SENIORS Maxfield Research Group will design a questionnaire (in conjunction with City of Richf eld staff) and coordinate administration of a survey of seniors in the study area. The survey will elicit information about seniors' current housing situations, interest in moving in the short-term (within three years), type of housing desired, and current health status. The cost of the survey will depend on the method of administration (phone surveys are statisti- Bally valid, but more expensive than mail surveys} and the nuanber of surveys desired. Specific cost estimates will be calculated after discussion with City of Richfield staff, but are estimated between Six Thousand Dollars ($6,440) and Eight Thousand Five ~Iundred Dollars ($8,5x0). • Fage S DXSCLA}tMEYt The objective of this reseazch assignment is to gather and analyze as many market components as is reasanable~within the time lirxuts and projected staffhours set Earth in this agreement. 'VVe assume no responsibility for matters legal in character. The. property/land is assumed to be free and clear of any indebtedness, liens or encumbrances; and goad and marketable title and competent management are assr~ned, unless otherwise stated. ifbuilding plans or site plans included in the report, they arc to be considered only approximate and are subnutted to assist the reader in visualizing the property. We assume. no responsibility for the accuracy of any building or site plans. Certain information and statistics. contained in the report, which are the .basis for conclusions continued iut the report, r~vill be furnished by other independent sources. While we believe this information is reliable, it has not been independently verified by us and we assume no respon- sibility for its accuracy. • The conclusions in the report are based on our best judgments as market research consultants. Maxfield Research Group disclaims any express or implied warranty of assurance of represen- tation that the projections or conclusions will be realized as stated. The result of the proposed project znay be achieved, but also nzay vary due to changing market. conditions characteristic of the real estate industry, changes in facts that were the basis of conclusions in this report, or other unforeseen ciroumstances. In the event payment is not received on a timely basis, Maxfield Research Group shall be entitled to a lien against the subject property. This agreement will be construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. TERMXNATiON This agreement may be terminated upon written notification of either party to the other. l n the event of termination, the Client will pay Maxfield Research Group for staff hours performed at the firm's normal hourly rates, plus all expenses incurred through the date of termination. • • Pa~,e 6 If this proposal u~eets with your approval, please sign and return one copy to the offices of Maxfield Research Crroup. Agreed to this ~.~~. ~Y of 1996. MAXFiELD RESEARC~S GRO'(JP A Division of Apartment Search, Inc, Thomas R. Melchior Executive Director CITY OF RICH'p~ELD C7 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 25 Agenda May 20, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of resolution authorizing the purchase of 6824 Queen Avenue for Richfield Rediscovered new construction. Back r n The property at 6824 Queen Avenue is available for sale. It has a garage home which suffers from years of deferred maintenance. While the properly is a problem for the neighborhood and public safety, the previous owner refused to cooperate with staff and participate in Richfield Rediscovered. When Richfield Rediscovered was started in 1990 that same owner encouraged others not to participate in the program because of his belief that they would not be treated fairly. While not willing to work with Richfield Rediscovered, the former owner was willing to work with Marlin Grant. Staff encouraged Mr. Grant to purchase the property and bring the transaction to the HRA for purchase. Appraisers were not allowed to evaluate the property for either the HRA or Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant negotiated a purchase price of $51,000. A review of assessing records and the purchase of similar homes through Richfield Rediscovered supports the $51,000 as reasonable. Mr. Grant purchased the • property and is offering to sell it to Richfield Rediscovered. Mr. Grant is also working with a prospective New Ford Town buyer and may come back to the HRA at a future time with a development proposal. The purchase price reflects the cost of acquisition incurred in Mr. Grant's purchase of the property. He seeks only to be reimbursed for his expenses. It is probable that without Mr. Grant's initiative, the property would have continued to be a problem. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes: 1. The purchase of 6824 Queen Avenue for $51,000. 2. The Executive Director and HRA Chairperson to execute a purchase agreement and other documents to effectuate the purchase. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The property has been an ongoing problem for neighbors and public safety personnel due to deferred maintenance. 2. While resisting contact with staff, the previous owner was open to keeping in contact with Mr. Grant. For over two years, staff would. make follow-up contact with the owner after he talked with Mr. Grant. However, no progress was made until staff encouraged Mr. Grant to purchase the property this year in anticipation of being reimbursed for the $21,000 difference between the purchase price and land value of $30,000. 3. In the Richfield Rediscovered Program, a $21,000 write down is on the low end as the program average is $28,000. Staff explored whether the HRA could pay Mr. Grant the $21,000 directly. Legal counsel indicates that the statutory authority is unclear. However, the HRA's ability to purchase from Mr. Grant at the established price is consistent with statutes and the Richfield Rediscovered Program. 4. The sale price of the lot by the HRA to Mr. Grant or any other builder in the future would be $30,000. 5. The property meets program requirements for acquisition. 6. Funding for acquisition is available. 7. The owner has voluntarily indicated an interest in selling the property to the HRA. 8. The purchase price is based on a negotiated price of $51,000. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not authorize acquisition. • Discussion/Decision Mode: A purchase agreement has been prepared. Respectf Ily submitted, James .Prosser Executive Director JDP:ds . HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6824 QUEEN AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) and the HRA, said real property being described as follows: Lot 7, Block 2, Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Third Addition, Hennepin County. WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statues Section 469.012 to acquire real property within its area of operation; and WHEREAS, the property meets all program requirements for acquisition.; and WHEREAS, the HRA has negotiated a purchase price with the owner of $51,000; and . WHEREAS, funds have been provided by the HRA and are available for acquisition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority: 1) That the approved purchase price is $51,000. 2) That the Chairperson and Executive Director are authorized to execute a purchase agreement-and other documents to effectuate purchase for the amount set forth in this resolution. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 20th day of May , 1996. Thomas E. Harms, Chair • ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 24 Agenda May 20, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution authorizing the sale of Richfield Rediscovered property at 6529 Emerson Avenue to Rockport Homes, Inc. and continuation of a hearing to sell 6837 Logan Avenue. Background: The HRA authorized the acquisition of 6529 Emerson and 6837 Logan Avenues under the Richfield Rediscovered Program. On the Emerson site, Rockport Homes will build. a $120,000 three bedroom home for a New Ford Town resident. The sale price of the lot is $26,000. The builder/buyer team at 6837 Logan Avenue is not ready with final plans and contracts. The public hearing can be continued to a special HRA meeting on Monday, June 3, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. The essential elements of the development contract remain unchanged: • Provide $26,000 as financial security for 6529 Emerson Avenue during the construction period. • Complete the home by the fall of 1996. • Pay for the lot upon completion of construction. Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the Chair and Executive Director to execute an agreement which sells 6529 Emerson Avenue to Rockport Homes Inc. 2. Adopt a motion to continue the public hearing to sell 6837 Logan Avenue to Monday, June 3, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Rockport Homes, Inc. is an experienced and capable builder. 2. 'The HRA owns 6529 Emerson and 6837 Logan Avenues for development with Richfield Rediscovered Program. 3. Development agreements have been prepared and are in conformance with program .guidelines. 4. Notice of public hearings for 6529 Emerson and 6837 Logan Avenues was published in the Sun-Current on May 1, 1996. 5. The sale of the Logan property can be continued to provide sufficient time for the development proposal to be finalized. Alternative Recommendation: Direct staff to find other buyers. Discussion/Decision Mode: Arrangements for a June 3, 1996 special HRA meeting will be made. Respectfully submitted, Jame .Prosser Execut a Director JDP:ds • HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6529 EMERSON AVENUE TO ROCKPORT HOMES, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) desires to develop certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the Richfield .Rediscovered Program Redevelopment Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) and the HRA, said real property being described as follows: Ad r Legal 6529 Emerson Avenue The North 60 feet of Lot B, Silver Wood Second Addition WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized to sell real property within its area of operation after public hearing; and WHEREAS, Rockport Homes Inc. has been identified as the developer of 6529 Emerson Avenue in accordance with a development agreement; and WHEREAS, the public hearing has been held after proper public notice. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority: 1. A public hearing has been held and 6529 Emerson Avenue is authorized to be sold to Rockport Homes, lnc. in accordance with development agreements with the HRA. 2. The purchase price for 6529 Emerson Avenue is $26,000. 3. The Chairperson and Executive Director are authorized to execute the Development Agreements and other agreements as required to effectuate the sales. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 20th day of May 1996. Thomas E. Harms, Chair ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary Z O d W J W Q J i O T ~Q --~ > tj J f~. W '~ ("" LL j ii . ~ _~ . u a C u W Z O ~ a W J W I- ~_ X ~~_. ~. ~ ~ti .~ ~`~`"' ~ ~ -~ _ --- n,., enuy~ ~ --~- _ ~ ~ ~~ , /~ `d~ 3:~ 'i-p~ '~ ~~ ` N ~ 2lr ~ ~ S G4 2y~ ` _. - --- \ _ L~ ~I. . _. _ "st+nkL ~ G-T,,~ ~ _~ ~C!-SHE. r ' I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~LJLL I ~~ ~~ . ~( ~/ ~:~ ---- ~ I- s ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~y ~ -~ Sao ) a ~~ G ~~~ ~ ~ Tt.~r~Tw ~ ~, .~ fff .. o ~ ~ -- boy€~ -- - srq su~~ ~ y Lc.oc . slPno!' i~ ' ~-z.~ ~, -~{,o Q~~ I -~--- i f t ~ ~.-.~ I ~~ X ~ e eft .L~d~TL _.~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ ~ - 1 ~ f t-t f ~ ~-i f c~ F rz_ _ _~ _ -T l_ _ _ - -- --- _ .. ~ _.._ _ '' ~: -- CITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, MAY 20, 1996 SPECIAL JOINT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30 P.M. RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL NCE OF LYNDALE GATEWAY STUDY FROM I. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTA HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC.; ILN .REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 163 HRA LETTER N0.23 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 861-9702. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No, 163 HRA Letter No. 23 Agenda May 20, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of the acceptance of the Lyndale Gateway Study from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.; ILN Redevelopment Project. Background: On July 17, 1995 the HRA took the initial steps toward formulating a strategy for the Lyndale Avenue commercial area north of 77th Street. Fred Hoisington of Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. was retained to prepare astrategy. -The Planning Commission under the leadership of Daniel Linnihan was requested to oversee the formulation of the strategy and together with Fred Hoisington, provide the businesses and- residents with opportunities to participate. Attached to this letter is a copy of the strategy. Dan Linnihan, at the May 20, 1996 HRA meeting will present the report as it was accepted by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1996. Fred Hoisington will then discuss the significant conclusions and respond to questions. Business people and residents have been invited to the meeting and may wish to make remarks as well The purpose of the strategy is to establish a framework within which to pursue the .upgrading of Lyndale Avenue. The report identifies opportunities and constraints, and notes issues with which to be concerned. The report contains. ten sections plus an appendices. Section 1.O,~age 2 - `The Lyndale Gateway' Introductory remarks and a list of the objectives of the strategy. Section 2.O. image 3 - `Executive Summary' Contains a list of 12 significant statements regarding the strategy. Section 3.0. Raae 4 - `The Framework' Indicates among other things that building values in the area are declining while land values are increasing; (page 6). The summary paragraph on page 8 offers several insights into the area. Section 4.0. ~~ae 9 - `The Market' A market study was undertaken by Maxfield Research Group Inc. as asub-consultant to Hoisington. They discerned a market for smaller office buildings of 60,000-80,000 square feet; and retail space demand use up to 170,000 square feet. Housing may be feasible. if it occurred in two to three stories or more above first floor retail. Section S.O,~age 11 - `Stockholder Innut/Results' Input from residents and business people was formulated into guiding principles which appear on page 13. (Attached is a list of the public meetings where study input was provided.) Section 6 0 nacre 15 - `The Possibilities' A listing and brief discussion of each of eight alternative concepts which grew out of meetings with `stockholders'. Section 7 0 paae 16 - `The Concept and Plan' . Recognition that this area is a gateway to the community and incorporates ideas from several of the alternative concepts. Section 8 0,_,~age 18 - `Design Guidelines' Provides design considerations for implementation of the strategy. Section 9 0,,.~age 2 - `Costs & Feasibility' On page 21 is a list of several economic statements to be considered when contemplating the implementation of this strategy. Identification of the areas east and west of Lyndale Avenue and south of 76th Street as the highest priority for redevelopment. The text points out the difficulty of financing the desired concept in the two Lyndale Avenue blocks utilizing only tax increment from redevelopment in the two blocks. Table 3 is a projection of costs for this area and totals $9.5 million. Table 4 lists some potential funding sources and the text notes additional options. A purpose of the study was to quantify the financial issues. The list of options is simply a list of options (by accepting the report neither the HRA nor the City Council would be rejecting or accepting the options). The list may be utilized to facilitate future discussions. So far there has been reaction in two ways to this section. One reaction is to abandon redevelopment of the two blocks east and west of Lyndale Avenue south of 76th St and let the existing business owners "do something". Another reaction has been th some of the options are totally unacceptable and should not be identified, i.e. the us the City's portion of the LHN tax increment benefit. SPrtion 10.0. paae 2 - 'A Strategy To Get It Done' Pages 23, 24, and 25 list 16 objectives to be followed in implementing the strategy. reet at e of Finally, if the HRA and City Council accept the report, it would be appropriate for the HRA to direct staff to begin to explore the marketability of the mixed commercial/apartment concept proposed for the east and west side of Lyndale Avenue South of 76th Street. Once a potential redeveloper has been identified it would be appropriate for the HRA, City Council and Planning Commission to consider modifying the ILN Redevelopment and Tax Increment Finance Plans. At that time the project boundary could be shifted from the mid-point of the 7600-01 blocks east to Garfield Avenue and west to Aldrich Avenue. Also, consideration could be given to moving the boundary north from 75th Street to 74th Street. At that time details of various financing tools would also be identified. Recommended Motion: A. City Council Adopt a motion accepting. the Lyndale Gateway Study following discussion with the HRA and public testimony. B. HRA 1. Adopt a motion accepting the Lyndale Gateway Study following discussion with the City Council and public testimony. 2. Adopt a motion directing staff to market the study concepts to the development community. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The area was studied because it exhibits characteristics of decline. 2. The HRA retained the services of Hoisington Koegler to formulate a plan. 3. The Planning Commission took a very active role in overseeing the conduct of the study and participation in formulating the Lyndale Gateway Study. 4. Opportunities were provided for the area business people and residents to participate. 5. Marketing of the plan should begin with its acceptance. Alternative Recommendation:. 1. Delay acceptance. 2. Request the rewriting of certain portions of the report. 3.- Reject the report. 4. One neighbor on the east side of the 7600 block of Garfield Avenue has requested that the City consider expanding the project area to include acquisition of his property. He believes that the "transition" area would work better if it were in the back yard of a residential property rather than the front yard. Discussion/Decision Mode: The study has recently been completed and it would be desirable to continue the momentum.. Respect~lly submitted, ,~, i J m s~~'. Prosser City ~a~iager JDPcak • Public Meefings Lyndale Gateway Study August. 8, 1995 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session review of process. September 6, 1995 7:00 P.M. Information meeting -businesses. September 7, 1995 7:00 P.M. Information meeting -residents. September 12, 1995 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session review results of meetings with business people and residents. September 12, 13, 14, 1995 Interviews with businesses, large property owners and abutting residents. September 26, 1995 8:00 P.M. Workshop -Planning Commission/City Council/HRA. October 24, 1995 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session review alternative concept plans. November 9, 1995 7:00 P.M. Corridor meeting -residents, (6:00 P.M. Open House) businesses, Planning Commission/City Council/HRA. November 14, 1995 6:00 P.M. Workshop -Planning Commission/City Council/HRA. January 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. Corridor meeting -businesses. January 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. Corridor meeting -residents. (6:30 P.M. Open House) .January 23, 1996 7:00 P.M. Workshop Planning Commission/City Council/HRA. April 9, 1996 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session review draft report. April 23, 1996 6:00 P.M. ~ Planning Commission presentation of report to residents, businesses. 7:30 P.M. Planning Commission presents report to residents and businesses and hears remarks during public hearing. Recommends report to HRA and City Council (Draft available for review from April 16, 1996 to present) • • THE LYN DALE GATEWAY City of Richfield, Minnesota A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION May 13, 1996 • ©0 ©® Hoisington Kcegler Group Inc. • • ~~ Table of Contents I.0 THE LYNDALE GATEWAY I 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 3.0 THE FRAMEWORK 4 Setting Existing Land Use Parking Traffic Aesthetics Building Conditions Opportunities/Constraints Property Values 4.0 TH E MARKET 9 5.0 STAKEHOLDER INPUT/RESULTS I I Individual Meetings Public Information Meetings Corridor Meetings Results (brie17 Problems/Opportunities Guiding Principles Criteria 6.0 THE POSSIBILITIES I S 7.0 THE CONCEPT PLAN 16 8,0 DESIGN GUIDELINES 18 9.0 COSTS AND FEASIBILITY. 21 10.0 A STRATEGY TO GET IT DONE 23 Development Strategy Development Guidelines Interim Recommendations (to correct existing problems) II.O APPENDICES 27 • Credits Planning Commission Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson Pamela Dmytrenko Timothy Erlander David Gepner Mitchell Hadley Kevin Hansen Dawn Postudensek Kristal Stokes Paul Wasko City Council Martin Kirsch, Mayor Michael Sandahl Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag Donald Priebe Housing and Redevelopment Authority Thomas Harms, Chairperson Joan Helmberger Vem Luettinger Russ Susag Michael Sandahl • ~i • i.o The Lyndale Gateway "When we /ook at the most beautiful towns and cities of the past, we are a/ways impressed by a fee/ing that they are .romehoworganic...fach o/these townsgrewasa who% under its own /aws o/who%ners...and we can feel'this who%ness, not onlyat the /argestsca/e, butin everydetai/ in the resburants, in the sidewa/ks, in the houses, shops, markets, roads, packs, gardensand wa//t. Even inthe ba/conierand ornaments " Christopher Alexander, A New Theory of Urban Design Cities consist of a number of parts each playing a distinctive role in how the city is perceived and experienced and how it functions. Together, the parts comprise something greater than the whole so if the pans complement the whole they reinforce and expand people's recognition and memory of the community. If elements detract from the city's image, character or well-being, they make the sense of community more difficult to comprehend. The problem with most cities, especially. suburban cities, is that they do not have a sense of place from which meaning can be readily understood. They do not have a center. They do not have distinct edges. They simply blend into the suburban fabric that rolls endlessly across the landscape. They deprive those who live in them from enjoying a community of meaning. Perhaps, suburbia represents the grand quest for anonymity. Anonymity and homogeneity provide neither richness nor community identity. Lacking a sense of community identity, it is often difficult to know what role each of the city's parts must play if they are to contribute to the experience of the place. Is it important to live and do business in a place that is distinctive, recognizable and memorable? Yes! Communities that have no recognizable character and allow unfettered and mindless growth have no soul. While strip commercial development and other land use travesties flourish, the community image suffers. In memorable communities, each element contributes to the whole and the value of the community grows. Every aspect of the community must contribute yet each must have meaning and a subtle identity in its own right. Each must have a focus and be distinguishable from its surroundings. Christopher Alexander tells us that there is a connection between healing and wholeness, that we have countless opportunities to take small healing steps to move the city in the direction of wholeness. "Every increment of construction must be made in such a way as to heal the city." Further, according to Alexander, "Every new act of construction has just one basic obligation: it must create a continuous structure of wholes around itself." As a community gateway, Lyndale Avenue is an important part of the whole City of Richfield. It is here that at least one opportunity exists to reinforce the sense of place while creating value for the surrounding neighborhoods and the community. It is here that first impressions will be etched on the minds of City visitors. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 1 The Lyndale Avenue Comdor, beginning at 77th Street, should be thought of as distinctive and different from the I-494 corridor which harbors the Shops of Lyndale. I-494, and the uses it birthed, are elements of a regional community, a metropol'~tan economy. Though literally within Richfield, the Shops of Lyndale serve a regional clientele and must offer copious parking and low prices as an inducement to travel long distances to shop. The Lyndale Avenue gateway to Richfield (there are others) begns at 77th Street and should extend no farther north than 74th Street. It is distinctive because it is commercal in use while the area that surrounds it is residential. It is also deficient in many respects in fulfilling its gateway potential. It is substantially deficient in parking and property values are declining. It is deteriorating aesthetically and is evidencing blight which contributes to vacancies, high-turnover and low rents. If left unattended, the deterioration of the center will adversely affect the neighborhood and become a serious liability for the larger Richfield community. It must be made to contribute to the City's sense of place. Healing it represents a small step .toward community wholeness. The objectives of the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan are to: • Create a distinctive gateway which contributes to Richfield's sense of place. • Arrest blight within the Lyndale Avenue commercial area.. • Improve compatibility between the Lyndale Avenue businesses and the immediately proximate neighborhoods. • Define a strategy to foster corridor improvements. • Involve residents and business persons heavily in the formulation of plans and _ their implementation. • This plan was prepared under the direction of the City Planning Commission with Consulting assistance from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc (HKGi). It, therefore, represents the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to implement the redevelopment strategy and to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect mixed use development in the Lyndale Avenue corridor. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 2 • • • 2.0 Executive Summary The following represents a summary of the significant findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Lyndale Avenue Redevelopment Plan and Strategy: I . Lyndale Avenue is an important gateway to the City of Richfield. The Planning Commission recommends that improvements be made to enhance the Lyndale Gateway. 2. The .commercial area extending from 74th to 77th Streets is experiencing a growing level of stress including eroding property values, increasing tenant tumover, building vacancies, insufficient parking and poor appearance. The area of greatest concem is the 7600 block, both east and west sides. 3•. The immediately adjacent residential areas remain stable but will be increasingly affected by the commercial district. 4. The Lyndale Avenue planning process included individual meetings with. most businesspersons and immediately affected residents. It also included several public meetings to obtain input and review plan alternatives. one row of houses both east and west of the existing commercal district in the 7600 block and the east side 7500 block near 76th Street. B. The recommended hybrid plan balances economic realities with public input. It includes the redevelopment of the 7600 block, east and west sides, including the west side of Garfield Avenue and the east side of Aldrich Avenue. 9. The Planning Commission recommends an integrated mixed use development with shared parking, that consists of commercial, office and residential development while offering maximum protection for the adjacent neighborhoods. The Commission prefers several smaller developments and, wherever possible, the inclusion of existing businesses. 10. The recommended strategy is to market and redevelop the 7600 block east and west sides by year 200 I and to be prepared to respond to redevelopment proposals elsewhere in the corridor. For the area north of 76th Street, this document represents a concept rather than an implementation strategy. 5. Residents and businesspersons identified parking, appearance, alley conflicts, traffic, lack of I I maintenance, high tumover and uncertainty about City plans as the problems most needing to be addressed by the City. 6. There is a market for smaller office buildings and both neighborhood oriented and destination retail, some of which could be captured along Lyndale Avenue. 7. A total of eight alternative plans were considered ranging from "do nothing' to complete redevelopment. Two of the alternatives included the expansion of the district to include The Planning Commission strongly recommends the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as the primary redevelopment funding source. To the extent possible, funding sources other than TIF should also be explored by the HRA. 12. The Planning Commission recommends that several existing .neighborhood problems be resolved whether or not they are dictated by redevelopment. The Commission recommends City intervention with the land acquisition process where and when appropriate to eliminate hardship and/or keep the project on track. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 3 • • 3.0 The Framework Richfield is a unique community for a number of reasons. One reason is that all but one of its edges is defined by a major highway that separates it from its muniapal neighbors. Yet another, highway (I-35W) traverses its center exposing the traveling regional public to the City's most prized natural resources, Wood Lake and the stands of mature oak that grace the highway's west flank. Even with these attributes, do passersby realize that they have arrived in Richfield? Are there any clues signaling the change in jurisdiction? No! Such is the state of modem suburbia where it is impossible to differentiate one community from the next. Because Richfield is juxtaposed to several regional highways, it has relatively few opportunities to establish gateways to the City. One of the most important of these is Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street. Lyndale Avenue, between 74th and 77th Streets is a commercial strip, a collection of disconnected retail goods and service businesses, many of which were birthed in the 1940's when Lyndale Avenue was much narrower and customers shopped much closer to home. Like centers of its era, it originated to service the neighborhood and it contained some very prosperous merchants. It first lost. its power over the marketplace and then lost businesses to larger regional retail centers. It then lost even more when the widening of Lyndale Avenue eroded parking at the same time parking demands were increasing, all attributable to growing public dependence on the automobile. The end result is a center than no longer meets contemporary retailing standards, is not competitive. in the marketplace. and is virtually impossible to revitalize without public intervention. With a few exceptions, the value of buildings has eroded, creating opportunities for incubator businesses which are dependent on low rents while creating a growing liability for the City's tax base and image. Until recently, the neighborhoods that surround the center have been able to sustain themselves in spite of the conflicts associated with shared alleys, unwelcome odors and growing unsightliness. As successful businesses continue to depart the center and are replaced- by less desirable merchants in search of low rents, will the stability of the neighborhoods also be threatened? Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 4 • • Land Use The Study Area extends from 74th Street to 1-494 and embraces both sides of Garfield and Aldrich Avenues. The predominant land use fronting Lyndale Avenue is commercial with retail, auto and service uses predominating. Significant uses include the Metro Dental Clinic, Super America, Amoco and Dairy Queen. Garfield and Aldrich Avenues are single-family residential in use and virtually all are homesteaded properties. The Century Court Apartments and the Woodlawn Terrace Mobile home park have frontage directly on Lyndale Avenue on the east side of the 7400 and 7500 blocks. The land use pattern varies from block to block with relatively intense commercial development in the 7600 block where buildings are connected or closely juxtaposed. Elsewhere in the corridor individual buildings occupy separate sites. The west side 7600 block contains sometwo-level space with apartments and office above retail. This block evidences a great deal of physical stress including too frequent merchant turnover and building vacancies. Most of the rest of the corridor has excellent business longevity and only infrequent vacancies. Land use south of 77th Street is remarkably different in that it is very large in scale, is of recent vintage and caters to regional traffic. Uses include the Hampton Inn (east side) and the evolving Shops of Lyndale. These developments occupy large sites and are being built to reflect "contemporary" standards including Large buildings with large parking lots in front. Though located in Richfield, this area relates more to the regional I-494 community than to the City of Richfield. ____ ~ __ _ - ?-- - I I °~ I ~ 1 I I ` 0 1 o-~s o I~•.a ~. ~o~l I ~~U-,J I f ! D. .. I 1~.~ -o ~ I .. I "~• I ~• I f I '• I I I '~' I :~ I I. .. I . ' o :~. I • ,Q ! Q • ( LEGEND Residential Commercial Single-Family Auto Vacant Multi-Family Retail Redeveloping Mobile Home ~ Service ~ Greenway a•a: EXISTING LAND USE '''~~ •, ..~.~ ar. ~w,a .. ~ IJndal• ~~WU• Stntesie D~Iopm~at Plaa BloL!leld. 1liana•o4 • Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commissiai Recommendation • Page S Structural Conditions and Values The condition and inflexibility of buildings and eroding values are the most significant problems currently existing within the corridor. Building values are declining -though land values continue to increase. In actual dollars, buildings have decreased in value since 1990 while land has increased in real dollar value since 1985. The area where the most signficant problem exists is the west side of the 7600 block. TABLE REAL ESTATE VALUES YEAR LAND VALUE BUILDING VALUE TOTAL VALUE 1985 $ I ,378, 100 $2,644,500 $4,022,600 1990 $1,847,800 $3,002,600 $4,850,400 1995 $2,271,100 $2,932,900 $5,204,000 • • Source: Hennepin County Appraisal Office Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 6 • P rkin The next most significant problem facing the corridor is the lack of convenient and accessible parking. Nowhere in the corridor is this problem more pronounced than in the west side 7600 block where the parking ratio is approximately two spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and a substantial part of that is located behind buildings where it is not visible to passing motorists. Furthermore, the parking that does exist on the Lyndale Avenue side occurs either on the street at the curb line or near the storefronts on the sidewalk where it conflicts with pedestrian traffic. Parking in the east side of the 7600 block is more favorable having a ratio of approximately 3.7 spaces per I ,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, Lyndale Avenue is proposed to be widened to accommodate the expansion of the 77th Street intersection. This widening will eliminate parking in front of the stores on the east side, whose addresses include 76 I S through 7633, creating a situation not unlike that immediately across the street. Parking within the remainder of the corridor is generally more favorable although the Metro Dental Clinic has a 20 to 25 car deficiency which is met with on-street parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. This deficiency. is primarily attributable to the use of the building for the Metro Dental administrative offices, which use ocapies a considerable portion of the building. The deficiency persists in spite of approximately 24 parking spaces in the lower level of the building. This problem will not be .easily corrected due to an unusually high demand for parking and the absence of land to accommodate it. i V O^~ f...,,. . ~ ~ • ~.~ ~r~'~° "- ~-Q i~-~---e~~ _ : 4 . ~ _ r i _ _ !_~ w ~ ~ I Io'° ~ i ~ ~~ °J ~+ ~ ~' ~ , I ~ ~~o ~~ ~ LEGEIv'D ® Total Par~Spaeee ~~aSl~eble Paalc Par]p~ Demaad (B.tvaea 12:00 - Y:00 p.m. ud 5..00 - 7:00 p.m.) P4RHING aoar^ /, ~• ....• lyadale A~anue SwteSio DseeWpmsnt Plen a+~ j~ a~ ~~ ^ Richfield. Yiaaeso4 r~ Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 7 Traffic Traffic in the Study Area is not particularly problematic attributable to the conswction of 77th Street which has halved the volume of traffic on 76th Street to approximately 6,000 AADT. Volumes on Lyndale Avenue approximate 12,000 AADT. Some traffic is, however, purported to use Aldrich Avenue to avoid the signal at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue. mm There are major forces at work in the marketplace and the corridor that will continue to erode the quality and function of the Lyndale Avenue business community. In other words, it is not now experiencing stability nor will it in the future. It is continuously changng in the direction of decline. Unfortunately, these forces are irreversible without public intervention and landowners, themselves, have virtually no ability to alter this trend. This is particularly true in the 7600 block west side where considerable private improvements would produce too little increase in rents to warrant significant investment. Should we "hope" that the situation will correct itself? If we do, things must get a fot worse before they will get better. The question is not "whether" but "when" public money will be spent to correct the problems associated with Lyndale Avenue. And the timing of intervention will correlate with the public's perception that a problem exists. In fact, this perception already exists in the minds of many. It will grow in more minds as the appearance of the area declines, as marginal or undesirable businesses replace those that depart, as the commercial tax base erodes placing an increasing burden on the City's taxpayers and as the adjacent neighborhoods begin to take on the blighted characteristic of the retail district. • ~', ,.,` ~~° ~! LEGEA'D • s • Sidewalks E.-~~ 'IYaasportation Corridor ;~ Signalized Intersections TR-lI3SPORTATION R O l f i ,• .... •".rn+ r..r.. ~..... L7adale A~•nue Stnb~ic D•••lopmaat Plm RicLtield. Yiaae"ota Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 8 • Reok7artlal dbMfGe wll dKlned anG ok UltersectWel at Toth opporhmlty to uleroe Lyidale comew'cld Intoraectkals prorldr IMIk file adjacent neU L~ndole Aw. LIghICY~y to utIllCerlan scale. ReeldorltJat dbtrkt t wll do/M+ed and sta Huey d.rr,.. ar, edg coelrnerctal. Park7ng le dbJoneed coenected to od~u T}v corridor lacks a througtlout tF~e cemino Preas behind T600 e sorvlu or!ontod. 6auway to WuMlsld :tor d l~aidale var!oe 3.eolly lock :e block d T6th ore Y+aooendont jattCed. Ige Is chaotic tlrou~+out tl+e Lt. evklenue wiw.u. eaeMtkb. etwen storslronts 'i boron •evn by y+e autombolle Mq at Lurldole arovlams ~ pal Yfto RkMle~d. I scale aeveloomr: Coro OT 7~e rreewau corr!dor Ts ~.a}MnvUty d rL'uY!eid. ------ ?tORT~ Opportunities and Cc~:straints 1• = aoo• Lyndale avenue Strategic Pe :•elopment Plan Richfield. ~tiaaesota Hoiaiattoa Eoeper (ironD tao. r~ • 4.0 The Market Maxfield Research Group, Inc. was hired as a subconsuitantto HK Gi to assess the current market situation for commercial businesses in the Lyndale Avenue corridor (Study Area). The firm ident~ed draw areas appropriate for both neighborhood and specialty retail goods, analyzed the current strength of the compet~ive retail concentrations near the corridor, analyzed employment growth in the southwest sector of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and assessed the current strength of the market for office space, particularly small and medium-sized users. Conclusions focused on the demand for additional retail and office space in the south metro area, the strengths and weaknesses of the existing retail and office space in the corridor, and the potential for this area to attract new development given various redevelopment options. The study included interviews with 20 businesses within the corridor to determine how long they had been in business on Lyndale, from what distance they draw their primary customer base, and the effectof the Lyndale Shops development on business within the corridor. The survey found that most businesses draw customers from either the south metro area (Bloomington, Richfield, Minneapolis and Eden Prairie) or from the entire Metropolitan Area. In one case, the retailer draws customers from afive-state area. The market study concluded that the I-494/Lyndale Avenue area will continue to be a strong location for retail goods and services, but the greatest areas of growth will likely be destination retailers who are able to draw customers from rather considerable distances. The study concluded that there is a market for smaller office buildings and approximately 60,000 to 80,000 square feet should be able to be captured within the City. The study recommends smaller buildings which do not compete with the Meridian Crossings building located at I-35W and I-494. The study also identfied potential for medical/professional office space. Approximately 80,000 square feet of neighborhood oriented retail space demand was calculated. Of that total, the Lyndale Avenue corridor was estimated to be able to capture between 25,000 and 35,000 square feet. Maxfield Research also ident~ed a remaining demand for between 75,000 and 135,000 square feet of neighborhood/destination retail in the market area. Some amount of that could be captured in the. Lyndale Avenue corridor in smaller buildings. Potential neighborhood retail uses and destination retail/specialty uses were identified as shown in TABLE 2. The demographic evaluation found that the population within. a five mile radius of the Lyndale Avenue corridor declined between 1980 and 1995 attributable to the aging of the population and shrinkage in household size. The population within this area is projected to decline even further between 1995 and year 2000. However, the population of the trade area within a ten mile radius of the corridor is projected to grow significantly during this timeframe. Maxfield Research Group also reviewed the preliminary redevelopment options developed by the lead consultant HKGi for market veracity. They concluded that Alternatives 2B and 3A (refer to page 15 for descriptions) with parking facing Lyndale Avenue offer the best opportunities from a market perspective. These represent configurations that are often preferred by developers. Maxfield Research also concluded that housing above retail may not be feasible unless it includes multiple stories. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 9 TABLE 2 Potential Neighborhood Retail Uses Types Take-Out Restaurant Ethnic, Pizza, Fast Food Sit-down Family Restaurant Personal Services Hair Salon Specialty Health and Beauty Mailing/Copying Accounting/Tax Insurance Tailoring Dry Cleaners Travel Agent Film Processing Card/Gift Shop Deli/Convenience Store Vdeo Rental Liquor Store Drug Store Coffee Shop and Bakery Chifd Care Potential Destination Retail/S ecia Uses Tv~es Home Furnishings-Interior Decorating/ Upholstery Electronic Equipment Automotive Supply Liquidators Sporting Goods Equipment/Rental (new or used) Dance or Fitness Studio Computer Software, Music, Books Home Crafts- Machines and instruction Computers (new and used) Other Specialty Retail Stores • Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 10 • 5.0 IUI Stakeholder Input/Results The success of any project is dependent upon good communications between-the city and its residents and the involvement of people who live and work in the community. The reason for this is because there needs to be public "buy-in" or support for the project. Stakeholder involvement was actively encouraged by the Planning Commission and solicited before plans were drawn and throughout the process so stakeholders could play a positive role in shaping plans for the corridor. All information. about the project was disseminated through a series of meetings, workshops and three newsletters. (fhe newsletters which have informed and encouraged communication and interaction between the Gty, its residents and businesspersons are included in the appendix.) The process for getting at stakeholder involvement is described below. Individual Meeting The Planning Commission and Consultant met with virutally every neighbor and businessperson within the corridor (excluding the Century Court apartment residents) to explain the project scope and listen to problems and concerns. Efforts were made to contact all 83 residences and SO businesses on September 12, 13, and 14. Approximately 44 businesspersons and 52 residents responded. In general, businesspersons indicated that location and low rent were the reasons for locating in the Lyndale Avenue Corridor. The one problem agreed upon by almost all respondents involved parking deficiencies. Suggestions for improvements included facelift, parking, appearance and small scale businesses. INDIVIDUAL MEETING RESPONSES Businesses/Owners Residents Reasons for Problems Locating ^ Alley Conflicu ^ Visibility ^ TtashFOdodNoise ^ Accessibility ^ Traffic ^ Location ^ Lack of Maint. ^ Low Rent Improvements Alternatives Improvements ^ Parking ^ Crime craceiroa> Suggested Suggested ^ Parking ^ Convenience ^ Facelift Stores ^ Uniformit ^N i hb y e g or- prpbinmc ~ ^ Cleanup ^ Next Step hood Shops ^ ping ^ Impmve ^ Small Scale ^ Appearance Signage ^ Facelift ^ No Room for ^ Smaller ^ Improve Expansion Businesses Appearance ^ Turnover ^ Uncertainty (re: City's plans) • Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 11 • • Public Information Meeting The Planning Commission held Public Information Meetings for the adjacent neighborhoods and members of the business community to explain the project purpose and scope, eliat ideas and take initial input. These meetings were held on September 6th and 7th. Appro~amately 40 businesspersons and 60 residents attended these sessions. A series of questions were asked to get at specific issues. In general, the meetings were very positive. Residents, more than businesspersons, think the area needs to change. Opportunities included accessibility, high visibility and low rents. Challenges included parking, conflicting use of the alley, appearance, signage, backs of buildings, and the lack of room for expansion. Issues consisted of land use compatibility, loss of existing businesses, the Crtyas needs vs the businesses needs and understanding who decides. Factors identified as important in evaluating alternative concepts included appearance, pedestrian accessibility, parking, residential compatibility, trafficlaccessibility, economic feasibility, who will pay, loss of existing business, convenience services and public input. Pi1Ri >I OPPORTUNITIES C MEETING I~SPONSES CHALLENGES ISSUES ~- ^ Aecesdbility ^ Parking ^ Who Decides ^ High Visibility ^ ContlictingUses of ^ :Qty's Needs yg ^ Low Rents A11eY Business Needs ^ Appearance ^ Land Use (Bnildings/Signs) Compatbility ^ No Room [or ^ Loss of Expansion Businesses ^ Don't Trust City FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERID IN EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES ^ Appearance ^ Economic ^ Pedestrian Feasibility Accessibility ^ Who Will Pay ^ Parking ^ Loss of EzistIng ^ .Residential Business Compatibility ^ Convenieace ^ Traffic/ Services Accessibility ^ Pub6c Input • Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 12 • • • Guiding Prnciples The input received from both the individual and public meetings provided the basis for the .Guiding Principles. The guiding principles were principally derived from empirical observations, the review of background information and listening to both businesspersons and' residents talk about the Lyndale Avenue Corridor. They are based on what the Planning Commission teamed by seeing, listening and reading. These guiding principles were established early in the process as a way to guide the development of the plan and focus the project on a set of commonly accepted themes and ideas. Ultimately, these guiding principles will serve as criteria by which future development proposals can be judged. They are listed below, in no particular order, as follows: ~ Open the Gateway to Bichre/d -This area introduces residents and visitors to Richfie/d at one of the few points of enty from the outside. d shou/d we%me and invite peop/e, ~evea/ing the true character and spirit ofdre Rich6e/d community.. ~ /mprove the function of the Area -Business accessibi%tyis made possib/e through the relationship ofthe transportation corridors, sidewalks, alleys and parking areas Safe and effective streets, parking areas and alleys wi/l reduce congestion and parking problems; will improve safety and access and will encourage peop/e to park in one spot and shop at several stores i /nvite the Pedestrian - While a business district may receive most of its 'i~raffic" in the form of the automobile, die pedesbran mode is dye primary form in which customers directly access businesses. A corridor shou/d be act~ve, invit~ng and confusion-free to the pedest7an, allowing all persons the opportunity to reach and exp/ore the business area. i Make Existing Business Persons and Land Owners a Part o/the Solution -There are some business persons and land owners wino will be affected by this process more than others. No matter the outcome ofdre planningprocess, some businesses and owners may not be ab/e to be part of the solution. To the extent possible, consideration should be given to having existing business persons and owners p/ay a role in the redeye%pment ofthe commercia/area. i Keep tfie "Sma//ness"fee/ -The Lynda/e Avenue corridor is defined by the small, independent buildings, distinctly dif}erent from the large box anchor store deve%pments along 1-494. This smallness feel should be maintained as a character of the corridor to make rt feel like Richfield. ~ Serve Elie Neighborhood - This area rs composed of a commercia/ area, embraced almost entirely by neighborhoods; establishing a c%sely-knit district. Services which meet the local neighbofiood needs shou/d be encouraged to maintain a connection between these areas. ~ Make Good Neighbors -The Lynda/e Avenue Corridor encompasses a range of uses including a variety of businesses and dwelling units An environment which fosters compafibilityand harmony between uses will result in a heafthy, vibrant community. ~ /nvo/ve Peop/e -Both residents and businesses have a stake in the results of this process. Involvement throughout the process is a key ingredientforsuccessful outcomes All parties shou/d be continuously involved to identfy the full range of perspectives ~ Make it Connect -The Lynda/e Corridor includes a wide array ofindividua/ businesses These should be knit togedrer into a commercial district, creating a sense ofunityand cohesiveness. ~ Make it Happen -Any project needs to demonstate tore economicfeasibility toboth business persons and the City. Any plans for the Lynda/e Avenue corridorshou/d include well p/armed, feasib/e options Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 13 • • • Corridor Meetings The Planning Commission conducted two Corridor meetings as part of the public participation process. Corridor Meetin # I Over 100 people attended Corridor Meeting # I at the Oak Grove Lutheran Church on November 9th. At this meeting, residents and businesspersons were asked to review criteria and eight alternative plans for the Lyndale Avenue business area. Both the criteria and plans were derived from the Public Information Meetings held on September 6th and 7th. In all, thirteen criteria were developed. Small groups were asked to identify the four criteria they felt were the most important in evaluating plan alternatives. The most frequently selected criteria were as follows: • Appearance • Parking • Residential Compatibility • Residentiallmpact The second portion of the Corridor Meeting asked residents and businesspersons to identify all of the plan alternatives they were willing to support. (See section 4 under options for an explanation of the alternatives). The following conclusions were reached from the participants' responses to the plans: • In general, there is a willingness to look at alternatives which relocate businesses. • There is a strong sense that something physical needs to change but there is also concern for impacts on people (residents and businesspeople). • Based on the total number of responses, Alternatives I and 2 received the most support. However, preferences of the groups for their own block suggested support for alternatives 3, 4 and 5. • There is relatively little support for doing nothing. Corridor Meetin #2 The City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Planning .Commission held Workshop #2 on November 14th at the City Hall to discuss the results of Corridor Meeting # I and to provide direction to the Consultant. Based on this meeting, the Consultant was instructed to prepare more detailed drawings which represent a hybrid of the preferred alternatives. .This hybrid includes elements of alternatives I , 2 and 3. Alternatives 4, S and 6 were not consistent with the criteria established by the .group at Corridor Meeting # I . Corridor Meeting #2 provided an opportunity for people to review and comment on the composite plan. Corridor Meeting #2 was divided into two sessions, one for corridor businesspersons and the other for area residents. The purpose of Conrdor Meeting #2 was to ask residents and businesspersons to review the Hybrid Pfan and Strategy and identify good and bad points. The results of Corridor Meeting #2 are included as Appendix A. Meeting With Developers The process included one meeting on January 10, 1996 with several developers to test the alternative plans. The original intent of this session was to evaluate two or three story potential with office or residential over retail. The outcome was much broader than expected. Developers recommended that the City's role should be: 1) to educate the public about the economics of business and redevelopment, and 2) to set broad guidelines for redevelopment while leaving substantial flexibility and creativity to the developer. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 14 • 6.0 The Possibilities In all, eight alternative concepts were generated and evaluated by the Planning Commission ranging from complete redevelopment to do nothing. The following provides a brief description of each. Aftemabi~s 1 Facade, sidewalk and parking improvements all to be done within the existing zoning district. Most businesses will remain, however parking will be developed at midblock locations where buildings are vacant or underutilized. These alternatives were evaluated using the criteria that were established by participants during the public information meetings. The results of the evaluation are included as Appendix A. 2A & 26 Redevelopment within the existing commercial district. Buildings could be located either at the back or front of the " tots. Parking areas are consolidated and visually accessible. 3A & 36 Redevelopment in an .expanded commercial district. The business area is expanded in the 7600 block and the east side of the 7500 block near 76th Street. Buildings could be located either at the back or front of the lots. The amount of development is increased. 4 Similar to Alternative I ,however, existing buildings are encouraged to expand, be rehabilitated or redeveloped with consistent materials... 5 Facade and streetscape improvements only. Frorrts of buildings will be improved and landscaping will be placed along the streets. No increase in parking. 6 Do nothing. The business area remains as it is. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page IS • • 7.0 The Concept Plan In many ways, this district is seen as one of the important gateways to the Richfield community. As an introduction to the community, it seems it should reveal something of the character of the community, showing Richfield as a place of neighborhoods and commerce in a "hometown" atmosphere. As the area redevelops, it makes sense to try to instill some of the qualities and character of the community into this district. The Concept Plan strives to create a gateway district, building from a framework of design guidelines based on neighborhood and business community input, research on development feasibility, and the ability of the City to shape development. The plan that is shown in this report can only be a guide for redevelopment; it provides the framework within which redevelopment can occur that supports the community-derived guiding principles and the opportunities and constraints presented by what exists. This plan will be used by the City to market the area, helping potential developers understand the direction created through the process of working with the community. And, as development proposals are brought to the City, the Concept Plan and associated design guidelines will be used to evaluate the proposals. While the built result may not match the .plan exactly, its underlying character must be maintained in order to match the community's vision. In the plan, the entire redevelopment area is recognized as the gateway, so a strong identity must be established. Two factors are critical: boundaries and .continuity. The boundaries have been -defined to signal the point at which you enter the district, and also set the limits of commercial development. It is equally important to create continuity through the district; while buildings will be different in size and use, there must be elements that they have in common, and the public space of the district must be developed in a uniform manner. With boundaries established and elements defined that establish continuity, the district gains cohesiveness and a sense that it is whole. Development in the district should be oriented to a mix of retail/commercial and office uses, with opportunities for some higher density residential uses in combination with retail or office. The district will support businesses that serve the neighborhood, as well as those that orient to the more- regional market with speaalty stores and services. Within this mix of uses, the opportunity for joint use of parking is created, allowing a customer to move from store to store without relying on their car. Residential development is an important element of the plan. While residents represent a market for nearby businesses, many people actually prefer to live in mixed use areas that offer convenient shopping, working and entertainment opportunities. The southeast comer of 74th Street and Tyndale Avenue is intended to satisfy this need. The Audio Perfection and Woodlavvn Terrace sites offer unique opportunities for a variety of urban housing types. Whatever the use, it is intended that buildings be the focus of development, not parking lots. This allows the built form of the district to help set its identity, and provides for convenient movement for pedestrians as they do not have to cross parking lots to reach sidewalks or storefronts. Buildings that are close to the street are critical to this concept, which dictates parking that is located behind or beside buildings. Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 16 The intersection of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue becomes important, as 76th Street provides the most direct connection to the adjacent neighborhoods. Buildings surrounding this intersection should be the two or three stories, reinforang its place as the heart of the redevelopment district. Taller buildings should extend south of 76th Street as a transition to the larger commercial uses along 77th Street and Interstate 494. The scale of the buildings decreases north of development at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, creating a transition to the residential areas at the edges of the district. The neighborhoods surrounding the district are critical to its success. Although they must be strongly connected to it, they must be sheltered from any negative influences of commercial activities. In the plan, physical separation and visual buffering is shown at the common boundaries between the redevelopment area and the neighborhood. To respect the place of the commercial area in the community, this district should not exist in isolation from the neighborhoods that support it Therefore, the plan shows development of a pedestrian system that reaches beyond Lyndale Avenue along 76th Street and 74th Street to link to the neighborhoods. • Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 17 • • u i ~ ~ .~+ $ ~a L~ .°3 ~ ~~ ~~ c~ m ~. ~ ~~ JU t 1 [i '~~ 1~~