The URL can be used to link to this page

08-18-97 agendati • CITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 SPECIAL JOINT RICHFIELD HRA /CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 P.M. RICHFIELD COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL I. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF THE RICHFIELD LAKE AREA (RLA) HRA LETTER NO. 48 ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FOLLOWS SPECIAL JOINT MEETING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) REGULAR HRA MEETING OF JULY 21, 1997 AND (2) SPECIAL HRA STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 4, 1997 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE HRA ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 2. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT 6633 WASHBURN AVENUE TO STEVEN MARLIN GRANT HOMES, INC. (SMG HOMES) FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT HRA LETTER NO. 49 3. CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THE 7600 BLOCK OF LYNDALE AVENUE AND ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL HALF BLOCKS is HRA LETTER NO. 50 4. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO CONTINUE THE COMMUNITY APARTMENT PROGRAM (CAP) WITH PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, INC. (PPL) AND AFFORDABLE SUBURBAN HOUSING (ASH) FOR 90 DAYS HRA LETTER NO. 51 5. CONSIDERATION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM CSM INVESTORS, INC. TO CSM SHOPS, INC.; CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT; AND APPROVAL OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT; STATUS OF SITE WORK ENCUMBERED BY LETTER 'OF CREDIT;�' SHOPS AT LYNDALE, PHASE 11 HRA LETTER NO. 52 6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR PAYABLE YEAR 1998 FOR CERTIFICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY AND SET DATE FOR OPTIONAL PUBLIC BUDGET HEARING FOR THE 1997 REVISED /1998 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY HRA LETTER NO. 53 0 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. 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. • 0 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 53 Agenda August 18, 1997 Issue Statement: Approval of proposed property tax levy for payable year 1998 for certification to Hennepin County and set optional date for public budget hearing for the 1997 Revised /1998 Proposed budget and tax levy. Background: As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation, each taxing authority must certify its proposed tax levy for the payable year 1998 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 1997. Taxing authority for the purpose of this requirement includes all counties, school districts, cities, towns and special taxing districts such as an HRA. No local unit of government is exempt from this requirement. In addition, certain taxing authorities must certify to the County Auditor the dates that have been selected for Truth in Taxation hearing and for the continuation of this hearing (if necessary) by September 15, 1997. In those instances, the dates must not conflict with hearing dates of the county or the school district in which that taxing authority is located. Such hearings must be scheduled between November 29 and December 20, 1997. However, the Truth in Taxation law does not require the HRA to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing prior to adoption of a final levy. Instead, the final levy is adopted as part of the City's final certification process. The HRA could, however, decide to hold a public hearing on the HRA budget and levy at some point in the future prior to the City's adoption of a final levy. It is currently anticipated that the City will hold a Truth in Taxation hearing on December 3 with a continuation date of December 10. The HRA could hold a public hearing at its regular November meeting. The Proposed 1998 HRA and Relocation levy represents a 6% or $10,000 increase from the previous year's levy. However, the proposed 1998 HRA levy is $10,000 less than the maximum allowable HRA 1998 proposed levy which is established by law and represents .0144% of the City's total market value. Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Proposed 1998 Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund and Relocation Information Fund tax levies. • 2. Set a public budget hearing for 7 p.m. on November 17, 1997. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Minnesota Truth in Taxation law requires adoption of a preliminary levy from each taxing authority. 2. The recommended levy is allowed under Minnesota levy limits which are in effect for housing redevelopment authorities. 3. The budget and accompanying proposed levy for 1998 are ready for consideration. 4. There is adequate time to meet the deadline for submission to Hennepin County 5. Even though a Truth in Taxation hearing is not required by the State Statute, it would still be appropriate for the HRA to hold a public hearing on the budget and adopt a final levy sometime in November prior to the City's consideration of a final levy if the HRA desired to do so. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The HRA could adopt a preliminary levy less than the one proposed herein. However, that would not provide for programs which are recommended in the 1997 Revised /1998 Proposed budget. 49 2. The HRA could select a different date other than November 17 (regular November HRA meeting) to conduct a public hearing and adopt a final levy. 3. The HRA could simply proceed at a future date to adopt the budget and levy without holding any public budget meeting. Discussion /Decision Mode: Action by the HRA on August 18 is necessary to certify preliminary levy to the County within the Truth in Taxation statute time frame. Respectfully submitted, TStev ` De Acting Executive Director SLD:ds :7 • HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF THE 1997 BUDGET OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, Resolution No. 533 appropriated funds for personal services and other expenses and capital outlay for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the year 1997, and WHEREAS, The Executive Director has requested a revision of the 1997 budget as detailed in the 1998 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. That the 1997 appropriation for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund be revised as follows: $195,230 Increase Section 2. Estimated 1997 gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the 1998 budget document, are hereby revised as follows: $119,450 Increase Section 3. That ,the Executive Director bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 17th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary • Thomas E. Harms, Chair HRA RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 1998 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE 1998 TAX LEVY BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund of Richfield for the year 1998 in the amount of $1,020,900 is hereby ratified. Section 2. The estimated gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1998, and as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the budget for the year 1998, in the amount of $875,680 are hereby approved. Section 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield an ad valorem tax in 1997, payable in 1998 for the following purposes: Housing and Redevelopment Authority $179,350 Section 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this18th day of August, 1997. ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary 11 Thomas E. Harms, Chair HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 52 Agenda August 18, 1997 Issue Statement: Acknowledgment and consent to the transfer of property from CSM Investors, Inc. to CSM Shops, Inc.; Consent to Assignment of Contract for Private Development; and Approval of Subordination Agreement; Status of site work encumbered by Letter of Credit; Shops at Lyndale, Phase II. Background: CSM Investors, Inc. is in the process of placing permanent financing on the Shops at Lyndale, Phase II, with Column Financial, Inc., and transferring the property to CSM Shops, Inc. The transfer to CSM Shops, Inc. is being required by the lender in order finalize the permanent financing. As the Phase II property is encumbered by the HRH's mortgage interest, CSM is seeking certain approvals for this financing transaction. The actions required by the HRA include: Acknowledgment and consent to the transfer of the Shops at Lyndale from CSM Investors, Inc. to CSM Shops, Inc.; 2. Consent to Assignment of the Contract for Private Development (and Limited Revenue Tax Increment Notes as part of the Contract); and 3. Approval of a Subordination Agreement with the lender. As with past mortgage subordinations approved by the HRA for transactions involving the Shops at Lyndale, tax increment payments due CSM Shops, Inc. from the HRA would be paid to the lender if CSM Shops, Inc. defaulted. The lender would manage the property to protect its assets and, thereby, the HRH's investment in the project also. At the last HRA meeting on July 21, 1997, CSM had the site improvements outstanding under the Letter of Credit on file with the HRA. In addition to these items, the HRA recommended that CSM provide directional signage at the shopping center to divert traffic to Market Drive in order to alleviate congestion at the main entrance. Attached is a Status Report on the progress of the installation of the remaining site improvements and directional signage. CSM continues to represent to staff that it is committed to working on the completion of the outstanding items. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the HRA: 1. Acknowledge and consent to the transfer of the Shops at Lyndale from CSM Investors, Inc. to CSM Shops, Inc.; 2. Consent to the Assignment of the Contract for Private Development (and Limited Revenue Tax Increment Notes as part of the Contract); and 3. Approve the Subordination Agreement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. CSM's seeking permanent financing of the Shops at Lyndale is necessary and not unusual. 2. CSM's lender, Column Financial, Inc., and the HRA both have similar interests in protecting the shopping center as a viable commercial property and asset. 3. The current actions and documents requested by CSM are patterned after the transactions with First Bank when interim financing was being sought. 4. Legal counsel has reviewed the financing documents and has been communicating with staff and CSM on processing the transaction. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Request CSM to consider alternatives. 3. Refuse to approve. Discussion /Decision Mode: CSM intends to finalize its application with the lender for interim financing as soon as possible. A timely response would facilitate the process. Re ec ully submitted, f ve Devich Acting Executive Director SLD:ds 0 W U) J a W W_—Jo a W (1) a. J a 20 �U • F-: w a w ° �� y V) 3 °' o V) F w .. Q w- �a a Y (D C ca E a� .N 3 lul p (n O N a) a) afl� o 0 0 5 E� O E c�6 U U= 0 m N +' Q = =U0 U) �=Nr U N N C M .Q yL,•, 'a L fB cu =000 05 L9 ��6 ca ° (1) C O N N V� � C a) Q a) � .— O C)) Q L cB p N N a) O a) - a) p N S� N �_ cLC N j to O ?� U Y y N N") A a .� a) v> O 'O O c cu N a) a) 3 E � � va L CL �� N Y a criNE ��ooca °oC= .+ 7 f0 Q) L L p C ca p C a C a) U +� a) N 22 ° c a) Ow 2 N� �- .0+ N CC in m O (/� . U Q L N U. U U- z c co z co y >+ L j O w- �a LL co � o U U vjO o U (D 0�: WJ i u �Z a) J w UJ J Y a in U a Y (D C ca E a� .N 3 lul p (n O N a) a) afl� o 0 0 5 E� O E c�6 U U= 0 m N +' Q = =U0 U) �=Nr U N N C M .Q yL,•, 'a L fB cu =000 05 L9 ��6 ca ° (1) C O N N V� � C a) Q a) � .— O C)) Q L cB p N N a) O a) - a) p N S� N �_ cLC N j to O ?� U Y y N N") A a .� a) v> O 'O O c cu N a) a) 3 E � � va L CL �� N Y a criNE ��ooca °oC= .+ 7 f0 Q) L L p C ca p C a C a) U +� a) N 22 ° c a) Ow 2 N� �- .0+ N CC in m O (/� . U Q L N U. U U- z co z CO) y O Y N Q �a Z O O vjO VO :.)U 0�: WJ w0 u �Z = J w UJ J Y �? Ua F--i Zm z YY >:�y::: �✓�.::. ;`:ii:::Y'.:;;:; •• ': o V— o — ;: 4�:::::>:«:::::>:.;:.:.;...;:.;:.;:.::;> "�::::::i::;:'.: :<:::;:: >::<.;::.:.;'...,:..::: .. �.. .::::::::::::...... :::fit?:: > ?:_ >:::::: •: :iV : iCi.: : L rta/ L +�-i :}` i:K:�' :::.:::;:::i >i:.i >ii: : : �':i:i::i>i {:::i::i:<:ii :�;:Yi:i:i:i::i;iii::ii:i::i:;i :::ii::i : i ::.:::::.r .�p:: .::.i'p:o;i ::::>' v+lt::;:::::; ;; .�:�1!,!'1!.:`:i: : :' : " >i:.isi::.i: :::;::M!: :: i;::;::i;::::i::>i::ii:::::: .i'.i:S:.:::::ii:::i.ii :: '::::'; i:: ii:i:::: ii%i:G::;(:;::;i::; :: ...i:: :;i:.iii: . ..1..;:`:::::::::::;::;:j;::: :::> k:i.. ' .}�i:::i;i: :i : <%i::X :j :::::;: ) •N — : ":::i:i:::::::::;>:: ; ::?i::: ?.......:f:O ; :: ': . H � ':: '+"f'i: : ::;i:::::ii:;::' w" • !:::: ::::>i;::`::::i:> :.' .';:::;:;::; ; :: i:.: Y (D C ca E a� .N 3 lul p (n O N a) a) afl� o 0 0 5 E� O E c�6 U U= 0 m N +' Q = =U0 U) �=Nr U N N C M .Q yL,•, 'a L fB cu =000 05 L9 ��6 ca ° (1) C O N N V� � C a) Q a) � .— O C)) Q L cB p N N a) O a) - a) p N S� N �_ cLC N j to O ?� U Y y N N") A a .� a) v> O 'O O c cu N a) a) 3 E � � va L CL �� N Y a criNE ��ooca °oC= .+ 7 f0 Q) L L p C ca p C a C a) U +� a) N 22 ° c a) Ow 2 N� �- .0+ N CC in m O (/� . U Q L N U. U U- z co z CO) y O Y N Q �a Z O O vjO VO :.)U 0�: WJ w0 u �Z = J w UJ J Y �? Ua F--i Zm z I rn m w a j a U c C CL Lo N g c v R • ALLONGE ASSIGNMENT AND ENDORSEMENT This Allonge Assignment and Endorsement is attached to that certain Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note (Phase II) dated July 12, 1995, made and executed by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, to CSM Investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ( "Investors "), in the original principal amount of $1,125,759 ( "Note "), with the same force and effect as if endorsed directly upon the Note. By execution hereof, Investors represents and warrants that it is the owner and holder of the Note, free and clear of any prior assignment, transfer, pledge, lien, endorsement, charge or hypothecation; that Investors has lawful right, power and authority to execute this instrument; that the Note has not been modified, amended, paid or terminated and is still validly outstanding; and that the unpaid principal balance of the Note remains $1,125,759. Pay to the order of CSM Shops, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. Dated , 1997 G CSM INVESTORS, INC. 0 k:\home\niiscdata\carolyn\wordpro\richfld\shops\allongel.lwp Draft 8/11/97 By: Its: 0 ALLONGE ASSIGNMENT AND ENDORSEMENT • This Allonge Assignment and Endorsement is attached to that certain Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note (Phase II) dated July 12, 1995, made and executed by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, to CSM Investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ( "Investors "), in the original principal amount of $1,125,759 ( "Note ") which Note was assigned by Investors to CSM Shops, Inc. ( "Payee ") by an Assignment dated , 1997, with the same force and effect as if endorsed directly upon the Note. By execution hereof, the Payee represents and warrants that it is the owner and holder of the Note, free and clear of any prior assignment, transfer, pledge, lien, endorsement, charge or hypothecation; that the Payee has lawful right, power and authority to execute this instrument; that the Note has not been modified, amended, paid or terminated and is still validly outstanding; and that the unpaid principal balance of the Note remains $1,125,759. Pay to the order of Column Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Dated , 1997 k:\ homeVniscdata\ carolyn\ wordpm\richfld\shops\allonge.lwp CSM SHOPS, INC. By: Its: . SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made effective as of the day of , 1997, by and among THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, (the "Authority "), CSM SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer ") and COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Lender "). Recitals The Authority and CSM Corporation ( "CSM Corporation ") entered into a Contract For Private Redevelopment dated April 29, 1994 (the "Development Contract "), whereby the Authority agreed to provide certain aid and assistance to the Developer under the Development Contract through use of public funds to finance certain costs of development of the Phase II Property (as defined in the Development Contract). Pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption dated as of August 1, 1994, CSM Corporation assigned all of its rights and interests in the Development Contract to CSM Investors, Inc. and CSM Investors, Inc. assumed all of CSM Corporation's obligations under the . Development Contract. Pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption dated as of , 1997, CSM Investors, Inc. assigned all of its rights and interests in the Development Contract to Developer and Developer assumed all of CSM Investors' obligations under the Development Contract. The Development Contract was amended by a letter amendment by and among CSM Corporation, the Authority and the CSM Investors, Inc., dated November 1, 1994. Certain provisions of the Development Contract are incorporated by referenced in Exhibit B to that certain Deed from the Authority, dated July 12, 1995, and recorded on October 6, 1995, as Document No. 2642457, covering the Phase II Property, and are thereby imposed as Deed Restrictions upon the Phase II Property ("Deed Restrictions "). Pursuant to the Development Contract, the Authority has executed and delivered to the Developer a Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note (Phase II) (the "Revenue Note "), in the face principal amount of $1,125,759.00, pursuant to which the Authority will make installment payments to the Developer as therein provided, and which has been assigned and endorsed by the Developer to the Lender to secure the Lender Loan (defined below). The Lender has agreed to make a loan to the Developer in the sum of $14,800,000 (the "Lender Loan ") to finance a retail shopping center facility located on the land described in Exhibit A attached hereto and an appurtenant easement for access and parking also described on attached Exhibit A (collectively, the foregoing land and easements are called the "Land "); (collectively, the k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn \wordpro\richfld\shops\cty_mdl.lwp Draft 8 /11/97 • retail shopping center facility and any other improvements now existing or to be constructed on the Land are called the "Project "). The Lender Loan is evidenced by the Developer's two (2) Notes in the face principal amounts of $13,300,000 and $1,500,000, dated as of 1997, payable to the order of the Lender (collectively the "Lender Note "). The Developer's obligations under the Lender Notes are secured by, among other things, Combination Mortgages, Security Agreements and Financing Statements dated , 1997 (the "Lender Mortgage "), and by an Assignments of Leases and Rents dated 1997 (the "Lender Assignment of Rents "; collectively, the Lender Note, the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents are called the "Lender Loan Documents'). As a condition to making the Lender Loan, the Lender has required that the Authority (i) fully subordinate all of the terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the Development Contract and all rights and interests of the Authority in or to the Project or the Land (collectively the Project and the Land are called the "Premises ") of any kind whatsoever under the Development Contract, under the Deed Restrictions or otherwise to the lien of the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents and to any other lien or security interest at any time hereafter acquired by the Lender in all or any portion of the Premises, and (ii) upon receipt of written notice from the Lender certifying that an event of default as defined in the Lender Loan Documents has occurred, make all future payments becoming due and payable under the Revenue Note to the Lender or to any transferee or designee of the Lender. • Accordingly, the Authority, the Developer and the Lender hereby agree as follows: 1. The Authority acknowledges and agrees that all rights and interests of the Authority under the Development Contract, under the Deed Restrictions or otherwise in or to the Premises are and shall remain fully subordinate and subject to the liens of the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents and all liens or security interests now held or at any time hereafter acquired by the Lender to secure the Lender Loan. In further clarification of the subordination accomplished by the preceding sentence, and not in limitation thereof, the Authority agrees that (i) any right which the Authority has under Section 3.3 of the Development Contract or otherwise to utilize or sell the Premises after default by the Developer is fully subordinate to and subject to the lien of the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents, (ii) any right which the Authority has under Section 6.2 of the Development Contract to receive insurance proceeds or to require the Premises to be rebuilt in the event of a casualty to the Premises is fully subordinate to and subject to the rights of the Lender under the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents, (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 8.3 and 10.2 of the Development Contract, either before or after foreclosure by the Lender or action in lieu thereof, the Lender or the Lender's assignee may, without assuming any of the obligations of the Developer under the Development Contract and without any consent from the Authority, take control of the Project and make such changes to the Project as the Lender deems necessary or appropriate, and (iv) notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.4 of the Development Contract, the Lender shall have no obligation to provide to the Authority any notice of any event of default on the part of the Developer under the Lender Loan Agreement or the Lender Mortgage (except k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro \richfld\shops\cty_mdl.lwp Draft 8/11/97 as provided in Paragraph 7 below), and the Authority shall have no right to cure any event of default on the part of the Developer under the Lender Mortgage. 2. The Authority hereby acknowledges that the Revenue Note has been or will be pledged, endorsed and assigned to the Lender as additional collateral for payment of the Lender Loan made by the Lender to the Developer and hereby consents to said pledge, endorsement and assignment. If in the future there is an event of default by the Developer under the Lender Mortgage, the Lender, at its option may require that all subsequent payments due under the Revenue Note be paid solely and directly to the Lender or to the Lender's assignee or designee. Upon the Authority's receipt of any such notification to that effect, the Developer hereby authorizes and directs the Authority, and the Authority hereby agrees, that all subsequent payments due to the Developer under the terms and conditions of the Revenue Note will be paid solely and exclusively to the Lender or to any such assignee or designee, as the case may be. The Developer further agrees that this Agreement shall constitute an irrevocable direction and full grant of authority to the Authority to pay all such amounts to the Lender upon receipt of notice from the Lender directing the Authority to do so, without proof of the event of default relied upon in any such notice. The Authority is hereby irrevocably authorized to rely upon and comply with (and shall be fully protected in so doing) any notice or demand by the Lender for the payment to the Lender of any amounts due to the Developer under the Revenue Note and the Authority shall have no duty or obligation to inquire as to whether any event of default under the Lender Mortgage has actually occurred or is then existing. The Developer agrees to indemnify • and hold the Authority harmless from all claims, demands, and judgments recovered against the Authority and any costs or expenses incurred by the Authority which arise as a result of the Authority making payments under the Revenue Note to the Lender as provided in this Paragraph 2. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the Authority, the Developer and the Lender acknowledge and agree that (i) the Authority shall have no obligation to make any payments under the Revenue Note to the Lender if an Event of Default (as defined in the Development Contract) has occurred under the Development Contract on the part of the Developer as to the Phase II Property and such Event of Default has not been waived by the Authority or cured by the Developer within the time period permitted under the Development Contract or cured by the Lender within a reasonable time, and (ii) the Authority shall not be entitle to withhold payments under the Revenue Note based upon an Event of Default with respect to the Phase I Property. 3. The Authority and Developer each acknowledge that the Development Contract is its valid, legal, binding and enforceable obligation, and, as of the date hereof, has not been assigned (except to the Developer as described in the Recitals), modified, supplemented or amended (except as described in the Recitals). 4. To the best of the Authority's knowledge and to the best of the Developer's knowledge, no Event of Default (as defined in the Development Contract) or event, which with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would be such an Event of Default, has occurred and is continuing under the Development Contract as of the date hereof i k: \home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro \richfld\shops \cty_sndl.lwp Draft 8/11/97 5. If an Event of Default (as defined in the Development Contract) shall occur under the Development Contract, the Authority shall give written notice thereof to the Lender and the Lender shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure such Event of Default within a reasonable time thereafter. Any notice given to the Lender pursuant to this Paragraph 5 shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the Lender at the following address: Column Financial, Inc. 3414 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 1140 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 -1113 Attention: 6. The Authority acknowledges receipt of copies of the Lender Mortgage, the Lender Assignment of Rents and acknowledges that the Lender Mortgage and the Lender Assignment of Rents, and the development of the Premises as a retail shopping center are authorized by and approved under the Development Contract. 7. The Lender agrees to provide written notice to the Authority of the occurrence of an event of default on the part of Developer under the Lender Loan Agreement or the Lender Mortgage prior to commencing any foreclosure proceeding with respect to the Premises or prior to accepting a deed in lieu of foreclosure with respect to the Premises. Any notice given to the Authority pursuant to this Paragraph 7 shall be sent by certified or registered mail or by facsimile transmission to the Authority at the following address: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: Executive Director Fax: (612) 861 -9749 8. If, following any event of default (as defined under the Lender Mortgage) under the Lender Mortgage, the Lender obtains title to the Premises through foreclosure or by accepting a deed to the Premises from the Developer, the Authority agrees that upon expiration of all redemption periods, in the case of a foreclosure, or upon the recording of such deed, in the case of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, as the case may be, all rights and interests of the Authority under the Development Contract and in and to the Premises under the Development Contract, under the Deed Restrictions or otherwise, including, without limitation, all restrictive covenants contained therein, shall be automatically null and void without the need for the execution or recording of any other document; provided, however, that at the written request of the Lender, the Authority shall execute such documents evidencing the full termination, satisfaction and/or release thereof as the Lender may reasonably request. 9. The Authority acknowledges that the Developer was selected as the developer for the Phase II Property. The Authority further acknowledges that in accordance with the provisions k:\home\miscdata\ carol yn\ wordpro \richfld\shops \cty_sndl.iwp Draft, 8/11/97 of Section 3.2A(e) of the Development Contract, the Authority notified the Developer in writing to proceed with Phase II under the Development Contract. 10. The Authority represents to the Lender and the Developer that the making, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary action and this Agreement, when executed and delivered, shall be the valid and binding obligation of the Authority, enforceable in accordance with its terms. 11. The Lender represents to the Authority and the Developer that the making, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary action and this Agreement, when executed and delivered, shall be the valid and binding obligation of the Lender, enforceable in accordance with its terms. 12. The Developer represents to the Authority and the Lender that the making, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary action and this Agreement, when executed and delivered, shall be the valid and binding obligation of the Developer, enforceable in accordance with its terms. 13. The Authority, the Developer and the Lender acknowledge that the Lender is not a party to the Development Contract and that this Agreement, and the Assignment of Development Contract by the Developer to the Lender of even date herewith, contain the entire Agreement is between the Authority and the Lender with respect to any rights or obligations either might otherwise have with respect to the other under the Development Contract and under the Deed Restrictions, and that this Agreement and the Development Contract may be amended only in writing signed by the parties hereto (unless an event of default exists under the Lender Loan Document, in which case signature by the Developer shall not be required). By executing and delivering this Agreement, the Lender shall not incur any obligations to the Authority or to the Developer of any kind whatsoever, except those to the Authority which are expressly set forth herein, and the Lender may administer its extension of credit under the Lender Loan Documents in such manner as it shall deem appropriate without any notice to or consent from the Authority. • 14. The Authority agrees that the Lender, at any time and from time to time, may extend the maturity, modify the interest rate or agree to alter any of the terms of payment of the Lender Loan evidenced by the Lender Loan Documents, or release parties liable for payment thereof, or alter, amend, waive or supplement, in any way, any of the terms and provisions of the Lender Mortgage, the Lender Assignment of Rents and all related documents, all without any notice to or consent of the Authority. 15. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Authority, the Lender and the Developer and their respective successors and assigns. k: \home\ miscdata\ carol yn\ wordpro\richfld \shops\cty_sndl.lwp Draft 8/11/97 r • Executed as of the day and year first above written. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Its: By: Its: COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation By: Its: CSM SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota corporation By: Its: k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro\richfld\shops\cty_sndl.lwp Draft 8/11/97 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1997, by and , the and of THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, on behalf of said Authority. Notary Public STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by , the , of COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1997, by the I of CSM SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by C. William Franke • CSM Corporation 2575 University Avenue West, Suite 150 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro\richfld\shops \cty_sndl.lwp Draft 8/11/97 • ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT is made and executed by CSM SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota corporation ( "Borrower "), to COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation ( "Lender "), as of the day of .1997. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Lender has agreed to lend to Borrower the sum of $14,800,000 (the "Loan ") to finance a retail shopping center, appurtenant parking facilities and related improvements ( "Improvements ") on certain land ("Land "), which, together with the Improvements, is referred to herein as the "Premises ", located in the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, to evidence the Loan, Borrower has executed and delivered to Lender two (2) Notes in the face principal amounts of $13,300,000 and $1,500,000, which are secured by, among other instruments, Combination Mortgages, Security Agreements and Fixture Financing Statements covering Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the Premises (which documents are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Loan Agreement "); and • WHEREAS, CSM Corporation, a Minnesota corporation ( "CSMC "), has entered into and executed a Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated April 29, 1994, as amended by letter amendment dated November 1, 1994 (collectively "Development Contract "), with The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota ( "Authority "); and WHEREAS, CSMC has assigned the Development Contract to CSM Investors, Inc., and CSM Investors, Inc. has assumed the obligations of CSMC under the Development Contract, pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as of August 1, 1994; WHEREAS, CSM Investors, Inc. has assigned the Development Contract to Borrower, and Borrower has assumed the obligation of CSM Investors, Inc. under the Development Contract, pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as of , 1997; and WHEREAS, as a condition for making the Loan Lender requests that this Assignment be fully executed; and WHEREAS, Borrower desires to execute this Assignment, in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof, in order to induce Lender to make the Loan; • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises contained herein, and for the additional consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by Borrower, the parties hereto hereby agree that k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro \richfld\shops\assignl.iwp 1 Draft 8/11/97 • the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are by this reference hereby made a part hereof as if fully set forth below, and further covenant and agree as follows: 1. Borrower hereby assigns its rights, title and interests in, under and pursuant to the Development Contract to Lender, it being understood and agreed that, if an event of default (as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement) does not occur, the Loan is paid in full when due, and all other obligations of Borrower thereunder are fully performed, then this Assignment shall terminate. 2. If such an event of default does occur, then Lender may, at its option, assume Borrower's position under the Development Contract. In such event, Lender shall have all of the rights of Borrower under the Development Contract. 3. Lender's assumption of Borrower's position under the Development Contract shall be preceded by at least three (3) Business Days' (as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement) prior written notice to all other parties thereto (which written notice may be by means of facsimile transmission). 4. Borrower shall not permit the Development Contract to be modified or amended, and Borrower shall not waive any of its rights under the Development Contract, without the prior written consent of Lender. • 5. Subject to the provisions hereof, this Assignment shall be binding upon Borrower and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of Lender and its successors and assigns. Lender may assign its rights under this Assignment, without the consent of Borrower, but Borrower may not assign its obligations under the Development Contract or under this Assignment without the prior written consent of Lender. • 6. Any notice required or permitted to be given under or pursuant to this Assignment shall be given in the manner provided for the giving of notice in the Loan Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed as of the day and year first above written. CSM SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota corporation By: Its: Borrower k:\ home\ miscdata\ carol yn\ wordpro \richfld\shops\assignl.lwp 2 Draft 8/11/97 i CONSENT The undersigned hereby consents to the foregoing assignment of the Development Contract by Borrower to Lender; agrees to continue to perform under the terms of the Development Contract for the benefit of Lender, if Lender assumes Borrower's position under the Development Contract; and agrees not to modify or amend the Development Contract without the prior written consent of Lender. Dated: , 1997. • 0 THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Its: By: Its: Address for notices: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: Executive Director k:\ home\ miscdata\ cuolyn \wordpro\richfld\shops\assignl.lwp 3 Drat 8 /11/97 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT i THIS ASSIGNMENT made this day of , 1997, by and between CSM Investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ( "Assignor ") and CSM Shops, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ( "Assignee "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CSM Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, entered into a Contract for Private Development dated April 29, 1994, with The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic of the State of Minnesota, as amended by Resolution 529 dated November 21, 1994, Resolution 530 dated November 21, 1994 and Resolution 543 dated February 28, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract "); WHEREAS, CSM Corporation assigned its interest in the Contract to Assignor, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated August 1, 1994; WHEREAS, Assignor, as permitted by the Contract, now wishes to assign its rights and interests therein to Assignee; *NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF One Dollar ($1.00) and other good, and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Assignor does hereby grant, transfer and assign to Assignee, all of its rights and interests in the Contract with respect to the Phase II property (as that term is described in the Contract, and as legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto) and all of its rights and interests in that certain Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note (Phase II) dated July 12, 1995, made and executed by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. 2. Assignee hereby accepts this Assignment and assumes and agrees to faithfully abide by, perform, and discharge each and every term, covenant, and condition of the Contract which are to be performed by the Assignor thereunder with respect to the Phase II'property from the date hereof, and to defend and hold Assignor harmless from any lawsuits, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including actual attorneys' fees arising in connection with the Contract with respect to the Phase II property, except those arising from events occurring or arising prior to the date hereof. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption 0 k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro\richfld\shops\assumpl.lwp Draft 8/11/97 Agreement as of the date indicated below. IDASSIGNOR ASSIGNEE CSM INVESTORS, INC. CSM SHOPS, INC. By: By: Its Its STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of the Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. This instrument was drafted by: C. William Franke Attorney at Law 2575 University Avenue West Suite 150 St. Paul, MN 55114 i k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn\ wordpro\richfld\shops\assumpl.lwp Notary Public , 1997, by of CSM Investors, Inc., a day of , 1997, by of CSM Shops, Inc., a Notary Public CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT • The undersigned hereby consents to the foregoing assignment of the Contract for Private Development as identified in the attached Assignment and Assumption Agreement. • Dated: 31997 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Its: By: Its The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by and , the and , respectively, of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a public body politic and corporate of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public k:\ home\ miscdata\ carolyn \wordpro\richfld\shopsN=ump l .lwp EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 pages 0 Legal Description of Phase II PARCEL 1 Lot 6 and the easterly 4.5 feet of Lot 7, Block 1, STRAND - BOWEN SECOND ADDITION. That part of Lot 7 lying westerly of the easterly 4.5 feet thereof and the easterly 4.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, STRAND - BOWEN SECOND ADDITION. PARCEL 2 Lots 6 through 11, inclusive, Block 1; Lots 1 through 5 inclusive, Block 2, STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of vacated Aldrich Avenue South adjoining Lot 5, Block 2, STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD lying between the westerly extensions across it of the south line of West 77 -1/2 Street and the north line of Market Drive as extended to the West line of STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD. Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block 1; Lots 1 through 11, Block 2, STRAND - BOWEN ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 1; Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block 2, STRAND - BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the northerly 48.0 feet of Lot 8, except the easterly 4.5 feet thereof, AND EXCEPT the northerly 48.0 feet of Lots 9 to 11, inclusive, Block 2, STRAND - BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 3 That part of vacated Aldrich Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, lying north of the south line of West 77 -1/2 Street and lying south of the south line of 77th Street West, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of vacated 77 -1/2 Street West as dedicated in the plats of STRAND - BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, STRAND BOWEN ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, and STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, EXCEPT that part of vacated West 77 -1 /2th Street lying northerly of a line parallel with and 30 feet northerly of the South line of vacated West 77 -1 /2th Street and its extension easterly, which lies easterly of the southerly extension of the East line of Lot 6, Block 1, STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD; also EXCEPT that part of vacated 77 -1/2 Street West which lies westerly of the southerly extension of the west line of the easterly 4.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, STRAND - BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXHIBIT A to PARCEL 4 0 • Page 1 of 2 pages Together with a right of way easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and driveway purposes created in Declaration of Easement dated November 11, 1996, filed as Document Number 6670732 over the following land: Lot 8, except the Easterly 4.5 feet thereof; Lot 9, Lot 10, and the Easterly 15 feet of Lot 11, Block 1, STRAND -BOWEN SECOND ADDITION; and All of vacated West 77 -1/2 Street as dedicated in the plat of STRAND -BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies westerly of the southerly extension of the West line of the Easterly 4.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, and which lies easterly of the Southerly extension of the West line of the Easterly 15 feet of Lot 11., Block 1, STRAND -BOWEN SECOND ADDITION; and the Northerly 48.0 feet of Lot 8, except the easterly 4.5 feet thereof; the northerly 48.0 feet of Lot 9; the northerly 48.O feet of Lot 10; and the northerly 48.0 feet of the easterly 15 feet of Lot 11; Block 2, STRAND -BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. k:\ home \miscdata \joanwp \shops.leg (jk) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 51 Agenda August 18, 1997 Issue Statement: Consideration of a proposal to continue the Community Apartment Program (CAP) with Project For Pride In Living, Inc. (PPL) and Affordable Suburban Housing (ASH) for 90 days. Background: Peder Jothen, Project for Pride in Living, Inc., and Bill Schatzlein, Affordable Suburban Housing, will present a year -end report on fourth year activities. The fourth year outcomes to be reported on include the following four items (see attachment). 1. Target problem buildings. 2. Continued collaboration and RAMA (Richfield Apartment Owners and Managers Association) support. 3. Outreach to small apartment building owners. 4. CAP promotion plan. PPL and ASH have been consultants to the CAP program since its inception four years ago. They have done a commendable job and launched several initiatives. However, in the interest of program vitality, it would be appropriate to revisit the market place and solicit proposals from PPL and ASH as well as other potential private and non - profit vendors. Staff would evaluate proposals and make a recommendation to the HRA within the coming 90 days. Recommended Motion: Approve the execution of a contract with Project for Pride in Living, Inc. and Affordable Suburban Housing for a period of 90 days or until November 29, 1997 for an amount not to exceed $12,500 and direct staff to solicit proposals for submission to the HRA at their November 17, 1997 meeting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There is a need to continue the program. 2. While both PPL and ASH have done a good job of servicing CAP for four years, it would be appropriate to shop the market place for new ideas. 3. Ninety days should provide sufficient time to solicit, review and select vendors. • 4. There are sufficient funds available to fund the contract. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Extend the contract for a period of time, longer than 90 days. Discussion /Decision Mode: The fourth year program ends August 31, 1997. Res tfully submitted, 4,-4 even L. Devic Acting Executive Director SLD:ds • CAP Update for Contract Year 1996 -97 1996 -97 Contract Goals I. Targeted Problem Buildings 1. Identified problem buildings as determined by Inspections, Health, Public Safety and apartment owners and managers. 2. Developed strategy for each property through consultation with City Departments. 3. Met with apartment owners and managers to review calls for service from Public Safety, code items, health concerns, leasing and screening practices and Crime Free Multi- Housing Program. 4. Followed -up to monitor calls for service to Public Safety, Inspections and Health Department concerns. II. Continued Collaboration and RAMA Support 1. Assisted RAMA with their bi- monthly membership meetings. 2. Created and distributed RAMA bi- monthly newsletters and meeting notices. 3. Continued collaborations with YouthNet, Richfield Community Council, the Chamber and other community organizations. 4. Continued collaboration with Public Safety on the Crime Free Multi- Housing Program. 5. Provided information to apartment owners through the Richfield Apartment iFinance Program. III. Outreach to Small Owners 1. Worked with owners of smaller buildings to identify issues of concern to them such as leasing and screening, financing of improvements, marketing and operation costs. 2. Developed strategies through RAMA to address concerns of owners of smaller buildings. IV. CAP Promotion Plan 1. Created a plan to promote a positive community oriented image of apartment living as a viable, affordable, housing choice and apartment residents as responsible neighbors. 2. Developed a CAP Logo and brochure to describe the CAP Program, and important facts about Richfield apartment communities and their residents. Distributed the CAP brochure though the community. 3. Created a CAP Display Board that features pictures of apartment communities, apartment living as a life style, CAP brochures, RAMA brochures and information on Crime -Free Multi - Housing. 4. Attended meetings of community organizations to explain the CAP program, provide information about apartment residents, and the contributions of apartment communities. CAP representatives also attended community events such as the Remodeling Fair and Community Expo to promote the Community Apartment Program. Group presentations were made to Optimists Club, Richfield Community Council, Rotary Club, Women of Today and Young at Heart. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 50 Agenda August 18, 1997. Issue Statement: Consideration of various redevelopment proposals for the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue and adjacent residential half blocks. Background: At its July 21, 1997 meeting the HRA heard presentations from three different development groups regarding proposals for redeveloping the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue and the adjacent residential half blocks of Aldrich and Garfield Avenues. The groups involved, and their plans are briefly described below: Local Partners: Retail and office buildings along either side of Lyndale Avenue and 60 -64 townhome units along Aldrich and Garfield Avenues. This group still has two options but their efforts have been more focused on the "new" plan which includes the large office building on the east side of Lyndale Avenue for DataSource Hagen. (See Attachment D.) 2. Laurent Parks: First floor retail and 125 apartment units on three floors along either side of Lyndale Avenue and eight townhomes along Garfield Avenue. (See Attachment E.) 3. Richfield Development Partnership (Jack Torvick): Two three -story buildings on each side of Lyndale Avenue, each containing retail, office and residential condominium space. This is a completely different concept than the one which was presented to the HRA in July. (See Attachment F.) At the July meeting the HRA asked that each group come back in August with more detailed information on their respective proposals. Each developer was subsequently asked to provide a project proforma, a detailed site plan of their most current proposal, parking demand and supply numbers and a brief narrative description of the project. At this writing only the Local Partners Group has provided staff with all of the requested information. Since presenting their proposals to the HRA in July, some noteworthy changes have been made to two of the plans. Those changes are as follows: • Laurent Parks: In addition to under structure parking and surface parking, the current site plan also features a one level parking deck above each of the surface parking lots. This is necessary to accommodate the high parking demand associated with the 250 apartments. Even with the parking decks, only about 90 percent of the required parking is provided. • Richfield Development Partnership (Jack Torvick): This is a completely different concept than was previously presented. Each of the four buildings contains approximately 50,000 sq. ft. on three floors. Rather than office or residential above retail space, the new concept features two stories of office space above ground level retail in the front half of each building and three levels of residential units in the back half of the buildings. The s -curve in Lyndale Avenue has been dropped in favor of a large, mid -block traffic circle. Small surface parking lots are proposed behind each of the four buildings and the remainder of the parking presumably would be underground. Based on the square footage and the uses proposed, this rather intense development would generate a demand for some 630 parking spaces. Because of the proposed layout, the majority of these spaces would need to be under structure. Plan Evaluation: The July 21 HRA letter regarding these issues included an attachment comparing the three proposals using non - financial criteria. These were primarily land use and design related. In an attempt to provide the HRA with additional analysis of the proposals, staff requested that Fred Hoisington, the planning consultant on the Lyndale Gateway Study, review and evaluate the proposals. In his report (Attachment C) Mr. Hoisington points out that while none of the three proposals is perfect, the Local Partners plan best meets the development criteria established in the Lyndale Gateway Study and would, with • some modifications, best fit with the surrounding neighborhood. It should also be noted that the evaluation was based on the previous sketch plan submitted by the Richfield Development Partnership (Jack Torvick). At the time the evaluation was prepared staff had not been made aware that the proposal from this group would be undergoing a complete revision. In addition to the Hoisington evaluation, staff has also updated the side by side financial comparison and the non- financial comparison as well. The financial comparison is based on the economic analysis prepared for each proposal by Sid Inman of Ehlers and Associates. The comparisons are included as Attachments A and B. Recommended Motion: Direct staff to work with one of these three groups exclusively to finalize their plan, confirm financial feasibility and negotiate a development agreement, with the intent that the selected group would ultimately become the developer of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The area has been identified for redevelopment. 2. The proposals have been evaluated by staff and an outside consultant for consistency with the Lyndale Gateway Development Plan and Strategy dated July 8, 1996. 3. None of the proposals should be viewed as final plans. Directing staff to work exclusively with one group will communicate to the selected group that subsequent work will be in preparation for final approval of a plan which works economically and meets the City's goals. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Terminate redevelopment activity with these groups and seek other proposals. Discussion /Decision Mode: The present commercial land within this redevelopment area is in the ILN TIF district but the residential land is not. Implementation of any of these plans requires the decertification of the current commercial land and the creation of a new TIF district. Technically this should not be an issue but it is something that will impact the timeline and must be factored into the development process. DataSource Hagen has a lease at their Edina location which runs through March 1998. They may be able to extend the lease through September 1998 but that is not certain. If this development option were pursued, and assuming no lease extension, construction would need to begin by October or November 1997. Res ctfully submitted, S even L. Devich Acting Executive Director SLD:ds • LYNDALE AVENUE PROPOSAL COMPARISON ATTACHMENT A. FEATURES /COMPONENTS LOCAL PARTNERS LAURENT -PARKS REVISED PLAN RICHFIELD DVLPMNT PLAN ORIGINAL PLAN. NEW PLAN OM. /RETAIL SQ FT OFFICE SQ FT TOWNHOME UNITS CONDOMINIUM UNITS APARTMENT UNITS 47,800 28,000 60 0 0 38,000 82,000 64 0 0 84,600 0 8 0 256 60,000 60,000 0 21 73 TOTAL OFFICE & RETAIL SQ FT 1 75,800 120,000 84,600 120,000 FINANCIAL/TIF DATA LOCAL PARTNERS LAURENT -PARKS REVISED PLAN RICHFIELD DVLPMNT PLAN ORIGINAL PLAN NEW PLAN CURRENT MARKET VALUE PROPOSED MARKET VALUE SITE ASSEMBLY COST SEMI - ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT (PRESENT VALUE OVER 25 YRS) $3,464,000 $12,817,589 $5,555,770 $2,619,153 $3,985,000 $22,850,455 $6,338,870 $5,256,423 $3,464,000 $20,780,225 $5,555,770. $5,887,041 $3,464,000 $22,815,000 $5,555,770 $5,057,215 AP BEFORE SOURCES $2,936,617 1 $1,082,447 1 ($ 31,271)1 $498,555 INITIAL SOURCES TO FILL GAP LOCAL PARTNERS LAURENT -PARKS REVISED PLAN RICHFIELD DVLPMNT PLAN ORIGINAL PLAN NEW PLAN LAND PROCEEDS: -TOWNHOMES AT: $10,000 /UNIT - APARTMENT SITE -COM /RETAIL /OFFICE SITES AT: $4 /ft LOCAL GROUP, $3 /ft LAURENT $3.5/ft TORVICK $1,229,580 $1,469,380 $497,850 $700,000 $600,000 $0 $629,580 $640,000 $0 $829,380 $0 $0 $497,850 GAP AFTER INITIAL SOURCES $1,707,037 ($386,933) ($829,121 ) ($201,445) OTHER SOURCES TO FILL GAP LOCAL PARTNERS LAURENT -PARKS REVISED PLAN RICHFIELD DVLPMNT PLAN ORIGINAL PLAN NEW PLAN ADDITIONAL HRA FUNDING (IF AN IS BEING REQUESTED) $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 GAP AFTER OTHER SOURCES $707,037 ($386,933) $829,121 $201,445) EARS OF TIF_REQUIRED BASED THESE ASSUMPTIONS 25 16 17 22 OTE: The local partners "new" plan is in response to an office building opportunity which has recently presented itself. The "original plan would be pursued should this opportunity not materialize, therefore both plans are included here. 8/13/97 LYNS07.XLS Page 1 C m I— Z W 2 U H Q Z U, a a C c; ■■ I„ LL a LL a C Z } T ti N co Al) Y a3i= 0 L c ~ w Y'. o 'a a) ii. 'L'm c °c) NYa)U'� - ° CL �~ `o ma)L0m ° No n c a)°�d Eo II. 0 O 3 p Q< M - m a) cn } Y Q o`er to L m N cn �L a� N O .` U m cn "O 0 L'L E Y Q a E L Y ,,,� cn O) > > Y acv = m� L °E N O a�i� :3 'D a)� 0.0 �� O c aa) 0)mQ m = o.. oL o a� �� v n c co ca ° ° 3 c E m �°)'«=Qa=i M O nc E 0Ea) o> «= -m°0(n�. —°� c f° a)-) �� 3 L w c°) o c- 2 H c U m Qa0 o 3 O �� c 3 a) N m cDc N cLa a�i m c`a N �' t C d m S a) � a) m a E O-UY -0 :2 3 w • °- C °a Q- a) LE U Y V Rt R a a) cn m a) a) a) >- o = Y"O O c o .L Y> cn 0 ° w O 'S N O 'j mm a) a) >- ch O a) U Q) m _ O L m Y N cn L U N m % E > m '� O m �+ 0 0 m cn 0) a) 3 Q - O �L m cn L L :Y m a O p O c a) 5 c u> o fn a) 0- E� (n C pY`C m O a. c = to L 0 u7 ;C O m U m 3 7 m E m a) M a) O co c U� m� m Q N = 3. (0 aL..r Y ° O Co C c .— N 'O Y m (7 co LL a) ,.N,, a) = -O = L L N O O �N—' a) +' --p "C L _ = C i c� c 1-1 3 p �C a)-O j `-- mLa >' d 0- a N �m U) m O n -0YY ma (D L�)Ew Ym3cYC'aNC) -m +•''a = 0 E c U� c �°)3 >.� �� cLocao m a�°i asT� cLpca)cmtm- a,v o m c °L- (Dw a) °o o cLo 3rn -3° W Ea) ,rcn :o a)L °occc o �Ecu cQoa d))U) aa))Q- adorn 03� :3 N�- CCLaa)) °-'momo �mm CDcnF °cn °Qrna. -0 U i - a =mm> 2a U ai � L .a.2) p L a) 3 d�v Y 0.O> 0)a)Y 3 c� a) � ) a) (D c v �-° c o0 c°o E Q- m 0 'w m� a) -0 �' E ac).� w CO m c 3 m 5 co �•E N L '� Q _ Y 3 3 L o v p a) X L ? a) L p E E ,_ L a) c) $ M E °) c c >+ 3 L a) O. L = c Y L �� ° _..J+ -a O 30 c� O m m c = L N L ° c y0 a0 n' Y rn.n a) rn= m 2L O m C CU a) 2D Q�w— 3 aco d E-o o c 0 as o_ _ —° o LE ��'� m =0 � 0 a) = 5 cc m "' a`) c YL L > Co 0) a) a)� : 3 c� >� 3 =a)a) v 3 V= �o (D (D a)�E� a._ E � CD a) -0 - 0',3;E 0 o U)`m a)d cnEmCD a) "° o rnUcL a) Co pU)0 2 a) c0 >-Q m E 000Om0 2 EL2(D J Z > m r >- 0- m U m o C ° m _0 I �ma) �m C" 00 Y a cn m m = a) m n O � o 0 > L v,° cn Cl) ui0 U) ��' ° E �� CD a) c 3 0 o m� "� _ U) 3 a E c 'N � Qp rn L O N C U 0-0 m N d o `m .� m L � �c �a 0 x oo� c to �Q > L_ =ami�� 3 = L= O �4) _� �. O c O O U ao� cY cY L°, ac) v) 3 0— a N a? cZ T pL oL aa) co -0 m a? a) ' o a) _ U = N m° N= O m cn rn L'X ?r -0 a' CO•'- c Q- aiE n aim aimC v E0 o�ow o L a) a)> °)—°'n >3o J O w ma c°) � i-Q-a � �3t g d C 01 cc k Z CL Z t0 w- C Q o o Utz N 0 .O V N o C1 0 Q Q ��F _ C U' G> O 'G N O •= L C of C> N N 0 C L a� was �vc>+ td —N co 4= O --� •N Z t4 •N ca •N M d �_ �N ++ •N y:, •� i d >+ tC W 0� 0 d 7> '++ Q d G VU d C C +S+ +S+ ,y Q.i d.0 3 .� � ZaV a Q -:vJtq N'OC�3C9 to = Ot� 02� � T ti N co L LL c c Z 4 H a • U) al LL W D z W Q W J z J (14 0) N W 1 : a O` CO C o a� 1 a �o 4 v oa N O d~ a)cca� 3 o a) jF o t Ra. o0 °3Z) z° c� m z Y CU N> 0 0= U C C C U -0 (D " Cl) L m cc a s M ca c i ATTACHMENT C p 1 -6 Lyndale Gateway Proposals Evaluation Introduction/Purpose Because of our prior involvement in assisting the City of Richfield with the formulation of the Lyndale Gateway Plan, Hoisington Koegler Group was asked to evaluate four redevelopment proposals for the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue to determine the degree of consistency and compatibility with the Lyndale Gateway Plan and the adjoining neighborhoods. Hoisington Koegler Group was not asked to consider the degree of compatibility with the comprehensive plan since it has already been determined by City Staff that all four plans are consistent therewith. Since City Staff is the best judge of whether the plans are consistent with the City's housing goals, we will also render no opinion in that regard. Hoisington Koegler Group has been asked to evaluate four plans as follows: 1) the Local Partners Original Plan consisting of 47,800 square feet of commercial retail area, 28,000 square feet of office floor area and 60 townhome units; 2) the Local Partners New Plan consisting of 38,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor area, 82,000 square feet of office area and 64 townhome units; 3) the Laurent/Parks Plan consisting of 84,600 square feet of commercial/retail floor area and 256 apartment units and 4) the Jack Torvick Plan which specifics are, as yet, unknown. Each of these plans will be considered in light of their consistency with the Gateway Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood._ It is important to note that there are three very important measures that need to be considered in evaluating the development proposals. They are economic feasibility, developer financial capabilities and experience and the degree to which the plans are a fit with the community, the neighborhood and plans for both. Hoisington Koegler Group is making an evaluation only of the latter. We assume that the City's financial consultant will deal with economic feasibility. We further assume that the developers all have good financial and experience credentials and/or bring something to the project that will allow them to obtain private financing for the project. The Lyndale Gateway Plan Several key ideas are embodied in the Lyndale Gateway Plan dated July 8, 1996 which should serve as the measures for development proposal consistency. We synopsize those key factors as follows: • Geography: The Lyndale Gateway Plan establishes limits extending from Aldrich on the west to Garfield Avenue on the east. These are strong geographic parameters. If it can be demonstrated that a greater extension into the adjacent neighborhoods is desirable and compatible and will likely be supported by the public, a change in boundaries could be pursued. • Substantial buffers: 40 foot landscaped buffers are proposed by the Lyndale Gateway Plan on either side of the commercial developments adjacent to Aldrich and Garfield Avenues. August 9, 1997 Lyndale Gateway Proposal Evaluation C2 • Mixed use/Integral housing: The full range of office, retail and residential uses is intended to be mixed and vertically integrated. It is intended to be an "urban village" design with rather significant density. • Buildings are the focus: It is intended that buildings set close to the street such that they, not parking, are the focus of the district. This is especially necessary at intersections where the plan intends no corner parking lots. • Building height It is intended that buildings be 2 to 3 stories in height to properly frame the edges of the street and create the gateway effect. This is especially important in the 7600 block immediately at the intersection of West 77' Street. • Pedestrian connections: Perhaps premature, pedestrian connections within the district and linking to the neighborhoods are imperative. • Transit element: It will be essential that improved transit accessibility be an element of the plan. • Shared parking: In order to minimize the amount of parking to be built, the mix of uses should allow for time -of -day sharing. Also, a preference for on- street parking. • Land uses: It is intended that developments include some neighborhood commercial development. • Gateway: The project should be designed to create a sense of entry to Richfield at South Lyndale. This means the buildings themselves must function as the gateway. • Access: Access needs to be limited so as not to impact the adjoining neighborhoods or traffic flows on the major roadway system. One major access point to Lyndale Avenue is intended for the 7600 block. Access is also intended to be accommodated at West 76`t' and West 77' Streets, provided appropriate access spacing standards are complied with. No access is intended to Garfield or Aldrich Avenues. Consistency with the Lyndale Gateway Plan Laurent /Parks Development The Laurent/Parks Development essentially stays within the geographical parameters established by the Lyndale Gateway Plan. It utilizes housing on the Garfield face as the transition but provides no definition of how buffering would occur along Aldrich Avenue. The Laurent/Parks Development does propose mixed use with integral housing. Laurent/Parks departs from the intent of the Lyndale Gateway Plan to make the buildings the focus of the district, not parking. The buildings are pulled considerably away from the street creating the sense that parking lots are the focus of the district and that buildings are secondary. The distance 2 August 9, 1997 C3 Lyndale Gateway Proposal Evaluation between buildings is significant. The Laurent/Parks Development is proposed to be four stories in height and is pulled toward the existing residential area with retail on the first level and three levels of housing above. It provides mid -block pedestrian connections to Aldrich and Garfield as well as parallel pedestrian ways in front of the retail shops. It does not include a transit element. The parking ratio is expected to be 4/1000 square feet for retail and 2 /unit for housing. The Laurent/Parks proposal includes substantial retail/commercial development but we are unaware of any portion that is neighborhood oriented. In this rendition of the Laurent/Parks Plan, limited access is proposed to Aldrich and Garfield Avenues. The gateway effect is created by the streetscape and entry features, not the buildings. The original Laurent/Park Plan used buildings to frame the gateway. This one does not. Torvick Proposal The Torvick Proposal works within the parameters established by the Lyndale Gateway Plan. It provides substantial triangular green spaces adjacent to Aldrich and Garfield Avenues. It is Mr. Torvick's proposal to provide a mixed use project with convertible space above that could be used either for residential or office. The buildings angle to the street rather than parallel it. The widest area is at 77`'' and the narrowest at 76`x' Street. Parking is located in front of the building making parking lots the focus, not buildings. Mr. Torvick's project is two stories in height, which is consistent with the Lyndale Gateway Plan. Neither pedestrian connections nor transit have been addressed in. the Torvick Plan. The plan calls for 528 parking spaces with approximately half underground. This results in a parking ratio of 3.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area. It also calls for a 200 foot pedestrian bridge spanning Lyndale Avenue between the two large structures at 76d' Street. Because of the orientation of the buildings, they create triangles on the site that are inefficient for parking. This will substantially diminish the amount of parking that can be provided at ground level, placing much more reliance on underground parking. The Torvick Plan provides for a good mix of uses that might well serve the local neighborhood and it provides access via alleys adjacent to Garfield and Aldrich Avenues.. Regarding gateway, the Torvick Plan does not address how the south gateway will be defined. Original Local Partners Proposal The Original Local Partners Plan works within the geographic parameters established by the Lyndale Gateway Plan. Instead of using the entire area for commercial mixed -use development, it establishes a more suburban pattern with retail/office immediately adjacent to Lyndale Avenue and residential buffers behind. There is no integrated residential development as part of the project. The residential areas become the buffers at the edges of the commercial district. The buildings are built close to the street making them the focus - of the district. The buildings are one, two and three stories in height consisting of retail and office totaling 75,800 square feet. Transit 3 August 9, 1997 Lyndale Gateway Proposal Evaluation is not addressed at this early stage by the Original Local Partners Plan. It does include pedestrian connections to the adjoining neighborhoods. A total of 305 parking spaces are provided with a ratio of four spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area. This is a standard ratio for suburban type centers. Other than the housing elements which will have access to Garfield and Aldrich Avenues, this plan relies on West 76``' Street, Lyndale Avenue and West 77"' Street, all consistent with the Lyndale Gateway Plan. Because the buildings are set some distance from West 77' Street they do not create the gateway. The New Local Partners Proposal The New Local Partners Proposal makes use of an additional half block on the east side of Garfield Avenue for townhome development to allow for an office /retail development on the east side of the 7600 block. The west side of Lyndale Avenue is the same as the original proposal described above. As with the Local Partners Original proposal, the residential areas become the transitions between commercial development and the extant neighborhood. Other than the expansion of the proposed project area and building height (future expansion to four stories), having a somewhat greater neighborhood impact, the concept remains much like the original proposal. We are concerned about the prospect that Building C will have a flat roof given its increased width. Consistency with Lyndale Gateway Plan and Neighborhoods Compatibility Factors Neighborhood Compatibility Local Partners Torvick Laurent Original New 1. Buffering Neighborhood A A A Al) 2. Building Height A A2) A U3> 3. Traffic /Access U4) U5) U6) U') 4. Boundary Compatibility A A8) A A 1) Buffering uncertain along Aldrich Avenue 2) Acceptable at 3 stories 3) 4 stories pulled toward neighborhood 4) Increases trafc on Aldrich and Garfield Avenues by 170 to 200 vehicle trips /day 5) Increases traffic on Aldrich Avenue by 200 vehicle trips /day 6) Alley system still puts substantial traffic at neighborhood edge 7) Limited access directly to Garfield and Aldrich Avenues 8) Establishes an acceptable land use relationship but breaks barrier established by Gateway planning process A = Acceptable U = Unacceptable C4 August 9, 1997 C5 Lyndale Gateway Proposal Evaluation Consistency with Lyndale Gateway Plan Local Partners Torvick Laurent Consistency Factors Original New 1. Geography Y N Y Y 2. Buffers (Aldrich & Garfield) Y') YU Y Y') 3. Integrated mixed -use with residential _ N N M Y 4. Building focus M N , N N 5. 2 to 3 stories Y N2) Y N3) 6. Pedestrian Connections --- - - - - -- U n c e r t a i n -------- 7. Transit --- - - - - -- U n c e r t a i n -------- 8. Shared Parking N N N N 9. Neighborhood commercial ?4> ?a> Y ?a> 10. Gateway N N Ns) N5) 11. Access Y y N6) N7) 1 ) Residential not landscaped open space 2) 1 to 4 stories 3) 4 stories 4) Not determined 5) Parking is prominent element 6) Alley 7) Has some access to Garfield and Aldrich Avenues Y = Yes N =No M = Maybe Conclusions and Recommendation While none of the proposals completely satisfy all of the key factors established by the Lyndale Gateway Plan, the proposal that is the most consistent or can be made to be consistent, while maintaining neighborhood compatibility, is the Original Local Partners Plan. It is our opinion that the New Local Partners Plan is only slightly less consistent, attributable to the east side housing element which breaches the boundary established by the Lyndale Gateway planning process. Our greatest concern about the Local Partners Plan is the absence of integrated mixed -use. In both cases, these plans create isolated housing "projects" that do not relate to the larger neighborhood. These plans place too much emphasis on housing. We are very concerned about one story buildings s August 9, 1997 Lyndale Gateway Proposal Evaluation C6 in the 7600 block and corner parking lots. On the other hand, we feel all of these concerns can be resolved with the Local Partners Plans. While we like the size of the Torvick Project (150,000 square feet) and the festive design, integral housing and retail bias of Laurent/Park, neither proposal is sufficiently consistent with the Lyndale Gateway principles. We recommend that the City select the Local Partners Proposal and work through the design issues to improve neighborhood compatibility and plan consistency. We specifically recommend pulling buildings to the corners with two story structures, or at least a two story appearance, at intersections. We also recommend that residential units have front doors that face streets (Aldrich and Garfield Avenues), making them part of the neighborhood rather than simply buffering new retail/office development. 6 Tushie Montgomery Associates Inc. Architects o Landscape Architects Intedor Designers o Space Planners ATTACHMENT D p 1 -7 3300 Edinborough Way, #601 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 612 - 830 -8208 o Fax: 830 -8215 • cc: Robert Deike Pat O'Brien Fred Ryan Steve 8awitzke i t Tushie Montgomery Associates Inca Architects o Landscape Arehteets Interior Designers a Space Planners D2 3300 Edinborough Way, #b. I Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 612 - 830 -8208 - Fax: 830 -8215 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The developer of the Shops on Lyndale project will be Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale, L.L.P., a Minnesota limited liability partnership. The partnership was created for the purpose of undertaking the proposed project. The principals of the partnership are Tushie- Montgomery & Associates, Inc., Fred Ryan, who is the owner of the property at 7629 -7631 Lyndale Avenue South, Pat O'Brien, the owner of the property at 7614 -7618 Lyndale Avenue South, and Steve Sawitzke, the owner of the property at 7608 Lyndale Avenue South. Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale, L.L.P. has joint ventured the residential portion of the project with Rottlund Companies who will construct and sell the housing units.- Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale, L.L.P., proposes with the assistance of the . Richfield HRA to acquire the site, demolish all improvements and construct a new 1 17,000 square foot .. office /retail development. A 64 unit townhouse development would also be constructed by --'- Rottlund Companies on a portion of the acquired property. That property is located to the east and west of the office /retail development. The proposed timing of the project is as follows: Construction of Phase I, the office /retail building to be located on the_east_ side of Lyndale Avenue, I would start in the fall of 1997, with occupancy anticipated in June, 1998. Construction of Phase 11, the office /retail building to be located on the west side of Lyndale Avenue and the townhouses on Aldrich Avenue, would start in the fall of 1998 with occupancy anticipated in the summer of 1999. Phase III, the townhouses to be constructed east of the office /development will be started in Mare, 1999 with completion anticipated in February, 2000. - Although construction of the project will be phased, for purposes of the enclosed financial - proforma, the two phases of the office /retail development have been combined. ___. 41 Li t � 1 Z 1 t Iti i i t I I l i I I *Gia {field Ave. a z O m N � 3 r �i e,wN i? here ■1 re .. 'Mail all m, C- , ■ G1 HYIiI V ®eiiG� ■� "8••I ■1 n D D Z i J U J Z J �F N� R� I m m s�g� f: sgggz N m r � 8T� ie 3 °•S �i o 2 y rn Z { r i IL i 11 a i v C I i CA m m s�g� � sgggz N m r UP m r �1-- r i IL i 11 a i v C I i CA D5 UP 'o �1-- o D5 RUG -11 -1997 15:51 TUSHIE MONTGOMERY Sovroot and Ussa Strop* an Lyndelo Mfithout Tax tncrersm t Iln its? SOURC43 Mtmtpap4 % 12900.000 cquk I 6.779.1328 Lsae seta i mmDds s s a.ovo Tax N+amim I S city conbtbutw s TOTAL SO== s 21.916.628 uses Lan4Atqu;540N RokKa;On and Dom0lkbn s SAW A" Snw4crk S soo 000 Sal corredioa s SWIM Subtomt Lad Costs S 7,435.870 conmicom Bwl&gs A S 9 s 3.236.500 &"no c S 5,873.660 Ftni$h CV WWCMn sutl6np A a B s 627.o0B suoin9 c s 1.135,880 stitaxal CorKvidion S 14,877,260 Sari Cotta' S 734.346 PFOJW Manager i 300.000 Con*. k terrst S 911,488 T40AS {On Gerwnere Q S 150.000 F4Wm Foss s 250.000 Development Fars S 500.000 t eesft S m"s Co *ngwcv S 400.000 Subtotat Salt Costs s 3.603.44$ TOTAL USES S 21.910.628 IINGWE Atmusl Rant 5qusro Feet RervW P*W SuMl;nps A 3 6 S 428,100 23300 s igloo s 2x2.000 f8000 3 14.00 wAft c s 46.000 7000 s 7.00 s 350.964 21936 S 15.00 S MIZ64 3m S 17-00 S 1,642.644 117592 Las Voeency (s%) s 82.132 Laec Operetatp com S 115.846 TOTAL s 1,444,664 owe#St;.S V"%" e 3 1,233,204 'form-26 Y0r vaer" Rat"7S% YOTAL t 1,233.206 Debt sown covers" s 1.171 PW Ir=me S 211.480 Astum on Equ'sty s 0.0211 'At :tlm0wW "Sirvet Roj*ir Aswrneys Few COrmlaft Arad Cass AccwX W tan Vacant 5no0e Gh tees Surroy 3aR Tests Ph, I Envrrvn. Tn> ft Study Il+l*Cow *WS Pane 1 i 61: 3o►nees and uses Shms an Lyndit W2h Tax Inderrrant and City Coro b tan art tr97 OlG O )U D7 SOURCES Mortgage S 12,swxo Equity S 1.979.625 Land sale Prvcaeds S 6f01000 Tax Immment S 1800.000 City C rItnbu4on i 11000.000 TOTAL SOURCES S 21,919.E25 USES Land Acquisition. Ralacgon amd OW19 M S 6.336.6717 54e++ork S 600.000 $ow COM15on a 500 10W SubbM LSM Costa S 7.4M.FM comoruction 591dLeK1s A i S S US,= BuIldIng C S s<a73,saa Finish COas buotion tluitding A & 8 S 617,000 9uitdtng C S 1.13600 Subtotal Commetion S 1a.M,260 Soft Costs• S 739,264 Prvjed Manager S 300.000 CVNW- irrlarest S 911,456 Taurus (On Carmirmcim S 1501000 Fksanoe Fl9S S Z50,OOa Gsvebprnont Foss S 500.000 leasing S 351,776 Canting-my S 600,000 Subtotal Solt Casts S 3.803,495 TMAL USES S 21,910,628 INCOME Annual Rem Squats Feat Rental Rate Buildirrea A 3 5 S 478,400 23800 S 18.00 S 252.000 16000 S 14.00 BvitdAty C S - 49,000 7000 S 7.00 S 330,980 11g3S S 16.00 a 562,284 46M " S 12.00 i 1.842,$44 117592 Lou Yriw cy (5%) a 82.132 LM Op" Casts 5 115AO TOTAL S 1.444,1184 100IMt WeVaga S 1.233.204 Tann-25 year hoarse Iiete.,8.75% TOTAL $ 1.233.204 tam sem;ca Coyeraga 3 1.1$1 Nat him.w a 211,460 Rou" on Equtty S 0.10M 'llratrtleetfo1141neer "St % Reor Atlomeys Fees Comnron Ama Cost ACcountant On Varmint Space CM tea Surrey 5pU Tents Ph. i Enravn. Ymft sk* pap A E2 A�5 •},1L�eq` ?�� . LAG• �� v1-r r J� ti • S ' i0 3tt i �. 7 (o� O L -!-1 ®2►O Gd�� I w Ljv�- }« aw' Proposal for the Redevelopment of the 0 7600 Block of Lyndale Avenue South and Adjacent Streets • ATTENTION: THIS SITE IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WE APOLOGIZE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. • El 0 Project Area Historical Overview Partnership Associates Concept Timetable Financial OWNERS & BUSINESSES IN THE PROJECT AREA COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON LYNDALE AVE. OWNED BY WALZER/tVOLSON, WBRIEN, RYAN, SAWITZKE 2 Naegle signs 33-029-24- 44.0036 7600 Lyndale Ave. Top Value Auto Champion Auto C $92,000 $68,000 33 -028 -24A4 -0041 7628 Lyndale Ave. Action Employmnt Coral Line CC $25,000 $26,000 33 -028 -24-44 -0042 33- 028 -24-44 -0040 33028 -24-44 4043 33- 028.24-44.0044 33-028 -24- 44.0045 33-u28 -24-44 -0046 7630 Lyndale Ave. 7632 Lyndale Ave. 7634 Lyndale Ave. 7636 Lyndale Ave. Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV PID Number 7642 Address Owner Occupant Type Land Building Total 33- 028 -24 -44 -0037 7608 Lyndale Ave. Sawitzke A -1 Foam'N' Form CC $75,000 $91,000 5166,000 33- 028 -24-44 -0038 7614 Lyndale Ave. 913rien Groceries of the Orient CC S75,090 $173,000 $248,000 7616 Lyndale Ave. The Totem 7618 Lyndale Ave. Arrow Appliance 33. 028 -24. 44-0039 7620 LyndaleAve. Wotson Wheels &Wings, Etc. CC $75,000 $158,000 $233,000 7822 Lyndale Ave. State Farm 7624 Lyndale Ave. Woodlake Barbers - 7626 Lyndale Ave. Car Quest 34- 028 -24-33 -0077 7609 LyndateAve. Watzer SeroingMachines CC $135,000 $89,000 $224,000 7611 Lyndale Ave. EOI Computers 34- 028 -24 -33 -0064 7613 LyndateAve. Walzer Mattress Liquidators C $131,000 $171,000 $302,000 7615 Lyndale Ave. G & J Tailors 7617 Lyndale Ave. (Ofice) 7621 Lyndale Ave. Radio Schack- 7623 Lyndale Ave. Funy & Hearny - Carpet & Wood 7625 Lyndale Ave. Hulch & Mantle 7627 Lyndale Ave. Hope's Chow Mein 34 -028- 24-33 -0074 76,29 Lyndale Ave. Ryan Torvick Chiropractic CC $58.000 $82,000 $140,000 7631 Lyndale Ave. Gabbie's Cleaners 7633 Lyndale Ave. Rapit Printing Subtctaf $549.000 $764.000 $1.313,0( REMAINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON LVNDALE AVE. Pay 97 £MV Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV PID Number Address Owner Occupant Type Land Building Total 34- 026 -24 -33 -0078 7601 Lyndale Ave. Harris Communicalions Center CC $63,000 $53,000 $ 116,000 2 Naegle signs 33-029-24- 44.0036 7600 Lyndale Ave. Top Value Auto Champion Auto C $92,000 $68,000 33 -028 -24A4 -0041 7628 Lyndale Ave. Action Employmnt Coral Line CC $25,000 $26,000 33 -028 -24-44 -0042 33- 028 -24-44 -0040 33028 -24-44 4043 33- 028.24-44.0044 33-028 -24- 44.0045 33-u28 -24-44 -0046 7630 Lyndale Ave. 7632 Lyndale Ave. 7634 Lyndale Ave. 7636 Lyndale Ave. 7638 Lyndale Ave. 7640 Lyndale Ave. 7642 Lyndale Ave. 7642 -a Lyndale Ave. 7644 Lyndale Ave. 7644 -112 Lyndale Ave. R -n Apartment Tenant Erickson Pryme Time Screen Printing $25,000 Apartment Tenant Seasonal Contras Games to Go Ehrman Mr. H. Soccer 538,009 Mexican Groceries Ehrman Riches Sports Memorabilia $61,090 Brew Meisters Rooney ATA Temps $594,000 Apartment Tenant Wholesale Jewelry Lurtsema Unknown tenant (Lurtsema) T.D, Type Subtotal R -n $U00 $29,000 CC $25,000 $57,000 R -n $5,000 $18,000 CC 538,009 $66,000 CC $35,000 $61,090 $ 160,000 $51,000 $34,000 382,000 $23,000 $104,000 $96,000 C $35,000 $53,000 $88,000 CC $25,000 $68,000 $93;000 R -n $5,000 $16.000 $21,000 CG $33,000 $79,OW $112,000 5386,000 $594,000 $980.000 HOMEOWNERS & TENANTS IN THE PROJECT AREA 0 - SIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON QWIELD AVE. PID Plumber Address Occupant 34.028 - 2433.0065 7600 GarlieldAve. 34-028 -24 -33 -0066 7608 Garfield Ave. 34- 028 -24.33 -0067 7614 Garfield Ave. 34- 028 -24- 33.0068 7620 Garfield Ave. 34 -028-24.33.0069 7626 Garfield Ave. 34. 028 -24-33 -0070 7632 Garfield Ave. 34 -028 -24-33 -0671 7638 Garfield Ave. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON ALDRICH AVE, PID Plumber Address Owner Occupant 33- 028-24.44 -0056 7601 Aldrich Ave. Ukich Owner Owner 7609 Larson Owner Ahlquist .Owner Johnson Owner Piaszek Owner Knutson- Hoknbrg Owner Maki- Wethefiee Tenant Akirich Ave. (Owner) Fink Owner 33-028 -24 -44 -0055 7609 Aldrich Ave. 0- ^•028 -24- 44.0054 7615 AlGrichAve. 33- 028 -24- 44.0053 7621 Aldrich Ave. 33- 028 - 24.44 -01352 7627 Aldrich Ave. 33-028- 24- 44 -t1051 7633 Akirich Ave. 33- 028 -24- 44.0050 7639 Aldrich Ave. SUMMARY Address Cormnereial: Walzer, O' Men et al __- Remaining Residential; Garfield Avenue =_- Aldrich Avenue • Vongsouvan Owner Noiling Tenant Johnson Owner Boxeth Owner Kraemer Owner Lamont Owner Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Type Land Building Total R4-1m $26,000 $49,000 $75,000 R-Hrn $26,500 $65,500 $92,000 R•Hrn $26,500 S50,500 $77,000 R -Hm 426,500 $61,51?0 $88.000 R -Hnn $26,560 $54,500 $61,101Q0 R -N $26,500 $50,500 $77,000 R -ft $26,500 $62,500 $89,000 Subtotal $185,000 $394,000 $579,000 Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Type Land Building Total Cc $3,000 $15,000 $18,000 R -Hm $25,000 $87,000 5112,000 R -Hm $29,500 $50,500 $110,000 R -N $29 :500 $45.500 $75,000 R -Hm $29,500 543,500 $73,000 R -Hm $29,500 $45,500 375.000 R -Hrn $29,500 $49,500 $79,000 R -Hm $29,500 $44;500 $74,000 Subtotal $205,000 $381,000 $586,000 Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Pay 97 EMV Owner Occupant Type Land Building Total __- _ == _ -- $549,000 $764.000 $1,313.000 -_ ___ __- $386.000 $594,000 $980,000 Subtotal $935,000 $1,358,000 $2,293.000 $185,000 S394,000 $579,000 $205,000 5381,000 $536,000 Subtotal $390,000 $775,000 $1,165,000 TOTAL $1,323,000 $2,133,000 $3,458,000 jj- l-_ ��J t �1 0 tj 7620 7622 7624 LL LJ 7609 1 7611 ;i 7613' U 7615 7617 7621 #1 7623 k� 76ii 76� 76 7s 7. WOLSON & WALSER FRED RYAN ■� i i ■ PAR L FF 0 w Q w H� u- d C7 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP i HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue South and the adjacent streets, Garfield Avenue to the East, and Aldrich Avenue to the West, consists of 20 commercial and retail structures and 14 single family homes. The following chart will make it easier to visualize the current district(s). In 1995, the City of Richfield indicated a need for redevelopment. The city retained the Hoisington - Koegler Group to study the area for $50,000. They concluded that complete demolition of the existing area will rejuvenate the district. Dissatisfied tenants and owners disagreed with the methods employed by the Hoisington- Koegler Group. They formed the Shops on Lyndale Association to look at putting together a proposal of their own. Within weeks three renovation proposals were ready. They included: a uniform lighted awning on both sides of Lyndale, painting and refinishing the store fronts, or completely covering the storefronts with decorative sheetmetal facing. These proposals would not have needed city funding. The city manager rejected these plans and stated that a more thorough plan is desired. The city offered to hire. Fred Hoisington to work with the group. The association rejected this proposal and Gary Tushie received approval. For $16,730, the city retained Mr. Tushie's firm. The members of the association related their objectives to Mr. Tushie. They included: phasing to retain current tenants, small town or community feel, aesthetic appeal similar but different from 501 and France, condo-type arrangements to allow multiple owners. Tushie- Montgomery & Associates evaluated the existing structures and concluded that the West side of Lyndale was not in good enough condition for renovation but the East side is. The group came up with the Mainstreet Shops at Lyndale concept. After several months of negotiating, with the city and Tushie- Montgomery, the project basically returned to the Hoisington- Koegler concept. No phasing or retention of existing tenants, no condominium -type ownership for current owners or tenants, and no sense of community. The Mainstreet partners would own the entire project. The goal would be to sell three of the buildings as soon as possible and use the proceeds to own the fourth building outright. At this point 2 of the 6 proposed partners, Jack Torvick and Russ Walzer, decided the original goals of the association had deviated to far from the original goals and declined becoming partners. 0 Aldrich Lyndale-West Lyndale-East Garfield Total Homes 6 0 0 7 11 Apartments 0 2 0 0, 2 Comm. & Retail 1 dentist 16 4 0 21 Owners 7 9 5 7 28 Tenants 1 20 12 2 35 Current Value 586,000 1,511,000 782,000 579,000 3,458,000 In 1995, the City of Richfield indicated a need for redevelopment. The city retained the Hoisington - Koegler Group to study the area for $50,000. They concluded that complete demolition of the existing area will rejuvenate the district. Dissatisfied tenants and owners disagreed with the methods employed by the Hoisington- Koegler Group. They formed the Shops on Lyndale Association to look at putting together a proposal of their own. Within weeks three renovation proposals were ready. They included: a uniform lighted awning on both sides of Lyndale, painting and refinishing the store fronts, or completely covering the storefronts with decorative sheetmetal facing. These proposals would not have needed city funding. The city manager rejected these plans and stated that a more thorough plan is desired. The city offered to hire. Fred Hoisington to work with the group. The association rejected this proposal and Gary Tushie received approval. For $16,730, the city retained Mr. Tushie's firm. The members of the association related their objectives to Mr. Tushie. They included: phasing to retain current tenants, small town or community feel, aesthetic appeal similar but different from 501 and France, condo-type arrangements to allow multiple owners. Tushie- Montgomery & Associates evaluated the existing structures and concluded that the West side of Lyndale was not in good enough condition for renovation but the East side is. The group came up with the Mainstreet Shops at Lyndale concept. After several months of negotiating, with the city and Tushie- Montgomery, the project basically returned to the Hoisington- Koegler concept. No phasing or retention of existing tenants, no condominium -type ownership for current owners or tenants, and no sense of community. The Mainstreet partners would own the entire project. The goal would be to sell three of the buildings as soon as possible and use the proceeds to own the fourth building outright. At this point 2 of the 6 proposed partners, Jack Torvick and Russ Walzer, decided the original goals of the association had deviated to far from the original goals and declined becoming partners. 0 Torvick, assuming the Mainstreet group would not continue, sought assistance from the Richfield Bank & Trust. He presented the tenants' plight to Martin Chorzempa and Jay Stevens. They indicated the bank could loan money for one fourth of the project. Not wanting to borrow money from the bank, he offered to assist them if they were interested in becoming the developer. The bank officials stated that they are not in the business to develop property but to= finance such projects. They introduced Mr. Torvick to Steve Kirchner. Later; Mr. Kirchner contacted Mr. Torvick and they walked the project. Mr. Kirchner indicated he could assist the project if phased, building and selling as they went. They agreed to proceed with the city and to work with the remnants of the Mainstreet group. Later, they discovered that the group was still a viable developer. THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE NEWS ARTICLES, A PETITION, AND A FAX. THESE ARTICLES DEMONSTRATE OUR LONG- TERM INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PROJECT AND OUR ATTEMPT TO INCLUDE EVERYONE IN THE PROJECT.. • • Lyndale businesses organizing to develop alternative proposal Owners agree to form `Shops on Lyndale' Association By Mike Westholder Staff Writer Displeased with a redevelopment study by city consultants, owners of busi- nesses and buildings in the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue met Friday to discuss an alternative plan. The group agreed to form an associa- tion, "Shops on Lyndale Association," and planned to develop its own proposal for enhancing the Lyndale Avenue gate- way. Organizing and meeting regularly is better for coordinating a plan than busi- ness owners working independently and being blind to what each other are doing, said Steve Sawitzke, owner of A- 1 Foam. The association is in response to a study by Hoisington Koegler Group, "The Lyndale Gateway: a Redevelopment Plan and Strategy," which the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Au- thority accepted last month. Sawitzke criticized the Hoisington study process, saying it should have started with Lyndale business owners. The $50,000 spent on the study was "wasted money," he said. While the council accepted the Hois- ington plan, several council members were reluctant to support the proposed. redevelopment of the 7600 block of Lyn- dale because of the cost. The concept plan projects that site ac- quisition and improvements in that block would cost $8.4 million.. By using possible funding sources like tax - increment financing, the city could generate $4.5 million to acquire property, the report stated. 4b make up the rest, consultant Fred Hoisington suggested the city consider using its share of funds from the Lyndale- Hub- Nicollet TIF district. When that TIF district's life ends, the city will receive $400,000 in additional property taxes annually. Those dollars could be used to pay for redeveloping the Lyndale corridor over a 20 year period, Hoisington said. Several council members said they disapprove of that option, .leaving the door open for an alternative plan. Mayor Martin Kirsch encouraged business owners and the Chamber of Commerce to come up with its own plan for redevelopment or renovation of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. The association plans to meet with at least one member of the HRA to deter- mine if the city will consider an alterna- tive plan and what financing assistance may be available. Some business owners fear city offi- cials have made up their minds and will settle for nothing less than total recon- struction, said Jack Torvick, owner of Torvick Chiropractic. Torvick helped organize Friday's "Fred [Hoisington] was asked to create a vision and he did... I don't think that makes it sacred. The idea behind the vision is to spur action." -Bruce Palmborg Community Development meeting. Likewise, property owners are leery of making large investments in their build- ings without knowing what the city plans to do, said Russ Walzer, who owns sever- al buildings in the Lyndale area. "The only thing that keeps owners from. doing more is threat of condemna- tion," Walzer said. Community Development Director Bruce Palmborg, who attended the meet- ing, assured the group that the city would consider alternatives. Financing and plan viability will be key to the success of their proposal, he added. "Fred [Hoisington[ was asked to cre- ate a vision and he did..." Palmborg said. "I don't think that makes it sacred. The idea behind the vision is to spur action." The Hoisington study calls for the ac- quisition of businesses in the 7600 block of Lyndale, which most owners oppose. It would also expand the business dis- trict by acquiring eight homes on the east side of the 7600 block of Aldrich Avenue and eight homes on the west side of the 7600 block of Garfield Avenue. The existing structures would be re- placed with two- and three -story build- ings for office, neighborhood retail and residential uses, the report stated. Parking for the businesses would be in the back with buildings up to the street. Buildings would have a consistent streetscape and uniform frontage to cre- ate a sense of a "gateway" into Richfield. On Friday Torvick presented several alternatives for improvement, includinlg facade replacement. Adding facades sim- ilar to the ones at Shops at Lyndale could create a uniform look to the area, he said. Torvick also presented several options to increase parking space. On the west side of Lyndale a parking lot could be added in back of the buildings with some renovations, he said. Mid - block access to the lot could be created by eliminating a building owned by a willing seller, Torvick said. Such improvements would increase rents but not so much as to drive out most tenants, Torvick said. And its cheaper than spending $400,000 for 20 years, he said. Correction correct. Village Shores is a senior congre- I' "l "s gale fnrilily providing senior indepen- MAKE ;YOUR,; SUMMERr MEMORA_ u z r CALL BLOOMINGTON COMMUNITY EOUC.ATIONA ±` 585 -8500 FOR INFORMATION OR TO REGISTER FOR THE FOLLOWING ADULTCOURS0 STARVNt A T4 �. `CAREER DEVELOPMENT ' F•QO,,, Grammar Refresher Autheng COMPUTERS Computer Literacy 1 Claris Works Explore the Internet Internet Overview Lotus 1 -2.3 Advanced Macintosh Introduction Windows I Windows 95 Intermediate Word for Windows WordPerfect 5.1 WordPerfect for Windows CRAFTS Felted Slippers Infant &`.Chile Ve�etarbn0 HOME; Watgr Gorde HOBBIES Car Care Se( Geneology� August 6, 1996 We the undersi ned are in favor of installiny. li hted awnings of the type used by _Torvick Chiropractic, Hutch & Mantle, Gabby's, and Rapid Printing. We feel that this would bring warmth and unity to the appearance of the block. - . \r.T!T�_ Cis{ T 1 "l•� Pc J �i I�. VIA— /6 /17 LAW- % 7dl� L'�iGE: C tff� . c:7.1 C. 4 a t % co J-; �)j� 4 ti G. August 6, 1996 We the undersi ned i g are favor of installing lighted awnings of the type used by Torvick Chiropractic, Hutch & Mantle, Gabby's, and Rapid Printing We feel that this would bring warmth and unity to the appearance of the block Name & Store r f 4 T /ry �;J % /G /Z' ,�—(d-ic(e O ` Cl e.� � . � III-7v REPORTS RENDERING COURTESY OF LAURENT PARKS Laurent Parks, a Wayzata -based development partnership, has proposed a complete redevelopment of Lyndale Avenue between 77th and 76th streets. RENDERING COURTESY OF TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES INC. This drawing depicts the east elevation, buildings A and 8, of Mainstreet Crossing, the Lyndale redevelopment project proposed by local business owners. TAATo options for Lyndale RI .s+IELD RETHINKS facade improvement. REDEVELOPMENT "The city wanted more done, though, and they agreed to hire an architect for Apair of Lyndale Avenue redevel- opment proposals is sitting- on Richfield's table. Just north of CSM Corp.'s shiny new Shops ai, Lyndale project at Interstate 494 and Lyndale is a stretch of older retail stores that the city would like to see renovated. Last spring, consultant Fred Hoisington presented a plan for an updated "Lyndale Gateway" beginning at 77th Street and Lyndale in Richfield (MREJ. 6- 2 -96). Business owners on that stretch have submitted one proposal to the city, and Laurent Parks of Wayzata has offered another. Richfield officials are in the process of performing a financial analy- sis of each project, and Jim Prosser, city manager of Richfield, says these analy- ses should. determine how much value will be created by the improvements, and what assistance the city can offer. Business owners Retail and office tenants on the strip were discouraged by Hoisington's pro- posal and convinced the local chamber of commerce to oppose it, according to Jack Torvick of Torvick Chiropractic, Rehabilitation and Acupuncture Ltd. Torvick is one of the leaders of a group of business people, the Shops on Lyn- dale Association, who would like to redevelop the strip themselves. They developed three proposals for renova- tions to the shopping area. Each of these involv -,l the razing of one building on the le to make room for addition- us," Torvick says. Gary Tushie of Tushie - Montgomery & Associates Inc., .the architect for Shops at Lyndale, did a building -by- building assessment of the strip from 76th to 77th streets. Each building was rated either good, meaning it required minimal work; fair, it required a substantial amount of work; or poor, meaning it was cheaper to build a new building, according to Torvick. It was determined that the buildings on the west side should be razed, and those on the east side should receive a facelift. The west -side structures would be replaced with two new commercial buildings, for a total of 24,000 square feet of retail and 18,000 square feet of office. "The west side also would contain s parking area that could be closed off for special events," Tushie says, adding that the proposal contains a total of 44 for - sale townhomes. . "Our idea is to give the area a festive appearance," Torvick says. He adds that about 50 percent of the current tenants on the block would remain. Laurent Parks " John Laurent and Chris Moarn of Lau- rent Parks, Wayzata, arc proposing a mixed -use development that involves razing the buildings and homes on either side of Lyndale, between 77th and 76th streets, plus buildings on the block north of 76th Street on the west side of Lyn- dale. The plans include 90,$0 square feet of retail, much of wht'c is concentrated al 1 as well as varying levels of LYNDALE io page 9 .111mi —da Neal Eoalr low Plat LYNDALE front page 7 on the west side between 77th and 761h. "The goal is to have festive -type retail, such as coffee shops, bookstores and restaurants." Laurent says. Development on the cast side would include n 150 -unit apartment building aith service retail on the first Iloor. and a rota of 1(t nhoines IItet A (,old face the homes that already are on the hlot:L North of 7611) Street, the east side would contain office development and the west side would nol he redeveloped in the first phase. Laurent Parks' proposal would slaw the traffic on Lyndale and give the street a parkway atmosphere, with parking on either. side. "This is a terrific location in terms of demographics relative to the types of tenants we would get," Laurent says. "It would be a great fit, and would make a significant statement a, a gateway to the city of Richfield. It really is a beautiful street." He and Milani add that Richfield has demonstrated through the Shops at Lyn - I`.14o 9 dale pro'cct that it is willing to work- with developers. Prosser says the proposals hKeh' g ill come before the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in March. 3usiness people take lead in redeveloping Lyndale V Mike Westholder aff" ;ter *up of business owners in e 7600 block of Lyndale Av- ue have developed a plan to ansform that area into a busi- ss center with offices, retail ace and additional parking. The Shops on Lyndale Asso- ition formed last fall to work t a redevelopment strategy • that portion of Lyndale after e Richfield City Council ac- Aed a study on how the area ald be improved. What the association has Shops on Lyndale propose $11 million plan come up with is "Main Street Shops on Lyndale," a project that will pattern itself after Ed- ina's downtown shopping area. "We want it to be like 50th and France, only better," said Jack Torvick, a chiropractor who rents his office in the Lyndale re- development area and a is part- ner in the Main Street project. "People would come not just to shop but because it's the place to be," Torvick said. In addition to Torvick, the partnership includes four busi- ness people who own property in the area and Gary Tushie of the architectural firm of Tushie- Montgomery Associates. Part- ners Russ Walser, Fred Ryan, Steve Sawitzke and Pat O'Brien own about 57 percent of the buildings in the block of Lyndale being considered for extensive redevelopment. The, artnership is proposing to build a 70,000- square -foot, $11 million project, which will include the replacement of some businesses and renovation of some buildings, Torvick said. 'file group had hoped to reno- vate the buildings, Torvick said, but they learned it would be more costly to renovate many of the older buildings and bring them up to fire and building codes than ,to demolish them and construct new buildings. Replacing the buildings on the west side of Lyndale would be two new ones either two- or three - stories tall, Torvick said. VWX LYNDALE: 'Lb Page 10A 1� -C ... Cz o d a� a) U 0 > .0 a) U -a - .O " v .� . 4 = o -`F; CL > cv i.. n.'-" .*j a) � - "n cyi R. � .�'° a) m b0 �.. y •t'! � a) A O C > x 'C) 'C..0 '-" +a s.. C r-, 'b 4.., y O O CJ O O O H '^ ,•. O m c o ^C cd d +-, +' N '." [ 'n 4. 'L7 'U 4, O }+ d U •� o ... &. > •3 '� N W Q�i s. 'O 3 'U >' L. N �C O a :"C7 •ro .� 3 v�. O O y U y 67 «S a) a) a ccs o �' y x c. C o> .0 U LL 'n v o a�i Cd H Cl a a � af"i o ,4 o .0 a a) a Y 0 0 v o 4 v" 'O O 0 >> 0 0 ... A C O C Cd ' U=' 0 > .d 0 cd N O. • .Q 0 S. E- d y n a) '0 .a) y v o C% ° o a.° U y > 3 a 0 ti •0 a) C y n y m a .� a) ")n d° o o �E' 7 a>i 0 o chid o� y o y o cUd C U �a'4 3 cow v boy > +� ... C a) O >, x E"' y v Cd 0 � �, q' s i ¢ C'i 1 i.. O O 0. u �y..0 bp b0 'U "� .., ++ O Oa O y O N m 4-, ' CtS a) v ,� Ca n0 y �i bA 0. m > >, a) a) c v, O E� m o 4� c4 C3 ' V). cd [ C y 'Cu . 'C1..N a) .0 . >�.!] U C - m 'd N •.. O' +' F. v c3 Zf c. ,..y4 'a X •'� nS �" 0. G a) Cd a) rn 11) en a) V r- +� o o 'o ° c°c q a ti o °� G % > d o n bU i~ a�i 4 as cs 0) (V ,�>' ..0 ' ti v �s fs� x v : �, ', a) ai b �, , '" b rn a 4, > ma F• a) a?; N -°- " " a) cd N � bi) 3 y 0 °' .�U. O • v o o ti • > a �+ c A. •-+ a > Z qo °a) a'sa S x3Z a) 0 q nm d= a) w 0 a��.� > [ ° s° �.G aw o•� —a) a) m A a �� E 7 a.ty' q a� o.� oa t°� C a v o ti m � 'a' ho a ° 0 �? ° -°: M a�i 0 ° > q) a>) . � ' � x iu nZ o [ 3 x `` a `� 3 b4 0 • a�i o tr, " ^�+ O O «1 r4''q ' S"•. S] bA O F' E13 R. 4., '�' O N O �. 'b C" Cd ^C y �.. C : O F. �.' +'i. -� a >, �•. O O O . Val • 1ti G. +�•, ° gy m >,^ Cd 4� o a) o ,� o " „ a) ° 'C a) O 0 G ° :' b O °' ar o bn [ . (V y ° 4� 0),4 G1 ° 'O .^. a0 °j~ °m>,u o� s, °mE�' m0 >a)_> .�u-da 0ogq $ 0. a) O a) CC C o , , C c V) > y y Y. A o C: O P. C u- ur Q. d cV c0 0 3 to o O .' v d y^ ,; ,; R, 0> 0 n y ti >, c. p 0 4� .SC o o C7 a .0 .� a) .-• o ff -. >, x y .� a) ``+ C � N C N rn q G A y d F04 FO. y 'C v a) o a) v R4 y C v oo �, 40 'Ll �' a) cb t. 'GA Cl °. o ��., >y 0 �N acc a' �, o c o d a ° o a a 1-4 3 °' ° �� aC4Qt'x cd > ° °' �> o a) c r, a) Er a) o o �. i~ a) F' . % c. 3 3 l~ b v, a a) co a) q 0 3 .e m $ a o ca: oa . ti 0 a) a`ni a a) cs a�i -C C ° �' R > o a) .0 0 ° 0 a) d U C .� bn ti �' C o � 'cy 0 Cd' . E" o Y. o OF d ° a0 a) >.� 3'Cao -° uE- ^d b �O a a) °'� bp•'"E �,>,bl) �� oE4+� y �E-+'� d 0 0° o a) x x w a o a) ... a) a) .0 C ^� s. p q o 0 a) p. 0 0 0 q ° CO a �.. ca �+ w > a) u cc b v .a > ... N a 4� F a) ... a ca a) .., a x Cd S � x 'CS o 1] 0 q cz C]. ° crS CL ` C 2f .0 +� 0 W Cd a) a) a) a) a) c,;, q 2f 4- ar a) a) a) m: 0 O C O 'C1 .L) •.�. N O U w 1G., a) O 'C >, !� .b .C1 Cd — O U O .. y. y )0., .�. O -[ t V) . )0., ��' • ° Ca 'o z C .b M b d O a) .. y 'L� ..0 C:. cU, N a) d rn y '�" ��±± 'may � M ca 0" � .� ' FO.''. O O �„� � 4�.. ' � • �.. Cd O 4' O V) G1, CO U7 Ui Cd C.. v ..:-0 > .L bD G cM 'u 'i7 m �, V) a) O V)- C C1 0 0 o k v> > a) 4 o rn u a) .� v) O +� d tJ o d 4' O n h ° y L7 o c 4°' . o `� d o U 0° o> o M C b C 0 v a) c.. a) F N G N �. a .� 4, U a) C ,� m O 'U _ ,G bn o a) bl)'i� 4> > v " bU Cd Cd 4 t1 0 O cd N Y 4.., z .-, O , > Cd y U 0 0 4 • + 4 i � F, U bA b [ [ [ b 4 , d 3 > a�i o C d ' G a) b0°p F ^ q p A y X Oa m v a) a�i oo ' � q , Cd CL � . > .� 'b CO U 00 ^" 'Cl �"' ''� A t°.. �-' Cn -n ° a) ''�' a) F. R..1. (~ y y a) ° O >, O O R. 4 4a .� a) 'b a) C lfl +a ..L:.W 0 f'". 'U 4� .a O y m U 'b v t,., cCqcS d bD [�-� !� a)` •� y 4'0.0., 'T! > p � � .3 � � ,, � � 40•> •x.40, � � D, y ro 'a o q a) 'o o •... a) bA ° °) A q .t:.a A .a p, o d >, E"4 q •G •- .0 .0 a) y O a) O "0 � b) y ° � 4+ � q 'C O it -4 O V � C o ... � ° � y „ � ° co 'C C 'U A � 4' ,U0 Ly 0 'o O 4 4' � .� �"' Li ^C n o W [ l; o vi 0 0 O l~ a' n q R id ^o �+ w o° a) r vU�� y 'u 0 O) : v 3 '0 a) bn 4., .b . a) n i] X y h � 'o O > O CSS 't1 �+ 4.., _O ^r7 w > O «S ".-� C6 a1 4a Cd cC 'n �" 'u c.. o d .b 0 a) c.4 v U 3 cC d ^C uJ .t rn [ a) m n 0 ti O O .C-. ,L 0) q ..[ c� 3 0 0 0 y C a) "Cl ' 0 0 bn cd Ca ° V) O V) a) 4, ' 3 m .0 bi) m ca .x ° a) yV) O. bbk y C..0 3 j -0 O 'd 0Ui c� �^ 0) 0, .0..0 'Cam• '•�3 y y +' u�i A o aUi %+' p 'O U v 'd �/ , 10" 0 4' +' ~ q. 0-010.5 0 �°.�'in -[ ° 0 0 0� a) m d o b ao aU Cd CO U �E�•o g ° as W tea" 3CU c c o4, biD y 3 109 4�' ~' b U) U2 441 O. d) � 'C7 � 'b 'rn CZ O � bn p uJ "� � o +a � a Q. O > q v � [� � � v �' q 4' d C7 E' R y ti a0i °' � '� 0 °�. n o c0 °' °' .0 o aa)) 0 4 b tv m 3 a4>) y A. � y °' A ' 0 ND o .� m + U . y E+ � 0 a) NOD N F, `6 >, E , 4 , y M - .d = ,� �J V a) Cd y CC E-, -� cd y of c. rn � c4 >, O p, U . a f� 4' .� •.y d, E , cti 0 C n ° O ti a) C ° 0 ,W >, o "2 � q cC h° i c°). c°4 c°. -� a�i y O. CLX r. cU0 .Cd P'a u 3 a 'C 4+ 4� hb.o U' 4. .O X to 41 a) CO ..o O U CC `S CC 0. 0 E-� 2 U C.4 O q CO 4� 4a C.4 .. 4� 0 .— __ Q Twin $418 sets Full $498 sets lueen $649 sets King .$849 sets i If�M[ [IN aecouu uC V v,J"N.,JL for Lyndale to HRA plan By Mike Westholder Staff Writer The second of three developers propos- ing to redevelop the 7600 block of Lyn- dale Avenue made its pitch to the Rich- field Housing and Redevelopment Au- thority June 16. The Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale, a limited partnership that includes sever - al owners of property on Lyndale and ar- chitect Gary Tushie, is vying for a chance to revamp the Lyndale area. - The partners own about 25 percent of the property in the redevelopment area. Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale is proposing to demolish the commercial buildings in the 7600 block and replace them with four buildings that will in- clude office and retail space. Because the partnership owns part of the property, its acquisition costs would be less than an outside developer's would be. Also, other property owners in the block may be more willing to sell their properties to their neighbors rather than going through the condemnation process. Two of the buildings, at the northern end of the block, would be one -story and offer retail space. On the south end of the block, a two -story and a three -story building would be built on either side of Lyndale. Those two taller buildings would have retail shops on the first floor and office space on the other floors. The project includes 48,000 square feet of commercial and retail space and 28,000 square feet of office space. The project includes the acquisition of adjacent homes on the west side of Garfield Avenue and the east side of Aldrich Avenue. Those 14 single- family homes would be replaced by about 60 townhouses, under the proposal. The units are projected to sell for $110,000. The proposal would include a center island on Lyndale Avenue, additional landscaping and monument signs. The retail stores will be primarily smaller, neighborhood -type shops, Tushie said. The current market value of the Lyn- dale redevelopment area is $2.4 million. The proposed project would increase the properties' value to $12.8 million. The partnership is requesting about $2.6 million in tax increment financing. A financing tool to help offset the costs of a redevelopment, TIF provides a tax break to a property, owner. During a pe- riod of 20 -25 years, the developer pays the same amount of property taxes that were charged before the development was begun. The difference between the taxes the property paid before develop- ment and what the new development would pay is the increment. Acquiring the property for the project would cost the partnership about $5.5 mil- lion. Some of those costs would be offset by the $2.6 million in Ti F. Money from the sale of the townhomes and commercial land should generate about $1.37 million. That would leave a funding gap of $1.56 million. The partnership is re- questing that the HRA provide another $1 million to reduce that gap. The partners are requesting that the HRA lend them the money to acquire the property they need. HRA members agreed to continue to work with the Mainstreet Shops on Lyn- dale but did not approve any funding or other assistance for the project. This will allow the partnership to begin discussions with property owners about how much they want for their buildings and land, Tushie said. The decision to work with the develop- er doesn't mean the HRA has made a final decision on the project, said HRA member and City Councilmember Russ Susag. "I'll support the motion with the un- derstanding that we will listen to other proposals in a timely manner," Susag said. The next proposal will come from Jack Torvick, a chiropractor whose office is in the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. Torvick was one o£the organizers of the Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale partnership but recently split off from that group. Working with executives from Richfield Bank and Trust, 'Ibrvick is developing a third alternative for the Iyndale Avenue area, tentatively dubbed RichGate Plaza. Torvick will present his proposal to the HRA July 21. His plan includes a phased process in which one building would be constructed at a time, Torvick said. The current business owners would have the opportunity to either rent or purchase their retail store, he said. Also, an association of businesses would be formed to maintain the area, said Tor- vick, who is the project's facilitator. The RichGate proposal will include re- tail and office space, but the housing aspect has not been fully developed, Torvick said. Torvick said his proposal will be worth about the same as the Mainstreet Shops on Lyndale proposal In May, Laurent -Parks Development group proposed its own project for Lyn- dale. The Wayzata -based developer pro- posed its own redevelopment project with 84,000 square feet of retail space, 36,000 square feet of office space, eight town- home units and a 150 -unit apartment building. When. completed, that project would be worth $14.7 million. It required acquisition of property through condemnation which would cost about $7.5 million. The Laurent -Parks proposal would generate $3.1 million in f tax increment financing and $642,000 from the sale of the commercial property, leaving a $3.6 million funding gap. t i rf Yi" f y� • • • Two groups vie to develop Lyndale area Developer presents proposal to HRA By Mike Westholder Staff Writer Two groups are competing for the opportunity to redevelop the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue in Richfield. One is a group of business - people who own about 57 percent of the commercial property in that block. Their organization grew out of the formation of a business association called the Shops on Lyndale. The other. is Wayzata -based Laurent -Parks Development. City planners have targeted the area for redevelopment be- cause the buildings in that block are older and decreasing in value, according to a Lyndale Av- enue Study the city conducted last year. Property value for the area is estimated at . 4.3 million, according to a city staff memo- randum. Representatives from Lau- rent -Parks presented their rede velopment concept May 19 to the Richfield Housing and Redevel- opment Authority. Members of the Shops on Lyndale group plan to present their proposal at the HRA's June 16 meeting. At that time, the HRA will consider which plan to endorse, Community Development Direc- tor Bruce Palmborg said. The Laurent -Parks $14.6 mil- lion project includes 4_� LyNDALE: To Page 3A Lyndale: Fhiwicing .issues remain From Page IA square feet of new commercial retail space, :16,000 s_(Luare feet of office space, eight lowtltonte units and 150 - _tpttrt iiient units. The apartment buildings would he fV U sKlli hand located on the soul toast end o the'7600 block of' I,vn- dale. The proposal would redesign the block with a center median island and landscaping alone; the street. The project would include the entire 7600 block of Lyndale and span front Garfield Avenue to Life east and Aldrich Avenue to the west. The Laurent -Parks plan would include about a qu44EWr_uf.a.bluck -ten the south- east side of the 7500 block of Lyndale Av- enue. Currently oil that portion of the site is Lan's Vietnamese Restaurant, a Dairy Queen and Metro Pawn and Gun Shop. City staff estimated the cost of acquir- ing the property needed for the project at $7,45 million- The developer is requesting tax incre- ment financing for the project. The max- imum amount of tax increment financ- ing; or TIF, tee project, would generate over 25 years would be,. 3.1 million. Through TI F, developers receive a por- tion of their property taxes back. That portion is the difference between the taxes the new construction project gener- ates and the taxes generated before the site was redeveloped. Even with tax increment assistance, and the revenue the developer would re- ceive from leasing the new buildings at a competitive rate, the Laurent -Parks pro- posal falls about $4 m"on short of being financially feasible, Palmborg said. The developer can't simply increase rents so high that they price themselves out of business, Palmborg said, so Laurent - I'ark will need to find a way to bridge _ that gap. The developer is looking at a varietyvf public and private Tui►tliug sout's�- s__.tu cover fife gap, Palnthorg said. The IWA is looking at its own resources to help pay the $4.3 million gap, he said. _-._ The proposal being developed by life partnership of LY11 tale property owners also contains a financing Rap. The Shops on Lyndale gap will be between $1.5 and $2 million, 11al►nhorg said. 'That project's Kap is .snniller in large part because the developers own 57 percent of the proper - Iy nodded, thus reducing their acgWsl- hon costs dramatically. lint wit hout a solution to the financing gaps, neither proposal can survive, Palm - borg said. The Shops on i ;vndale partnership is proposing to build it 70,000- square -foot, $11 million project, which will include re- placirtg some businesses and possibly renovating some buildings. Iteplacing Life buildings on the west side of Lyndale would lie two new ones ei- ther two - or three - stories tall. Renovated or new buildings would he added to Life east side of the street. The main floors would include retail space while the second and third floors would used tin• offices. Additional park- ing lots would lie constructed along side and behind Life buildings and parking would be added under the buildings. The developers plan to buy up a row of hones on the west. side of Garfield Av- enue and a row of homes on the east side of Aldrich Avenue. Those homes would be replaced by about 22 townhontes on each side of the development. The project design includes a "Festival Area" for outdoor events and a farmers' market.. At 77th Street and Lyndale; monument signs would be built with the name Main Street Shops on Lyndale. Landscaping along the street and a landscaped island in the center of Lyn- dale would be added. r--a-A I� a N �H o a� yid N a„a tn rn CA Uj ED f N P+ o d d .G: l , bD y bn � 7 p . 2s r tA a O cd ;s a y o 7P $- o � W G boQ o °� csd aDt;�-cd Uw bD 41. CA n 7 U a Xl rty ` z 3 A �a N W r cu�A�p�o�.G�p�a,Ga�GHo ,•O d°r'�� bD G a7 ,� CJl .� a, P H a> G G G U G y y v o ?; id m >r ,ds "a�oo� v A R♦ � „ 0 5 ' � w ;� ►» m 'fl bO o > ° oa o r- 3 a � � i�H + cn C3 J"C 0 v %4-. ? to) M G � . y r•, ya o '" G y'� r 6' HrH -4 ,°o a o o bn 14 ¢ a? s°+ Q o G y4 bD X- v 4E& by o. o a o ct� -md cd a� N y O• a a aGi aGi z G °' n � � baD 4- a0) H "' � °ea c o .c G ¢¢O' c o ,dera G C Po + p a C4" ,V� o ° °D o m m a cd a a 6 o y W a am " oU ai 2) y, m m •d A E^ d P' bn d d >' En V. d• nS ° y Cd p00•y o0`GUn•p U r' c�5 a °'o o^ cC ° ar a o� ° coo °un cd >r a. , ca cd v. A to G d G 3 a P. a m a t4 3 bn �y -ea • tn ro , �. y, — e `"a f& ca $. a3 � o 5 o 6°o f w D .1mv H'o to o w m P. � 'd ID A d , H U 'd G p .td a a b Q a �; °1 d �coNa�ia�A bD ,' G � � N a � m y,,, � a �d ¢'`; � � .G U _r3 m '� °�, a .- cd �'�' a 7' a� G' .,•� •C G� *•' .� � P• > y°„ y G y � y O a, Y T o Q b COSA a, t V. a 10 G �G m � ° U D O > . •cn " Hy S- , P 'e. 0 y V. t* b y y G a) +"Cd •' w o C4 c u + d + w ° U bn O ^ bAH G ma �4° - o m a m �1'i ° . v o y G ? ' °G ' u a G o y G o H G U � 4 U a :b = 3 D y ^• C N U p } , .a � 3 3 ° a G � a + = 3 .: " G ' S�= � G G s • � . o P > H N Gcd °' O Ga.i p ,+6 � ^3 °Cs , � a > te' cd d s> eo � d v U c o 0 td s-Z a t cd a O cd cd P t" G co C) G+ o ba n y '� a 0) (1) -- ° }�a y o y . a aG � � U + a)Ao cd G ° H• y uG 0 i > o• o Aa R 6 d y p,� O-Av d G y d o G t3 m:d %o•o' o o." a �' yaw o Ny - d bD as ^Q o G cd cd G to m w 'd vcd a G �aaC > ^ U p dc6 w mi$ bo a Gy 'o a pp N • 4 0 @ y� G o ¢ > a °K: Gy U p; ' ' v 'y o a 'a ° y U F yp °� .cG a y P U a a �m y °� = G p P •y G o�.° = a4 a o ,+ ;' ,.1 �" ' G m•^ a G n +, a ° H y - P. , V. P' 4o + o .o s" `o p m U P,U a, •o G m p �o m o Cq c o ao m .d C4 a �cC >, � o • ' �.a� dGi .•'� G o 3 y+d� a�i off y �dy >' .�; � � d 'G' a o � � � � 'G ,� � G 'G m �cd p t°w.� H ° � O '¢ .p ai Sa � w � � Q •• n � sn � .s o4y.�olG4)m � 0.4) o�c�G��Na�G4Acad> u, y GG � n> o Pfd o � P.+G , •.^ p mG 1 G P to -14 � a m i -64 CA m in P, c a ri, � w cd tn y �✓ ,°� 4 O't o G o' p. n. ycd ty, ° d o Cfl P •o m a v � �✓ y r a 2s G CA �� °, cd H� o a' tn P,�✓ . Cd rI1 • 7629 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH* RICHFIELD, MN 55423 - 4029 *TEL: (612) 861 -0118 FAX. (612) 861 -4648 FAX TO. Gary Tushie FROM: Jack. Torvick, Chiropractor FAX: 830 -8215 PAGES: 1 PHONE: DATE: 06/17/97 RE: 77'h & Lyndale Project CC: Steve Kirchner, Bruce Palmborg URGENT 4 FOR REVIEW V PLEASE REPLY COMMENTS: Dear Gary: I contacted the Richfield Bank after the partnership faltered to see if there was any way they could assist We in getting this project done. They put me in touch with Steve Kirchner. We were under the assumption that the partnership was over after Russ' partner decided not to commit to the project. Together we came up with a concept that would benefit all. Steve and I would like to have you be the architect. This concept calls for a master developer, Steve's organization, to assist in this process. I am acting as Project Facilitator. Phased construction will allow retention of as many tenants and owners as possible. The completed cooperative will form an association to govern and maintain the premises. If this project goes as planned we will invite tenants and owners from Lyndale Avenue to the North to join us. Then the properties to the North would be available for development. Again, this would allow retention of many current tenants and owners. Also, a businessperson's concern is "down time" when making a transition. No one wants to be out of business for six months following a total demolition of the properties. We would also like to minimize residential impact. However, we do not oppose acquisition of residential properties as necessary. Steve and especially I want you to design this project. Steve has an architect he has worked with in the past but I enjoyed working with you and feel that you are the person for the job. This will give you the opportunity to design the project and own offices in the new project if so desired. We have also discussed factoring compensation into the "soft costs" for compensating the partners for their time. We need to appear before the HRA on July 21 and meet with city officials next week. Therefore, your prompt response is necessary. Sincerely, Jack Torvick, Project Facilitator RichGate Plaza AUTO -- WORK -- INTERVERTE8RAL DISC INJURY MANAGEMENT • NEUROMUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS CORPORATION #341 e LICENSE #3217 9 ACUPUNCTURIST #i - INDEPENDENT r RICHFIELD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP The Richfield Development Partnership was formed by Steve Kirchner and Jack Torvick to facilitate this project. Questions regarding the status of this partnership are deferred to the following: Lindstrom Law Offices 7600 Parklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55435 Tel: (612) 831 -2363 Fax: (612) 831 -7358 Eric Lindstrom, J.D. Ernie Lindstrom, J.D. The partners are working to assist the current owners and tenants in the sale, trade, purchase, or lease of property in the project. Mr. Kirchner and Mr. Torvick agree to facilitate other projects in the city using this model of "friendly condemnation" if the City of Richfield agrees to work with them. Experience Mr. Kirchner has extensive experience in the area of finance. He currently is Vice President and Chief Operations Officer of the Richfield State Agency. This agency is the holding company of the Richfield Bank & Trust. The Richfield State Agency redeveloped the southwest corner of 66" and Lyndale. This project includes: Richfield Bank & Trust, McDonald's, professional offices, Woodlake Medical Clinic and. Urgent Care. They have worked on other projects in various cities. Mr. Torvick has 12 years experience in the construction industry. He worked as a foreman for 10 years and currently is President of Torvick Chiropractic, Rehabilitation & Acupuncture, LTD. Both are active Chamber of Commerce members in Bloomington and Richfield. Mr. Kirchnees company was the featured business for the Salute to Small Business, by the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, June 1997. Mr. Torvick's company was the July 1997 featured business. The Richfield Development Partnership is committed to helping small businesses. • • Associates Architect Scott Helmes, AIA Skaaden - Helmes Architects, Inc. 401 North 3' Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1334 (Note: designed Woodlake Medical Building) Option 1 RDP (Richfield Development Partnership) Contractors Per Johansen- Construction Manager Contractors Boehmer Electric Richfield Plumbing Tappe Construction - Framing Jasco Inc. - Block Minneapolis Glass Eden Prairie Nursery - Landscaping & Sprinklers Ingram Excavating Roadways - Parking Dahlen Sign Others OPTION 2 - GENERAL CONTRACTOR Kraus - Anderson Construction Company -y- Minneapolis Division Lender None. This project will be built utilizing assets of the current owners and assistance from the Richfield Bank & Trust. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF OWNERS AND TENANTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONTACTED. IF THERE IS NOTHING NEXT TO THE NAME NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE OR WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTACT THESE PERSONS. • • e • U N CL A E O U Q N Y i 0. (iS c J �► ►� o v M ca � i co :Lj of0 4) c _ 1 �arr� ... �► Z, c` cv U U a iQ aD d¢ H c W oc C r.+ N N L C N Q *t tt uNi 4 S w A 2 Ig S? 23 a> w o _m C `P tQ fMU lM0 (L m 9 9 co N (D N .n Q cli �j N N N fV N N ai a U U t0 d N W CL ? i Y y U $ E ~ ' c6 3 ii Q ui 99 0. r� 0 so `a N N tl A uri SO ID m J N a� a to _ a) to a) m O g o� ru ► g a1 a a _? • X _.1 I _l J .J J ..J J U C4 c J N IA ((DI <A to (O to (1 (ND (NA to to (D (MD N tD t D lA W h- r 1`- 1` h h- �� h. 1�- %+ f� 1. h h h h 1.. 1•� 1� C-1 4' Cb Ob On PG! pv of N N pJ N (V N c Cl i �J. �f D Y a t [ i 3 t) Vt G U to i{ c �► K o C iA �. � d `�� w of � �► n U U N Cis a) o� L N cv ' +' G 3 n � (0 L U' D Y a t [ i 3 t) Vt G U to i{ c �► K o C iA N N a� L U (il (76 9 an y, 13 " r-- r- 1` i, to m ai y i 4 d t•- .� M � �r N c> �. � d `�� w of � �► n O �9? 1rj N Cis a) N N a� L U (il (76 9 an y, 13 " r-- r- 1` i, to m ai y i 4 d t•- .� M � �r N c> �. � d `�� w of � �► n �9? 1rj N N a� L U (il (76 9 an y, 13 " r-- r- 1` i, to m ai y i 4 d t•- .� M � �r N c> �. � d `�� w of � �► L N N a� L U (il (76 9 an y, 13 " r-- r- 1` i, to m ai y i 4 d t•- .� M � �r N c> CL m U U r c3 � NE C � � l CCCv � CL 0. O .= Y � v U � C �a p m y+ C N L9 [1 ca v 3 t��i a mono d �� y U E W J a� � N ►- '� d, ,� � Q �1; �C Q d d d Q Q Q a, m N p, N (li M M tD � lU to tp l0 Q7 M $ cA �D � to N lD y r- c1f 4 �• N N N N N N � � Ob 0 PAYING FOR REDEVELOPMENT: Local Governments Must Pay Relocation Costs When Condemning Property: Shama A. Walilgren When the government takes private property for r^� _ ayi public use, whose r _ ®��jJ responsibility is it to pay the cost of relocating lho displaced citizens' personal property and the miscellaneous costs associated with moving a be ;mess to a new location? Minnesota has ar:opted laws that require the government to pay e expenses and provide a number of other _ .ices for the occupants of condemned property. To avoid problems in condemnation, local governments should be familiar with the benefits and services to which property owners are entitled. This article describes some of the benefits and services that the government must provide in order to comply with Minnesota law. Required Acquisition Policies The acquiring authority must, as soon as feasible, notify the property owner of the authority's interest in acquiring the real property and the basic protections provided to the owner by law. Before the government makes an offer for the property, it must obtain an appraisal of the property to be acquired and must make a written offer for the full amount of the appraisal. Along with the appraisal, the authority must give the owner a statement explaining the basis for the offer. Once the offer is made, the authority must negotiate with the owner and attempt to avoid a tested condemnation proceeding. The property .er must be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in conveying the property to the acquiring authority except costs associated with perfecting title. Relocation Rights As soon as feasible, a person to be displaced must be given a written description of the- acquiring authority's relocation program. Sorneone who is displaced by a,governmental taking is entitled to payment of actual moving and related expenses. This includes: transporting personal property up to 50 miles; packing and unpacking; disconnecting and reinstalling appliances, machinery and equipment; storage of personal property for up to one year; insurance for damage; and replacement value of property damaged while moving. Businesses are entitled to: reimbursement for any license, permit or. certification required at the replacement location; professional services required for planning the move; re- lettering signs and replacing stationery; and, costs incurred in attempting to sell an item that is not to be relocated. Businesses are allowed to purchase substitute personal property if it is not moved and promptly replaced. Expenses up to $1,000 are paid to reimburse the expenses associated with searching for a replacement location. There are a number of specific items for which reimbursement is not required, including: the cost of moving a structure;' interest on a loan to cover moving expenses; loss of goodwill; loss of profits; loss of trained employees; additional operating expenses of a business or farm operation incurred because of operating in a new location; personal injury; and, legal fees incurred for preparing a claim for a relocation payment. As an alternative to actual relocation expenses, a business may choose a fixed payment which is based on the business' annual net earnings. The fixed payment is based on a standard formula and cannot be less than $1,000 or more than $20,000. Re- establishment Expenses Small businesses are entitled to payments to help get established in a new location. These payments, referred to as re- establishment expenses, include reimbursement (not to exceed $10,000) for actual expenses related to items such as., repairs and modification to the replacement property; signage; feasibility surveys: soil testing; marketing studies; advertisement of relocation: and, increased cos' operating during the first two years. The rules that apply when the government takes land from a citizen for public use are extensive and complicated. Failure to understand these rules has consequences for both the land owner and the government acquiring the property. if the authority fails to understand and correctly implement these rules, the authority runs the risk of losing important financing for its project. To ensure that the rules are followed, the government and landowner are best served by retaining counsel with experience in relocation matters. Shanty A. Wahlyrer is .0 member of the real estate litigation practice at Larkin, Hoffman, Daly £t Lindren, Ltd. She is profiled on page 4. -1997h,k, WHffm , D. 1, F,unegr -,I,d I -irkln l- lnffnign Dnh%fl Ilndwen Itrl • 1 �5 OA WIn • • Concept Over two hundred interviews with tenants, owners, and area residents, were conducted by Mr. Torvick. These interviews were compiled to come up with a concept that would benefit all. Additional information was obtained by Internet and literature searches. The following concept has been proven, tested and is the current trend in city planning. It is based on the concept of "new urbanism." It is similar to the composite Richfield was given concerning the Richfield Lake area. Use Market Value S . Feet # Units Total S . Ft. Condominium <$75,000 825 9 7425 Condominium >$75,000 1100 12 13,200 Retail <$150,000 800 30 24,000 Retail >$150,000 1200 30 36,000 Office <$150,000 800 30 24,000 Office >$1 50,000 1200 30 36,000 Fixed Income Senior $40,000 825 27 22,275 Senior Apartments $60,000 1100 36 39,600 Total 202,500 Structures: 4 - 3 story buildings. Parking: 600 spaces (60% underground) Buildings will have retail and office space facing Lyndale. Housing will be on the opposite side facing away from Lyndale. The center of the project can be used for a gazebo, fanner's market, ice rink, etc. The use will be determined by the occupants rather than build something that will not be used. Lyndale Avenue will not be accessible from the parking areas. All traffic will be diverted to 7T" and 7e Streets. The transition between residential homes is the parkway effect. This will create an open plaza that incorporates the existing homes into the project. Total Units Market Value Housing 84(41%) 4,815,000 Commercial 120(59%) 18,000,000 Total 204 ' 22,815,000 Structures: 4 - 3 story buildings. Parking: 600 spaces (60% underground) Buildings will have retail and office space facing Lyndale. Housing will be on the opposite side facing away from Lyndale. The center of the project can be used for a gazebo, fanner's market, ice rink, etc. The use will be determined by the occupants rather than build something that will not be used. Lyndale Avenue will not be accessible from the parking areas. All traffic will be diverted to 7T" and 7e Streets. The transition between residential homes is the parkway effect. This will create an open plaza that incorporates the existing homes into the project. TIMETABLE SEPTEMBER 1997 - BEGIN AQUISITION & DEMOLITION 11 COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES & 1 RESIDENTIAL ALREADY NEGOTIATED AND WAITING FOR APPROVAL MARCH 1998 - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION BEGINS & PHASE 2 ACQUISTION /DEMOLITION SEPTEMBER 1998 - PHASE 2 MARCH 1999 - PHASE 3 SEPTEMBER 1999 - PHASE 4 JANUARY 2000 - PROJECT COMPLETED This concept will support a variety of businesses. Interested businesses include: Beauty salon Secretarial Temp Agency Attorney Bank Chinese Restaurant Copy Center Automotive Realty Cleaners Barber Chiropractic Office Grocery Insurance Gift Shop , Robert Lurtsema Recommendations and Requests Coffee /Bagel Deli Ice cream Pizza Music Film developing Shoe store Fountain pop /candy Specialty bakery Night club (comedy, etc.) Aerobics /Dance studio Postal center VonHansen Meats and others. Patrons would include: Mom's & kids Parents Elderly Kids Business people Couples Travelers and more 0 DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THE CONCEPT 7 y p ie ;? u C G N G C G y -G G c N G +' +� `` v CKI G m 3 v 's � v- y G -� co > 1 O i u ✓ O G. .� y a� O T -� a X. Ca � cti Q.) c(S cs ce ' m c%1 M •✓ N� 3 E" -v ct O G ti dj En 41 CO G .ry., ✓ 6J G v.) y,,, a.+ y :. ,r ✓ CC U v 4J i 41 N C DA N .Q �.. cd d o� cd G CC, v ° Q ^c7 O G v U =a i ^� G. CCa �_ y N G r N G w. co u .?� ty- ✓ r m O m u r-' 3 - O y� - 3 y o. ✓ c y N .- ca c y; G x u y e N Q .� .� cs 3 N y to y � J ct a v y .� - o y y vi G. 3 co > - v O to r '> ' y ? r C M v C6 3 Grr N %. CC i... [,•, v N DA V -O Q ,� ay.+ t��. O G G y r �� O y °� v may. r y G` y �r- U � � 6J � N [y � [ N G i.. U � ✓ � G y y @ ✓ �„ b r G G n i O 'i7 N G H G C. r� G i CC V r y N N C y ✓ �-+ ,.�.. V y y ..+ r. y ...< s.- S �.. G tea.! i-. ✓ y y y G ti r y ^Y ✓ G r ` -a G N G ✓ a�.J .�- ✓ �.:. "� r y @ W N Q v y u A L Z}0 ✓ CCr �J f. 7. G r•�, j �".p 4v 3 .'�0 1-++ v. yJ' G .� G, y f... N � X ^� � ,� � U L. r ✓ ✓ y � N � CE r >~ vNi � y r � � C ✓ y U N N y G N yC ^r„ f- CC J G .� ,cVJ i G r: 'J x G '_.+ ✓ crC ai _� ,J mm Lo G :A y G ✓ y` uV> -� U O G f N 6J . G �"' �' .x N y ✓ y s� S G u r ✓ Q N N CJ y G V y r y r G U y 7 w r ev G G O U >~ G T 'B G r :� u' of N 'v' J (C y ✓ G .y y y •✓ G =� G r v L r rC c y .G ✓ Q G G (C N N ,� y N v 5D 61rr >•. U_ •,n n v y G. ^ N h . r ^- " vy ti- S r �+.. ,� - G v "6 CTi � � � G ^. � l+ t�tl G i !r. � f^ ^t3 � G• • � � � G r f y vv G i Y r T y y N .� ✓n cC s- G G ✓ r .� cC ' J v✓i s" r N G N r rC N yJ G i- N UA I— I X r n 'u ct CL y ✓ y i..- �.. ,yf., 'p C i ✓ �J a,, :+ G CC y �� Z7- G y y Z 7 r G v v yi U y u In � 1 � �+ �' v � G .� �, QJ N : � ay.+ •� � bD M rG G. u" ,� � � 3 .� cs ° ' � u ✓ N yC u✓ Q UO Cn N C') 0 -LS i CJ cc U 'faiIII?'i. ct N" y T � � .. � u ✓ --• ytl1� .a n G G ..SL y CG i.. [C tv` T. CJ 7E . � �k � � � ►r- G � � 6J � O N ter-. _ f , !4 t11� a 'C6 C � S � . .� .., G m N r, G ✓ s~ - } CC ✓ G✓C CD -71 w � t G �C6 G .� y CD. Cd 00 y N co p� u 16 G w [ ..� OLD l w LL v ry �O -r cp New Urbanism Lawrence UniversilY, 1.1-1 What is New Urbanism? New Urbanism is a movement in city planning that puts people and the environment back in to city designs. New Urbanism is based on a return to the traditional town designs of before World "War 11. It recogi,iizes the problem of suburban sprawl and the breakdown of the community while incorporating convenience, walkability, ascetics, livability, end ecological integrity into a city plan. Basically, it takes the automobile out of its place of prominence in most city plans and replaces it with people. Neotraditionalism replaces the suburban sprawl common to most cities with walkability and convenience. Cities designed_ "through new urbanism are set up in a modified grid pattern of streets, thereby avoiding the.cul -du -sac phenomenon and the congested traffic and decreases walkability it brings. with it. Most cities also employ urban growth boundaries that set a limit on the growth of a city in order to avoid the problems of suburban sprawl clown the road, "I'his grid life pattern. encourages systematic growth that does not quickly ma;Y out as in �i�any. suburbs. (Post, 1 �?9�l) A new urbanism city also employs a mixed use of .space by juxtaposing t�usi less and residential together. 'Phis increases con as well as creates a more efficient use of the space. For example, one might find Clats located on top or store fronts with row and/or detached houses next door. o1`4 7/27/97 8;46 • • — .. uniutsm nett urwitlsut.lttu The new urbanist city usually includes a town square as well. This is the center of activity and may include cultural, social, or religious places to gather as well as shops, public transportation hubs, schools and city offices.The town center, or town square, is usually at the most a quarter mile, five minute, walk from the outskirts of the city. This distance is set to encourage walking and discourage unneeded automobile use (Post, 1994). By encouraging pedestrianism and discouraging automobile use,, new urbanism decreases the cities automobile air pollution. In larger cities, these smaller units can reflect neighborhoods each connected within themselves and between neighborhoods by walkways; bicycle paths and streets. The streets inside each neighborhood or smaller city are modified themselves. They are Harrower and encourage on street parking or the use of alleys to discourage heavy or last moving traffic. In addition, the side walks, in a neotraditional city, are on average one foot wider and their curb radii are decreased to promote as well as facilitate their use by pedestrians. Finally, speed limits in neotraditional cities are reduced, on average, to around 15 -20 miles per hour to again dissuade car usage as well as make streets more safe for the pedestrian. (Post, 1994) Z of 4 7127/97 8:47 I'M 4 This photograph is from The ENR May 9, 1994. New Urbanism also embraces ascetics and livability in its cities. Communities built under new urbanism are marked by neighborhood distinction and character while avoiding a faked "old" look.(Post, 1994) A city is built with ascetic gathering places and recreational facilities along with special attention paid to neighborhood beautification. Therefore, the streets are tree lined, common areas planted, and parking lots are kept to a minimum. These communities are also marked with many restrictions to preserve this ascetic charm, for instance it is often prohibited to have garages facing the street. (Newsweek 1995, 15 Ways...) New urbanism does not just reflect a neotraditional town in appearance but in atmosphere as well. One of the purposes of new urbanism is to create a return to the strong community ties enjoyed by most small towns before World War 11. Therefore, the city is designed with community interaction in mind. Designers attempt to generate a "sense of place" within the community by strategical placing gazebos, religious buildings, commons areas, restaurants etc.... This, increased interaction among its citizens, is meant to create a more dynamic community with high levels of community commitment resulting in a safer and friendlier place to live. (Langdon, 1988) (Patton, 199 1) This atmosphere is a result of the community's walkability and its high density mixed use design. By creating a walkable community with accessible resources the chance for interaction is increased. In order to achieve the'goals of walkability and increased social interaction anew urbanist community is designed as a high density community. Neotraditional communities are on average, six residential units per acre where as most suburban communities have one unit per acre. To achieve this high density, lawns are reduced, there is no minimum a building must be set back, and housing is mixed with other nonresidential buildings.(Langdon, 1988) This reduces the environmental impact by decreasing the amount of land used by development. Most new urbanist cities are designed from scratch but some degree of retrofit is possible. Retrofitting is "especially successful in dealing with conventional shopping malls. Their huge surface parking lots can easily be replaced by ramps and the left over land can be converted into a series of quaint streets with shops. Cities themselves, however, are less successful because streets are already in place and there are usually regulations concerning lot size and land usage (i.e. no mixed development) (Post, 1994). 3 or4 7/27/97 8:47 PM nup ancww. prospect- newtown.convhistory.html A recent poll identified urban sprawl as the number one concern among Front Range residents. All projections indicate that economic expansion will continue to fuel population growth. Given the need to house more people, is there an alternative to sprawl? A planning movement called the New Urbanism says "Yes." Founded in the middle 1989s by architects and planners in California and Florida, the New Urbanism attempts to revive the features that make pre -World War II towns such a treasure today. These include: • Tree lined streets hospitable to non - drivers such as children, seniors and bicyclists. • Downtown's that are the civic, economic and spiritual centers of their communities. • Homes that put people- places out front and car and garages out back. • Compact lay -outs so each home is a five minute walk from school, parks and shops. • Smaller parking lots, streets and house lots that take up less space in the region and complement existing towns. New Urban communities already have been built in California, Canada, Florida, Maryland, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The smallest is Seaside, Florida, at 80 acres. The largest Celebration, Florida, is 4,900 acres. Projects are planned or underway in Alabama, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington. The movement has been extensively described and praised in such publications as The Atlantic, Newsweek, and Time. Colorado's first New Urban development is rapidly rising on 80 acres in Longmont. The site of Prospect New Town is a former tree farm whose leftover trees are being used to create a shady, mature landscape. Prospect was laid out during a multi -day public workshop held at the Longmont Opera House in January, 1994. This process was led by town planner Andres Duany, a founder of the New Urbanism, When laying out a New Urban town, Duany not only places the streets and parks, but he creates "codes ", which are like a design roadmap that requires homebuilders to create a cohesive place. Does this really add up to a different way of building and of living? Again, the answer is yes. Let's compare point by point. Streets New Urban Town: Narrower, straighter, tree - lined, shaded, connect neighborhoods to services Typical suburb: Wider, curvy, no trees or sidewalks, cul -de -sacs Shops/offices/services New Urban Town: Located within a short walk, bike or drive from homes on a 0 1 pedestrian- friendly shady street. f2 7/27/97 8:29 PM hup://www.prospect-newtow-n.com/Iiistory.htm Typical suburb: Can only be reached by car; located behind large, sun- beaten parking lots Parks New Urban, Town: Small, dispersed, close to every front door Typical suburb: Large, centralized, accessible mainly by car Houses New Urban Town: Different sizes and styles on one street; facade dominated by entry or porch; rental units above garage in back; shade trees ar r' gardens complement lawn Typical suburb: Only one size and style on a street; facade nominated by garage; small ornamental but no shade trees Logistics New Urban Town: Kids walk to school and parks; convenience shopping, public buildings located within a short walk of every home. Typical suburb: The expense of one car per adult is a must; 10 -12 cars trips a day; no shopping, services or jobs close by; poor connections to these areas What kind.of lifestyle awaits prospective buyers at Prospect? For starters, expect to know your neighbors. The design of both houses and public spaces will encourage interactions, not isolation. Expect a good investment. Demand has driven housing prices higher than the local market in several New Urban developments. Finally, expect to wear out shoes more frequently and your car less often. Kiki Wallace is the co- developer of Prospect New Town. HOME 2 of 2 7/27197 8:29 PM titip://iN-ww.gbn.org/BookCiub/UrbaWsm.htnd 1= Book 0 iNTELLECTUALTOOLS FORTHEYEARSAHEAD May 1994 THE NEW URBANISM: Toward an Architecture of Community Peter Katz; McGraw-HILL, 1994; 288 pages; ISBN 0 -07 -033889 -2. NEO- TRADITIONAL communities, "walkable" communities, "transit- oriented" communities -- whatever the name, they are the most appealing (and successful) theory of town design in decades. Their common features are high density, mixed use, car- taming stratagems, grid streets, and public service buildings and spaces on. the prime lots. Ideally, kids can walk to school, to the playground, to dance class. Adults can walk to work, to the town hall, to the supermarket, to the movies. Mass transit is available within a five minute walk, with at most a ten minute wait for a ride. In the 1980s, parents got tired of driving the kids to karate class (so they could defend themselves at school) and began to long for the kind of community they grew up in. Just about that time, planners like Andres Duany and his wife Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk, Peter Calthorpe, and others were rediscovering I* the virtues of back alleys (put the garage back there), grid streets (multiple routes anywhere), street -)arking (separates traffic from pedestrians), and street - hugging front porches (civilizes the street itself). They discovered that the barrier to making civilized neighborhoods was city codes that had been written for the convenience of automobiles. All they had to do was figure out and then enforce codes that were convenient for pedestrians, and the rest was easy. When people can walk their community, they feel safe, they feel they know people (via "nodding acquaintance "), they feel part of something. I saw Peter Calthorpe learn that from a closely - packed houseboat community we lived in. He went on to apply the lesson to new town developments and urban neighborhood revival. Another great influence on these planners, I. suspect, is the huge success of the building preservation movement. One of the things in short supply lately is a vision of desirable futures. Here's a whole bookfull. -- Stewart Brand Quoted from the text: The following are the principles of an ideal neighborhood design: 1),The neighborhood has a center and an edge; 2) The optimal size of a neighborhood is a quarter mile from center to edge; 3) The neighborhood has a balanced mix of activities -- dwelling, shopping, working, schooling, worshipping and recreating; 4) The neighborhood structures building sites and traffic on a fine network of 0 terconnecting streets; 5) The neighborhood gives priority to public space and to the appropriate 7/27/97 8:26 PM location of public buildings. - -Duany and Plater - Zyberk ■ litip://www.gbn.org/BookCIub/lJrbanism.html The town of Windsor, for example, by Duany and Plater - Zyberk, with two polo fields, is aimed at as rich a clientele as exists. It offers "estate" houses around a golf course and others along the shore. In the center, however, is a tightly gridded town, and that is where every client so far has wanted to be. So the rich, who can choose, choose community, or at least its image. How much more must the poor, who depend upon it for their lives, want community? -- Vincent Scully [ May 1994 Book Club Newsletter Front Page ] [ Book Club ( List by Author ( List by Title ( List by Year.( Search ( Amazon.com Selections ] [ GBN Home Page ( GBN Services ( Scenario Planning ( GBN Book Club j Index ] GLOBAL BUSINESS NETWORK © Copyright 1997 Global Business Network If you have further questions about GBN, please send mail to: matrixC&,gbn.org;. ae 2 of 2 7/27/97 8:26 PM a 0 References Barker, Roger. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior, Stanford University Press, California, 1971. Commercial Real Estate Reporter - Trends and Analysis: Competition Causes a Borrowers Market, World Wide Web, 1997. Cottom- Winslow, Margaret: Environmental Design: The Best of Architecture and Technology, The Library of Applied Design, New York, 1990. Gallagher, Winifred: The Power of Place: How Our Surroundings Shape Our Thoughts, Emotions, and Actions, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993. Hiss, Tony: The Experience of Place: A Completely New Way of Looking and Dealing With Our Radically Changing Cities, Knopf, New York, 1990. Kunstler, James Howard: Home from Nowhere: Remaking Our Everyday World for the 2V Century. Moore, Charles: Water and Architecture, Abrams, 1994. Re/Max Statistics/Trends: Real Estate Market News, World Wide Web, 1997. Schor, Juliet: The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, World Wide Web, 1997 Swan, James: Nature as Teacher and Healer: How to Re- awaken Your Connection, Villard, New York, 1992. Westholder, Mike: Second Developer Pitches Plan for Lyndale to HRA, Richfield Sun- Current, Wednesday, June 25,1997. Whaley, R.: Summary Scenarios from the Business Trends Library, World Wide Web, 1997. A ColulioSitC li1a1111ing More than 50 reSldCntS Mid bUSI1lCSS • A park-llkl' C01111C'Ctloll IS CI-CiltCd� Collce'l)t fU1' tilt' Richfield Lalic' People Criti(lued tWO diffLTUIlt 'I he betWCC11 Richfield I.ikc and 114x1 Lake. planning concepts on June 3. (71'07 will be the topic of 1711 best features of each of those con - August 18 llicctilig of flit' cepts were then combined for a • l;nlries into the Nichfieid Lake Richfield Housing composite concept which was 29 area 11,0111 the rellecl the reviewed al the July meeting. Character of the lakes. Rctic'z)c'lopnicnt Authority, City Council, Planning 'I he planning concept elements that • l ,ithering spates at Ri,hlicid Lake Commission and Coll111111111tt/ cunllnunity members ranked are small, nuue passi\ e and "garden " highest June31IiCIUCied those 1vhiCh like. Scrvices Coil missiolt. incorporated nature into design, orlelltC'd hoUS11lg to (lie lake, and • I he character OI c,t,tll Street and The meeting Neill give the Richfield linked storefronts and streets with I Ildale A\ enue is enhanced by policyniakers a chance to review sidewalks rather than parking lots. pockets of "nature" -- more like and comment on the planning the character of I.vndale Avenue concept. It was developed based on Asa result of that feedback, the kev adja«'nt to Wood Lake. CC1111111CUllty crl,tigUe Of plarlilli11g iCatUrCS of the Co111poSlle p1,111111rig coIlcepts at Julie 3 and July 29 colicept preSClltCd at the JUIV 29 l he Composite Planning coI C'pt working sessions. meeting were: also dCSignatcd potential land uses within the study area. A developer The joint August 18 meeting will be • The most intensely dUVCIOpcd area Consultant fl-0111 RORIUlld I tomes at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chant- — "tile core" — is bounded by a avas oil hand to talk about ideas hers of City Ha1L parkway that separates it from the for housing. less intensely dCVClopcd IlollSill The Richfield Lake area study began areas. � he September )out- Cite newsletter in February and is a planning effort will fealure a report from the to address neighborhood impacts • A parkway unifies the entire area, August 18 meeting and more detail and capitalize on opportunities to linking parts of the Richfield Lake from the July 29 meeting, which was meet community needs and keep area that are east of Lyndale held After this newsletter went to the area vital. Avenue and south of 66th Stre ' . print. For more information, contact Richfield Planning Consultant Fred_ ''Having a plan will ensure that the • Development within the core is I loisington, o changes in the Richfield Lake area organized to provide, consistency x`135- 9`)6(1. O are the ones we want — the ones between sites and to provide that keep the conull>_ulity vital," said pedestrian connections between Mayor Martin Kirsch. sidewalks and storefronts. Ken Meter 7415 Humboldt Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 telephone (612) 869 -8664 internet <kmeterOigc.apc.org> 22 January, 1.997 John Melin Community Development Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear John: I appreciate your openness in our December 20, 1996, discussion concerning the development of 76th and Lyndale during our meeting. I look forward to working with you. You asked for a letter outlining some of the approaches I would take at the intersection, and I will sketch those here. I am speaking both as a Richfield native - my family has lived at this address continuously since 1949, and of course once relied heavily:-on stores at this intersection - and also as a professional economic development consultant - I have worked with Twin City region community groups for over 25 years, since 1988 focusing on local economic development issues. First off, let me say that I was pleased to find that "The Lyndale Gateway" document is a subtle and sensitive effort to examine the issues and potentials of redevelopment at the intersection. I was especially pleased with the work of the Richfield Planning Commission in developing the Guiding Principles listed on page 13 -14. I am pleased with the hope this may become a "commercial village" rather than a strip mall. I like how the document is able to bring together the work of a variety of consultants and stakeholders into a single presentation. Those questions that are addressed seem very well addressed.. _ At the same time, I am deeply concerned that several key issues seem to have been neglected in the process of developing this vision for the intersection: (1) There is almost no analysis of the assets present, either at the current site or in the surrounding neighborhood (see page 2). Rather the intersection is posed as deficient, as a problem to be solved, instead of an area with strong potential. In my experience overlooking the positives almost always frustrates community -based planning efforts and leads to inappropriate solutions. Among the assets of the existing buildings and stores that I can see from my own limited perspective are: (a) A strong cluster of neighborhood -based retail stores and services. (b) A core cluster of ethnic -based businesses (Asian, Vietnamese, Scandinavian, Latino, Chinese) that also express a powerful "gateway" concept: that Richfield's consistent efforts to attract students of color to the schools, and to address human rights issues as a city, have paid off. This gateway expresses a solid welcome to people who once felt excluded from Richfield. New development could reverse this image if inappropriately done. Mr. John Melin, page 2 22 January, 1997 (c) An interesting mix of neighborhood -based and regional stores operating in storefronts that once served the needs of local customers. (d) Architecture which expresses a historical period in Richfield's development, and which holds memory for those who live here. (e) Hundreds of years of committment of many storekeepers and property owners, whose investment in Richfield's "human capital" is substantial and irreplaceable. (f) Solid incubator space for new businesses who cannot afford market -rate rents. (g) As the study mentions, this is an important public transit destination that could become an even more substantial transfer point. Clearly there are many other assets to be considered, and a proper public process will identify these in a way no single person can. If we were to overlook these assets we would risk destroying them with no compensating development of capacity. To acknowledge these assets allows us to plan replacement of losses that must be endured for the sake of progress. (2) The thrust of the report on Lyndale as a "gateway" to Richfield is interesting and important, but this focuses on the needs of non - residents rather than on the people who already live here and have set roots here. People in my block don't need to be reminded where Richfield starts and stops, we need gathering points where we can meet each other informally outside of our homes, and we can make use of stores where we can shop with less dependence on our cars. The alleged "need" of presenting an external image is clearly placed above the requirements of local residents in this report. (3) It is a fallacy to say the current businesses are "not competitive in the marketplace." Clearly, all existing firms are in business, and many fill important local and regional niches. These niches may even be more appropriate than the alternatives being considered. Existing stores may survive in this marketplace longer than new commercial tenants that may be brought in. Nor is it clear tome that current businesses are "less desirable merchants." Such language does nothing to build community in Richfield. (4) The number of residents consulted in seeking out planning suggestions is still too limited. Two public meetings simply is not enough, and 60 people should not be asked to shoulder the entire discussion for a market area that may consist of well over 10,000 consumers. Despite the face that resident and business involvement is seen as a primary objective of the project, surprisingly few residents have been meaningfully engaged. The list of "neighborhood - oriented businesses prepared by the consultants seems like a good one. It would seem wise to ask.local residents which of those options they are most likely to support by shopping: (5) Moreover, the role of residents in the discussion should be far stronger. There is still a tendency to view consumers as passive people in the development process - people who perhaps have a few ideas that need to be considered in order to avoid political fallout later, rather than more properly as the central people who should guide the development. Bringing in thousands. of people into shaping the plan of this intersection could be an incredibly powerful community - building tool It could generate creative and effective ideas for new stores to:be developed and new ways of using the land. It could - assure loyalty of local consumers to the stores that are sited and eventually will be sited at the intersection. Such a process could develop strong civic pride and sense of ownership in Richfield, which will help draw people into broader public, participation. I would encourage a far more comprehensive effort including block -level meetings, surveys, Mr. John Melin, page 3 22 January, 1997 door -to -door canvassing, and other techniques that allow residents to decide what will be on the menu of choices, not'simply,to choose from a menu written by someone else. (6) In particular, it seems highly questionable to do such a study without making determined efforts to bring in residents of the Century Court apartments fully into the discussion. There are perhaps as many residents living in Century Court as there are in the entire neighborhood of single family homes between Lyndale and I -35W. They are potentially among the most loyal potential shoppers at the intersection, since they live within easy walking distance. Given that a multi -use development is being contemplated it seems imperative to accurately assess the consumer needs of apartment dwellers nearby. Otherwise, how will we know what kinds of services will be needed by new apartment residents? Aren't shoppers from Century Court precisely the people who could be the key client base for new shops at the intersection? (7) To make such a commercial rehabilitation succeed, the expertise of many more of my own neighbors needs to be brought into the process. There are so many elderly people here who know shopping patterns and the potential for local stores who have not been asked. The prevailing view of people on my block still seems to be that "they will build whatever they want anyway." Such an attitude, even if it were uninformed, does nothing to promote commercial success at the node. (8) I also see no analysis in this report of how this important commercial development could help to shape a stronger local economy in Richfield and Bloomington. The assumption of this report is that the local community is merely passive; i.e., it should define itself as a market and respond to the "needs" of the marketplace. However, the history of this intersection proves just the opposite: these stores were built in the first place, not simply to respond to a market, but to help build a community. Richfield homeowners once built businesses here, investing their time, talents and money in the local community. This was a place where there neighborhood built wealth. It shaped many of the economic choices local residents had. At one time, we could save time and money by shopping locally when the family car was away on business. We got to know the store owners and managers personally, and they helped weave a strong fabric of community. Important social bonds have always been formed in these stores. The barber and beauty salons in the area provide crucial gathering points where issues are discussed and neighborly relations maintained. Gossip and news has always been exchanged at local restaurants. This is a commercial district where I used to solicit donations for school activities, where I painted Halloween decorations on storefront windows, and where I sought job opportunities. Building such cohesive networks of neighbors is an intimate part of the area's commercial potential. It is critical that we support existing firms and bring in new businesses that will help rebuild this sense of cohesion. To seize best advantage of this land, we need to look far more thoroughly at the local economy in which it operates. Are incomes improving or declining, and what does this say about the consumer choices people will make? How is the Richfield workforce changing? Are home -based businesses on the increase, as they are in South Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center, and should this development be in part tailored to the needs of local home -based firms? Do we want to encourage a stronger non - profit sector so local residents have better access to services? Mr. John Melin, page 4 22 January, 1997 Far more data needs to be collected regarding the local economy that already exists Li the area surrounding 76th and Lyndale, so we can answer such questions, and so we can gauge how best to make this development a powerful economic engine that serves the needs of local people. (9) This also raises questions about the long -term future of the local economy: Will gasoline prices rise to European levels, which more accurately reflect the true cost of fuel? If so, will this force consumers to reduce their driving? Could we envision stores that help reduce the costs of living in Richfield? Will future home buyers do what urban buyers are already doing, and search for homes that allow walking to stores offering local essentials? Will the investment Richfield makes in this development build any wealth that stays in the community? How will we be able to monitor the impact of this development on the city? We have a very rare opportunity to plan for a long -term future in a way that was never done when the intersection was first developed. We have more public resources, far more experience in development, and a far stronger sense of the balance of private and public investment that is required to build a stable community than our leaders had in the 1940s. On the other hand, they may have been better equipped to think for the long term than we are. If we do not accept the challenge of planning for a sustainable cluster of businesses that can meet the needs of local residents 100 years from now, someone else will have to shoulder that task, perhaps with even fewer resources at their disposal. (10) In line with planning for the long term, I would like to see a far more searching analysis of the special needs that and seniors may have in future commercial development. Finally, I want to make a few modest suggestions in response to the report. These are merely for whatever value they may have in injecting creative ideas into the planning process. (1) Although I love the beautiful rendering of the 77th Street intersection, and I love the idea of building a series of storefronts with unified architecture, the streetscape is misleading in minimizing the impact of traffic and traffic signaling and signage to the intersection. Traffic and parking concerns should be integral to the actual design. The images presented us should reflect the reality there will be a lot of cars passing through day to day. To me, this diagram suggests that walkable, pedestrian- friendly spaces can best be built at a distance from the roadway. The pocket plazas suggested by the designers sound like a good way to do this, as does backing the storefronts off of Lyndale. Some further attention may be needed to prevent this from separating the west side from the east side of Lyndale perhaps a walking /biking bridge could help define the "gateway." (2) It might be interesting to look at a store like El Burrito, on Concord Street in St. Paul's West Side, as a prototype for either reuse of an existing building, or as a model for new construction. This redeveloped furniture store now houses four separate businesses under one roof. grocery store, cafeteria /deli serving line with tables, bakery, and gift shop. It is an important community gathering point as well as an efficient use of space that lowers rents for all businesses concerned. Its tables are near a south - facing window so there is a warm convivial spot for neighbors to gather. The businesses seem highly successful and appear to excel in hiring local people. Although this development is clearly targeted to a Latino population, similar concepts can be applied to creating a development that matches the interests and cultural backgrounds of the population that lives (or will live) near this intersection in Richfield. Mr. John Melin, page 5 22 January, 1997 (3) I am wary of the design firm's suggestion that the west side of 76th street be developed as the early stager This poses a risk that this development may merely expand the Shops of Lyndale to the north, offering more regional destination stores, limiting the options for adding cleverly- chosen neighborhood retail stores. (4) It seems that the south face of the development along Lyndale, with its potential for sunny windows and vistas to the sky, may. be the most suitable spot for community gathering points like coffee houses, cafes, or delis, providing these spaces can be effectively insulated from the noise and visual clutter of the traffic on the freeway and 77th Street. (5) I encourage the City to explore the possibility of adding public art to the streetscape and interior spaces. (6) I love the consultants' suggestions for an outdoor restaurant on a pocket plaza. (7) I strongly support the farmers market concept as well. Clearly, I would be interested in meeting with city staff, developers and others to help explore some of these options. I can also offer the services of Crossroads Resource Center as consultants if that is useful to the process, in particular to perform an economic analysis, to assist in surveying local residents and businesses, or to consult with city staff on a public participation process. I enclose a summary of an economic report from one Minneapolis neighborhood. I will contact you within a week to see what the next steps may be. Sincerely, Ken Meter El Under Construction. Required'. 1 v v ATTACHMENT G EXISTING CONDITIONS U I i 1 � 1 1I S1 227 �• -10 �IW Ave. 1� f Ll e � � ID b i tom J a N I u< - a -/ Lyn ole Ave. i 463 449 j 451 V vm b F i ii i{ m� wOw. li > II1 I S,A ST - y►r. l._L T � � j� � 23c2:�►O S� Ave. 4 �❑ a Ii k o HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 49 Agenda August 18, 1997 Issue Statement: Public hearing and authorization to sell 6633 Washburn Avenue to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc. (SMG Homes) for Richfield Rediscovered single family home development. Background: The HRA purchased the triple lot at 6633 Washburn Avenue for Richfield Rediscovered new home development. The lots at 6629 and 6637 have been previously authorized by the HRA to be sold. This last lot, 6633 Washburn Avenue, is planned to be part of the Parade of Homes Spring Preview. The HRA granted a Right of Entry to Steven Marlin Grant Homes so that construction could begin for the fall Parade of Homes, but several time constraints made a spring entry more feasible. The lot will be sold for $25,000, which incorporates a design credit for orienting the garage toward the alley and installing an automatic sprinkler system. It is proposed that the HRA sell the identified property to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc., in accordance with a development agreement. The new two -story home will have an estimated end value of $179,000. Recommended Motion: Following a public hearing, adopt the resolution authorizing the sale of 6633 Washburn Avenue to Steven Marlin Grant Homes and the execution of appropriate documents by • the HRA Chair and Executive Director. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The builder has evidenced experience, capability and financial security. 2. The HRA acquired 6633 Washburn Avenue for the Richfield Rediscovered, Program. 3. The terms of the development agreement have been negotiated and are in conformance with program guidelines. 4. Notice of public hearing on sale of the property was published July 30 in the Sun - Current. Alternative Recommendation: Do not proceed with the development agreement with SMG Homes and direct staff to find other buyers. Discussion /Decision Mode: Closing would occur in August with construction starting in the fall. Completion will be in time for the Parade of Homes Spring Preview in March.. Re ec ully submitted, tev n L Devich Acting Executive Director SLD:ds • HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6633 WASHBURN AVENUE TO STEVEN MARLIN GRANT HOMES, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 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 adopted by the HRA, said real property being described as follows: Address Legal Description 6633 Washburn Avenue Lot 18, Block 7 Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Addition WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized to sell real property within its area of operation after public hearing; and WHEREAS, a purchaser of the described property has been identified and a development agreement negotiated as follows: Performance • Address Sale Price Security Builder 6633 Washburn Avenue $25,000 $25,000 Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc. WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held after proper public notice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield: 1. A public hearing has been held and 6633 Washburn Avenue is authorized to be sold for $25,000 to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc. in accordance with a development agreement with the HRA. 2. The Chairperson and Executive Director are authorized to execute a Contract for Private Development and other agreements as required to effectuate the sale to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 18th day of August, 1997. • ATTEST: Michael Sandahl, Secretary Thomas E. Harms, Chair 0 A 0 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION • �� I • -2ND F��OR PLaN • HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 48 Agenda August 18, 1997 Issue Statement: Conduct a study session with the City Council, Planning Commission and Community Services Commission regarding the status of the Richfield Lake Area (RLA). Background: The first agenda item for the August 18 meeting is a report by planning consultant Fred Hoisington concerning the RLA study. Much has occurred since the four groups initially met in March to discuss the planning process. Concepts have been developed and tested with the neighborhood on two occasions. Two newsletters have been distributed to report on progress. A composite concept has blended various ideas together and was shared for the first time on July 29 with the neighborhood. Feedback on the composite concept will continue to be sought through the end of September via a late August neighborhood newsletter and City -wide through the September issue of Your City. The concept provides options for discussion leading to : • More housing and improved housing choices for the community. • Commercial reinvestment; keeping the area vital. • Improved gateways; the appearance and function of our "front door" intersections at 66th Street and 1 -35W and Lyndale at Crosstown. • Improved access and transit; pedestrian and bus strategies and a parkway concept. • Preserving and enhancing the natural asset of Richfield Lake. Discussion helps the City respond to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) stormwater ponding needs and opportunities being explored at Lyndale Garden Center, the post office, VFW and Kmart. It also tests housing changes, the removal of single family homes, west and north of Richfield Lake, adjacent to Holy Angels and along a new roadway alignment which links the four quadrants of the 66th Street at Lyndale intersection. A separate memo has been provided to the four groups which shares feedback received to date, particularly about housing impacts. Handouts included with this letter are: • Map of the composite concept being discussed. • A worksheet to provide group feedback. • Project Schedule. • Chronology of Key Events from June 1996 to August 1997. • Newsletters distributed, to date. Recommended Motion: Accept the report and direct staff to receive feedback on the composite concept through the end of September and continue according to the project schedule. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Richfield Lake Area study is one of several studies in the community that focuses on maintaining the vitality of Richfield through the use of redevelopment. 2. Planning provides the opportunity to evaluate the RLA as a community asset for improved housing choices, commercial investment, recreational enhancement and improved gateways and transportation functions. 3. The kind of broad capital improvement and redevelopment success that has occurred elsewhere in Richfield has resulted from actions taken by the HRA, City Council, Planning Commission and Community Services Commission. 4. A schedule and process has been developed to ensure information is routinely provided; feedback is sought and received; and the neighborhood and community are involved. 5. The HRA has identified Fred Hoisington, a planning consultant, and CSM, a • developer consultant, to assist staff in identifying development opportunities that enhance land use and function and that are also marketable and financially feasible. 6. MnDOT is planning changes to 1 -35W and Crosstown that will affect the RLA. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Modify the concepts and schedule at this time. 2. Do nothing. However, MnDOT changes will affect RLA regardless. The RLA is seen as an area of opportunity for a greater variety of housing choices, upgraded commercial /retail properties and the fuller enjoyment of Richfield Lake by residents. Discussion /Decision Mode: The HRA, City Council, Planning Commission and Community Services Commission will meet as a group again as part of the regularly scheduled HRA meeting on November 17, 1997. Re ectfully sub itted, • n L. Devich Acting Executive Director SLD:ds ogee- 6029 ITIDUUM 1,110 IOUUFK 909 In vj,)AQIUOR 0j49y( 000b R a" V mAnlimo Lm L le /4nr -oul dn . oif) aaj2ao.X UOIBUISTOH 14080uullyy 'Plem1w Jo /Ao ideouoo eppodwooveiV e)ivl P181,1401H ii Z a 0 N '"01 Poolvi 0; quovorpv QMUGAY 1010PUfi-1 40 044 0-411 ajow -- ,Gjmjvu„ 40 04"voa Fq pawo4uv 91 sotiuvAy ojwpwl�-j pup ;vv.44s 4;99 4o ivq,;Pjo,4,2 ouL BUMOH PUD QAIGG*d O.JOW'IIVLVS 90,10 "V-1 PjQjj4')j2i 10 6OWdS E7U1J04;VV -im-fol 044 40 J01,10JO49 jolojowU00 ULL Qqj :j-;Qj40J Qfivm1PQJ4 Qqj WOJ4 voic 0.40-1 P10144II2 04; 04 QQljjua Poom PUO "101 pialk4o.)IN uoemloq polvoit.) aj uolqiouuoo amil-t4_10d y fdoosp-I 101-do OVA lull WIAGOPO'A (10 =0 94901190i049 puc 9�Jj0MOPlO UVOMIOq 9UOIIV90UUO'2 U01.1409POd OPIAOJei 04 PUD 90119 UVVMIQCI fi';UVIOIVWQV OPIAO.Ad 01 POZIU06.10 91 VJOO Oq4 UILJIIM gUtVW60jQAQCJ 'IFVJqg QnUQAV VIVPUfi-T 40.10 DO= •+ma} �o,n•°nnod lw�•dt ® °d».i. °�. P °ova 4499 40 H;AOS PU12 40 1900 JOHI 0140"T P1014140114 0144 40 04.40d Bul..jull 100jo ailquo 041 0014luel An"Jod Y '900.410 6UIG(104 POCIOIQAQP Alosuoqui rogol wojj 11 o04oloaao IvHj 6vm�-Ijvd EEI 0 Aq P)OPUAOq 91 --,,QJOIP VQJV POCIO112ACPP F1091,10JUI 190W OLLL uojjvlrm.4lp SV901 A3N Ilk 1009 404 Me, 00 T 0 NEML22-U imm m=MIp,;7"-MwA U • • L C) a � r 00 J v N 7 V v � O U N O a a g Z 0 a 0 U .10 .a c ca C rn N -�+ C O >% C C 7 -W E N 75 � O E Q. O (6 N co L O a) 0� a�i o cc v� N CL U DoE co 'CO N N O U V O N N E I� V E E o �= u a. E� Q 0 M N o o E .0 --, o 0 �V � ate*= N o U C CM 1p N U N 0 c CL O N •= N W E E L N ca E Sao cu O .N cm V O o )ao vi Q 'U N C E U = O U C 0 C c N O E O N 0 E Q O E E O E V ° o L o L E To V .�' CD CO v a E U U CL U E 3 rn > E Z �a) coiZQ� WClU2� `— 0 M LO 00 r O M L L Q E ° E E p � Q -u?U ° >o a a a ° Zz o U U N O a a g Z 0 a 0 U .10 "What Does This Place Want To Be?" 0 - - 0 INIIIII ■ Richfield Lake as a natural wildlife area Oil ■ Gathering places on Richfield Lake that are small, passive and garden-like ........................ ■ A park-like connection between Richfield and Wood Lakes is created 01. ■ Commercial areas are connected by pedestrian pathways that serve as of nature . . . . . . . . . . pockets • Freeway gateways reflect lakes character ............... • A Parkway separates the high intensity core area from less intense ............... housing areas ■ A bus pull-out for no more than 3 buses is created at a junction of 65 Street and pedestrian pathways near multi-unit housing and parks .......... .................. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ■ An I-35W bus facility is at 661h Street added ■ New housing choices - senior housing considered for the block . ......... adjacent to Holy Angels ........... ■ New housing choices - townhornes for empty nesters considered for Richfield Lake m1g., the area north of ■ New housing choices - townhomes considered along the Emerson Avenue residential area (north of 66' Street) ■ New housing choices - multi-unit housing on the remainder parcel . .......... . ... of Lyndale Garden Center after ponding for housing ■ Richfield Lake area as a place new choices i 'Mg-, ■ Gateway mixed use -mix of housing and commercial on North Lyndale ■ Pedestrian connections are provided between sidewalks and storefronts ■ Other: . . . . . . . . . . • Other: ■ Other: Hoisington Koegler Group • Ll 0 Richfield Lake Area Key Events 1996 -1997 (as of July 30, 199 7) Date Event March 4, 1996 City Council Study Session; update on surface water management, opportunity to propose options to MnDOT that explore stormwater management that does not include the taking of Wood Lake Apartments at 63rd and Dupont Avenue. June 1996 Completion of Richfield Lake Area Planning Analysis by Tom Martinson, consultant. July 1, 1996 Special City Council /HRA study session; a discussion of city development opportunities that includes the Richfield Lake Area as a potential area. July 23, 1996 The Planning Commission receives a presentation of the Martinson report by Tom Martinson. City Council and HRA members are invited to participate. August 19, 1996 The HRA authorizes planning consultant Fred Hoisington to assist with an evaluation of the Richfield Lake Area. September 24, 1996 The Planning Commission hosts a Visual Imagery Workshop conducted by Tom Martinson. The intent of the workshop is to gather information and opinions on community appearance and image and relate it to Richfield Lake Area. October 1996 Martinson summarizes the results of the Imagery Workshop in a report. Recommendations are made relative to the highway, bridge and noise wall design to assist the city engineer in working on design issues with MnDOT. November 18, 1996 The HRA authorizes developer consultant CSM to assist with an evaluation of the Richfield Lake Area, CSM includes additional members, Rottlund Homes, and Tushie - Montgomery Architects. December 16, 1996 Dan Linnihan, Planning Commission Chair, meets with the Wood Lake Townhome Association at their request at their annual meeting. December 26, 1996 Letter from city staff to eight Townhome Association members who attended December 16 meeting. Assurance provided that the association will be kept informed and that currently there are no plans for the area. January 14, 1997 MnDOT sponsors an open house at Richfield Lutheran Church to provide information about the upgrading of I -35W and Crosstown 62. Fred Hoisington is available to answer questions about Richfield Lake Area as a study area. • Date Event January 22, 1997 Sun - Current reports on the MnDOT open house, that the Richfield Lake Area is being studied and that public meetings are being planned. January 25, 1997 Richfield Remodeling Fair at the Richfield High School. Fred Hoisington is available to answer questions about Richfield Lake as a study area. February 1997 A Question/Answer summary shares information about the Richfield Lake Area study and is distributed through Richfield's Your City. The Community is invited to attend a February 18 Public Information Meeting. February 7, 1997 A letter signed by the Mayor and the Chairs of the HRA, Planning Commission and Community Services Commission was sent to approximately 1,350 residents, property owners, tenants and businesses inviting them to the February 18 Information Meeting and the March 1 Visioning Session. The neighborhood of 1,350 is identified as the area east of I -35W, south of Crosstown 62, west of the Soo Line Railway and north of 68th Street. Boards and Commissions for the City also received the same letter. February 18, 1997 Fred Hoisington hosts an information meeting to discuss the Richfield Lake Area and received comments and questions from participants. Approximately 100 people participated. February 19, 1997 By letter, the Mayor invites 167 community leaders to the March 1 Visioning Session. The contacts include city boards and commissions, community groups, churches, Chamber of Commerce and school leaders. March 1, 1997 Fred Hoisington hosts a visioning session attended by 70 people who help define the areas current function and possible future role that gathers information on defining the Richfield Lake area for the community. March 10, 1997 The Sun - Current prints the expansion plans for I -35W and the Crosstown Commons. March 13, 1997 A public information open house was presented at Richfield City Hall. A display was provided showing the various options for stormwater storage including the Wood Lake Apartments, the Lyndale Garden Center and an option that would include acquisition of single family properties. By letter, Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer, notified the public of the March 24 Regular City Council meeting, March 25 Regular Planning Commission meeting and April 14 Regular City Council meeting. • 0 Date Event March 14, 1997 A joint memo to the Council and HRA Commissioners outlines the summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the various storm water holding sites for I -35W expansion that were discussed during the March 13 open house. March 17, 1997 The HRA, City Council, Planning Commission and Community Services Commission held a workshop at the City Hall Council Chambers to receive feedback about the February 18 information meeting and March 1 vision session. March 25, 1997 A presentation is given to the Planning Commission by Pete Willenbring regarding the potential location for a new storm water storage pond near Richfield Lake. The Commission accepts the staff recommendation and vote 5 -3 to recommend the Lyndale Garden Center as the site of the collection pond. March 26, 1997 The Sun - Current publishes an article stating that residents near the Richfield Lake area wish to keep the lake as a natural habitat. April 1997 The Richfield Lake Area Newsletter is printed and distributed to approximately 1,300 residents and businesses, outlining the problems, opportunities and the process by which the Richfield Lake Area is, being studied. April 14, 1997 The Richfield City Council discusses the location of the holding pond for the expansion of I -35W and Crosstown 62. Jim Prosser states that the Planning Commission recommended the site to be located on the property currently owned by Lyndale Garden Center. The Council votes 3 -2 to table consideration of the location of the storm water storage pond. Tim Duoos, owner of Lyndale Garden Center, made a presentation to the Council and submitted written comments. April 23, 1997 The Sun - Current publishes an article concerning the reaction of Tim Duoos, owner of Lyndale Garden Center, to a proposal to acquire the garden center in order to make way for a two -acre storm water storage pond. The article contains dialogue from the April 14th City Council meeting. May 1997 The May issue of Richfield's Your City includes an update regarding the Richfield Lake Area. It outlines the vision statement and guiding principles for the area that have been developed. May 5, 1997 The entire vision statement and guiding principles that were summarized in the Richfield's Your City newsletter is mailed to business owners and residents in the Richfield Lake Area. • • • Date Event June 3, 1997 Fred Hoisington and Michael Schroeder hold a public meeting for residents and businesses regarding the Richfield Lake Area. Approximately 50 people attend. Public input is collected regarding two different lake area concepts. The concepts identify the high intensity development area at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue and different ways of relating more directly to the lake in a housing and retail sense. June 25, 1997 A letter from Richfield State Agency expresses concern that the business community has not had an opportunity to be involved. The City response is for both businesses and residents to work together on development strategies and participate in the opportunities provided. July 1997 The second issue of the Richfield Lake Area Newsletter is printed and distributed and discusses two different concepts for redevelopment. July 29, 1997 A public meeting is held for residents and businesses regarding a composite plan derived from feedback from the June 3 meeting on two concepts. Areas for housing change are noted north and west of Richfield Lake and adjacent to the Holy Angels' athletic field. Feedback will continue to be received on the composite concept through September. [H: /CDADMIN/RLAWEVENTS.DOC] EA i4 1 GATEWAYS TO IMPROVED HOUSING, RETAIL AND RECREATION July 1997, Issue 2 Community Planning Concepts More than 50 residents and busi- ness people reviewed and ranked features of two planning con- cepts for the Richfield Lake area at a June 3 working session. The critique is part of the Richfield Lake area study, a planning effort to deal with neighborhood high- way impacts and capitalize on opportunities to meet community needs and keep the area vital. IDA more detailed composite con- cept which combines the best features of the two concepts will be presented to the community for critique at a July 29 meeting. In June and July, planners will work with developer consultants to test the composite planning concept and examine realistic opportunities in the area. "In the end, this process will result in a plan that is shaped by the community, is designed to meet community needs and is realistic because it has had developer input," said Mayor Martin Kirsch. "It's likely that not everything in a final plan will come to pass and some things will take time," Kirsch said. " But having a plan will ensure that the changes in the Richfield Lake area are the ones we want -- the ones that keep the community vital," Existing Needs Meetings in February and March outlined existing needs, such as multiple housing choices for the community and keeping area having a plan will ensure that the changes in the Richfield Lake area are the ones we want — the ones that keep the community vital." - Mayor Martin Kirsch retail vital. Community members provided their feedback on a vision for the area in March. Before presenting the two con- cept maps at the June 3 meeting, Planning Consultant Michael Schroeder highlighted existing strengths and design needs in the area. Critique of Planning Concepts Community members then stud- ied the two different planning concepts which took different approaches to addressing those needs. (See concept maps on pages 3 and 5), The eight tables of attendees ranked features presented in each concept as "like, neutral, dislike." (See pages 2 and 4 for results), The planning concept elements that community members ranked highest included all those which incorporated nature into design, orienting housing to the lake, and linking storefronts and streets with sidewalks rather than parking lots. Specifically, there was strong sup- port for: • Keeping Richfield Lake a natur- al wildlife area. • Commercial areas divided by pockets of nature. (continued on page 2) • Next Meeting -- New Location July 29, 7 p.m., Richfield City Hall Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue This meeting will be a very important one. It is to review and critique a more detailed composite concept for the Richfield Lake area. In addition to the planning consultant, developer consultants will be on hand to talk about the composite concept. R I C H F I E L i MA GATEWAYS TO IMPROVED HOUSING, RETAIL AND RECREATION April 1997, Issue 1 What is the Richfield Lake Area Study? The Richfield Lake area study began because of the need to solve several problems and take advantage of several opportunities. THE PROBLEMS Minimizing highway impacts. What to do about 1 -35W improve- ments that threatened to remove •a 90 -unit Richfield apartment building to keep increased highway stormwater runoff out of Richfield Lake? Keeping the neighborhood vital. How to get residential and com- mercial reinvestment to occur and avoid the long term threat to the area's vitality? How to improve the appearance of community gate- ways and improve the quality of Richfield Lake? Community needs. How to meet residents' requests for a greater variety of housing? How to retain residents and effectively compete with developing suburbs? THE OPPORTUNITIES Save housing, look at land utilization. Instead of taking resi- dential property, the City pro- posed looking for a non- residen- tial location for stormwater pond - ing. In addition to engineering requirements, a factor in land selection could be opportunities to utilize land to best meet neigh- borhood and community needs. Solve runoff problem and improve water quality. The City is working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide not only stormwater ponding but a filtration process to improve Richfield Lake water quality and Community members complete an exercise on their vision for the Richfield Lake area at the March 1 half day workshop. About 70 residents and business people attended. increase wildlife diversity, Look broader, keep the area vital. Because of the need to look at land around the lake, City officials decided to pursue a larger plan- ning study in the area. The study will look at opportunities to solve existing area problems and meet community needs. It will look at opportunities to provide more housing choices for residents, more commercial /residential investment in the area and more attractive community gateways. THE STUDY'S BEGINNING Although the Richfield Lake area study formally began this year, the idea for it evolved last summer. The Richfield Planning Commis- sion, HRA, City Council and a planning consultant met to look at solutions to the highway impact problem. That meeting generated ideas that helped community officials realize that a broader Richfield Lake area study could provide opportunities to help solve existing problems and meet needs of the neighborhood and the community. "For Richfield to continue to be vital, we have to explore develop- ment options and opportunities," said Planning Commission Chair Dan Linnihan. "That has always been one of the keys to this com- munity's success." Public Meetings Kick Off Process The Richfield Lake area study got underway February 18 with a public information meeting, followed by a March 1 half -day hands -on visioning session. The input from those two meet- ings will be used over the coming months to develop a project vision, guiding principles and alternative planning/develop- ment concepts for the area. Community members will once again be asked to attend a meeting and provide feedback on planning concepts in the late spring. (See schedule on back page). Community feedback and direc- tion from City policymakers will be used to identify a preferred planning alternative. That plan- ning concept will be used to for- mulate the area's master plan. "Community involvement is cru- A participant signs -in at the March 1 visioning session, attended by about 70 community members. cial to this process," said Planning Commission Chair Dan Linnihan. "People will have to realize that not everyone will get exactly what they want. But in the end, there will be enough common ground that it will be a good plan for everybody." Storm Water Ponding Update The Richfield Planning Commission voted March 25 to recommend to the City Council that the site of the stormwater storage pond be the Lyndale Garden Center location. Three sites have been under con- sideration because they meet space and engineering require- ments. They are the Lyndale Garden Center site, the 90 -unit apartment complex at 6300 Dupont, and up to ten single -fam- ily homes in an area north of the lake and east of the apart- ments. Because of housing losses suf- fered by the community on other projects and the need for more housing, City officials have opposed plans that will result in a net loss of housing. March 1 Meeting: Ig General Agreement on Vision for Richfield Lake Area About 70 community members attended a March 1 half -day workshop to help develop a vision for the Richfield Lake area. The group completed three exer- cises, defining what the area is now, what the place "wants to be" and prioritizing 23 potential principles (listed below) of what the Richfield Lake area should be, In the second exercise, the responses by the 11 tables of attendees on what they believed the area wants to be were grouped into 12 categories Those categories were, a small town environment, a place for families, mixed use, a clean envi- ronment, a natural lake, integrat- ed greenways and trails, recre- ational centerpiece, safe and quiet, a planned environment, business investment and tax base, improved transportation and enhanced gateways. The final ranking exercise revealed a fair amount of agreement Cant or very important (categories combined for chart below.) Those attending felt very strongly about keeping Richfield Lake nat- ural and wild, improving its biologi- cal and water quality, and not expanding recreational offerings on the lake. As one resident commented, "It's pretty obvious (from this exer- cise) that the folks in this room aren't that far apart. That's very heartening." among attendees. The majority of 23 principles were ranked impor- Visioning Session Exercise "Richfield Lake - What Does This Place Want to Be ?" (Votes by the 11 tables of community member participants) Principles Important/Very Important Neutral Forget It Broaden opportunities to walk and bike throughout area. 11 0 0 Maintain a good trail system around the lake, 11 0 0 Compete effectively with developing suburbs for residents and shopping. 10 0 0 Stimulate investment in existing homes and businesses. 10 0 0 Safe pedestrian crossing at 35W. 10 0 0 Improve housing variety for both existing and new residents. 10 0 1 Improve the biological quality of Richfield and Wood Lakes. 9 0 0 Visually tie the area together. 9 1 0 Make the highways compatible with the community. 9 1 0 Use redevelopment as a tool to improve land use and change declining property values. 9 2 0 Keep wild feeling. 8 0 0 Make bus service more accessible and functional. 8 2 0 Create a distinctive Richfield identity at the City's gateways. 8 2 0 Improve visual access to Richfield Lake. 7 3 0 Safety, 6 0 0 Reduce noise pollution. 6 1 0 Provide a community focus or "gathering place" in the area. 6 4 0 Plan for a net increase in housing. 6 3 1 Provide opportunities for use of Richfield Lake Park by all residents. 6 5 1 Improve shopping and services. 5 3 1 Increase housing density. 3 2 3 Widen 66th at 35W. 1 4 1 Expand recreation offerings at Richfield Lake. 0 5 5 Date Meeting /Activity April .. ........................Prepare and mail vision statement and guiding principles for community review /feedback. April /May ................Staff and consultants develop alternative concepts. June ... .....................Newsletter on alternative concepts and community meeting to review alternative concepts. July 21 ......................HRA, City Council, Planning Commission, Community Services Commission meeting to review /identify preferred concept. July ..... .....................Newsletter on preferred concept. July /Aug /Sept......... Staff and consultant team prepare master plan. Sept /Oct ................Community meeting to review master plan. October ..................HRA, City Council, Planning Commission, Community Services Commission meet to adopt master plan. The HRA and The City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 It's not too late to get involved. If you would like more information or need to be added to the mail- ing list, contact Richfield Planning Consultant Fred Hoisington, 835 -9960, =909A BULK RATE U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 2256 Minneapolis, MN RICHFIELD LAKE AREA Community Reviews Richfield Lake Area Planning Concepts More than 50 residents and busi- ness people reviewed and ranked features of two planning con- cepts for the Richfield Lake area at a June 3 working session. The critique is part of the Richfield Lake area study, a planning effort to deal with neighborhood high- way impacts and capitalize on opportunities to meet community needs and keep the area vital. A more detailed composite con- cept which combines the best features of the two concepts will be presented to the community for critique at a July 29 meeting. In June and July, planners will work with developer consultants to test the composite planning concept and examine realistic opportunities in the area. "In the end, this process will result in a plan that is shaped by the community, is designed to meet community needs and is realistic because it has had developer input," said Mayor Martin Kirsch. "It's likely that not everything in a final plan will come to pass and some things will take time," Kirsch said. " But having a plan will ensure that the changes in the Richfield Lake area are the ones we want -- the ones that keep the community vital." Existing Needs Meetings in February and March outlined existing needs, such as multiple housing choices for the community and keeping area ".,,having a plan will ensure that the changes in the Richfield Lake area are the ones we want — the ones that keep the community vital." - Mayor Martin Kirsch retail vital. Community members provided their feedback on a vision for the area in March. Before presenting the two con- cept maps at the June 3 meeting, Planning Consultant Michael Schroeder highlighted existing strengths and design needs in the area. Critique of Planning Concepts Community members then stud- ied the two different planning concepts which took different approaches to addressing those needs. (See concept maps on pages 3 and 5). The eight tables of attendees ranked features presented in each concept as "like, neutral, dislike." (See pages 2 and 4 for results). The planning concept elements that community members ranked highest included all those which incorporated nature into design, orienting housing to the lake, and linking storefronts and streets with sidewalks rather than parking lots. Specifically, there was strong sup- port for: • Keeping Richfield Lake a natur- al wildlife area. • Commercial areas divided by pockets of nature. (continued on page 2) Next Meeting - New Location 29.7 n.m.. Richfield Citv Hall Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue Key • Commercial areas are divided by "pockets of nature" that connect to Richfield Lake and provide pedestri- Ideas an connections through commercial development. • A park -like connection is created between Richfield Lake and Wood Lake. • 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue entrances to the Richfield Lake area from the freeways reflect the character of the lakes and the urban hometown atmosphere. • Gathering spaces at Richfield Lake are small, more passive and "garden - like ". • The character of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue is enhanced by "pockets of nature" — more like the char- acter of Lyndale Avenue adjacent to Wood Lake. Richfield Lake June 3 Session Ranking Concept A Ideas (Votes by 8 tables of session participants) (Planning Concepts continued from page 1) • Sidewalks linking storefronts to streets rather than parking lots separating storefronts and streets. • Smaller, passive, garden -like gathering places on the lake instead of a single gathering place. • A park -like connection between Richfield and Wood Lakes. • Housing rather than commercial uses facing the Richfield lake. 14 • Entrances into the Richfield Lake area that reflect the char- acter of the lake rather than the man -made environment. Other responses included: • Limited support for the four (continued on page 4) Like Neutral Dislike Richfield Lake is a natural wildlife area 8 — — Other: Keep the water level at Richfield Lake high! 7 — — Commercial area divided by pockets of nature. 6 2 — Gathering spaces on Richfield lake are small, passive and garden -like. 6 1 1 Park -like connection between Richfield and Wood Lakes 5 2 0 Gateways reflect lakes character. 5 2 1 Other: Expand Post Office to Bridgeman area. 3 — 1 Other: Keep a family -type restaurant near the lake. 2 1 — Internal transit hub. 2 — 6 Post Office becomes a retail store. 1 3 4 Other: High -rise housing — — 4 Other = ideas suggested by the group for evaluation. In several instances where responses were ranked between "neutral" and "like" or neutral and "dislike ", the response was tallied with "neutral" (Planning Concepts continued from page 1) • Sidewalks linking storefronts to streets rather than parking lots separating storefronts and streets. • Smaller, passive, garden -like gathering places on the lake instead of a single gathering place. • A park -like connection between Richfield and Wood Lakes. • Housing rather than commercial uses facing the Richfield lake. 14 • Entrances into the Richfield Lake area that reflect the char- acter of the lake rather than the man -made environment. Other responses included: • Limited support for the four (continued on page 4) Date Meeting /Activity June /July ................Staff, planning and developer consultants develop a composite concept in greater detail. July 21 ....................Meeting cancelled. Rescheduled to August 18. July 29 ......................Public meeting, 7 p.m., Richfield City Hall, for community review of composite concept. August ....................Newsletter reporting on composite concept and July public meeting. August 18 ................HRA, City Council, Planning Commission, Community Services Commission meeting for review /comment on composite concept. September ..............Develop composite concept into a detailed pre- ferred alternative master plan. October ..................Community meeting to review master plan. November 17 .......... HRA, City Council, Planning Commission, Community Services Commission meet to review master plan. RICHFIELD LAKE AREA PUBLISHED BY THE HRA AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD The HRA and The City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 It's not too late to provide feedback and participate. If you would like more information or need to be added to the mailing list, contact Richfield Planning Consultant Fred Hoisington, 835 -9960, J BULK RATE U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 2256 Minneapolis, MN 0 • • Crosstown Highway 62 f m 7 = Q housln9 � ,' 11 Miidr7d Drive I / / //,/,~ Ilc• `� �'• '.'`vim. y _ aichfield Love etscPe Special stre a Enranped streetscape parkway pedestrian link f � 1 1 c 63rd v Street ' i A r� , m hoosln9 W 1 Gateway Special pedestrian feature Enhanped intersection eclat streetscope feature Key • The most intensely developed area -- "the core" -- is bounded by a parkway that separates it from less • Ideas intensely developed housing areas, • A parkway unifies the entire area, linking parts of the Richfield Lake area that are east of Lyndale Avenue and south of 66th Street. • Development within the core is organized to provide consistency between sites and to provide pedestrian connections between sidewalks and storefronts. • The Richfield Lake area is marked by gateways at each freeway entrance that reflect the character of the "built" elements of the area. • Richfield Lake is surrounded by housing that is oriented to the lake and provides a buffer between the lake and nearby commercial uses. • A single public gathering space is created on the shores of Richfield Lake Richfield Lake June 3 Session Ranking Concept B Ideas (Votes by 8 tables of session participants) Like Neutral Dislike Richfield Lake is a natural wildlife area. 8 — — Pedestrian circulation links storefronts to streets. 6 2 — Other: Keep water level high at Richfield Lake. 5 — — Housing oriented to Richfield Lake. 5 3 — Parkway connection between Richfield and Wood Lakes 4 4 — Four quadrants of 66th and Lyndale are unified by a parkway. 3 4 1 Gateways reflect character of the built environment. 2 4 2 Parkway defines core area. 2 3 3 Other: High -rise housing 2 — 3 Post Office becomes a retail store. 1 3 3 1 -35W transit hub. 1 3 4 A single gathering place on Richfield Lake. — 4 4 Other: Help K -mart maintain a presence by allowing and assisting expansion. — 3 2 Other: Help retail shops with increased signage and orientation. — 1 3 bringing the lake closer to the • Strong support in discussions fol- (Planning Concepts activity in the area. Some sup- lowing the ranking exercise for continued from page 2) ported it, some did not. the separation of the sales por- tion of the post office from the quadrants of West 66th Street • A general feeling that central- delivery portion. The retail ser- and Lyndale Avenue being uni- ized transit service should be vices portion would stay in the • fied by a parkway. improved but no agreement on area. if a transit hub should be locat- e A degree of uncertainty about ed in the neighborhood or the concept of the parkway on 1 -35W. 4 Crosstown High aY 62 a) C N C 0 OUSIng 2L e pu bile co 'I mil" Richfield Lake � III housing \`.,, •':• _ housing r i ¢ housl I i 1, �r C i r c u l a t i o n U s e F e a t u r e s Special streetscape Commercial � Gateway Enhanced streetscape Housing Special pedestrian feature ® Parkway :.•� Public � Enhanced intersection cnoob, Pedestrian link Transit Special streetscape p feature 5