Loading...
12-15-86 agenda-~- y. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HRA Letter No. 44 Agenda December 15, 1986 Issue Statement: Settlement of lawsuit for property at 6440 Lyndale Avenue, LHN. Background: In 1978, the HRA acquired title through condemnation to a car. wash facility which was located at 6440 Lyndale Avenue on the site of the existing Woodlake Business Center, north of the city's liquor store. The property was owned by Mr. Gordon Strom. This site was redeveloped simultaneously with the K-Mart facility. While the HRA received title to the property and sold it for redevelopment, Mr. Strom appealed this award. A court appointed arbitrator has recommended a settlement. Legal counsel will present further details during an executive session at the HRA meeting on Dece-tuber 15, 1986. Recommendation: It is recommended that the HRA accept the settlement to be described by legal counsel provided that Mr. Strom has executed a stipulation. Basis of Recommendation: It would be appropriate to terminate this outstanding obligation. Alternative Recommendation: Not accept the settlement. Decision Mode• It is timely to act now or the agreement to settle may be lost. Respect ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Exe tive Director ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HRA Letter No. 43 Agenda December 15, 1986 Issue Statement: Report from city's financial consultant regarding the fiscal health of Richfield. Background: At the November HRA meeting, the Board requested a report regarding the impact of additional indebtedness on the city's financial health. The attached report prepared by Mr. Wayne Burggraaff, of the city's bond consultant, Evensen Dodge, indicates that the city's financial position related to the issuance of bonds is strong. As recent as March, 1986, Moody's Investors Service of New York assigned to Richfield the rating of Aa for a general obligation bond. Recommendation: It is recommended that the HRA review and discuss the report. Basis of Recommendation: The HRA requested staff to provide the report for their information. Alternative Recommendation: 1 Accept the report without discussion 2) Request additional information Decision Mode: The report is a status report and doesn't require a decision within a time period. Respect lly submitted, Jame D. ~ osser Executive Director JDP/eja ~`/ EVENSEN DODGE, INC. F I N A N C I A L C O N S U L T A N T S December 10, 1986 Mr. James D. Prosser City Manager City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Prosser: It is my understanding there was discussion at a recent Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting concerning the question of whether bonds outstanding for the LHN and ILN Tax Increment Projects could adversely affect the financial condition of the City. You have asked that I comment on this matter in my capacity as financial consultant to the City of Richfield. I believe the best way to approach this question is to review the City's outstanding debt, the prospect for future debt issuance and the City's credit rating. OUTSTANDING DEBT Outstanding general obligation and revenue debt for the City of Richfield is shown in the following table: General Obligation Bonds Outstanding 12/31/86 (in thousands) Redevelopment Special Assessment Bonds Bonds Permanent Bonds $14,935 Temporary Bonds 18,675 TOTAL $33,610 $21,720 -0- $21,720 Total $36,655 18,675 $55,330 3608 IDS Tower, Minneapolis Minnesota. 55402 612/338-3535 800/328-8200 800/328-8100 Minnesota wsba2:TFB1/3 ..~- /-~ Mr. James D. Prosser Page 2 December 10, 1986 Gross Revenue Bonds Outstanding 12/31/86 (in thousands) Recreational Facility Bonds Permanent Bonds $1,075 Temporary Bonds -0- TOTAL $1,075 General annual debt service levies in Richfield are low compared to the amount of debt outstanding since a substantial amount of all debt service is paid from special assessments, tax increments or golf course user fees. Approximately $300,000 has been levied for 1987 debt service payments. The comments in the following sections of this letter will help to explain the various types and amounts of outstanding debt. Redevelopment Bonds The long-term permanent redevelopment bonds in the outstanding amount of $14,935,000 are for the Lyndale Hub/Nicollet Tax Increment District. All debt service payments on these outstanding permanent bonds have been made from tax increment and special assessment revenue in accordance with original plans for this project. No tax levies have been required for debt service payments, and it is not anticipated that tax levies will be required for future debt service payments. Proceeds from the $18,675,000 Temporary Bond issue for the ILN Project have been escrowed in interest earning accounts. Long-term bonds will not be authorized and sold by the City until such time as the City is confident that development projects will proceed on a schedule, which will result in adequate increment to pay debt service on any long-term bonds which may be used to refund this temporary issue. In the event the issue is not refunded by long-term bonds, it is anticipated that interest earnings will be adequate, together with the escrowed principal to pay off the temporary issue at maturity in 1988. wsba2:TFB1/4 .`` / J Mr. James D. Prosser Page 3 December 10, 1986 Special Assessment Bonds The City currently has $21,720,000 of special assessment bonds outstanding. The annual debt service levy ($300,000 in 1987) is used to supplement sinking fund reserves, annual special assessment payments and water utility transfers for the repayment of this debt. On December 31, 1985, there were sinking funds in the amount of $10,895,278 and special assessments payable of $5,093,495. Golf Course Bonds Debt service on this Gross Revenue Recreation Facility Bond issue has always been paid by golf course revenues, and it is expected that such revenues will continue to be sufficient. A total of $1,075,000 of outstanding principal remains to be paid on this issue. FUTURE DEBT REQUIREMENTS While the City is engaged in an energetic program of commercial and residential development, the City's infrastructure is relatively new. Although infrastructure maintenance cost is a continuing factor, future need for debt issuance for replacement or additional new facilities is minimal for the following reasons: 1. Sanitary sewer laterals are provided throughout the City, with interceptor sewage collection and treatment provided by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 2. The water system constructed in the 1960's serves the entire City. Repayment of General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds was completed in 1985. 3. New residential streets were constructed throughout the City in the 1970's. 4. The City is serviced with storm sewers with only minor storm sewer improvements still required. 5. The Capital Improvement Program does not anticipate any major future borrowing, except for small special assessment alley projects and miscellaneous small improvements. wsba2:TFB1/5 ~/'~ Mr. James D. Prosser Page 4 December 10, 1986 6. It is intended that any permanent refunding of the Temporary ILN Rdevelopment Bonds or any other debt issued for development purposes would be supported by tax increments and not general debt service levies. RATING AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS The primary function of a credit rating agency is to assign a rating to an issuing jurisdiction which best represents the financial condition of the issuer and the structure and security of the bond issue being sold. It is important to note the City had its credit rating increased to Aa in 1977 during the period of time the City was issuing large amounts of debt, both for street improvements and the LHN Project. The significance of this excellent rating can be illustrated by the fact that while there are 855 cities in the State of Minnesota, only 13, including Richfield, hold an Aa rating and only 2 hold an Aaa rating. Prior to issuance of the $18,675,000 of Temporary Redevelopment Bonds in December, 1985, representatives of the City met with Moody's Investors Service to explain the issuance of the temporary bonds. As a result of that meeting and the supporting information supplied to the rating agency, Moody's did reconfirm the City's Aa rating on that bond issue. Moody's indicated their reasons for continuing to issue an Aa bond rating to the City of Richfield were as follows: 1. A demonstrated ability to manage and successfully operate a large tax increment financing district (i.e., the LHN Tax Increment Project); 2. The careful planning and structuring of development agreements for the proposed ILN Project; 3. The anticipated valuation and incremental tax growth which would result from development in the ILN Project area; 4. The sound financial operation and condition of the City generally; and 5. The relative affluence of the community and its citizens. wsba2:TFB1/6 /-.J Mr. James D. Prosser Page 5 December 10, 1986 Since the issuance of the $18,675,000 of Temporary Bonds, the City again issued bonds in March of 1986 for storm sewer construction purposes. At the time of that $2,525,000 issue, Moody's Investors Service again reaffirmed its Aa rating for the City of Richfield. SUMMARY The information contained in this letter on outstanding debt has been carefully reviewed by Moody's Investors Service in December, 1985 and most recently in March, 1986. That material, together with strong financial management, the good financial condition of the City and the relative affluence of the community and citizens, has all contributed to the Moody's Investors Service decision to continue to confirm the City's Aa credit rating. Therefore, my answer to the questions raised at the recent Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting would be that the City's current outstanding debt for tax increment and other purposes does not impair the financial condition of the City. The City over the years has been very careful in the planning and issuance of its debt which has contributed to a good financial condition. Finally, the "bottom line" analysis by Moody's Investors Service confirms the City is providing for its infrastructure and development purposes in a prudent and responsible manner. Sincerely, EVENSEN DODGE, INC. Irll~~. s . ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff Senior Vice President WSB:tfb wsba2:TFB1/7 ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HRA Letter No. 42 Agenda December 15, 1986 Issue Statement: Setting a special meeting of the HRA for January 26, 1987. Background: At this time, it is anticipated that the First Amendment To The Contract For Private Development involving the HRA, City and CDR will be ready for approval on January 26, 1987. The City Council will have a regular meeting on that date. Tentatively scheduled at this time for action by the City Council is the public hearing and formal action on the ILN redevelopment plan amendments, public hearing and second reading on the request by CDR for rezoning of their site, and, action by both the HRA and City Council on the amendments to the contract with CDR. Recommendation: It is recommended that the HRA establish 1/26/87 at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a special meeting. Basis of Recommendation: It would be desirable to have both the HRA and City Council act on the amendments to the contract on the same evening. Alternative Recommendation: Not establish a special meeting and approve the amendments at the regular meeting February 17, 1987 (Monday, February 16 is a holiday). Decision Mode: A special meeting would permit all of the CDR and ILN matters to be acted upon in one evening. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Executive Director E HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA LETTER N0. 41 December 15,-1986 ~~ ____.- Issue Statement: Amendment to Bylaws of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Background: At the November 17, 1986 HRA meeting, a request was made to change the starting time of the HRA meetings from 7:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. beginning January, 1987. According to Article III - Meetings, Section 1. Annual Meeting and Section 2. Regular meetings of the current HRA bylaws (amended 4/21/80) reference is made to the 7:30 PM meeting time. Recommendation: Amend Article III - Section 1 and 2 to reflect the 7:00 PM starting time. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A request has been made to change the HRA meeting time. 2. The bylaws must be amended to change the starting time of HRA meetings. This amendment must be approved by at least three members. Alternative Recommendation: Do not amend the bylaws, and continue beginning HRA meetings at 7:30 P.M. Decision Mode- If the time change is to be implemented in January, the bylaws must be amended at the December 15, 1986 meeting. Respec fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Exe utive Director JDP/eja -; BYLAWS OF THE .HOUSING AND. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ARTICLE I - THE AUTHORITY C Section 1. Name of Authority. The .name of the Authority shall be the "Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota". Section 2. Seal of Authority. The seal of the Authority shall be in the form of a circle and shall bear the name of the Authority. Section 3. Office of Authority. The offices of the Authority shall be at City Hall in the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, but the Authority. may hold its meetings at such other place or places as it may designate by resolution. ARTICLE II - OFFICERS Section 1. Officers. The officers of .the Authority shall be a Chairman, A Vice-Chairman, and a Secretary. Section 2. Chairman. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the. Authority. Except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Authority, the Chairman shall sign all contracts, deeds and other instruments made by the Authority. At each meeting the Chairman shall submit such recommendations and information as he may consider proper concerning the business, affairs and policies of the Authority, Section 3. Vice-Chairman, The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman in the absence or incapacity of the Chairman; and in case of the resignation or death of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman shall perform such duties as are imposed on *_he Chairman until such time as the Authority shall select a new Chairman, ~. ro '~~i Section 4. Secretary. 'The Secretary shall perform the duties of a Secretary ~ for the Authority. ~, Section 5. Executive Director. The Authority shall employ an Executive Director who shall have general supervision over the administration of its business and affairs, subject to the direction of the Authority. He shall be charged with the management of the housing projects of Authority. Section 6. Other Administrative Officers. 'rhe Authority may designate an assistant to the Secretary who sha21 keep the records of the Authority, shall act as recorder of the meetings of the Authority and record all votes, and shall keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purpose, and shall perform all duties incident to his office. He shall keep in safe custody the seal of the Authority and shall have power to affix such seal to all contracts and instruments authorized to be executed. by 1 the Authority. The Authority may designate a Treasurer who. shall have the care and custody of all funds of. the Authority and shall deposit the same in the name of the Authority in such bank or banks as the Authority may select, The Executive Director and the Treasurer shall sign all orders and checks for the payment of money and shall pay out and disburse such moneys under the direction of the Authority. Except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Authority, all such orders and checks shall also be counter-signed by the Chairman. The treasurer shall keep regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures. and shall render to the Authority, at each regular meeting (or oftener when requested), an account of his transactions and also of the financial condition of the Authority. He shall give such bond for the faithful performance of his duties as the Authority may determine l ~. ~,~, J ~, , ARTICLE III - MEETINGS C Section 1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Authority shall be h~Id on the t~Zird Monday in January at '7;30 o'clock p.m. at the regular meeting. place of the Authority. -Section 2. Regular ~feet`:~gs. ~Sonthly meetings shall be held without notice at the regular meeting place of the Authority on-the third Monday of each month,. at ~=30 o'clock p.m. unless the same shall be a legal holiday, in which event said meeting shall be held on the next succeeding secular day. Section 3. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Authority may be called by the Chairman, or two members of the Authority for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call, The call for a special meeting may be delivered at any time prior to the time. of the .proposed meeting to each member of the Authority or may be mailed to the business or home address of each member of the Authority at least two (2) days prior to the date of such special meeting. At such special meeting no .business shall be considered other than as designated in the call, but if all of the members of the Authority are present at a special meeting,. any and all business may be transacted at such special meeting. Section 4, uorum. The powers of the Authority shall be vested in the Commissioners ther°of in office from time to time. Three Commissioners shall constitute. a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers .and for all other purposes, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. [,Then a quorum is in attendance, action may be taken by the Authority upon a vote of a majority of the Commissioners present, ` ~ ~ , ~.. `~ m ..~ Section 7. Combining Administrative Offices; Compensation The compensation of the. Executive Lirector and other personnel of the Authority shall be determined , by the Authority. Any t~ao or more administrative offices may be combined. Section 8. Additional Duties, The officers of the Authority shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by .the Authority or the bylaws or rules and regulations of the Authority. Section 9. Election or Appointment. The first Chairman shall, pursuant to his appointment, serve in the capacity of Chairman until the expiration of his term of office as Commissioner. Ifi e Vice-CI'iairman, Secretary and, except in the case of the First Chairman, the Chairman shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Authority from among the Commissioners of the Authority, and. shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected and qualified. The Executive Director shall be appointed ~y the Authority. Any person ap- poir-ted:' to fill the office of Executive Director, or any vacancy therein, shall have such term as the Authority fixes, but no Commissioner of the Authority shall be eligible to this office. Section 10. Vacancies. Should the office of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Secretary become vacant, the Authority shall elect a successor from its member- ship at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Section 11. Additional Personnel. the Authority may from time to time employ or contract for such personnel as it deems necessary to exercise its powers, duties and functions as prescribed by the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Law of Minnesota applicable thereto. Such personnel may be employees of the Authority, employees of other governmental organizations, or independent contractors. 'The selection and compensation of such personnel shall be determined by the Authority subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~~ -~ ..J ~~ ~ d{ ''~!i Section 5. Order of Business. At the regular meetings of the Authority., _~ the following shall be the order of business: 1. Roll Ca11. 2. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, 3. Reports of the Executive llirector. 4. Unfinished business, S, New business. 6. Adjournment. All resolutions shall be in writing and shall be cgpied in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Section b. Manner of Voting. The voting on all questions coming before the Authority shall be by roll call, and the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the minutes of such meeting. ARTICLE IV - AMENDMENTS Amendments to B laws. 1'he bylaws of the Authority shal"s be amended only with the approval of at least three of the members of the Authority at a regular or a special meeting. Includes 4/21/80 amendments ~~ ~- ~ ::~ -,~: -~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HRA Letter No. 40 Agenda December 15, 1986 Issue Statement: Evaluation of the proposed development concepts for the Graham Avenue Development site area and preliminary recommendation. Background• The HRA was presented with three development concepts for the Graham Avenue site. Proposals were made by Walker Methodist, Trestman-Shaller, and, Tushie-Derrick. Since the presentation on September 29, 1986 staff has been evaluating the proposals and reporting to the HRA. Recommendation: 1. Review the evaluation of the three proposals: (1) Tushie- Derrick; (2) Walker Methodist and (3) Trestman-Shaller. 2. Authorize staff to expose the evaluation to public comment. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Tushie-Derrick concept proposal is .virtually complete. The preliminary analysis, almost completed by staff, indicates it is feasible. In addition, it is an appropriate final project for the LHN area. The mixed use approach provides a variety of uses each of which is appropriate for the area. Additional office and retail space are needed. The 48 units of lower rent housing for the elderly seems to be very appropriate. All of these uses are housed in an attractive structure. Tushie-Derrick has been pursuing the formulation of their concept in a responsible and aggressive manner. It is inappropriate to continue to stop the review process without any reaction from the HRA to their proposal. A careful review of the evaluation would indicate that there are a number of items to be worked through before the development could proceed. These include, in addition to the public reaction, a determination of parking need, further traffic analysis, the acquisition of a parcel from Lake Shore Drive Condominium, the need to rezone the site, and complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. A new TIF district would be created but it would be in existence for only about eight years. Another factor to consider is that the HRA is in a good position to work through these issues and a developers' agreement. There has not yet been a large bond sale to which increment from a development has been pledged. 2. The Walker proposal, as of this writing, is being revised and staff has insufficient data to evaluate. The market analysis is not underway either. However, the basic concept would ~ ~-/ remain the same. The existing VFW, Music would remain and renovate and properties, Walker would construct of 150 to 200 units. An evaluation this letter. The revised proposal HRA on December 15, 1986. Big Wheel and Trestman expand. Behind these an elderly rental building form is not provided with will be presented to the 3. The Trestman-Shaller concept evaluation is attached. This concept would only be appropriate if the HRA desired to realize less than the potential of this site area. Alternative Recommendation: 1 Select a developer on December 15, 1986. 2) Avoid a continued review until the Walker proposal is complete and has been evaluated. However, evaluation of the proposal by the January meeting would be difficult. Decision Mode: A preliminary development evaluation has been placed on the December 15, 1986 HRA agenda. The final selection of a developer could be made at the January NRA meeting following a public meeting to which people from the area indicated on the attached map would be invited. Those people in attendance would be given the opportunity to react to the three proposals. Also, staff would have completed an analysis of the parking needs of the Tushie-Derrick proposal. It would also be appropriate to invite the City Council and the Planning Commission to the January meeting. Proceeding as indicated would make it possible to make a final selection in January, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. rosser Executive Director ~~ PROPOSAL: TUSHIE-DERRICK (LYNDALE PARTNERS) 1. Development team: -identify members -experience with similar projects -financial capability to be determined Developer: Lyndale Partners (Tushie/Derrick/Shaller/Trestman Architect: Tushie Montgomery and Associates Contractor: Bossardt/Christianson New partnership, members of the partnership have mixed use development experience in cooperation with local government. The final membership is still being determined. 2. Brief description of overall project and comments regarding building height, location, shadows, etc.. Copy of preliminary site plan and revised site plan, is attached. Revised elevation drawings will be presented at the 12/15 HRA meeting for "Landmark Center" a stepped 5 story mixed use development with five distinct uses: Office (31,700 square feet), VFW (48,600 square feet), residential (38,300 square feet), retail (45,600 square feet) and medical (21,000 square feet). Also included is 159,600 square feet of covered parking and 6,600 square feet of mechanical space. Total land area needed for the project approximates 4.8 acres with the building set back from Lyndale Avenue and Lake Shore Drive to accommodate parking to the front. There are 282 surface parking stalls and 498 parking stalls within a privately owned ramp. The first level, primarily retail and VFW uses, covers 55,100 square feet of floor area and is reduced to 24,90D square feet in the fifth level. The length of the east/west "leg" has been reduced to improve site lines and traffic circulation. With the reduction in length, none of the Lake Shore Drive units (LSD) would be in a shadow. Only a small portion of LSD site would be shadowed but this area is already in a shadow from the existing trees.. A11 present uses would be relocated: VFW, Cricket Photo, Big Wheel, Trestman, Lynch, and Davis. The vacant lot owned by the condominium would be needed for the development. 3. Site lines; on site, off site It has been represented by the developer that the mature tree line closely approximates the fourth level of the building. However, it is not clear how many existing trees would remain. Since the development would be built directly _,~. .~~ a. 5. adjacent to LSD Condominium development, the screening, berming and planting that occurs to the north side of the new building would be on LSD property for LSD to maintain. With the new design, additional landscaping and plant materials have been added along the edge of the property line shared with LSD. The rear delivery driveway and receiving area would be screened with a canopy. An intended use restriction would prevent large semi truck trailers from servicing the development. Eighteen feet of green space is provided along Lyndale with the new Cricket Photo located within a corner plaza. The entire first floor of the building is accessible from the Lyndale Avenue elevation even though the grade changes significantly along Lake Shore Drive. .Underground ramp parking will fill in where the grade changes. All mechanical equipment would be enclosed in a penthouse. Density; lot coverage, massing, number of housing units and parking spaces, square footage of uses, open space The building covers 55,100 square percent of the total land area. it a "mid-rise" configuration in development on adjacent areas. arrangement 55,100 square feet on on second, 41,900 square feet on feet on the fourth, 24,900 square the building mass to land coverag units of lower cost rental housin bedroom, 4-studio, 4-2 bedroom. parking stalls for the residentia share the parking referred to in feet, approximately 26 The number of levels gives comparison to high rise The stepped floor first, 47,700 square feet the third, 36,200 square feet on the fifth, reduces e ratio. Forty eight (48) g are proposed: 40-1 There would be designated 1 use. Other uses would Item ~~2 above. The developers have indicated they will be providing 780 parking spaces on the site. Current city parking guidelines do not address the parking needs for the VFW use and for a mixed use project as proposed. Staff is currently reviewing other community ordinance requirements and national standards to determine if the parking proposed would adequately meet the parking needs on the site. It is expected that this matter would be resolved for the January 19, 1987 HRA meeting. Identification of development site Coundary: -ability to secure site control -consensus of opinion by affected owners -resolution of site restrictions The Lyndale Partners have secured a purchase agreement from homeowners Lynch and Davis. Although Shaller, Trestman, and VFW have all made individual plans for there own buildings, they also appear receptive to being included in the new development. (Discussions are continuing on this item). In 4 r ~iGj%y~ -LSD will have to be satisfied with the buffering and driveway uses. -Waste disposal to be handled internally -Cooking odors at the VFW should be considered in developing final plans. 8. Marketability of use, need, lease up The developer has indicated that discussions are underway with users who are interested in approximately 53 percent of the space. More information will be presented at the 12/15 HRA meeting by the developer. Primary tenant would be VFW -48,600 square feet leased or owned The VFW does pay property taxes Retail Space (45,600 square feet) The amount of retail space has been increased about 11,000 square feet to accommodate demand. -Shaller & Trestman may locate in a portion of this space Medical (21,000 square feet) Meta Partners of Cleveland with a local office in Edina would lease this space and then sublease to professional medical people. Office (31,700 square feet) This space was reduced by almost 50% from the original concept. The VFW and Tushie-Montgomery would occupy a portion of this space. The rental housing would meet Section 8/Section 202 design requirements and be very affordable if the proposed rents _ can be achieved. There is a need for this type of opportunity. 9. Summary of estimated project costs: -net construction -architectural -parking -site -financing -profit ~ ~ lO Building Construction $10,613,000 Leasehold Improvements $ 2,008,400 Site Costs 890,000 Land. $ 2,000,000 Financing Costs $ 2,589,116 Marketing $ 389,225 Contingency $ 1,059,462 Total 21,006,203 - Requested City Assistance ($2,031,886) Net Development Costs $18,974,317 (utilities, demolition, grading, soil prep, surface parking, landscape) City/HRA subsidy could take several forms: land writedown, public improvements, tax increment interest reduction. 10. Timing/phasing of project; A 15 month construction period is anticipated. Starting in Spring, 1987 after frost is out and soil can be worked freely. The VFW, Shaller, and Cricket Photo uses would remain while the ramp parking and building foundation was initiated. To permit the phasing, interim parking at other locations would have to be identified. 11. City and HRA role: -formation of tax increment district project boundary -zoning considerations -financial assistance -acquisition/clearance -displacement -public improvements An Economic Development TIF district would have to be established. It would encompass that portion of the site now within the LHN and the balance of the site. An analysis by Evensen-Dodge of the impact of deleting five parcels from the LHN indicates that all the outstanding bonds for the LHN could still be paid off by 2002 with the possibility of an early call. A $2,031,886 subsidy is being requested, which could take the form of land writedown, installation of public improvements, and tax increment interest reduction. Thus the HRA would be involved in site assembly. A preliminary cash flow analysis r ~~'~ by Evensen Dodge indicates that the project would be self- supporting during a period of eight years. In return, 48 units of rental housing for lower income elderly is planned. Housing Revenue bonds for the rental portion are to be considered. IDRB's for commercial development are not available. The entire development would be privately owned. 12. Consistency with city zoning ordinance requirements The site would require rezoning to a PUD. Also the Comprehensive Plan may require amendment. 13. Revenue to be realized from development including land proceeds Tax increment. At this point, the developer has not volunteered to pay for land owned by the HRA. However, it is anticipated that this would be an item of negotiation. A preliminary cash flow analysis of the. proposal does indicate that it would be self-supporting. The TIF district would be of 8 years duration from the receipt of the first increment. 14. Environmental review process-EAW required An EAW would be necessary because the development exceeds the 300,000 square feet building area threshold. 15. Demand on existing public services, public improvements The public utilities in the area are adequate to service this development. Plans for handling storm water runoff should be closely studied. If an extensive amount of public amenities would become necessary which require intensive public maintenance a special assessment district would be necessary similar to the LHN. The demand for emergency medical services could increase with 48 units of housing but would not require additional city personnel be hired. Additional police service should not be needed. 16. Housing element feasiCility: -management -target market (low income .target ) ~~~ -rents -arrangement of common spaces in mixed use concept -separation from commercial uses -amenities, services, support for residents -unit size and type Developing the housing portion according to HUD's Section 202/Section requirements, would produce the lowest practical cost. The units would range in size from 430 s.f. for an efficiency to 875 s.f. for a two bedroom. The efficiency and one bedroom units would have rents under $390. The two bedroom units would have rents below $440. A community room of 2,400 square feet would be provided on the 5th floor along with a laundry. The community room would have space for a library, and arts and crafts. Marketing and management services would be by a nonprofit health related organization. The emphasis would be on marketing to Richfield residents. The affordable housing option would remain that way for at least the life of the tax increment project that is developed to encompass the development. 17. Employment Opportunities The developer has indicated jobs on-site during construction would approximate 78. Jobs in the completed office, retail, medical and VFW facilities would approximate 289. 18. PuClic reaction This developer has met on several occasions with the residents of Lakeshore Drive. The residents are concerned about loss of view from their living units. The revised design proposal reduces that impact. They have also met on at least one occasion with the residents of Woodlake Point. They too are concerned about views and the impact on their units. -. •~_. ~ ~~~ - ~ ~ ,: ' ~. . ,~~ ~ _ _- - ~' `~~ ~ la --- ~... -t-- y',;~, ~' ~~ ;; ~. F. y ~~ ~ ~ I _ i -- 1 / . 1 f -1_ _ N V .- ~~~ ~ _- 'rte-l r - ~ ~ . - a': -' ..f ~ ~ 1 0 • ~ ~ 'U ^, i ` I J o _ ~;.~ ~I`II ~~~ \ \\ ~- ~ %' ~ `: ~ ... ~~ a; ~; iii iGiiii~ii ii iiitii nrr • liiiii~u~ ~ rr nrrrrr rrrrrr l~ f ( '( l •~ t rrrrr- r - 1[ i t t t t 1 ,j F = ~ ; ii ~ Fp,[ii i " 'iii ~ r n 1 1 i - ~~ ° [rr- ' ' ~ u ~ [~ i[+ i LANDMARK CENTER ~OFk LYNDALE PAR7NER3 FUchfleid Mlmesota • _ - .. „ ~. m C m Q ~_ _ 3 ~` .,~ ,. ,: :_ , 9 ~~ i -_~ ~ _ ~ - m~ _ ~ /\ / /, Y ' ~ ~ \/ ~ - ~ - ~ f~ ~ ' ~\ k-.x ~._ } '~ ! ~ / ~: ~~ - J ~ _ ~ ~ / \ ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ e e - _ ~ I ~f' ~ : r a Via- ~s ~~:~!~ i ( /\, $~ E ~~ s j - s =r _ ~ i - s - - r . ~~_ - E3 s E4 s^ -`_9 5 F ~..~ _ - - i __e _ F. g _ f j _ a7r ~r x I~rsr I - i __ - ' " - ~~~~ ~~i~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: December 11, 1986 T0: Housing & Redevelopment Authority FROM: Development Review Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Summary of Comments, Concerns and Issues Expressed at 12/10/86 PAeeting. The Development Review Advisory Committee is a group of staff from the various administrative departments and divisions of the city. They met to listen and react to a presentation of the Tushie-Derrick concept which included the use of drawings and a three dimensional model. Following are the thoughts that were expressed during the meeting. 1) The design from a fire protection point of view appears to be good on both the interior and exterior. 2) Parking and traffic flow should be closely studied to avoid congestion and other safety hazards. 3) Pedestrian circulation for the entire southwest quadrant should be studied and for this development the crossing of Lyndale Avenue in particular. 4) Site drainage should be carefully planned. 5) Odor discharge from the VFW kitchen should be carefully thought to avoid adverse impact on the area. ~'~i.~ 6) The separation of the uses in the building appears to be well thought out. With proper construction, noise transmission from the VFW area would not be a problem. 7) The staging of the development to permit existing organizations to function during construction is good. However, it could result in serious parking problems during construction, especially with the VFW. The developer must work out an agreement with the VFW. The options to be explored include the suspension of special events, which require considerable parking and the use of parking lots at other locations and a shuttle bus. The activity schedule for Wood Lake Nature Center and the VFW should be coordinated. Perhaps the VFW should hire traffic police personnel for certain events. 8) Because the site must be rezoned and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan may be necessary and an EAW would be necessary as will as the establishment of a new TIF district, the planning phase for this project could be protracted. 9) For a few minutes the discussion centered on the question of the appropriateness of the concept. Is this concept simply an attempt to satisfy everyone on every issue? The collective response was that there seems to be a market for the uses, the rental apartments are desirable if Richfield residents are given priority in the occupancy of the units- and the development would be an appropriate entrance/exit feature for this area of "downtown" Richfield. ~~ ~ 10) A public information meeting should be scheduled to permit people in the area to express their thoughts. The Walker concept could not be evaluated as it is being reformulated. The Trestman-Shaller proposal was discussed briefly. There was agreement that while it would result in the upgrading of the property, it did not utilize the site to its best advantage. .,. ~ x ~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HRA Letter No. 39 Agenda December 15, 1986 Issue Statement: Adoption of the attached resolution approving the modified ILN redevelopment plan and tax increment financing (TIF) plan and requesting the City Council to conduct a public hearing and to approve the plans. Background• On November 17, 1986, the HRA discussed the amended ILN plans and authorized their transmittal to the Planning Commission. On November 25, 1986, the Planning Commission met and adopted the attached resolution Number 64, approving the modified ILN redevelopment plan and tax increment financing (TIF) plan and requesting the City Council to conduct a public hearing and to approve the plans. During discussion at the November 17, 1986 meeting, questions arose in three areas; storm water drainage from the ILN to Wood Lake, the accuracy of air quality data, and the boundary differential between the redevelopment project and TIF district along 77th Street. Regarding Wood Lake and the proposed storm sewer, there were several items. The proposal envisions that the initial runoff would not go to Wood Lake, but directly through the existing storm sewer to Penn Lake in Bloomington. The attached drawing identified as Figure 10 illustrates that sewer design. A second question related to the runoff from I35W which goes directly into Wood Lake. It would be physically possible to divert the storm water directly to the line which goes to Bloomington; however, that line is already at capacity which causes the flooding problem on 77th Street. In the late 1970's, the water quality was closely monitored in cooperation with the MNPCA. However, that monitoring became too expensive. At the present time, Wood Lake staff is trying to establish an affordable water quality monitoring program. Wood Lake staff is of the opinion that the proposed storm sewer draining into the lake and a sewer line out would improve the quality of the water because there would be an opportunity for a water exchange. They are also of the opinion that the ecology would not be damaged by this project. The data which was related to air quality was called into question because it appeared that the projections of 23.3 ppm of carbon monoxide near. 77th Street and Emerson Avenue would make it the area with highest concentrations in the Twin Cities when compared to 1982 data for various locations. First, the two sets of data are not directly comparable because one is a listing of actual readings and the other is a hypothetical "worst case" situation. Secondly, the 23.3 figure is a projection designed ~,~-~ to show that under a set of worst case conditions, the state standard would not be exceeded. As explained in the attached memo from BRW, the anticipated level of carbon monoxide ppm is within a range of 8 to 10. A question was raised about the boundaries of the TIF and redevelopment projects. In order to maximize the tax increment, the houses along 77th Street to be acquired are within the redevelopment project, but outside the TIF district. The suggestion has been made that the two boundaries should be the same in this area so that the TIF district absorbs the loss of value rather than the city as a whole. Subsequent to the setting of the boundaries, staff learned that even if the property were included in the TIF district, because their use would be tax exempt, this value would be removed from the base value. Thus, in neither case would the TIF district absorb the loss. Given these facts, there appears to be no reason to relocate the boundary. To do so at this time would require map and text modifications which would be expensive and time consuming. Finally, the plan document distributed to the HRA in November was reviewed by Mr. Ron Batty at legal counsel's office. He recommended some changes in format to more clearly reflect state law. Thus, the document transmitted with this letter varies somewhat from that previously distributed. Some minor adjustments were also made in the budget. Recommendation: It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution approving the modified ILN redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan and requesting the City Council to conduct a public hearing and to approve the plans. Basis Recommendation: Legal counsel and bond counsel have determined that under MN Statutes the modification is necessary for the ILN project to proceed. Alternative Recommendation: 1 Request changes in the modified plans. 2) Not approve the modified plans. Decision Mode: Approval by the HRA would make it possible for the City Council to hold the public hearing on January 26, 1987. Respectf ly submitted, Jame rosser Execu ive Director ~`-~~°~. } s° HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; REQUESTING THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO COPIDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS THEREON; RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) adopted a redevelopment plan (Redevelopment Plan) and a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) for the area of the City generally known as the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area (Project Area) on October 2I, 19.85. 1.02 The city council of the City of Richfield (City)- held a public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan and approved the Plans on November 12, 1985. 1.03 Changes in the public and private improvements to be constructed within the Project Area have occurred and have necessitated modification of the Plans. 1.04 The HRA has caused to be prepared a modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan which are contained in a document entitled "Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan" datedl~ecember 15, 1987, and on file with the.HRA. 1.05 The modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan were referred for review to the Richfield planning commission and on November 25, 1986, the planning commission found that the modified Plans were consistent with general plans for development of the City. Section 2. HRA Approval. Z.O1 The HRA finds that the objectives of the HRA in encouraging development and redevelopment within the Project Area will be advanced by adoption of the modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan. -~~ ~'~ I 2.02 The modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan are hereby approved and adopted by the HRA. Section 3. Further Proceeding. 3.OI The executive director of the HRA is .hereby authorized and directed to transmit copies of the modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF-Plan to the school board of Independent School. District No. 280 and the board of commissioners of Hennepin County for review and. comment and to notify said public bodies of the public hearing to be held on the Plans by the City... 3.02 The HRA requests the City to hold the public hearing on the modified. Plans required by Minn. Stat. Section 462.521 and Minn. Stat. Section 273.74, Subd. 3 as soon hereafter as is practicable and recommends that the modified Plans be approved by the city. Section 4. Financing. 4.01 The HRA intends to request that the City assist from time to time in financing the public redevelopment costs identified in .the TIF Plan by issuance of .its general obligation bonds payable from. the tax increments of the TIF District. 4.02 The HRA also intends to request that the city from .time to time consider various other actions necessary to the imple- mentation of the Plans and pledges its cooperation with the City in achieving the objectives of the Plans. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 15th day of December, 1986. Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary . 0056REO1.E40 2 RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION BEGARDING THE INTERSTATE - LYNDALE - NICOLLET REDEVELOP.'~iENT AND TA% INCRIIiQIT FINANCING PLANS Tr'HEREAS, it is the intent of .the City of Richfield (City) and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (HRA) to improve and foster development within that portion of the City known as the. Interstate - Lyndale - Iv'icollet area (Project Area); and WHEREAS, in 1985 the HRA adopted and the City approved a redevelopment plan (Redevelopment Plan) .and tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) for the Project Area, pursuant to :finn. Stat. Sections 462.411 et. seq. (HRA Act) and Minn. Stat. Sections 273.71 to 273.78 (TIF Act), respectively; and. WIiEREAS, it has become necessary to modify the Redevelopment Plan and TIF •~ Plan for the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the HRA has caused a modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan to be prepared and on November l7, 1986, transmitted said Plans to the Richfield Planning. Commission (Planning Commission) for review pursuant to the HRA Act and TIF Act and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission regarding .the Plans;. and 4'HEREAS, the Flanning Commission has had an opportunity to review said Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the. City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Project Area is characterized by conditions of deterioration which make redevelopment by private enterprise unlikely within the reasonably foreseeable future without public intervention. ~ -~ 2. The Plans outline a. strategy for promoting redevelopment of the ~ Project Area which will enhance the attractiveness of the Area and City as a whole, increase. the tax .base and provide employment opportunities. 3. The Plans, including proposals for public land acquisition, modifi- cation of land uses and traffic circulation and roadway improve- ments, are consistent with the general plans for development of the city. 4. The use of tax increment. financing as a means to pay for public costs in the Project Area is necessary. 5. The Planning Commission urges adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan by the HRA and approval of the same by the City. Passed this 25th day of November, 1986 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota.. CITY OF RICHFIELD f '- ATTEST: Steven Quam, Secretary Connie Hoverson, Chairperson 0055REO1.E40 J O 0 O J Zo ` W u. a Z \ ~ ~ ~ ~:::::• a W ~ Q ~ cc W ~ ~~~ y ~ (~ C7 W ~ W Q Q H ~, W Q LL <Z~ Z ~ 30 ~ ...• W ~ ~ _ ~: Y 3V oo~ - J .J Q v~a~ o ~ ~ O 3 i _ : • 3\ O ~ v o~ 3 ~ v~ ~~~ ~~~ 3~ ~. o~ J~\ .. \ 133a1S H1 91 :.~': W d ~ a ;.. O ~ ~: J ~ t~ ~ o Z4 W W c~n ~ o a ~ .O ~ z yt oc o W ('~ N ~ 0 3 ~ O W CC O o. 1- - ;~ .~ _ P • ~' ~~ ~~l r ~ - ® PLANNING _ ~~ ~ ~ TRANSPORTATION J ® ENGINEERING `~___J1 ARCHITECTURE BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER- INC. THRESHER. SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS; MN 55415 PHONE 612/370-0700 ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TECHNICAL MEMORADUM N0. 8 DATE: .December 3 ,1986 FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP (Based on Memorandums by James Kranig and Dr. David Braslau) RE: Predicted Carbon Monoxide Levels from the CDR Development This memorandum is a supplement to Exhibit C of the Noise and Air Quality Review which was presented by Dr. David Braslau at the ILN RAC meeting on October 9, 1986. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the data, which was included in the Noise and Air Quality Review, regarding the projected carbon monoxide concentrations near the proposed CDR development. in the ILN Redevelopment Project area. SUMMARY The data which is the subject of this memorandum consists of the two tables on pages 8 and 11 of Exhibit C of the Noise and Air Quality Review. The table on page 8, which is titled "Maximum Observed Values at MPCA Continuous Monitors - 1982," lists typical maximum carbon monoxide concentrations at six different locations in the Twin Cities area. The data shows that the maximum observed concentration for a 1-hour period in-1982 was at the intersection of Snelling Avenue and University Avenue in St. Paul. The recorded concentration was 21..8 ppm (parts per million) which is well below the established MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) Air Quality Standard of 30.0 ppm. The table on page 11, which is titled "Carbon Monoxide Projections for CDR Development," lists the projected worst case carbon monoxide concentrations at a receptor north of West 77th Street next to the CDR site. The table indicates that the total maximum 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration is projected to be 23.3 ppm. Although this projection of 23.3 ppm is well below the MPCA Standard of 30.0 ppm, it is higher than any of the observed readings listed in the table on page 8. .The data would appear to indicate that the CDR site will have the highest 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration in the Twin Cities area. This, however, is not true. The two tables represent different types of data and should not be used for direct comparisons. The to eon page 8, which fists existing rea ings at six different locations, represents actual readings which have been recorded in the field. The table on page 11, which lists the projected concentrations at the OAVID J. BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P. WOLSFELD PETER E. JAR'VIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A. AMUNOSEN DONALD E. HUNT MARK G. SWENSON JOHN B. McNAMARA DONALD L. CRAIG RICHARD D. PILGRIM DALE N. BECKMANN DENNIS J. SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX ILN Redevelopment Project Technical Memorandum No. 8 December 3, 1986 Page 2 CDR site, represents a hypothetical situation which was generated for the sole purpose of demonstrating that, even under the most conservative assumptions and in the case of the most improbable coincidence of a number of worst case environmental and traffic conditions, no violations of the MPCA Standards will occur. The projections listed in the table on page 11 are in no way intended to indicate actual future expected concentrations in the project area. The only purpose of this analysis is to prove that even under the worst conditions the proposed development would not violate the established air quality standards. The actual maximum l-hour carbon monoxide concentrations which can be expected in the project area will be in the range of 8 to 10 ppm. Following is a more detailed discussion of the process which was used in deve- loping the projections. PROCESS FOR PROJECT AIR QUALITY REVIEW Because of variability in project type, roadway configuration, vehicular beha- vior, and meteorology, standard procedures have been developed to evaluate potential air quality impacts from developments. The purpose of the review. and standard method of analysis is to ensure that no violations of the-state ambient air quality standards occur. Following is a listing of the assumptions which have to be made in evaluating air quality. The first set of assumptions deals with the development of background con- centrations, which are to be added to those predicted from local roadways. These are generally. assumed to be the highest observed level during a two-week monitoring period, irregardless of the conditions and time under which these readings occur. Thus, in most cases, the assumed background is higher than that which would actually occur at the site in :the peak traffic hour. The second set of assumptions deals with meteorology, and is established to ensure worst case conditions. Here, worst case wind direction, wind speed, wind temperature, and atmospheric stability are assumed. The third set of assumptions deals with motor vehicle emissions, and is based - upon factors developed by the US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). A low temperature and high percentage of cold starts is normally assumed, which again yields worst case conditions. If the use of these standard assumptions shows no violation of either the 1-hour or 8-hour standard, then the project meets the air quality review. If a violation is predicted, then the MPCA requires that mitigative measures be implemented or incorporated into the design to reduce the predicted worst case concentrations so they do not exceed standards. 4~3~ i • ~~ ILN Redevelopment Project Technical Memorandum No. 8 December 3, 1986 Page 3 ASSUMPTIONS MADE FOR THE-CDR DEVELOPMENT In the development of the air quality model for the CDR project a number of assumptions were made regarding background concentrations, environmental con- ditions, and traffic impacts. Following is a listing of the key assumptions and factors which contributed to the air quality projetions: • The models are very conservative and commonly overpredict carbon monoxide concentrations.. • The carbon monoxide levels used for the background concentrations are from a site east of Cedar Avenue close to the airport. This background data was used because it was the only comparable data available. The readings are relatively high in comparison to other locations similar to the CDR site. • All worst case conditions would occur simultaneously during the afternoon peak. traffic hour. • The wind speed would be 1 meter per second (2.24 mph), which is very low relative to the average wind speeds of approximately 10 mph which are experienced in the winter months in Minnesota. • It was assumed that-the intersection of the CDR access road and West 77th Street would be signalized (no such signal is currently being proposed for this intersection) and the wind direction would be oriented to cross the two largest traffic queues at the traffic signal. • The signal would have relatively long signal cycles which would result in long queues and which contributes significantly to carbon monoxide concentrations. • There would be a very high percentage of cold-start vehicles leaving the site which contributes significantly to carbon monoxide concentrations. • The increased mixing which would result due to the turbulence caused by the office towers was not considered in this analysis since the final design of the towers had not been determined. • The predicted concentrations are for full development in 1987. However, the project has been delayed and it will also be scaled back and staged so that the scaled back full development is not likely to occur by 1987. The result of the delay is that vehicle emission rates, and very likely the background carbon monoxide concentrations, will be lower than today and the scaled-back ~~ /o ~; .. ~~ ILN Redevelopment Project Technical Memorandum No. 8 December 3, 1986 Page 4 development will have less impact. Therefore, the predicted concentrations for the scaled-back new development will be lower than the originally pre- dieted concentrations. MOST LIKELY 1-HOUR CONCENTRATION A most likely concentration can be developed by examining monitored sites in the Twin Cities .and traffic flows near these sites.. The total approach volume at the CDR entrance/77th Street intersection is esti- mated to be 1,500 vehicles per hour. This compares with a volume of 3,000 vph at the 7th and Hennepin site in downtown Minneapolis, for which a 14.6 ppm maxi- mum was observed in 1982. This is an intersection of one-way streets in a city "street canyon." At Snelling and University, also with 3,000 vph, a con- centration of 21.8 ppm was observed in 1982. This can be attributed primarily to the fact that this is a four-way intersection, with four left turn lanes and left turn signals, which delay through traffic. The US EPA modelled the Snelling/University intersection, making the best assumptions they could as to traffic flow, meteorology, and emissions, and pre- dicted a 29 ppm 1-hour level, or 33 percent higher than actually observed. Thus, even if the worst case conditions assumed in the CDR model did occur, the observed concentration would be 16.5 ppm rather than the predicted 23.3 ppm. If the approach volume of 1,500 vph on a simple T-intersection is compared with the approach volume of 3,000 on a four-way intersection, it is likely that the intersection with the smaller volume will experience a concentration at least no greater than 50 percent of that with the larger volume. Since the Snelling and University concentration has dropped to about 70 percent of its 1982 level, or to 15.3 ppm, the concentration at the CDR ,project based on this comparison would most likely be no greater than 50 percent of the Snelling and University con- centrations or, approximately, 8 ppm. The use of worst case assumptions, which in this case yields a projection for a maximum 1-hour concentration of 23.3 ppm, generally leads to predicted values which can be considerably higher than will actually occur. Thus, based upon data from other intersections in the Twin Cities area, the actual 1-hour-carbon monoxide. concentrations near the CDR site will most probably not exceed 8 to 10 ppm. AP/ar ~•. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HRA Letter No. 38 Agenda December 15,.1986 Issue Statement: Supplemental Agreement for Technical Assistance for the ILN Redevelopment Project with the firm of BRW. -~~ Background: The HRA and City Council have contracted with the planning consulting firm of BRW since April, 1985. BRW and especially Mr. Arijs Pakalns, have been working in two areas. First was to prepare a plan for the future of the ILN area which in part became the ILN Redevelopment Plan approved by the HRA and City Council in 1985. Since the spring of this year, they have been working with staff, the ILN Advisory Committee, the ILN Residential Advisory Committee and other people from the community to revise the original redevelopment plan to meet the needs of the community with less revenue. In July 1986, the HRA and City Council approved a second contract with BRW for $26,000 for two tasks. Task one would provide technical assistance for special studies in the ILN and for the assessment of the impact of development proposals on the redevelopment plan. The second task called for the formulation of guidelines and strategies for the redevelopment area between 77th Street and I494. This task would be important to help assure that the city is in a strong position to not only seek development proposals for this area but properly evaluate them. The funds from the July contract have been completely expended on task one. The expenses were incurred because of the extensive public meeting process which began to unfold near late August. The July contract did not anticipate the high level of community activity. From September through October BRW was involved in 6 of the 9 meetings of the Residential Advisory Committee. There were also meetings with staff to review issues which arose during this period. The time commitment was great because the Residential Advisory Committee discussions were very detailed. Discussion at these. meetings were preceded by questions .from the committee for which written answers were requested for the meeting. The questions and answers for the various topics resulted in four technical memos which generally focused on traffic. The memos are attached to provide an understanding of the many issues and details which demanded attention. The contract attached to this letter provides funding for four tasks. They are described on pages 4 and 5 of the contract. To clarify, Task la. would provide funding for assistance which may be needed as the HRA and City Council consider action on items related to the amended ILN redevelopment project plan and the CDR proposal. As indicated on page 4, it would also provide assistance to work with the residents and business people in evaluating the needs and requirements for the 77th Street improvements especially the buffer strip and roadway loops. Work related to 77th Street and the loops is, of course, subject to the HRA and City Council responding favorably to the requests for action related to the amended redevelopment project plan and CDR proposal. ~'~ Task 2 was included in the previous contract. However, no work was accomplished on this task as indicated above. This task is important for the city to realize the potential of the area south of 77th Street. The limitation on issuance of building permits expires March 22, 1987. Task 3 would be classified as an implementation activity the undertaking of which would be dependent upon the approval of the redevelopment plan amendments and CDR's amended contract. Task 4 relates to the seeking of funds for improvements to the Lyndale/494 bridge. The 1494 corridor study will be released about mid-1987. That report may significantly influence the design of the bridge. However, to put the city in the best possible position to deal with the need for bridge improvements, it would be desirable to apply for FAU funds when the applications are released in late January. Competition for FAU funds will be very keen and we may have to apply more than once, so it is important to start next year. Staff has met with Bloomington staff regarding the bridge. Bloomington has indicated they would support an FAU application. The amount of compensation projected at this time for each task is indicated on page 7 of the agreement. Funds would be provided from the HRA Capital Revolving Fund which is to be reimbursed by the temporary bonds when redevelopment proceeds. Recommendation: It is recommended that the HRA approve the supplemental contract with BRW to permit planning activity to continue in an amount not to exceed $96,000. Basis of Recommendation: As of the payment of the October statement, the current contract has no funds remaining. Alternative Recommendation: The HRA could approve less than all four of the tasks contained in the supplemental contract. Decision Mode: Action by the HRA is desirable on December 15, 1986 so that with your approval the City Council can be requested to act on December 22, 1986. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser Exe u ive Director JDP/eja ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ `~ BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. THRESHER SOUARE DATE: September 18, 1986 ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 4 FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 PHONE 612:970-0700 RE: Responses to Traffic Issues Raised by The Residential Advisory Committee (RAC) Following is a summary of the questions and responses to the issues raised by the ILN RAC. 1. ISSUE: How will vehicles traveling west or east on W. 76th Street make the turning movement at Emerson Avenue? RESPONSE: For most of the vehicles traveling west on W. 76th Street the destination will be the I-35W access ramp or points west of I-35W. These vehicles will make a simple right-turn movement onto the new W. 77th Street exten- sion. Vehicles whose destination is the new commercial district along the freeway or the Lyndale Avenue access ramp to I-494 will have to make a left-turn movement at the new W. 77th Street intersection, or they can use Lyndale Avenue, which would be a lot easier and also a more direct route. The vehicles traveling east on W. 76th Street will use the left turn lane on the new W. 77th Street extension to make the left turn movement into W. 76th Street. 2. ISSUE: How will businesses along W. 77-1/2 Street enter the rear of their pro- perty for loading purposes? RESPONSE: The access to the north side of the businesses north of W. 77-1/2 Street will continue to be, for the time being, as it is now, directly from W. 77th Street. As part of the Phase I, Stage 1 improvements, W. 77th Street, between Colfax Avenue and Lyndale Avenue will be upgraded to a four-lane roadway and the residential streets north of W. 77th Street will DAVID J. BENNETT DONALD W. RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E. JARVIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A. AMUNDSEN DONALD E. HUNT .MARK G. SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA .DONALD L.CRAIG RICHARD D. PILGRIM DALE N. BECKMANN DENNIS J. SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX ~~~ i I Technical Memorandum No. 4 September 18, 1986 Page 2 be looped to eliminate commercial through traffic on the residential streets. The service access for the existing businesses will be from the southerly lane of the four.-lane roadway. Although this is not an optimum situation, this condition will remain until the area along W. 77-1/2 Street is redeveloped and the need for direct service access to be busi- nesses is eliminated, as recommended in the ILN Redevelopment Plan. At the time this area is redeveloped and the service need eliminated, W. 77th Street will be upgraded to a four-lane roadway with a landscaped median and protected left-turn lanes. 3. ISSUE: What are the traffic counts at W. 76th and W. 77th Streets, where the two streets merge? RESPONSE: The existing traffic counts indicate that the Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) on W. 76th Street in the vicinity of Emerson Avenue is approximately 11,000 vehicles a day. The projected traffic volumes for the new inter- section are as follows: Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) Street Phase I, Stage 1 Phase I (Full Dev.) W. 76th Street 5,600 5,600 W. 77th Street Extension 15,800 18,500 4. ISSUE: What are'the current and projected traffic counts for West 76th Street (west of the I-35W overpass)? Should address the entire impact not just a segment. RESPONSE: The current average traffic volume on W. 76th Street west of I-35W is 12,300 vehicles a day. The Phase I developments will generate a total volume of 12,460 vehicles a day. Since it is estimated that only five percent of the study area generated traffic will use W. 76th Street west of I-35W, the increase in traffic volume west of I-35W will be approxima- tely 600 vehicles a day for a total projected volume of 12,900 vehicles a day. This volume will be well within the capacity of W. 76th Street. ~~ Technical Memorandum No. 4 September 18, 1986 Page 3 The projections for Penn Avenue at W. 76th Street are between 12,300 and 14,200 ADT. By comparison. the volumes on Penn Avenue at W. 66th Street are between 15,.900 and 22,000 ADT. Therefore, especially with the pro- posed improvements at Penn Avenue, the intersection at Penn Avenue and W. 76th Street will be adequate to handle the projected traffic volumes. 5. ISSUE: How can we defend against increased traffic in area? We should be con- cerned about the Mega Mall effect and take a defensive position in our community. It's important to take commercial traffic off residential streets. RESPONSE: One of the primary goals of the ILN Redevolpment Project is to eliminate commercial traffic from residential streets. This will be accomplished by channeling all commercially oriented traffic onto the designated business roadways, such as the proposed new W. 77th Street, and by looping the residential streets to eliminate through traffic. The Redevelopment Project will also reduce traffic on W. 76th Street which is located in a residential neighborhood. The key to minimizing traffic problems is proper planning. The community should continue planning efforts, such as the ILN Redevelopment Study, to insure that the proper framework exists to accommodate future changes. 6. ISSUE: What is the possibility of relocating the signal on Lyndale Avenue and W. 76th Street south to W. 77th Street and possibly eliminating the W. 76th Street signal and the Lyndale Avenue & I-494'signal? Traffic signals are so costly. RESPONSE: All three intersections on Lyndale Avenue, at W. 76th Street, at W. 77th Street, and at the I-494 access ramps, have and will continue to have sufficiently large traffic volumes, including turning movements, to warrant signals and, therefore, none of these signals should be elimi- nated. It is physically impossible to combine these intersections. . -J Technical Memorandum #4 September 18, 1986 Page 4 7. ISSUE: The Lyndale Avenue stacking area will be complicated by the Hampton Inn ingress and egress. RESPONSE: The ILN Phase I plan includes the widening of installation of a median barrier. This will out traffic movements only at the Hampton Inn no problems for traffic movement or staking. 8. ISSUE: Lyndale Avenue and the result in right-in and right- entrance and should present Why not widen the south side of the W. 76th Street bridge? RESPONSE: Most of the pedestrian traffic origin and destination points are located north of the W. 76th Street bridge and therefore the north side of the bridge was selected for widening. The public facilities west of I-35W are located north of W. 76th Street and most of the residential area east of I-35W will also be located north of the W. 76th Street/W. 77th Street minor arterial making the north side of the bridge the logical choice for widening. Widening both sides of the bridge would double the cost and would be redundant. One more factor which should be considered as part of the bridge widening issue is the I-35W corridor study. If the study~recommen- dations call for widening I-35W and rebuilding the W. 76th Street bridge, which could incorporate a wider pedestrian crossing, widening the bridge now could be wasteful and unwise. 9. ISSUES: What impact will the I-494 and I-35W corridor study recommendations have on our community? What effect will the freeway expansion have on the frontage roads, and exit and entrance ramps onto Lyndale Avenue? RESPONSE: Both, the I-494 and the I-35W corridor studies are currently underway and should be completed sometime in 1987. Since the ILN area is located at the intersection of these two major freeways, there certainly may be some significant impacts on the ILN study area especially in the frontage road area and at the interchanges. i !' f ~" o~ ~ (o Technical Memorandum No. 4 September 18, 1986 Page 5 The ILN Redevelopment Plan does consider the possibility that I-494 and I-35W may have to be widened and the frontage roads may have to be vacated.. The circulation system proposed by the ILN Plan does not depend on the frontage .roads, and all traffic and area access can be accommodated on other roadways. ~~` Until the studies are completed and the recommendations presented, very little can be done. The best course for the City would be to stay ac- tively involved in the study process and to aggressively address the impacts once the recommendations are published and implementation begins. AP/sk ~-~_~ r• ~~~~~~~7 ~~~ BENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. DATE: September 25, 1986 ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 5 PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH •. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 PHONE 612/370-0700 FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP RE: Responses to Traffic Issues Raised by The Residential Advisory Committee (RAC) at the September 18, 1986 meeting. At the September 18, 1986 RAC meeting a list of questions was submitted by the RAC chairman regarding a wide range of traffic circulation related issues in the ILN area. Since many of the questions deal with existing traffic conditions and the pro- posed traffic circulation plan, most of the answers are provided in the ILN Redevelopment Study report which was published as part of the ILN redevelpoment planning process and which has been distributed to all RAC members. Additional answers to traffic circulation questions are provided in Technical Memorandum No.4 which included responses to the first set of traffic issue questions raised by RAC and which was presented and discussed at the September 18, 1986 RAC meeting. Copies of Technical Memorandum No. 4 are attached. Finally, in order to more clearly answer further traffic questions raised at past meetings, additional traffic study material has been prepared and is included as part of this memorandum. The additional material consists of the following: o Table 1, PM Peak Hour Level of Service o Figure 1, 1984 Traffic Counts o Figure 2, Future Traffic Volumes, Phase I, Stage 1 o Figure 3, Future Traffic Volumes, Phase I Additional traffic data which was too detailed for inclusion in the ILN Redevelopment Study report or the attached material is available for review at the BRW offices. Since answers to all the traffic issues raised are contained in either the ILN Redevelopment Study report or the attached material and in order to minimize duplication, responses to the traffic issues are given by referencing the. appropriate source material. DAVID J. BENNETT DONALD W. RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E. JARVIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A. AMUNDSEN DONALD E. HUNT MARK G. SWENSON JOHN B. McNAMARA DONALD L. CRAIG RICHARD D. PILGRIM DALE N. BECKMANN DENNIS J. SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX ~' Technical Memorandum No. 5 September 25, 1986 Page 2 Following is a listing of the questions and responses to the traffic issues raised at the September 18, 1986 RAC meeting: I. What is Existing Situation A. Capacity of existing system 1. 76th Street 2. 76th Street & I35W Interchange 3. Lyndale b I494 Bridge RESPONSE: For items I.A.l., I.A.2., and I. A.3 see Tabled (Attached). The capacity is given in terms of level of service. 4. 76th Street & Penn 5. Penn & I494 Bridge RESPONSE: For items I.A.4. and I.A.5. a separate study has been conducted by Hennepin County and is available through City staff. B. What level of service exists today 1. A, B, C, D, E, or F RESPONSE: See Table 1 (Attached) 2. Average Daily Traffic RESPONSE: See "Inventory/Analysis" (page 9) and Figure 10 (page 33) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. 3. Peak hour traffic, occurrence RESPONSE: See Table 2 (page 32) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. C. What are existing turning movements 1. 76th & Lyndale 2. Lyndale & I-494 Both sides ,~ °~ Technical Memorandum No. 5 September 25, 1986 Page 3 RESPONSE: For items I.C.1. and I.C.2. see Table 2 (page 32) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. 3. 76th b Penn RESPONSE: A separate study has been conducted by Hennepin County and is available through City staff. D. Where is Origin b Destination of traffic RESPONSE: See "Existing Traffic Circulation" (page 22) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. II. What are Projected Volumes A. Projections 1. Each phase I & II of CDR & Corporate Travel project & by uses (office, hotel, etc.) RESPONSE: For Phase I, Stage 1 and Phase I traffic volumes see Figures 2 and 3 (Attached) and Table 4 (page 63) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. 2. Completed ILN RESPONSE: See Figures 13 and 14 in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. 3. Completed ILN & Redevelop in Bloomington RESPONSE: See Figures 13 and 14 in the ILN Redevelopment Study. Increases in background traffic were used to account for additional developments outside the ILN study area. ~~ ~% Technical Memorandum No.5 September 25,1986 Page 4 B. What is projection by ADT & Peak Hour for each phase, completed ILN & completed ILN & Bloomington redevelopment. RESPONSE: See Table 4 (page 63) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. The ADT projec- tion for Phase I, Stage 1 is 6,100 vehicles a day. C. What is Origin & Destination of projected traffic - How determined RESPONSE: See "Traffic Circulation Alternatives" (page 55) and specifically "Trip Generation" (page 62), Table 4 (page 63), and "Trip Distribution" (page 64) in the ILN Redevelopment Study report. III. What is Detail Plan To Handle Projected Traffic A. Major Parts 1. 77th Street 2. 77th & Lyndale 3. 76th & I35W 4. 76th b Penn ° B. Other Parts 1. Fremont & 76th 2 6th & New 77th Street 3. Emerson & 76th 4. 76th & Lyndale RESPONSE: See the ILN Redevelopment Study report C. Pedestrian, Safety 1. 76th & 35W RESPONSE: See Issue #8 in Technical Memorandum No.4 (Attached) 2. 77th Street RESPONSE: Pedestrian Crossings will be provided as required. A signalized crossing will be installed at W. 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. -~~- // Technical Memorandum No.5 September 15, 1986 Page 5 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION EXISTING PHASE I - STAGE 2 PHASE 1 76th St./I-35W Off-Ramp A A B 76th St./I-35W On-Ramp * B C 76th St./Lyndale Ave. C B B - 77th St./Lyndale Ave. * D C 1/ 77-1/2 St./Lyndale Ave * Removed Removed I-494/Lyndale Ave. (North Ramps) C D C 1/ I-494/Lyndale Ave. (South Ramps) B C ~ C 1/ Note: This Analysis is Based on Circular 212 Planning Analysis Methods for signalized intersections. Level A represents the highest level of service with Level F representing the lowest. Level D is typically considered to be the lowest desireable level of service. 1/ Assumes widening of Lyndale Avenue to provide northbound left-turn lane from Lyndale Ave to westbound 77th Street, right turn lane on southbound Lyndale Avenue to westbound I-494 on-ramp, and right-turn lane on northbound Lyndale Avenue to eastbound I-494 on-ramp. ~~ /~ Y ~- L +RZ M 'S S 3Ar ~ J wOt Y 3Ar X011 3l9Mpl Y r wii O O "' O Y •3/ 3A Yr030 V`. ' Y 3Ar QI WSI f H _ N 31 f f •Y 3Ar , ~ Wtt S .'~ •S Y AA • M N Y ~ ~ 3Ar ~ ~` Yi E N Y N 3Ar 4y N0171 01100~Y N •f N r Y w N 3ArN 01~ WLl N f ~ Y Y 3Ar O yyi N r in s Y 3Ar WCt •S F Y wzt Y r r £ N Y LtJ m r ' ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ yr . •3Ar 1 ~ ~ S ~ P ~ ~ .",~.~ = a f f f f f ~"r F E f f f f Y ~ _~ S •s S S ~ 3Ar io3 F~:, s () fi / _ Qtr o~+ ~~ ! 3Ar wry ;,, •S ... 3Ar aMn no © : Y N r ONri 1 3Ar N Y N ' C~ ~r yi WS N Y '1'r~ ~ Y "3111 W1 ~ ~' L S F Arti S £ we d Y Yi Y ~ W 3Ar vi • vi u MOl 1U1~ w ~ w ~ n i Y i S N Q ~ 3Ar ~ u Y f Y w 3At Cuz Y M r T Y ~ 3Ar SM3A 31S ~ . Y W W ~ .. i Y ~ •3Ar . N ~fi J N Y ;~ N 3A 13t 107 ® M Y f` N ~ ^ ® ~~ 1 • r N ~ •: N Y 3At f M1Y0~ 1M3~ Y h 3Ar H M w1YW 1A13~.: N N N • Y N 3A• ii u Q Y 3Ar .S i11rt r31i1 3 3Ar s AM1Y SnW Y 3Ar Y 3Ar yAir Sr31 3 ArrW SrIe Y i 3Ar ~ ._- f ~'S M?m 3Ar i lAfIS r3L '~ ~ •S D 'S 3Ar L lA 1rSr3v '~ ~ 3 Ar lA1rS 1 Y S Z '3Ar ~ ONrq p Y 3Ar O OMr119 ' ~ N M ~ ~ = ~ N 3Ar OMr. _ ~~ w ~ ~ ~ u 8 C 3ArN £ ~ b ~ D ~ C Y Y •3Ar 3Ar ~ ~ 1 1~ : ~ Y 3Ar 137Y Yr7 ~ ~ • Yr11 Yi r ~ ~ 3Ar ~~ 91IN S9nr 3Ar 07311 Yr0 1, .~ J 3Ar i M 37r0 141 f M Y F v 3 '1 Y b~~ ~ ~0 •S •3Ar MJIMI ~ ~ L N _ 'S ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~1 D •~ J1 'S ~ •3Ar f 1 .. ~ 4s N •S LL. ~f a - )) py,~ 6 ~ ~ Y ~r ~ 1 ~ N ~ i Y ..~_ 3Ar S MO _ 1 "~'~) '3' i~ 7ti.~ M Y •311r j o 6 ~ = Y S+13 1r3 : y ; Y 3At 3 At Y ~ ~ ' LN011 31U ~ 3Ar Y 1Af011 i Y N i Y N 3Ar N ON i00 w w YY r3" x10100 nfw ~r~ 33W OYrY29 E Y f 3"r f "^" f f f •i r r r r s 3Ar ~ • ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3Ar lOlp~iOr1 ~ N 3Ar i Y ~ 3Ar ~ 5 3~ S D_• ~ ~ • . 1. O N •S ,, •3Ar U ~~~~EERR Y N N .z N N r~ N N N N r N ` S y8t '3Ar N 'tl0 Nr)tl011 ~` w `,• r . Y ` 3Ar ~ s S Y '3Ar ~ N N O t L. 0 f ~ N Q N •3Ar Y ~~ N r N r Y 3A _ 113S51W L s •~r r N f f « f 4 ~ a ' ~ y M ` O I1 a k ~ G F >~s F s o Y 3 •3Are b U Om 11r ^ tii3»S 3Ar ' = AIr1 S Y 3A- ~ ~ ~ Srwai Sr11 Y 3Ar ~ . . C i py : 3Ar Mo i s Y a i 3Ar s 1N37MIA ~ .~ 3Ar ` t ' 1M • i 'S • 3Ar ~ y~ R< 3Ar y,~. s 3 _~f a ~ Q 3Ar S3aY s ~ ^ w 3Ar F O •Y31 rYO A /i ~/ 3A- ~ 0 ~ p' 0[ 1~A j h s ~ 3Ar M , ~ , y ii ~ 3Ar V~ ~ w g~~~ < ~ d ~ " ~~ e~~ ~ . ~j ~ ~ ~ ll oilr3e 3Ar ". 31q 7~ Q '~25y~ ~ ~ 1j ' iN~C~z~`^:NNOp~ ~fi-'~ ~ ^ ~ ' 3A1 • ~ p S~ y8y p W ~ ~ ~ ~ l l y t ~ fE~b~i af W ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f M3~a Q 3Ar _ 3Ar ~ .. 3A .. 3~rr~ _ i w f n ~~ `o'- 03 °'~ "- = 08 ~Z ~:~ O N G O ~ ^~\\ W MMU W z~~ ~~~ '~ /Y'\ \~...~ ~ ~~/F~V ----- ----- -- ~----L---~ i .... ..._~~~...___...-. YWYCi ~...i~~~~ • .....T.-._ - ~ .. .y'1'S'dY T_t. ~TLq. N a ~e= o; I I I i ~ ~ .~ rT-TT-~ r._.T.T T.T.T. --~--- ~ ~ :li I°I°IOtoI i°IoIDI~ioPP I~ I 0' ~.o~ --r---T--~~ Jr.-~_. _ ~ ~jOj~I°~°I°I°i I°I°I°I°~~~ I ~ a I ~._..~ ~Z ^~~ -- --- O D O _.~._T _ i _.r O j I I I T ~TIO. ~ •~•~ ao I I ~, o I I I I° I° I° ~~ ~~ ~ I I j ~ I ~. L.~__I_. - ~ ~ ~ rT T T~1 rTT~-TTT o v ~ .. j I oooa oloiooloao 0 loo ' I I j I I l l l t l I I I ~ ado ~{ i ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ i i i Io r p l .~ Q v _l._.~ j ~~ ..~ ~ m :~.., ~ j o ~~ti+sn ~ i I. I ~~++~~ T -'- ]iololal Igq~~6i :bi i I i(~ i a ~ ,,~,~ .~'~ -_ ~~ii~ U '°I~°?i°i ~i°~°1 j~z ~°~' o oT. ~ T ro ~ ~ ~ ~lab~l Ido I ai°Id°I°lol°~kp I I I I I - -a i- --~ 1111 L1 __L~1_L1111 _ _~i~l~ o ~ - ~ `.i T~ o To7 .TT. .T ~ ~ ~T. I - I I~ ~ I I~~I ~ ~ N ~ Ip IDI Idd°I~q~~pip~l plp [ 'y ~~ "sj~ ..L..i i..1.1.1.~.i+1.1. ~ L.L. ~ - 3 -~~ ~L T~ oTT~ QT°?nTo b To v o T ~ j P~P i I'~~j j°i i i I I ~I ~ I i Oj I I I I j ~j ~'n~61 Idd°-alc!~°Iobio~l j Dlo lolol °lo j~ I I ~ 1~.1~ L1.J..1.i.1.1_.1.1.1.1.~ L.L.L.~.1_.1_. _.L.1.-._.~ ~~,,, ~ T'~ T TT~T7 ~'.T.T. , r T. T.T..r.T..T. w I ~ O ~ . 'r~ l~°i i~QI°ig°ioiol°ioo~~ I I °i°I° I° i° I° I° 3 I 0 j c~ -~D~ 1~ ~ ~-~~-~~-F~-F~~+~+~~,~~~-1 E-.4-.1~.4-.lr. -' i j Q I ~ ~ ,rn III / ~ pldD~!~o!°lolD °b! I oID I ob io j ! ~7 j ~ ~ I *' 1.1.1 L.-~.1.1.1.1.1.~.i.J~.1.~ L-1_:L L .J _.-._.; ~ ,~l ; ~ ~°i~goT ~ o i° i~ ' -F +~ -f~- ~ ~ alalolvla ~ d ~ ~~ I ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i-+ IIO10101 lolp Aolo~~lnbbl ~ ~zQo / (/~- 1.11.J ~a._I_.i 1. ~.~.1.~ ~ ~ -.- / ".~ _.~ (_.~.~ ~. T.T.Q. .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' Flo I P AI°i°PPj~°; / ~~+-- ~ ~ I I ~I lolo I°~pl 1,~ ~.% ~~~~ ernuoiH a~e~s~awi r.-AACE-1-~_._.` i i i ~~iaoil!0'a'anb^'a~a. ~Q --------- r -- ---- - - ' ~ - - L - - --- -- - I o; a. alai ~ ~ ~ T"I IQQialal rOTDTa 0~ V I I I ~j OT~~ + + +-i I I ~a!ala!a! L ~ _ ..: °a~a~o~ a~o~~ °L° !°J_°1°!°~ I T T T T T a lq !a la la ~~- A - ~ ~ ~ + ~ T ' _°L° ! °-i° ~~ _~ .~ ~~~ 0 ---~---C i 1--~~- i~ 0 ! ~--: _l._ ' _.~m{ ~a ~ T! j I ono ~ i i~,~ ~i ~ ~ I rTTTI I ~ I°I°I°i°i I ! I ~ _~_~ i 4i ~ 0 I) I ~:- ~iolaloll 1.1.~.~ la gd~~lcLob~nb i.~.~ _ 1.1_ 'T°~P~i°I I ~QI°I T TtI_ ~I +++~ i-+111Ttt.+~- ]~alalal r Ida ~ ~a~dalalab~}~ Li1J LJ_ L X11 111.11 T_'T'~ I1 I ~ r'T' T T f , fa I ~~~~ 1 I I l i QI ~i r~ 1 r~'1~~-a,~-~ ~. ~ ~ I ~dda1~~11a ..~ I'-'PI ~P Ij°~ j°I°°ia pTnTa~o~o~Dl 1 1 ~~ 1 ' i I t~'~ I~ y +~" ~' T~ ~ ~!ab61 Iddaialoi °iabbp! J_1.1...1 L1.1.J.._t_..1.1-.1.1.1.1.) ~Pp ICI IQIQIaI°I°I°j°I°la~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ aldolc~ddalaia~~ 11.1 L._~ 1.1.1.1 l..l .1.J _ J T_T.T.r.Tr.__ o~ ~I^ ~fl~a~al la~^ ~!a! pb b b I 1-L 1 J ~.L _f_ i 1.1 i.i.l.J 7 ~ pia i i_~.7 TTTo ~ ~ AP~PP ~ ! ; T+--~ ~.~1.~1..~1+.~...~ _~. T TT_ ° i° I° a -o alalala is Ia is / / ~ J ^ Quo °o ~o._!,! a! ~Ne?~~a °'° i~~ro t ~ }- -~- ~ -'r -4- ~ D ~O ~O~O~O~O - - - 1. L -1- '~ ~- - _. T T...,_. ~. ~ioln~l~j _.+.+. p~aoo~i a pio ioioi aIc ~ a .1_.~ J_ 1_.1_ .. T. ~. ~.~.~. OIOia ~~ ~~ ja ~a _.~.Lr.t~..Lr. _i c!o ! oio is 0 - III - L1-~ - ~ II ~ I~ I~---~ iW~; - ~;~~ o~~ iii a i ~ I ~ 01 ~ ; Do . . -.-.-, i '~ ~ ~~O -_.-- ~ .~_ o ., _. ~zc'c ~~ /~ N` LL o e M ~_, O ~ _- ` LL :a` °?€ ~ o _~ ~: o ~~ = ,s Y ®M Z °o ~~ o z a 1~ ~~ ~1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ lily>~ m =3 .m x U 0 .., r---~~..-r-- - ~ >a~ ~` ~~ /.~-" ~ w PLANNING _ ~ ~~ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ~~~ ARCHITECTURE BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 PHONE 612/370-0700 DATE: October 2, 1986 ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 6 FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP RE: Responses to Implementation Issues Raised by The Residential Advisory Committee (RAC) at the September I8, 1986 meeting. At the September 18, 1986 RAC meeting a list of questions was submitted by the RAC chairman regarding traffic circulation and implementation related issues in the ILN area. The traffic circulation issues were answered in Technical Memorandum No. 5. This memorandum contains responses to the development related issues which were listed under Category No. IV, "How can we be assured that the plan will be built after CDR is given. the go ahead." Following is a listing of the questions and responses to the issues raised at the September 18, 1986 RAC meeting: _ A. Has Mn/DOT approved the West 76th Street and I-35W design; where are the dollars coming from? RESPONSE: The West 76th Street and I-35W design has not been approved by Mn/DOT. The design proposed for the West 76th Street and I-35W area calls for the following improvements: 1. Widening the sidewalk on the north side by approximately six feet. Z. Adjustments to the on-ramp to I-35W. 3. Installing a signal at West 76th Street and Girard Avenue South. 4. Widening West 76th Street east of the bridge. Since all of these improvements are designed to upgrade traffic circulation and traffic flow, no problems are anticipated in gaining Mn/DOT approval. The approval process can be started immediately and the City intends to begin scheduling meetings with Mn/DOT this month. DAVID J. BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P. WOLSFELD PETER E. JARVIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F. CARROLL. CRAIG A. AMUNDSEN DONALD E. HUNT MARK G. SWENSON JOHN 8. McNAMARA DONALD L. CRAIG RICHARD D. PILGRIM DALE N. BECKMANN DENNIS J. SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX E ~~~ --/~ c# Technical Memorandum No. 6 October 2, 1986 Page 2 One factor which should be considered in the development of designs for this area is the I-35W corridor study. The corridor study recommendations, which are expected in mid-1987, may impact this area and may require adjustment of the plans. It is recommended that, although the planning and approval process can be.continued, implementation not begin until the I-35W corridor study is completed. Funding for the improvements listed above were included in the ILN Redevelopment Project budget. However, because of the change in scope in the CDR development, some of the improvements, such as the signal and widening of West 76th Street, may not be necessary, at least in the immediate future, and may have to be funded from future. stages of the CDR project or through other developments. 6. How are we assured that the I-494 bridge will be built? 1. CDR Letter of Credit 2. City Contract, Mn/OOT Contract. 3.. Joint Powers Agreement with Bloomington 4. Phasing of the COR Project RESPONSE: Although there is no way an absolute guarantee can be given at this time, most of the techniques listed above will be-used by the City to implement the widening of the Lyndale Avenue bridge over I-494. The City will, this month, start discussions with Mn/DOT and the City of Bloomington to lay the groundwork for the bridge widening project. Since widening of the bridge is not an essential part of the Phase I/Stage I public improvements, the first stage of the CDR project is not affected by the bridge widening issue. As additional development proposals are received, the City will have to continue monitoring the Lyndale Avenue area to clearly establish at what point widening of the bridge does become essential and no further developments, without impro- vements to the bridge, should occur. It is hoped that that point will not be reached before the bridge is reconstructed. Since a corridor study is also being conducted for I-494 no implementation should be started until the study recommendations become available. ., *~ ~~'-~~ `~~! PLANNING _ __ _, ~ `~~ 3 ~ ~ TRANSPORTATION l ~ ~IJ ;~ ~ ~ ~° ARCHITEC TURE :,_ BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER..INC. THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55475 PHONE 672/370-0700 DATE: October 22, 1986 ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0.7 FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP RE: Responses to Traffic Impact/ Pedestrian Safety Issues Raised by the Residential Advisory Committee (RAC) at the October 9, 1986 Meeting. At the October 9, 1986 RAC meeting, a list of questions was submitted by the RAC chairman regarding traffic impact and pedestrian safety issues in the ILN area. A number of the questions submitted were discussed in Technical Memorandums No.4 and No. 5 and the ILN Redevelopment Study Report. Where appropriate, responses to some of the questions raised are made by referencing the original source material. In addition, in order to provide more detailed information regarding some of the issues, additional traffic study material has be included as part of this memorandum. The additional material consists of the following: o Table 1, Definition of Levels of Service o Council Letter No. 288 Following is a listing of the questions and responses to the traffic impact and pedestrian safety issues raised at the October 9, 1986 RAC meeting: A. First Group of Questions 1. Is the I-494/Lyndale Avenue bridge and access designed to accommodate additional projected traffic at reasonable service levels? •RESPONSE: See Table 1, "PM Peak Hour Level of Service," in Technical Memorandum No. 5. (Please note the following corrections. The heading of the third column should read "Phase I/Stage 1" instead of "Phase I -Stage 2"). As the table indicates, the levels of service for the I-494/Lyndale Avenue North Ramps and South Ramps will drop from the existing Levels of Service of C and B, respectively, to D and C in Phase I/Stage 1 and will be C and C in Phase I, once additional improvements to Lyndale Avenue are completed. DAVID J. BENNETT DONALD W. RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELO PETER E. JARVIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F. CARROLL CRAIG A. AMUNDSEN DONALD E. HUNT MARK G. SWENSON JOHN 8 McNAMARA DONALD L. CRAIG RICHARD D- PILGRIM DALE N. BECKMANN DENNIS J. SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX ~ r` ~~ /~ Technical Memorandum No. 7 October 22, 1986 Page 2 Since level D is typically considered to be the lowest desireable level of service, the projected levels of service will be within the acceptable range. For a more detailed definition of the levels of service see Table 1, attached. The assumptions for these projections are that no improvements, except for the. signal at W. 77th Street, are made to Lyndale Avenue in Phase I/Stage 1 and that Phase I will include the improvements described in Table 1 of Technical Memorandum No. 5. Future improvements for full development of the ILN Redevelopment project area will include widening of Lydale Avenue to include two left turn lanes from northbound Lyndale Avenue to W. 77th Street, widening of the Lyndale Avenue bridge to incorporate side-by-side left-turn lanes on the bridge, and improvements (widening to three lane approaches) of the freeway ramps. See figure 17, Alternative B, on page 77 in the ILN Redevelopment Study Report.. These improvements will result in Level of Service C or better traffic operations at the I-494 ramp intersections with Lyndale Avenue. 2. Is the I-35W/W. 76th Street bridge designed to accommodate additional protected traffic at reasonable service levels? RESPONSE: See Table 1, "PM Peak Hour Level of Service," in Technical Memorandum No. 5. For Phase I/Stage 1 and Phase I Levels of Service C or better will be main- tained at the W. 76th Street and I-35W ramp intersections. With full development of the ILN Redevelopment Project area Levels of Service C or better traffic operations are still forecast at the I-35W ramp intersec- tions. 3. Is the Penn Avenue/W. 76th Street intersection and Penn Avenue/I-494 bridge and access capable of accommodating additional traffic at reaso- nable service levels? RESPONSE: Hennepin County, in cooperation with MnOot, the City of Richfield, and the City of Bloomington, has been developing a plan for improvement of the Penn Avenue interchange with I-494 which includes improveents at the Penn Avenue/76th Street intersection. Hennepin County's year 2000 projection for Penn Avenue at W. 76th Street is 25,000 vehicles per day. The current traffic volume is 16,000 vehicles per day on this section. They did not project traf- fic on 76th Street. The proposed design would widen both 76th Street and Penn. Avenue to provide protected left-turn lanes on all approaches to the intersection. ~~ ~~ /y Technical Memorandum No. 7 October 22, 1986 Page 3 4. How will pedestrian safety be accommodated on both sides of W. 76th Street from Emerson Avenue to I-35W? RESPONSE: A pedestrian walkway will be provided between Emerson Avenue and I-35W. In addition, the intersection of W. 76th Street and Girard Avenue/I-35W Access Ramp will be signalized and the freeway access ramp will-be simplified to require only one pedestrian crosswalk instead of two. 5. What are-the solutions to deal with W. 77th Street east of Lyndale Avenue? a. Four lanes west of Lyndale Avenue and taper down to two lanes before turning south at Harriet Avenue. That existing corner cannot accom- modate the turning of large trucks and car transports without rolling over the curb. The shifting up and down at that corner generates more noise and pollution. b. Consider 7644 Garfield as an acquisition. c. Air and noise pollution is anticipated to be high. RESPONSE: A detailed analysis was prepared for the W. 77th Street area east of Lyndale Avenue and the recommendations were presented in Council Letter No. 288, which is attached to this memorandum. The recommended plan will help to alleviate some of the existing problems by separating the commercial and residential traffic, by providing a larger turning radius at W. 77th Street and Harriet Avenue S., and by creating a buffer strip north of W. 77th Street. Although the acquisition of the 7644 Garfield Avenue property still is part of the overall plan, funding limitations do not permit the acquisition as part of the Phase I/Stage 1 redevelopment program. Because of the relatively low traffic volumes on W. 77th Street east of Lyndale Avenue, no noise or air pollution violations are projected for the residential area east of Lyndale Avenue. B. Second Group of Questions 1. The traffic projections are conflicting. A. Although the projections that indicate almost all of the traffic leaving the new exit at Girard Avenue at W. 76th Street will proceed east, the existing traffic turning movements and the developer's traffic engineer indicate that the traffic will proceed at about 1/3 west, 1/3 east on 76th Street and 1/3 north on the on-ramp to I-35W. ~~ ~d Technical Memorandum No. 7 October 22, 1986 Page 4 RESPONSE: The turning movement forecasts, included in the ILN Redevelopment Study, for the south approach to the W. 76th Street/Girard Avenue intersection are 31% going (north), 61% going right (east), and 8% going left (west). The same percentage forecast was made for the CDR exit on to W. 77th Street. If one makes the assumption that most- of the traffic going east will use the W. 77th Street exit and the traffic going west will use the Girard Avenue exit, the distribution at the Girard Avenue intersection will be more even in all three directions. 6. Although the projections indicate that the I-494 bridge is capable of accommodating projected traffic, it appears that the total projected traffic was not considered. A large portion of the proposed redeve- lopment in Richfield and possible development in Bloomington from its traffic projections have been left out. RESPONSE: All the proposed developments in the ILN area, as well as all known develop- ments within a reasonable distance of the ILN area, were included in the traf- fic projections directly or were included as part of the increase in the background traffic. C. Although the projections indicate that the I-494 bridge is capable of accommodating projected traffic, the turning movement projections presented are in conflict. RESPONSE: The apparent discrepancy in the turning movement projections between the north and south ramps is due to the fact that the projections are based on existing traffic movement counts which were taken on different but comparable days and therefore may vary across the bridge. 2. Two reports completed by professional traffic engineers indicate that the Lyndale Avenue, Lyndale Avenue/I-494 bridge and W. 76th Street are at capacity at the present time without any additional development. These two reports conflict thus need to be addressed. RESPONSE: The ILN Redevelopment Study projections were made under current conditions and based on the proposed roadway improvements. This situation is different from the conditions that existed 10 or 20 years ago when the other studies or reports were prepared. .~- ~ ~/ Technical Memorandum No. 7 October 22, 1986 Page 5 C. Additional Questions or Issues Raised at RAC Meetings 1. What will the traffic conditions be for making the left-turn movement from the W. 76th Street/W. 77th Street diagonal to W. 16th Street? RESPONSE: The traffic projections for the W. 76th Street/W. 77th Street intersection,, listed in Table 5, page 72, of the ILN Redevelopment Study Report, indicate that the turning movement can be made as designed. The report also indicates that, if warranted, a signal may be installed at this intersection. As part of the street improvement program, provisions will be made to include all con- duit and other required components to permit the future installation of a signal at this intersection. 2. How will this traffic plan work if other streets and intersections do not work? RESPONSE: Every street and intersection is different and has to be evaluated in terms of its own specific conditions or merits. Frequently, poor traffic conditions develop because traffic increases were not planned for or traffic is routed on streets which have not been designed to carry large volumes of traffic. In the ILN are the City of Richfield has an opportunity to plan and design a traffic circulation system which will be able to not only handle the traffic from the new redevelopment area, but also alleviate many of the existing traf- fic problems. AP/sk ~~~~~ Technical Memorandum No. 7 October 22, 1986 TABLE 1: DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-0f- service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle fora 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in Table 9-1. Delay may be measured in the field, or may be estimated using procedures presented later in this chapter. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Level-of-service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. TAHLE 9-1. LEVEL-0F-SERVICE CRrrERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTER- SECTIONS Level-of-service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to ls.o sec per vehicle. This generally ocettrs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level-of-service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level-of-service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles -stop, and the pro- portion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle fail- ures are noticeable. Level-of-service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. In- dividual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level-of-service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersec- tion. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay lever. STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (SEC) A ~ S.0 B S.1 to IS.O C 15.1 to 25.0 D -25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 ~~ -~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Office of City•Manager Council Letter No. 288 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and ^- Members Of The City Council ~. + City of Richfield Subject: ILN Project, Right-of-Way Improvements To 77th and 78th Streets, East of Lyndale Avenue Council Members: This letter requests the City Council to take action to authorize activity which could result in the installation of interim traffic control measures at two areas within the ILN Redevelopment Project. One area is along 77th Street at its intersection with Garfield and Harriet Avenues, and the second is at 78th Street•and its intersection with Lyndale Avenue. BACKGROUND In November,, 1985, a Phase I plan for right-of-way improvements for the ILN Redevelopment Project was approved by .the HRA and City Council. The schedule at that time anticipated the city would begin to purchase property for the right-of-way improvements when CDR began the construction of their office building in June, 1986. Construction of the right-of=way improvements would begin i'n the Spring of 1987 when COR initiated work on the hotel development. CDR, of .course, is not proceeding on that original schedule. However, the development east of Lyndale Avenue is proceeding. Richfield-Bloomington Honda is complete and the Hampton Inn should be under construction in August or September. Construction should be completed in about 9 to 12 months. With development east of Lyndale Avenue proceeding, but with the density and tax increment cash flow not yet determined for a revised CDR concept (a revised CDR concept is not yet available), it was appropriate to identify interim traffic control measures. The measures were to be consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan Phase I,-cost effective, provide protection to.the residential area north of 77th Street, help establish the desired Permanent traffic patterns, and minimize or eliminate further problems. ~' ~'~ ~ On .May 12 and May 27, the Council discussed interim traffic control measures which could be provided to give re-lief to the anticipated intensification of existing problems.at the intersection of 78th and Lyndale Avenue with the construction of the. Hampton Inn. Related to this consideration was a request made by some of the residents north of 77th Street to eliminate or significantly reduce commercial related traffic on their residential streets. At the May 27th meeting, three alternatives for 78th Street identified as A, B, and C were discussed:'; Eac h of the three offered a different option for 78th Street and its intersection with Lyndale Avenue. Each of the three called for a diverter at the intersection of Harriet Avenue with 77th Street and conversion of Garfield Avenue to a one way. Alternative- C was selected by the Council as the most desirable solution (a copy is attached). It included the conversion of 78th Street to a one-way east bound, as well as the measures noted above, but further study of the Garfield Avenue solution was requested because of concern that one-way signs would not be effective. A request was made by the Council that staff evaluate alternative interim improvements which would reduce or eliminate commercial traffic on Garfield as well as Harriet Avenues. Measures to mitigate the other land use conflicts between the residential and commercial areas related to noise and vision were also to be studied. - REVISED PLANS Attached to this letter are three different stages prepared by BRW for the Garfield/Harriet Avenue area. The third stage is the full implementation of the•Phase I plan as designed by BRW. Implementation of Stage 1 only at this time would be appropriate. The Stage 1 plan, Figure 1, represents the minimum plan which would accomplish the established goals while preserving the integrity of the ILN Study Plan. Stage 1 would require, in addition to the construction of the roadway diversion at the Harriet Avenue and West 77th Street intersection, the acquisition and clearing of two residential properties north of West 77th Street. The two properties to be purchased would be 7645 Garfield and 7644 Harriet. It would also provide for the construction of a residential .loop road between Garfield Avenue and Harriet Avenue. This option would•totally separate commercial and residential traffic and it would present some opportunities for screening the commercial district from the residential neighborhood. Although a"sound-barrier type wall, as suggested in the ILN Study, could be constructed for a portion of the residential area, it is recommended that the sound-barrier wall not be constructed with this option. It would be appropriate in a later stage when a more complete and therefore .more effective wall can be installed. Some landscaping improvements, including screening, however, could be implemented as part•of Stage 1. Stage 1 can be implemented independently of any other improvements in the Redevelopment Project area, and it would be a viable option even if no further redevelopment activities or improvements are carried out. The Stage 2 plan, Figure 2, illustrates further improvements which could be implemented in addition to ttie:Stage 1 improvements discussed above. . The Stage 2 plan•would require the acquisition of~-one more residential property north of West 77th Street and west of Garfield Avenue, as well as the commercial property north of West 77th Street at Lyndale Avenue and a 24 foot strip from the properties-east of the Hampton Inn south of West 77th Street. The additional improvements would include the widening of West 77th Street between Harriet Avenue and Lyndale. Avenue, the construction of the sound-barrier wall north of West 77th Street, and. the landscaping of the buffer strip area. • This option would provide the maximum traffic, visual, and noise separation between the residential and commercial areas. The residential property at the corner .of West 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue could be redeveloped for commercial use. The widening of West 77th Street east of Lyndale Avenue, as shown in Figure 2, should be implement-ed only in conjunction with .the widening of West 77th Street west of•Lyndale Avenue. These two actions are interdependent and one should not be carried out without the other. The Stage 3 Plan which would be the optimum plan, represents Phase I of the ILN Redevelopment Plan and includes all the improvements described in Stages 1 and 2, as well as the widening of Lyndale Avenue. This plan accomplishes all the goals established for the Redevelopment Project area, including the goals for the residential neighborhood north of West 77th Street. A further stage, not illustrated as part of this study, would be the extension of West 77th Street to the east through the City garage property, as was recommended in the ILN Study Long-Range Plan. This stage would require acquisition of additional properties east of H-arriet Avenue and the construction- of a new. roadway through the City garage area. SUMMARY The three options represent staged improvements of the ILN Redevelopment Project Phase I Plan.. They are all viable options with each option accomplishing more of the established goals than the previous option. Correspondingly, each option would be more complex and more costly to implement than the foregoing option. ~~-~~ Since Stages 2 and 3 depend on many factors which are currently undetermined, no accurate cost estimate can be given at this-time for implementing those options. A cul-du-sac Garfield Avenue. street maintenance Additionally, land necessitating the from 77th Street. from at least four was an alternative to the However, a cul-du-sac is point of view, especially would-still be needed for shifting of the cul-du-sac It would also require the residential properties. loop street for not desirable from a snow plowing. a landscape buffer to the north away partial acquisition COSTS The desired interim right-of-way solutions for the three areas are as follows. Alternative C with the median at 78th Street and Lyndale'Avenue, one-way east bound traffic on 78th Street, and. the diverter at Harriet and 77th Street; and, Stage 1 Figure 1 with the loop road and landscaped buffer strip. The approximate total cost for each of the two solutions is estimated as follows: Alternate C Stage 1 Total $60,000 $288,030 $348,030 The costs include design and construction and for Stage 1 acquisition•of the two properties and relocation benefits as well. The funds for these activities would be provided by the •s ale of long term tax increment bonds. Evenson-Dodge has estimated that with the tax increment from only the Hampton Inn, it' could be possible to support a bond issue of approximately $1.2 million at slightly over 7% interest. The net proceeds, which would be available for project related activities, would be approximately $935,000. However, approximately $115,000 of this amount would be paid to the Hampton Inn for easements specified in the developers agreement and $290,000 would be returned to the HRA to reimburse the Capital Fund for the cost of ILN activities since 1983. An approximate balance of $181,970 would remain after the $348,000 was expended. To accomplish the long term bond sale, a portion of the short-term three year bonds sold in .December, 1985 would be recalled and reissued. Given the nature of t_he improvements, their location and relatively small size, it would be appropriate to combine them into one project.. Cost economies could also be achieved. Assuming the Hampton Inn proceeds, the actual construction oP the improvements could be initiated in the spring~of 1987 and would require about one month. Prior tt~ construction, final plans and specifications are needed for bidding, the two residential properties at 7645 Garfield and 7644 Harriet must be appraised, acquired and the occupants relocated. T-y~ ~~ The Hampton Inn project is significant in terms of generating greater traffic and congestion, as well as a source of funds for a solution. Once that projects' footings and foundations are under construction and staff is reasonably assured that it will be completed, it would be appropriate to initiate the following actions: 1) Order OSM and Associates to prepare detail plans and specifications for the traffic control measures +' identified in Alternative C and Step 1 Figure 1,, 2) Direct BRW to prepare a landscape plan for the area between the loop street and 77th Street. The cost of this work would be approximately $10,000. 3) Order appraisals of the two properties at a cost of $500. When this work is completed, (within four to six weeks following the commencement of the Hampton Inn construction)' a report could be made to the Council before proceeding further. It is critical to time the expend~.ture of these funds with the progress in the Hampton -Inn project, since it will be providing the source of revenues to complete the city contracted work. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended-that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications, landscape plans, and appraisals of the property once the construction of the footings and foundation for the Hampton Inn Project has been initiated. Res c fully bmitted, i ~~ L. is Acti g City Manager SLD/sae _ e 0 ._ .. ~ ~~ ~" N (~ C ` O ~ ~ ~ Q .rr Q av ~ ~~ -. (~. l/~:>`' 7 m ~~ S ~- .~ ~"~ ~ d v ~ 04 -...~~ ~~!1!'t ~ I,~~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 ~ ~~ .O . ~ ~ ._ ~"~~ ' '+ ~ ,. z~ warn ~ ~ _ _, ~. -~ 1, ®~ i ~ _.. . ~~ ~1 ---~ r-- - --.~ ~ ,- i '°"*s 4~e~ ,~, I 1 3 rte.. ~ , ~ lu 5 '~W ~H ~~ ~~ ® ' ~~ i x ;~ ~~~~ 5 9^V Clayye~J ~__~ -~ ~~ 1 I ~~ ' -~ i I ~ ~ I M _~~~ .' ~~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~ I ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ N '. 3 r .~~~~ ~~ I ~~~~ - - ~~ ~~ .~ e e _ ~ o °' ~ E _. r -~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~J °< "°~~ d• - OQ -$ rit r( ~~ ° . 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ --s 3 it% ~ :7 ~~R _ ~! Y i~ Z ~~ r S • • ' ~ u s O .. .. m + ~ Q ~ '^,,Q ~ ~ ~ tl'. z ~ _ ~ a im U I1 n~• ~V W . ~~ ~+ W C ~-~a ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~. -L_-_J g 'any yal++eH 7 ~ ~~ _L__J ~ 5 ~, q~4+wJ i -~ '~ I I I t I I :~ ~ e I UI u -N°~ J ~ ,.., ~ I;s! t~ _~q ~ a ~~ ~ ~ _ ~R 1/~J--~j 1 ~l./Z a Y: ~! ~_. `~•~2. i ~ ~ i n ' ~ ` ~ ~ ~ i ~/.i d ~_~_ - __ } }y A ~ FM ~ O - •~ 1 ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ I , z~ ~ ~ v ~ a rn ~, .., (~ ~~!~ I ~ - _- I I ' :~` o ~ ~ ! ~ _ - ~° ~ E L ~ I" ~ A ~~ A I 3 I , I'" II - 4 ~ 1 I ti ~ ---- --~.T--~ al I : J ; Amos e~r~,r e~,t, ~ r :rr-•-~ .. ~I I ! I I ~ u u w n m a w I ! 1 I 1 ~I ~ " s _d Sq~, i Q w v C N.:~a ~~ ~~~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~u I ". ~ -1 ~ -~ s ~lii a~ ~.-•' i YI IT~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .i ( ' I I ~I ~ -r-~ ~^ i 1 ~ . ~ i ~~ ~~~~ s~~ C I 1 ~ ~~~.:I I I ~ ~ ~ I ~~ -~ ~ (~ E_ ~ ~ 3 I Jr a. 9~ J A a ~~a i s I ~~111 i -- ~- _~ - - ~~ ~~ .~ 1tf I 1' -I I w o a s a I I u ~~ M ~ tlii rj `O+ ~ ~ .~~; ;~ ~_ -~ ,, ~ ~~ 0 t ._q m i.. N ~ ~ ^ ^ ~w ^ ~ :a. o w ~~ V ~ yy . ~ ~ T cz U .... rn ,~,,,,,, ~,. ~: I - ~ v~ ~ ~ c I a3 ~~ ~ _- - - - ;~•- - - - ~ - r Ulf~o$ ~d ~I~ul b~: r s~ 7i ~t i~ s_ s~ i ~~ ~+- ~Wi ^a~ QG i ~~a ~ti~ ~~ ~~'~®~ PLANNING i TRANSPORTATION i~ENGiNEERING i ARCHITECTURES. ~-greement for Profiessional Services This AGREEMENT entered into by: the CLIENT: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 and the CONSULTANT: BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. Thresher Square 700 Third Street. South Minneapolis, MN 55.415 for the following PROJECTS: ~~ a ~~ Supplemental Agreement for Technical Assistance for the ILN Redevelopment Project Implementation WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT did work with the City Council of the City of Richfield, the HRA, and the ILN Task Force in studying-the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) commercial area and did prepare a redevelopment plan which formed the basis for the Redevelopment Project which was ultimately adopted by the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires the provision of certain technical assistance and other services in conjunction with the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment 'Project aS heretofore adopted by the City, and WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires that the CONSULSTANT provide such assistance and services in order to ensure continuity in this major project, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT agree as follows: The CONSULTANT shall provide professional services for the PROJECT in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as set forth below under Article II entitled "Services".and The CLIENT shall compensate the CONSULTANT in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as set forth below under Article III entitled "Compensation." 1 ~~ -J_._S TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT ARTICLE I. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. CHANGE IN SCOPE OF THE PROJECT Should the CONSULTANT'S scope of services change substantially from that outlined in this AGREEMENT or if work is suspended or delayed by the CLIENT for more than three months,. then this AGREEMENT may be subject to re-negotiation. B. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party upon ten days written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. In the event of termination due to the fault of parties other than the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall be paid his compensation for services per- formed to termination date, including Reimbursable Expenses. C. TRANSFER OF .AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is not transferable by either party to a non-named party without the written consent of the other party. D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No member, officer, or employee of the CONSULTANT, or its designees or agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the PROJECT is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities, who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the PROJECT, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this AGREEMENT. E. .EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY In connection with the execution of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative actions to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. 2 _~~ ~~~ Such actions shall. include,. but. not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment, or recruitment advertising; layoff,. or termination; rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship. F. MATERIALS OWNERSHIP All materials produced under the terms of this AGREEMENT are the property of the CLIENT. The term "Materials" includes all documents, data., reports, studies, and maps. 3 ~~ ~~ ARTICLE II SERVICES A. SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT'S scope of services shall consist of providing Professional Services to the CLIENT for the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment <'Project. The Services shall include the following work tasks: TASK 1: ON-GOING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL STUDIES IN THE. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Objective: To provide technical assistance to the City staff in deve- loping special studies for the redevelopment project area and to assist staff in the evaluation and assessment of specific developer proposals. a. Prepare special detailed studies, at the direction of City .staff, of the redevelopment project area in order to: assess development, traffic circulation, and other impacts; evaluate needs and requirements for the buffer/screen north of West 77th Street; and to respond to public inquiries and .questions. b. Review and evaluate developer proposals, at the request of City staff, for the redevelopment project area and make recommendations regarding their impact on the redevelop- ment plan. c. Attend meetings, at the request of City staff, with City staff, City Council, HRA, neighborhood groups, City com- mittees, and developers. TASK 2: PREPARATION OF A FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR THE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS Objective: To develop guidelines and establish strategies for encouraging the redevelopment of the "future redevelopment areas" south of West 77th Street, which are not part of the Phase I improve- . ments, as designated in the ILN Redevelopment Study. a. Develop preliminary prototypical concept framework plans and guidelines for the future redevelopment areas. This task may include the preparation of typical illustrative plans, as required, to help illustrate the anticipated development densities and locations. b. Review the recommended framework plans and guidelines with City staff, all affected City agencies, the ILN Task Force, and interested developers and select a preferred framework plan and guidelines. 4 i c, Assist the City staff in preparing implementation strate- gies for the framework plan for the future redevelopment areas including design guidelines, zoning ordinances, and developer requests-for-proposals, as required. TASK 3: DEVELOPMENT OF A REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR THE LYNDALE AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Objective: To identify needs and requirements, evaluate rehabilitation programs, and develop a detailed plan for the upgrading and stabilizing of the neighborhood commercial district along Lyndale Avenue between West 75th .Street and West 77th Street. a. -Meet with the business .community to identify specific problems, issues, needs, and requirements for the commer- cial district. b. Assist City staff in the evaluation and establishment of commercial rehabilitation programs and. the preparation of a design framework, including design guidelines, to assist businesses in the district to upgrade and rehabilitate their storefronts and business establishments. c. Prepare a detailed plan of the proposed public and private improvements. d. Review design guidelines and improvement plan with appropriate City personnel and agencies and the business community. TASK 4: PREPARATION OF THE FAU (FEDERAL AID URBAN) APPLICATION FOR THE LYNDALE AVENUE BRIDGE OVER I-494 Objective: To provide technical assistance to City staff in the prepara- tion of the FAU application for the Lyndale Avenue bridge over I-494. a. Develop schematic plans for the reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue bridge over I-494. b. Prepare traffic circulation data required for the submittal. c. Prepare cost estimates of the proposed bridge improvements. d. Assist City staff in the preparation of the FAU submittal including maps and plans of the bridge, traffic cir- culation data, and other required technical support material. 5 .~°~ ~~~ B. PRODUCTS Products for each task shall be established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to proceed. C. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time of performance for all tasks shall be established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to proceed. D. PROJECT PERSONNEL The CONSULTANT shall assign Arijs Pakalns as Project Manager and Donald Ringrose as Principal-In-Charge. The assigned personnel shall be primarily responsible for the project development and presentations and shall not be replaced unless a change is approved in writing by the CLIENT. E. MAINTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS The CONSULTANT shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to cost incurred in connection with work and services performed hereunder. The CONSULTANT shall make such material available at its office at all reasonable times. during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under this agreement for inspection by the CLIENT and copies thereof shall be furnished upon request. The CLIENT may also request originals of drawings or the text material. 6 ~~-mod' ARTICLE III COMPENSATION A. COMPENSATION The cost of providing professional consultant services as set forth under ARTICLE II shall be as described below, unless additional amounts are approved in writing by the CLIENT.. It is understood and agreed that the CLIENT must authorize the CONSULTANT to proceed with each task. TASK 1: ON-GOING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL STUDIES IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Compensation for services provided under Task 1 shall be on an hourly basis and the total amount shall not exceed $14,000.00 TASK 2: PREPARATION OF A FRAMEWORK PLAN FUR THE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS Compensation for services provided under Task 2 shall be on an hourly basis and the .total amount shall not exceed $12,000.00. TASK 3: DEVELOPMENT OF A REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR THE LY(VDALE AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Compensation for services provided under Task 3 shall be on an hourly basis and the total amount shall not exceed $18,000.00. TASK 4: PREPARATION OF THE FAU (FEDERAL AID URBAN) APPLICATION FOR THE LYNDALE AVENUE BRIDGE OVER I-494 Compensation for services provided under Task 4 shall be on an hourly basis and the total amount shall not exceed $6,000.00. B. TERMS OF COMPENSATION Compensation for services provided on an hourly basis shall be according to the hourly rates by employee classification plus Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses include photographic and printing expenses at cost. The CLIENT will be billed according to the following hourly rates by employee classification. Principal $95.00 Sr. Associate 67.50 Associate 62.50 Sr. Professional 55.00 Professional II 47.50 Professional I 37.50 Supervisor/Sr. Technician 35.00 Technician III 32.50 Technician II 27.50 Technician I 19.00 7 ~~ ~~ These hourly rates are in effect through March 31, 1987. During the month of March, 1987, the CONSULTANT shall file with the CLIENT revised hourly rates which will become effective starting with April 1, 1987.. C. INVOICE CERTIFICATION Each invoice shall contain a certification by an officer of the company stating that the invoice is correct and that payment has not been .received previously. D. TERMS OF PAYMENT The CONSULTANT will bill the CLIENT monthly for work completed the previous month. The CLIENT agrees to pay all invoices in full within 45 days after receiving them. This AGREEMENT executed this day of CLIENT: By: By: By: CONSULTANT: By: By: gy; 8