The URL can be used to link to this page

11-19-84 agendaHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 49 Agenda November 19, 1984 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: Market Plaza Development Dear Commissioners: On May 14, 1984, the City of~Richfield (City) and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered. into a contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development with Market Plaza Corp. (Developer), Arkell Development Corp., (eo- developer) and E. J. Plesko Assoc. Inc. ~(co-developer). The contract identified the obligations of all the parties. The development concept has been refined since the contract. was executed. Several amendments. and revised. exhibits must now be considered by the HRA-and the City Council prior to the conveyance of land to the developers (the projected closing date is the week of 11/26 - 11/30). The amendments and exhibits concern the unit mix and size, Certificate of Completion, Assessment Agreement, Agreement to Pay Deficiencies, and Letters of Credit. The documents were not available at the time this letter was written. However, they will be distributed during the weekend, prior to the HRA meeting. Project Concept Plans: Exhibit H contained a list of units a nd sizes far the condominiums and apartments. tt 1~ May 14 Agr eement Condominium Condominium Component Comp onent Amended Unit Mix & Sizes November 17, 1984 23 1 bdrm. @ 600 s.f. 12 1 bdrm. 596 s.f. 45 1 bdrm. @ 780 s.f. 55 " 783 s.f. 45 1 bdrm. & den @ 1,.000 s.f. 10 " 735 s.f. 23 2 bdrm. @1,200 s.f. 10 1 + den 926 s.f. 136 Units 23 " 932 s.f. 11 " 950 s.f. 10 2 bdrm. 970 s.f. 22 " 1089 s.f. 1 2 bdr. + den 1510 s.f. 1 " " 1129 s.f. 1 " " 1261 s.f. 1 " " 1232 s.f. 157 Total Units -2- May 14 Agreement Apartment Component 30 1 bdrm. 60.0-620 s.f. 36 1 bdrm. 700-720 s.f. 40 1 bdrm. & den 825-850 s.f. 56 2 bdrm. deluxe 950-1050 s.f. 1?i2 Units Apartment Component November 17, 1884 22 1 bdrm. ~3 " 10 4 " 8 " Ha 32 1 bdrm. 7 ,~ 48 2 bdrm. $ n 629 s.f. 715 s.f. 629 s.f. 769 s.f. ndicapped 687sf + den 829 s.f. " 868 s.f. 1054 s.f. 1078 s.f. 1~2 Units The. Final Concept Plans submitted on November 9, 1884, incarparate the above noted amendments. In accordance with the eontract,ali refinements, or changes must. be approved by the HRA and City Council. 2. Certificate of Completion: (Exhibit C) The present contract calls for the issuance of one Certificate of Completion by the HRA upon the notification by the Developer that all the improvements contemplated by the Project Plans are completed. The proposed amendment would provide for three separate .Certificates of Completion; the condominiums, the apartments and the shopping center. 3. Assessment Agreement (Exhibit D) The Assessment Agreement establishes a minimum Estimated Market Value (EMV) for the property and improvements to be no less than $21,225,000: It would. be more appropriate to have two separate Agreements, one far the condominium housing component, and another for the shopping center/apartment housing component. 4. Short Fall Amendment In Article 5, Section 1 of the Developers Agreement, the developer is obligated to negotiate with the HRA to identify sources of additional revenue if the cost of site assembly exceeds three million dollars. The costs will exceed this amount. _3_ Estimated Project Costs 000's omitte Land - East End. $3,444 Land - West End (1) -0- Site and Sail Improvement 268 Demolition 110 Property Taxes & Spec. Assmts. 124 Administration and Legal 375 $4,321 (1) Paid out of a prior bond issue. It has been agreed that this increased cost will be met by increasing the number of units in the condominium and thus the EMV, and. also providing the city with a debt partner position in the development. The concept for this. arrangement is explained in the September 14, 1884, Richard Krier letter to the City Attorney (see back-up). The EMV will be revised as follows: Previous New Component EMV EMV Change. Condominium $10,850,000 $11,466,000 +$616,000 5. Letters of Credit Amendment.: (Exhibit E) The. Letters of Credit in the present contract hold the Developer liable to the HRA for liquidated damages for each of the two housing components and the shopping center component. The City also requires a developer to post a performance bond for a PUD and an off-street parking contract. It is proposed to modify the developers. agreement such that the letters of credit be defined to inelude~the requirements for an off-street parking contract bond and PUD bond. 6. Agreement to Pay Deficiencies Amendment: (Exhibit F) This Agreement states that if the tax increment generated from the development in any given year, commencing in 1986 is insufficient to make the principal and interest payments due on the bonds issued by the City, the Developer shall pay the difference. It is proposed that two Agreements replace the one Agreement. That is, there would be a Deficiency Agreement for the condominium and another for the apartment/shopping center. 7. Financial and Construction Agreements: E. J. PTesko, John Arkell, Roger Derrick and Dick Krier met with the HRA Chairman and the HRA staff on Wednesday, November 14, 1984, to report on the status of their financial commitments and construction contracts. -4- E. J. Plesko will utilize Prudential Bache as the municipal bond underwriter. The estimated 12 million dollar financing plan consists of a 10 million dollar IDB issue anal another two million for balancing the mortgage (gap loan to fund the balance of the construction costs). Mr. Charles Freeburg of Prudential Bache told the Executive Director that most savings and loan institutions can get a triple A bond rating. How? The S & L's put up government securities and home mortgages at 160 to 180% over collateral. This means there is very little risk. for the bond holders. This is the approach being used by First Federal of Minneapolis. To.make the bonds even more. marketable, insurance has-been placed n the issue by Industrial Credit Insurance of New York in turn for points up front.. The remaining project costs are covered by a one million dollar letter of credit from Balcor/American Express in favor of the bond trustee. E. d. Plesko will place one-half million dollars as equity. Balcor/American Express are the second largest security underwriters in the country. The loan. to equity ratio should be approximately 75:25 per cent.. This. is a very attractive package.. Mr. Freeburg says the appraisal on the project is in the sixteen million dollar range. The Executive Board of First Federal approved the guarantee of their collateral on Thursday, November 15, 1984. The full board is scheduled to act on this matter on Monday, Novemer 19, 1984 . Tenants have submitted letters of intent to lease 42,000 square feet of .the 63,000 square feet of leasable floor area in the shopping center.Tenants include two restaurants and a drug store. E. J. Plesko has executed the Borson construction contract. Derrick and Arkell have a signed commitment from Twin City Federal for a nine million dollar, 24 month loan to finance the construction of the condominium. The developers. have at their option a one year extension. Sale of the condominium-units will retire the loan. Health Central has been added as a limited partner for their one million dollar letter of credit from First Minneapolis. The TCF commitment does not contain a presale requirement. As of November 14, 1984, 106 reservations had been received. Market Plaza officials expect to start converting resevations to sales agreements within the next two weeks. Both Richfield Bank and Trust and First Minneapolis will provide end loan takeouts on their single family homes to condomonium purchasers to assist these buyers, if necessary, until their homes are sold. However, experience to date indicates most condominium purchasers will be paying cash. -5- After the city/HRA finalize the .sale of land to Market Plaza during the week of November 26th, Market Plaza officials will then proceed to close on their loan commitments during the week of December 3-7th. Derrick and Arkell reported they expect to sign the Knutson construction contract on Friday, November 16, 1984. It is recommended that the HRA approve the amendments and revised exhibits related to the unit mix and size, Certificate of Completion, Assessment Agreement, Letters of Credit and Agreement to Pay Deficiencies, and, request the City Council to approve the amendments at their November 26th meeting. The Executive Director and HRA staff will follow this outline for its November 19, 1984 agenda report on the Market Plaza Development: A. Revised Project Plans 1. Condominium component moved to north property line of the site. 2. Eleven additional surface parking spaces. added to the condominium component. 3. Results of a parking ratio comparison study of similar condominium projects to Woodlake Point Condominium. Woodlake Point .86 spaces/unit Lake Shore Drive 1.08 7500 York .88 *LSD has 45 vacant spaces; actual use is .83 spaces per unit. 4. Provision for delivery truck unloading zones. 5. Request to close Graham Avenue for construction purposes until street is vacated. 6. Request to use two of the four lanes on 65th Street for cranes and staging materials. 7. Payment of $1400 for vacation of Graham Avenue. B. Final PUD Plans 1. Additional floor with 10 units for condo component 2. Status of property exchange with owner (Strom) of Wendy~s fast food site. -6- C. Status of Financing And Construction Agreements 1. Condominium Component (a) Health Central added as a limited partner to provide one million dollars of equity (letter of credit) (b) nine million dollar loan for 24 months with a one year extension option (c) financial closing date - week of 12/3/84 (d) no presale condition - have already exceeded reservation requirement of 49 units (actual 106 reservations) (e) construction contract with Knutson to be executed Friday, November 16, 1984. 2. Commercial/Apartment Components (a) Prudential-Bache underwriter for IDB and. Housing Bond Lssue (b) Balcor and American .Express added as limited partners to provide equity to enhance the bond issues toy triple A ratings. Financial commitment offer expected November 19, 1984. (e) Construction contract with Borson executed by all parties except Derrick D. Amendments to Agreements 1. Provide that the letters of credit caled for in the developers agreement can also be used as the required performance bonds for the off-street. parking contract and the PUD performance. 2. Increase the EMV on the condominium project 3. Provide for city equity participation in the apartment component 4. Provide that there shall be separate assess- ments agreements and deficiency agreements (in the event captured assessment values are insufficient to meet debt service on the TIF band issue) for each project component 5. Incorporate the revised project plans into the Developer's Agreement 6. Provide that each component can be issued a certificate of completion when ready for occupancy. NOTE: Items (D2) and (D3) are matters dealing with the city's increased costs to acquire this site. E. Construction Timetable Start Complete Condominium Dec. 1984 Fall 1985 Commercial Spring 1985 Spring 1986 Apartments Spring 1985 Summer 1986 -7- F. Demolition and Site Grading 1. REquest to start prior to finalizing land sale G. Environmental Assessessment Worksheet 1. November 13, 1984 city council held public hearing and determined no need for EIS H. IDB and Housing Bond Sales 1. IDB issue scheduled for December 10, 1984 city council agenda 2. Housing issue in early 1985 Respect 1 submitted, .Jahn G. Cartes ght Executive Director JGC/eja ~o October 18, 1984 M Dick Krier N Derrick Land Company ~ 1650 Shelard Tower o ~ Mpls., MN 55426 Q Dear Dick, ' (~ I have attached for your information the section- of the PUD ~ _ N ordinance outlining the final development plan requirements. .Final construction drawings are not required as part of the ~ final development. plan approval.. You will only need a final site plan, final landscaping plan, and a final grading plan.. _ Final construction must of course be in substantial compliance ' with the PUD plan and final development. plan.. The attached ~ materials. define what is considered to be "substantial ~ compliance's. ^ ~~ ~ Please also note that the ordinance prohibits the issuance of ~ building permits for any structures before it is certified that the development depicted in the building permit application ~ is consistent with the PUD plan, final development plan and ' conditions imposed by the council. That means we can not issue ~~ a building permit prior to approval of a final development plan. ~ We could, I believe, issue .demolition permits .and grading o •a permits but. no .permits for the new structures themselves. T would therefore encourage you to submit a final development plan ~ as soon as possible for city approval. The deadline for the ~ next regular Planning Canmission meeting (November 27th) is noon on November 7th.- -The first regular council meeting after ~. November 27th is December 10th. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call. ~ ~ Q Sincerely, O cfl Rick Jopke City Planner cc: Dennis: Kraft ~~ ~ Clayton LeFevere Bruce Palmborg Sivert Hendrickson telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer. _i ,1 t :~i~1;Z:1 :0~:;'-.iV. C:'YS :i:~er ~eCEitf7.;?~ _ne ]Lai:1:_::~ ::=°_C.:^.'~S _~~J:` :~'?e ~1=^::~::5 COt'~liSS~O::~S{iai: ~2old ? 3L:DIiC F.ear~~ CP_ :na a»~-Ca=.JQ. wi~ilia ...~ ~'-_-?? ~,;;_$ aL:ei ::tee ~:S~lic ia$ci~':~, _ ~I_.._.-~:~ CC^._^:.iSS~CP. SiclZ Si3D- »:~.. r-S C°CC^.~ e.^.CtaC~O' C0 Cie C~~J CC'~^.C~~ . .P ^c CC^S.'._SSL^. :'2;7 :?CO."=.•en01 - V a~a:aV~I :1r r:: Q_ .:~...•t.C.~:.. ~:CiC1~~CGL:C~^ V. _CCS',n~n., ~-~a~oro~.G? . Sl:bd. ]. r'.:.C7 COU::cil ^IIiCVa1 - Di'~ Ala 'CIIO=vac^.~ 3C_1Q^. .'~~f C."le 7~d^ain~ COt^:SS10R _^~ C:..;T COt:i c_l Si28I~ C ^ .e O^.i:'^ ~!'c =:~8 ~? a•? O S Cc': 2 _, _ SCri ~ :1 tE2e Ian :n_ccorcarc_ x_.:, _ce ?rccecures sat _ t.. _`. . ' _ ~ Lor .n ..•is 2art I approved, the. aroma Shail JE rez^::ed 35 one C-a C.':e :_Te t;J7e5 O. ?~~ j:3__:C=S. ?i'lOr tJ ~~'.e CC.^.~.°..^Ce:.^.n.^.L O~ =r~ CO:1SC=::Ci~?~ Qr ^~'t~iC7.:.~.^.L 0~ L~2 ~c~d SnG a:.C2~ .°ZOC.~:1?., ~:?? a]7I..C2ni Baal SL:OE'__ 2 "'-:aI ~2T:?_OC~~::L ?? C' Cv~SiS a^.t C`t - -~ ~ - the ?L~ plan, ~C~°~.^.°_ Cd_C.^. 3:1 2'J~! -C_L_Cn =0: ? 57°C:cI C1S2 Via,-.'~_ "+• C:eVel00[:ten: S::Ct•I'i2 i:'i SLIC.^. ~R2~.1:°~iel ^..e:7t C~I~~. :. S~eC? ~I L52 7EL:.:1 _.. COIIIOi'Ca::C~ Cdi C21 tae' a~prOVed iAa= Jejt°IOCGle?'!: ?~a~ ~::5= 7° i3SL'eC Dy~a ~H70-ttl'+*'QS VOC2 Oi ti':2 COUnC_I berore *',^.e ?~.~ C_St_1C_ C°_': oe C2VOt°_~ CO the L'SeS prOVided iOr in SuCn plan. St.bd. 5. "final Develo?rer.t- ?Ian, :. r_::al ~evelopmen~ ?lar. 52?1 consist o tze ollowia~: _ (I) I. required, a :final plat o~ tae Iard to oe devnlooed. (2) :~ Site Dlati SL'_L7.C1ent iut reCOrdln~ ~ne 2^r^~:.^.?e*_'=^~ Cr:.T.J? I1~S aP.d ccrsisting o. the ~ollos~izlg on a dra~a_rg to sole o ret core th_n 50 =eet to tae inc:^.: (a) ?':2e adopted ?~.7 plan wit'.l rzec:_ed -:odi~i ca_iors stipulated by the city's council.;.. . (b) ~, Iz~_1 description of the. ?C~ zor_ing dirtrict; (c) ?oeac_cr. and di.:.e^sioa of major natural ~eatu.es anc a istin~ eatures crhich- :~iII r_aair, on the tract o= Ia::d; (d) LOCat:.On, di~ensiGr_, and aran3ecent CL Ol[lidin~5, Streets, drives, t=1CK Ioa3i:.~ areas, autO~:O01.Ie paring areas, V?hl.Cl°_ 2ntranCeS 3^d e:{7..5, pedestrian °_P.tr~nCeS ai.d ~XICS, CJ2I~S, S:1L'*.32VS, ~I3.2.c$ ~:!Q COUrCS, OLS turn OuCS and~JL'S S:+elterS, :.all 2nCeS and ~13ntig5 des=',:':ed to Screen tale diStriCC ~:or ad~ace:~t uses, sigz:s rrd lio!~ting. (e) iopCgrSpC.; ; ~L) L3i:dSCF.Din~; (~) ~OCatiOn Oi tiSeS; (i2) ?iie deelar~~i0:t OL COVenantS,- COP.di~_OL:S and C2St_~CtiOnS and artiCl2S o ocr,.ership. (i) wry acdticnai incr-atior. required b~ the council. SLbC. % . CJ':7I'. %C° . __R C^e ?~.'.~ III:... sn:: _ _:1a7 12`lo?J;.I'eZ:.. ?I.P.. ~~ ..'f'1~'.:^_°~ "'i';n develop^e-:c~ Oi C'.E '~tci::^.e^ ui,~_ ~S~le~ ^..2C'.C Q15'L~_CC Si?5:.1 oe _.. BL:JS__._.~_ _...^.7?--..^.C~ :i__~ ono ~?~:O`te;.? 7t:I-~ ~1_:. ^i::~I 1^lZ-'fel0~^..2P.C ?I^ . ~ c.:2 •:.'~ -':,. cord~__o-s _:-~osed ~; _~~e couzc~_. Cc~a.__^ce _..~__ -;,_ ~e cc:a_'_e_ -ec sc~sc~t_ai ~_ _e.e _s. (~j r..e:=_ _..~.. :c^ pe_ _.._ c^ar._? _.. _?oo~ .='ea -^. _ ~or.e __-.:c~*.rre• - , '•.j j 'CL2 .'_.: 2 '2^ ~2:C°_.'t C..^.r.^.~°- -=1 r~~-''- CL.-=i~=.= .. ==~'}pC Se?CL___C`' ~ . v r .. ~~ . ... _ , ~_ ^ - } O: ~~) `L.~ ~l.i.i~`f1~ ~^ -.4? LG~...! V_ ~_~-~_~~__ ~L.. 1- = -...~ t'.,i?~-'•~ .774:Le _~ `7~ jt,1C;-•g :°_~'I1:5 ~':O 7it1iG_:2 ~?^'..t _ _ ~_° ..=5°_'; -~- = .i 3-_:C_ ~° .i1C .:1 `Za ::.~J C:S~~1C_ ~cAL8S5 3:1C ..~ :_ :'.? __.. ~-s, ~.___-_v- C.. _-..-_- ~..:_ ~- CC::CL1i'»5 C? :~E ~CCV].Sioi25 0= C;e ?L7 ?...':, -r'2 =--'ci ~_:reLopr:e::t ?~~:: c::. 2;:;7 oC~_r CO::~:=-CAS ~QSee 7~' _:~° COt.-CiL. .:~C.: c77:'.^,:'c~ .^.~i CI2 ~1 ~r11.:2~ _.'_=eCLO_ C::S ouiL?c-:~ ~2~1- c~Di-CcCiJ.: _'.-C?1.° t.:_~ .'. c~~~a3._8_$ l_.-v^^C~3C_:^. > > recLi.ea. =~- ~uild_.~ ?e-^i_s s~Li_ ::e s• _.=e= =,' :.:~= c' r ;, sE:~ll pr:,cess _''^.a ~ui'sc•-:g ~e-^i- _- ccr_~o-:ar.ce .:_:., ap~~_c_~:_ 3c:i_c:~g _oces Sind. 3. 3c-3 .or a:cr::o--aace 3_ior =c _::e issc~..ce o_ s~eciaL ==_sa ~e-_=, ^? '~J__C2::~ SZ~%i- DI'O<<1Q2 C:?? Ci:y *.$1~.:1 3 D2T_C:.:.~::C2 JC::'~ ~*io_ OC::1: C- v2 e o n b o o se ~..~ Ce:! C2L'C=.^.C OL t^2 e5C1.':2.C2Q Lu C.^.e ~ C Q Cli1~G ^5 dZt~. I:Z7rOV2^..2::C•S tj: 3 ~ i g g 1: -+o . it P,,. 1 7 ors s' - r n i 4nno.•+ is a rem ces_~::at d zs ~ zl._d c.r. d .Te o.c_..:. .1_s__ic.. co__d c__.._- ,,.. C~':e 52CiS'_'BC.O~t d2Ve~O~Gie^t O~ Ct:B DiT~ 1.~ GC CC~C?^C3 :Jl."! _t:e ?L'~ ply;, 2::c =iaa1 Oevelop!~en,: ?l~n ace 'aaw; seeit?on~2 cor.jitiors _~posec b;r .t?2 co::nciL. j,~Ot! CQ.^..0~2C7.Ofl OC ~:T2e •',~LG^1T°~ :S11i~: d°:~°1C?C1°ili 25 CC'vV?C 7~T -?_ C:.`. CCt:~C11, iZ1S0@C.i3AS bl ti:L pLa:::tiAg di~eCCQr aiZQ C:11P.= ==.57EC~QC .AC cB~:OV2L Dy Ci22 C_CV CCL'^Cil`.i'1$ per~or-2r.,e ?OIIC u2;T Ge :'e:° 52Q. . Sind. ~. Criteria and Stcaeerc~s. (1) Lard Cs2 -a_~~s: fLL:i) ':'t±e ..^..~x'.~•.:._. L_c~? .:se ia_ecs:t:~ r=___.g pe=' ul1Ct2C' i.n 14. t~tJ17 C1iSCrZCC`SlQLL be detecaia2d ::' C12 ~rOSS L8:'.Ls. ?ro_c CL tse tr~CL OL land, tie ~r^vDOS_G C;: 78 Ci '~iai:P.eGr i2ili ~2:'2Lo?^p:lr. ~].SCr1CC, 2:?C~ L~''.? uses assigssd to t:~e Pz.T~ cist-ict. (2) T::e Laad c:sa :.nCeasi,y r8tin~ cor t`'cose ~_rc:es o ,:~e c?7 cis _:ict CeS~natad FOr r°Sl~Q:3C2c= uses, Or 3 •CORDI.nztl0~1 C: r25iC°^L3.21 a:l~ ?ICCireSi- denti~_1 uses, s:~all ~e _s r"ollo~~s GROSS U:iD zR=~ pq :~ PC-L P_•:?, °C-2 :x SOLAR rc-'^ zC^.ES tt~? ~~_I'ir ?? ti:? RaTI`'G 3i,1?0-13~J,~3C 2-3 =~3- 50 130, 030-? 7-,?j0 3-! ,, ? ~=' li!•,2fG-211,300 ~•-~ ~8 ~!• 2Li,3C0-25I,3o0 ~-6 :C o'er ?51,30C .b= =7 :3 ~Z`~ ~~@ ?a-:c tSSE L:li2.^.S~CY :3C:;a rCL' _^0=2 :=Z.C2~~ •?= ~.^.2 ~t'J CiS~__C= CCS-~:t.==$~ ~t7:a~;T :^.: ...... :2 :"C-?. ."'.!' -:'Gt::SC,'-r.L ~SBS -'i.... D2 35 =o1LJ'aS. - K . . , - v . ... ~ - .. r . - • .. .. - 1 V ^, r ~ ,~ .-. 1. C r_ ~..~ .~ - r . . ., - __ ~~ -= 4 ~` I ~~ :~: /' SEP 17 1984 .._ ~; ~~ ~ -~ ~, `~ .City of ttichfield ~'" ~- , The Oerricsc Companies 1bS0 Sheiard Tower • Minneapolis, MN 5542b b12:'Sd6-2276 14 September 1984 Mr. Clayton LeFevere LEFEVERE, LEFI.ER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN, & DRAW2 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Ditnnesot:a 55402 Subject: Market Plaza Development Dear Clayton: The. purpose of this letter is to confirm. our understanding of how the over-run would be handled by the Development Team. We would propose to handle the over-run the following way: 1. We would increase the condominium market value to $11,4bb,000. This should give you. an additional bonding•capacitq of $287,000. 2,. Assuming the difference is not made up by increased increment drae to under-projections, the difference .between $400,000 and the condominium contribution would be-made up by the apartment building/commercial, shopping center project. This would be done by providing the City with a second mortgage in the amount of the difference. The mortgage would be due and payable when the shopping center-and apartment building are sold.. We would not pay any interest on the remain ng amount of mosey, unless we made additional profit. So, for example,. if we made more than 14x return on investment, we would then pro-rate that above 14X with the HRA as an interest payment. Of course, this arrangement will have to be formalized, but it represents a concrete concept of how we feel we can maintain project feasibilty and also solve the over-run problem expe*ienced in buying the Godfather and Strom property. Should you have any questions, please. do not hesitate to contact me. S rely, ~~ Richard C. Krier, AICP Vice President Derrick Companies RCK:clb cc: E. J: Plesko Duke Gould .John Arkell Steve Yurick CITY OF` RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA; ~ Office of City Manager CQUneil Letter No. 397, Agenda= of Nov. 1;3,, 1`984 The Honorable Mayor. `and: Members of the City Council Cit ~ of".Richfield Subjectr Results of thee- Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Market'P aza Development Council Members: Tn accordance with the State of Minnesota. environmental regulations, an environmental a sessment: `worksheet (EAW) was completed for the proposed Market PIa2a. development. The purpose of .the. EAW is to asses the potential environmental ' effects of the- development and to determine- if a: more Beta ed environmental impact statement (EIS) is. nece°ssary. A copy of - the EAW is attached for your information. The EAW .was submitted to the Minnesota Environments Quality Board (EQB) and various other agencies as requiced...by sta e reguYations. Notice- of the availability of the> EAW for review and comment was published in the state " EQB Montorn and in the Richfield; Sun newspaper. A 30 day period- for-people to review and :comment an the EAW expired' on November Z. The gpestian before the council is_whether there are significant environ- menial effec "s to require an EIS._ The attached EAW ~` ind,faates that the pro ject' does not .have the potential. for significant environmental effects and therefore further environmental :review is not necessary. Attached for your review `are `.comments reaei~ed'` from a' number of agencies. These comments indicate that' further'envronmental review is not necessary :but also indicates a- number- of areas of concern. These comments' have: been. transmi ted to the developer who will respond to these~eoncerns at the November 13th city council meeting. Ia is recommended `that the council make a negative declaration finding. This finding indicates that no additional environmental;:review,ar the. preparation of an EIS i necess ry.- R pectf bmitted, .:- - Z John G: Ca twrigh City Manage JGC/eja E.R. • (911ad in by $QSt ....r...~ ~•~•••~• 9/5/84 Envisonn~eatal Ass+essnient ~or~sheet ~~~ MARK APFSOPAt1A?E SQX: Q REGiTLAR EAW ^ SC~PI1~iG EAW r10?E'IO REVlEWEBSsFor regufar EAWs. written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, potential impacts that-may warrant investigation and/or the need for an EIS. For scoping EAWs, written com- menssshould address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for im-estigation in the EIS. Such comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30•day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQS (metrp: 612/Z9b-8253: non-metro: I-800.652.9747, ask for envf- ronma-tal review program) or the RGU !o find out when the 30-day comment period ends. ~. Project Name Market Plaza 2. Proposer Market Plaza Corporation ;~, RGU C=tr2 of Richfield Richard C. Krfer Rick Japke Contact Person Contact Person Address 2 650 She1 and Tower and Title Ci ~ PS anner M3nnea~ol~s MA 55426 Address 6700 PartZand Ave. Sa. ... Phone (.61?) 546-2275 Richfield, MN 55423 Phone. (612) .869-7521 4 • Project Location: ~ ' /~ ~~ 1 /+ Section Z~ 8 ?ownship Z~~~ Range.. 24 `~.:~ Richfield. a. Countyr Name gee City/Toamship Name b. Attach copies o! each of the following to the EAW: 1. a county map showing the general area of the project. 2. a copy(ies) of USES 7= /s minute.1:24,000 scale map. ' 3. a site plan showing the location of significant katures such as proposed structures. roads, exxenrof hood plain, wetlands, wells. etc. 4. an existing land ustmap and a toning map of the immediate area, if available. 5 • Describe the proposed ~oject completely (attach additional sheets a: necessary). _ _ The site.is contained entirely within the LyndaZe/Nicollet/Hf7B (LHN)~Redevelopment District created by the City of Richfield; for which the City has an overall environrsen•t assessment an file. Market Plaza wi11 contain 7O, DOD square feet of camtuercia2 wthin an enclosed ma11. An eight story apartment structure containing 162 units wi11 be located over the iaaZl. A second structure will be a twelve story. 147 unit condominium forpersons over-age 55 and wi11 be located to the west of the iuaZl. _ A total of 690. parkiag~ spaces will be provided. on the surface and under both structures. The zoning is PUD (PC 2) and the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the-City of Richfield. `L..:.i voluntary - • Reason for EAW preparation:. -- - - = ~ ,,,,,~~, Lit a11,t+snduory cstegory>vle •~s,,,hkfi apply; (6 .VICARS 3.438A-DD) Resf dentia3 1Jevelopment, C ~• Fstimatedconstructiotrcost 520-25,000,000 8. Total project area (aces) 6. D5 Acres or length (mites) 9. Number of residtnttal units 3~ '~ or commercial, industrial, or institutional ~0 D00 /~ square footage 1 V • Number of proposed parking spaces--, 690 Parking .spaces proposed 1 ~. List all known lots!, state and federal permits; approvals/funding required: . Level of Government Type of Application Statua Federal: Rezoning Pzt~ariztax'y appromed Special Uses (Permit for PUD) Pending ' State: Platting Pending Watershed District Pending. Water _ Pending Locai• , Sewer Pending Citq of Richfield Liquor Pending Special use permit for 2• k the ro rest:auran Pendingg p poscu ~roiect anconstatent wtth tht io~ adopted comprehensive Iaad use plan or any other adopted plans? ~ No ~ Yes if yes, explain: 1 ~ • Describe current and recent:pas: land use and development on and near the site.. . . This area is part of the Lyndale, HUB Nicollet (LIiN) Redevelopaent.Project area - created ~ the Cfttl of Richfield.. Land. uses within the district are commercial and high densittl residential. Lt~ndale 8ardware borders the site to the south; K-Mart is located to the east on Lr~ndale.~ Richfield Lake, a 3-story apartment and the municipal liquor store is located to the north. Bridgesotens is located to the west on Graham ~~enue. 4 • Approximately haw many acres of .the. site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after consiruction.- Before Aber Before After ~_ __ ~_ Forest/Wooded __, Wetland (typo 3-Si tea. ~8 a. ~ois~d ..._,__ impervious Surface Brush/grassland ~_ ~_ Other (specify) __ ~ a. (landscaped! 5 • Describe the soils on the site. giving the SCS soil eiassi&atipn types. if known. The saarple of natural soils were predominantlq road and slightly said.. Fi1I was sampled at the North and West ends. of the site to the depths of Z5 to 85 feet. 1 ~• Does the sitecontaln peat soils, highly eroaibie soils. steep sk-pes. sinkholes, shallow Wnestone fortnatbns. abandoned wells. ~ any geologic hazards? If yes. show on site map and explain: ~ No ^ Yes 1 ~ • What is Me approximate depth (in fret) to: a. groundwater ~.,tnin. ?0 svg. b. bedrock ~(~min. ,avg. ~• Does any pert of the. project. a .involve: a. shordand sorting district? b. delineated 100•ysar flood pitta? a state or federally designated rive: Land uas district? - ~ Ityes. idautify water body and appitcable slats dassifkation(s). and describe measures ` to protect water and related land reutiourees: 9• Describe any physical alteration {e.g., dikes: excavation, flit, stream diversion) of any drainage system. lake.. stream, and; or wetland. Describe measures to minimize im- pairment of the water•related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and ittdIcate whets spoils will be deposited. No Y~ No Y•s No Ys. There are no physfcal alterations to exfsting drainage facilities. 2 V • a. Wiq the project zequire an appropriation of ground or surface water? If yes. explain ^ vet (indicate quantity and source): ® No b.Will the project offset groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? !f yes, ex- P~= ® No ^ Yes Z 1 • Describe the-erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. ~ - During const_~vction silt. fence erosion control wi11 be used. After construction, the area. will be paved and-landscaped. 22• a. Wilt the project generate: 1. surface and stormwater runoff? No Yes 2 sanitary wastewater? No Yes 3. indttstriat wastewater? No Yes 4. cooling water (contaetand noncontact)? No Yes U yes, identity sources, voluunes. quality (if other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estfmates. The City: of Richfie3d has in~ place stoner servers to handle a discharge of sweaty cubic feet per see:ond frtam the ezisting site; the redevelopment project wi11 have the same discharge sate. Sanitary wastewater is estimated to be 69,000 gallons per day sad tri21 be discharged into ezisting sewers which have adequate capacity. Ot1r eng- b. IderttNy receiving waters, including groundwater. and. evaluate the impacts of the inset, WestwoG4. PZa2.~'.inQ ~ E* discharges listed above. if discharges to groundwater are anticipated. provide per• pro ided the estimates. coiation/Permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available. 23. Wilt the project generate (either during or after construction): a. air pollution? No Yes b. dust? No Yes c. noise? No Yes d. odors? No Yes If yes, explain, induding as appropriate. distances to setuitive Land user; expected sew cis and duration of Hoist: types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks. mobile sources, and lugitivs emissions (dust): odor soutrus:.and mitigative measures for atry impauss. Give the basis or methoddogy of estimates. Coastruuaioa~contrat;ts wi11 progide for dust control, such as watering, during. construction. We tvi21 also cataply rrit3i the coastructiaa noise ordinance of the City of 1Zfchfield. 3 i4. Dsscribs the type and amoun~ of solid and/or hazardous wasteinduding study... and ashes that wgl be generated and the method arwf location oidbpoaat: Rstusa tri33 consist of nos7aal domestic tr~aste acrd taf11 be handled by private ,,,.~ e~ handlers. fr~. Will thrprojeet sBect: ' a. fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? ~ No ^ Yes b. atyr native species that art oNiciagy listed as state endangered. threatened. or of special concern (animals and/or plants)? ®No ^ Yes If yes. explain (identify species-and describe impact): ' 2 6. Do any historical. archaeotogfcal or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? if yes. explain (show resources on a site map and degcrfbe impact): ~ No ^ Yes ~. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a. designated pant or recreation areas? No Yes b. prime or unique farmlands? No Yes c. ecotogicaUy sensitive areas? No Yes d. scenic views and vistas? ' No Yes e. other unique resources (speciiy?? No Yes tf yes. sxpiain: 2 ~. Fortach affectedsoad indicate the current average daily trafik {AD'n. increase in ADT contributed by the project and the di:ecrional distributions of traflie. The exssting transportation tecilities tLtlndale Ave., 65t1i and 66th Streets) are designed to accommodate the proposed. development, current. 1983 volrsaes are: 15,400 ~`~ A17Z' on 66th. Street,. 4,350 ADT on 65tH and 24,280 on Lyndale Ave.. Please see attached .ee~~reportprepared by the traffic engineer. i9. Are adequate utfli~es and public services now availabk to service the project? If not. what additional utilities and/or servites wail btrequired? ^ No ®Yes Snmma~ of Issues For reguLr EAWs. list the issues as identiRed by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping FAWs, list known issues, alternatives. and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. • See Attached -~~, ~ CF3'i1F1EAZiOA1 EY >i~lPON81BLE t>l(IR I hereby ca'ti(y- that the informatbn contained in this doctmtent is true and compfetr to the best of my knosrkdge and that copies of the completed EAW have bean made available to aU points oet the oiBciaf EQS distribution list. _ _._-- Signatnre `` ~ Date ~ ' - . 4 Tide .. . ---,~ AT:"ACHMENT SUMMARY OF ISSUES 2Z. a~Z) Stozm water runoff will be directed to Richfield Lake via a city sta~a water ss~stem. Richfield Lake is a holding pond for city story water.. The storat water system is of sufficient. capacity to carry additional rartoff. x(.21 Sanitary wastewater. wi11 be directed to City (C) System. Thisis a separated system with capacity tc carry additional Zoad. Z3. (a~ Additional. air pollution from increased traffic wi11 be present.. The additional air pollution wiZ1 not exceed state standards.. (b1 Dust during construction wi11 be controlled by construction watering methods. !c). Noise-increases during construction will be limited to normal working hours. Noise increased amounts with additional traffic wi11 not e~rceed state standards. -. ~ WESTWOOD P!/tNNING ~i- ENGINEERING COMPANY ,=~~qust ? ~, I98k '•i.. ?ichaTd Krier . derrick Land Canp_n~ tiinnea~alia, NCti `.3.' 36 Sua i : ~ranam Strro ~ 1lacation Traffic ImNa~ts Gear 'rtr. Krier: - v~~ June. 1S, I384, .~u requested that i ::irect a letter to the r',ichfiald fit}' ~nginper eval..~,.~.^.! ~l'.e ..ra`'fiC i,:.E+3Ct'S eiS8C^.ic3t?'~ 17i~h 1reC6i•10f~ Cr --~ ~_ a'~ar., nvanus Soutfi betuieen iVest c: th -and. blest 5c;th Str_ets. ~?a~e'.~ . on n:s; kno~rledge of the area and the prirary use of this street fcr ~+r csla- - tic~n traffic, •_,a recommended that, from a traffic standpoint, vacstsen cf Cra:^am Ave;::se would have ver;• lithe affect on conoestic,•~, delay, safzty, or out-ar-dreeto:~ travel.. Gn 3uiy ?3, you requested additional cn~:es .of ou_ 1?"ter :;.ic`: vary delivered to you at the P.ichfieid r,ity Caw--,cil tr~etin5 ghat night. S.;bsequent "to ths': r~eeting, you requested addiiicara' studies co define ttie eXten: of into:~~•enien~e or out-of-direction. travel t_~nic^. might be encountered because of conge;.tier! prc53em~ on ~:ae urive at b~th Street. P.icfc Jopke fuinish~d us with curre~~t traffic courts for Rae QriLw, J:aho•s avenue, ! ;'nd~le ~~^sn~e and b5th Street. Shese counts iR~1.:s~s t;;c i:ra.+:am ~tiverue carries very minor traffi.: volumes canpared :itr a.:~;~:e-:t s tr°e ~s. The Cit;' counts f oun~i 1, b~+0 cars per d. y c^ ~. aha~:, Avenus , uf~ic: is 2paroxisnatel; ?I~' of the- volume on P,ae give cr.65th St:cet ;see 4n Thursc•aY, August ':. i~~++, rrsnual turning mcc~:: t cour,is were r~~ado fc: a 3'~ hour time pera.:d `ro": 2:30 to b:C:~ p.s:. Saseu or. t~`:e City's rr~*`~= counts,. this time pdi icui =epres?nte•:~ the ;ieaviest hours of use `ur .~rahz^: ~;~~nue, encompassing 2~ia of the daily traffic cscing this St=eet. j:~c_ *u^^ing movement cow:~ : ~~ere conducted tc determi-aP the extent of incor,ti_- nienre or out-of-direct:an tse•rl which wou?d be re ;:sired if Graha?~ :~s vacaisd. me w,~rznT~- souu~vwwo. ~ena+~-vous. rrarNESO~r~- seas tea names 'UO~ ~e DCHF ELD, M~NNES~TA Cfa~iC .a~.~ 0 •~ ar' ~,~g0 ~,4'Z$O ° ~y'~ ~S;r ~ `~ ~ ig?5 ~ +644 ,,,~ a -~~~' 7. ~#ic ~ a~,~~e~- s~fl ~~ 3984 4~ `T~ .gip-+6;~~' ~ 2. ~` 7~ 310 122fl-~ `~ 14Q r ~'~~ ~ a ~~~ w 1 f ~i~~e5 ;~ ~~~~~E ~~~~ ~ta~ ~'~ eat ~Cca~#c ~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~'' ~` ~~ '~ ;~p,,g,~t~ ~ur~~is AAA 8 g~ C • ,eld ~~o~din9 ~° J., Pity C# R1C~f~ ==" htr. Richard Krier August I0, 1984 Page 2 PROPOSER VACATLON Derrick Land Company proposes vacation of the present Graham Auenue align- ment from 65th Street to 66th Street. The existing me+~ian opening at 66th Street will be retained and an entrance-will be constructed for movements entering and leaving the Bridgeman's bite. A privately-owned, public use roadway is proposed between the apartment building and the condominium building in Market PIa2a. This street will provide circa ation access between 65th Street and 66th Street,-but will not. allow left-turn movements to or from 66th Street, since the median island will not be opened. The street right-af-way is proposed for land- soaping,.. walkways and other pedestrian amenities serving residents and patrons at Market Plana, Bridgeman's and the adjacent neighborhood. T4AFFIC IMPACT The attached table indicates. the traffic movements which were counted on a typical weekday afternoon. These counts included the peak activity period for traffic using the post office drop box at Rae Orive and 65th --~ Aventa• North.. The following impacts are relevant to the proposed street vacation: r A total of 422 cars were counted, which compares favorably with the City's hose count of 460 cars for the same period. • I28 cars (300 of ttie total) were entering or leaving Bridgeman's. The bui7c of this traffic {100 of the 128 cars) was oriented to and from 66th Street. Since the Bridgeman's property will retain goal access to both 65th S~~reet and 66th Street, these traffic movements will suffer virtually no inconvenience. • Right-turn traffic from 66th Street or right-turn traffic to 66th Street represents 147 trips. (35N of the total) and this traffic will easily relocate to the new street.. with virtually no loss of convenience. Relocated Trips 43 .3? ~.~ 80 r. 1 t1r. Richard Krier August 10, 1984 Page 3 s Left-turn movements Street represent the trips will no longer and 66th Street. 3t ~~. 1flS The predominant: traffic f low for these movements involves either a left turn from 66th, followed by aright turn to b5th, or a right. turn from 65th, followed by a left turn to 66th (1~ trips of the 147). Although these movements will no longer be accommodated~at Graham. Avenue, indications are that relocation ofl these movements to either Rae Orive or Lyndale~Avenue will have a minimal effect on trip length or travel-time. It should be noted that. the bulk of traffic making these movements occurred during a 45 minute time period. from 4:30 to 5:15. This is a time at which the Rae Drive/65th Street intersection is at a point of peak congestion. Some inconvenience may be experienced by drivers wishing to avoid traffic at the post office. However, the signalized left turn at lyndale Avenue should offer an attractive alternative to replace Graham Avenue. Double Ief t turning circulation traffic between bSth Street and 66th Street will be nccmvenienced by closing of Graham Avenue. The traffic counts found that, during the 3'': hour period, 12 cars made a left turn from eastbound 66th and turned left again to westbound 65th Street. Likewise, 12 cars from the east ~ 65th Street made left. turns to the east an 66th Street. Other recirculation paths are available far these movements; however, some additional out-of-direction travel will be required for these cars as they."cruise" the neighborhood. This movement represents a-very .minor proportion of the vehicles on Graham Avenue. from 66th Street and left-turn movement to 66th remaining 147 vehicles (35a of the tot31?. These have direct convenient access between 65th Scree t Re~irected~ Trips ., Traffic Movements Graham Avenue City of Richfield 2:30.- 6:00 P.M. August 2, 1984 To A B C From A - NC 37 B NC - 43 C I2 93 = 0 4fl 27 NC E 0 20 I8 0 E 30 2 12 6 NC~ 26 - 32 24 - NC .not counted Total volume on Graham Avenue _ 422 vehicles A Feat treat B e~tn s • c e e'c .~. Bridgeman's ~~ E _~ ~ D s~s8; 6~~ e~ C ~° `/ Nlr. Richard Krier August 10, 1984 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS As proposed, vacation of Graham Avenue will have a minimal effect on out-of-direction travel, traffic delay or congestion in this portion of Richfield, During a period of approximately 45 minutes when traffic congestion occurs at the Rae Drivej65th Street intersection, some incon- venienc~ might be experienced by drivers. uho are "short-cutting" through this area. Because Ieft-turning traffic at 66th Street will be restricted by this action, some vehicles- will be redirected to signalized intersec- tions either at Rae Drive or at Lyndale Avenue. This redirection of lsft-turn3nq vehicles will increase safety, since exclusive signal phases are available to protect these. movements. Fn relationship to the overall traffic patterns in this portion of P.ichfield, the proposed vacation of Graham Avenue will have virtually no impact on the safe and efficient movement. of vehicles. Yours truly,. t~E5TM000 PLA~VNI;~lG do EVGI`EERING COMPANY ,,~ ~' ~ _~,. E [.fie Kenneth U, Andersoa, P.E. KZaA jd g ~ ~ G /~V 1.L7~t C~. F - l F , ., Q , ~„ _ a _ ~, , ' ~ ~" '~ '. OAt!'~ PA / - _ '~ , ~'~ Q ~'1 ~~ 9 , ~{ " ~ 1, %' ~ .Lake- Sacrist t . ." ~ P -= ~ ~ `~ - _ I f ' - - . - ~ _4 !C i~~NO y+ n ~' I envy E a-' . ' ~ Parks, ~,• ~ ` ~ ~ o' ' , ~~ k i ~ i~ 2 - ~~ k a t~ ~ ~~T ~ w' a •~ 3 ` ~~ ~ n , !~I ~ . ~~ ~_ ,d ~. /~,:' ~ ~ ~ !i • T Y 1 Purl ~ ~ o Vkf 4 i j Ps~lcJ I J '~ ~. ~'r. o' ` .~ ~~ ~ ~ Todd j e ~ ' Park ~ ~Q ~ ., kl~ L` :~ H ~ U ~ ~' ~.. `. i L 8 ~ ~., ~, ~; ~ _ t = ;; i ;i ,~ ~„ Le.yion . _ ;~ ~ '§f tl m ' ! i ~ if r o ~ L :. +- ~~* h st nF 't • a ' ~ :. r sr - o ~: _ t _ ._ j~€I ~' ~ ~. t ... _.. 4 I, ~ ~.- 1ti ~/ ` ~ ~~ 1 ,,. ,. ` ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ; ~: ~~ ! \ , 3 `` 1 ~~.~ \~~ i ~`~ \ ` ~~. k ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ } i ) _ ~~`\~..{{¢~~, l ' * 4/ ~ !~ :, ~1 ss i i `~ ~ ~ • \ + ~~' 'i 1 •~\ ~ \'N ~~ \\ ~ `` `~4 ! a ~ ~ i-\ .~ ~ -'is- t ~_ ~~ 's ~ _ -- ~,, .::~ r~r $ +~ g~ = v~ n°~ ~ r ~ °~ >> s _.~ ~ Z s ~~ i~ N m . a EE ~~ 9 t ~, ~~ 1~ '~ =g ~ :-_ IEl`--: iiti* ~~I~= 2 t i 4dt 2 '~a s'i =i, :4: Y t .11 4. ~ 'f ti ~ Y C ~ l~. ~_~ ~ ~ M1 N N ESOTA- H 1STORICAL SOC1 ETY FOUNOEO IN 1443- 6~0 Cedar Street, St, caul. 1Ninnesota 55101 (6122 29fr6125 22 October 1984 Mr. Rick Jopke City Plaaaer - City of Richfield ~ - 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 •• . - Dear Mr. Jopke: ` ~ ~ Mar t laze; ,r :, . Sections 27 & 28, T28, R2 ` , - t Richfield, Henaepia~ Count MN ,. ~; 1~S Referral F'iil~e Ntanber : ~ • -bI4 i ' `: (PLEASE. REFER. TO' THIS . ; ` IN. i , '~, ~: ALL FDTU'RE CORRESPONDENCE} ~ ., ~ , ; .. . • Thank you. for the opportunity to review and crrl~ent on a above pro- ,;~. ~~ ,;->~-~ ject. It has• been reviewed. pursuant to respoasibilitie;: given tfie State ~ Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic reservation Act ` `~ of 1956 and the Procedures- of the National Adn3sory Co ' c~ of Hist ric - •' ~-~ Preservation (3bCFR,800) . ',~ ~ ~ _: •, ~ , This review reveals the location of no Kowa sites of'',storic, archd.- y~ tectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering s~.ificaace within '~ ; the. area of the proposed. project.. There are no sites in the project'! . ' '~ area which are on the National Register or eiig,ible_r+ of inclusion on! the ,; ( ., National Register, and, therefore, none which mayr~b,'affected by you proposal. ; " f •.+ 1~ ~~ Again, thank you for your participation is this ztaat effort to , preserve Minnesota's heritage. ~ ` ; :; , ~ '~ ~ .. - Sincerely, ~~~ .- - ; ;~.: - ` " , ,Russell W. F~idlep ~~-.. State Hista-ric Preser~ration Officer n~ ...,.. '~: ""' ` Minnesato Pollution Control Agency October 3i, I984 Rick Jopke, Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Oear Mr. Jopke; SUBJECT: Market Plaza Commercial/Residential Development Environmental Assessment: Worksheet (EAW} The Minnesota Poll ution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has completed its review of :->~ the subject EAW. The staff does not. recommend that an environmental impact statement (EYS) be prepared on the project, but it does have. the following con- cerns relative to post-project traffic noise, construction dust and noise impacts., wastewater collection system provisions and capacity.. Post-Pro3ect Traffic Noise .Noise due to traffic. on adjacent- roadways and streets may exceed state noise standards (MN Ruie Chapter 7010): at the proposed. buildings. The staff recommends that these noise leve]s be further evaluated, using average daily traffic from existing and future traffic and both .truck and automobile traffic. If state noise standards are to be exceeded, the city should ensure that the proposer implements noise control measures to achieve compliance with those scan- dards. These control mea-cures include proper insulation and construction, year- round climate cont%1, and sealed windows. These measures- will reduce both noise and air gualiLy impacts from the traffic. Should you have any questions per- taining to post-construction noise, please call Dave Kelso at 296-7372. Construction- Noise and Dust Construction noise and dust. will be associated with various sizes of project construction. The city should ensure that the project proposer implements measures to mitigate these impacts on adjacent high density land uses. Fugitive dust controls, construction curfews, and noise mitigation measures should be included in local permiis as appropriate. Phone: 296-7799 193b West County Road 92. Roseville. Minnesota 55 t ~ 3-2 i 85` Regional Gffices • Duluth: 5rainerd: Detrcit Lakes. Marshal; Rochester t.:~:21 CGaorcuniry ETC~oysr ~n ~;; Rick Jopke City of Ricfifield page Z - Oct. 31, 1984 Wastewater Collection System Prnvisions The EAW did not present sufficient information to enable to reviewer to evaluate the adequacy of the receiving collection and interceptor sewers. No information on existing flows, design flows, or locations of these systems was presented. No description was provided relative to on-site provisions to connect the new construction to the existing callectiort system. This type of information is needed under item 22 and should be included in future EAW's. The application for the State. Disposal System {SDS) permit for sanitary sewer extension sfiould include reference to this EAW by title, as we11 as the date on which the city approved: the Findings of Fact on the EAW. We further note that the statement in the summary regarding the separated. status of Richfield's collection system is somewfiat mill-eading, as the receiving interceptors do in fact have wet weather bypasses. Demolition Debris The EAW did not indicate whether structures presently exist. on the site. If so, we expect that some demolition waste would be generated. Oemoiition debris removed from tfie site sfiouTd be disposed of in an appropriately permitted demoli- tion landfill. Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. Should you have any questions, pi ease call Eric Kilberg at 296-7795. Sincerely,. Deborah R. Pile. Director Office of Planning & Review DRP:es c: Dave Kelso, AQ Gregg Downing, EQ8 ~~`~~ STATE OF D~P,~RTf~~hiT ~F N.~-TV~,~L R~SOI~~C~S 80X CFNTEI+INIA1. Ofi=)C: BUILDING • ST. PAUL., hi1NNESOTR 55155 ONR INFCRMASICN f612) 296.6157 November 2, 1984 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Market-Playa Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Jopke: FILE NO. The Department of Natural Resources {DNR~ has reviewed. the .above-referenced document .and. we offer the following comments for your consideration. ~~' Our primary concern with this project is tfiat runoff water from the new impervious surfaces on the site may contaminate Richfield Lake.. Ai though surface water runoff volumes may-not increase compared with the existing pre-development- conditions, the quality of the runoff is likely to deteriorate. Richfield Lake, a Type lit wetland is classified as protected waters. The lake also provides some habitat for various species of wildlife.. We suggest that you urge the developer to provide small areas on the site where parking lot runoff can seep into the ground. Grass or gravel covered strips or drainagewa~ys would facilitate infiltration and reduce runoff. Thank you for the opportunity to calralent on this project. Sincerely, Thomas W. 8aicom Environmental .Review Coordinator pje 155 c: Kathleen Wallace Ron Harnack - Eari Nuber ~'a Gregg Downing - EQ8 Richard C. Krier - Market Plaza Corporation ~~ C~aU/~~. vQ~vllTt~til~/ C1~SC! QYCR November 5, 1984 Qp 4 ~v ~f~~ a rr ~rH csT~~ Mr. Rick Jopke City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Market Plaza Metropolitan Council Referral File No.-12379-1 Dear Mr. Jopke :~ .Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Prwl, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 At its meeting October 25, 1984, the Metropolitan Council considered the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Market Plaza.. Although there is adequate sewer and transportation facilities to serve. this development., the city should be aware of the ,effect the Minneapolis/St. Paul Lnternational-Airport may have on this property. Specifically, this pro- posed deueiopment,is located near the perimeter, but within aircraft noise impact Zone 4 as defined in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Develop- ment Guide. According to the guidelines, a mu]tiunit apartment, with shared entrance, would be compatib a with the airport if the living quarters area constructed. to achieve a 45dBA, interior-noise lever. Consequently, it is recommended that the city advise the developer that. it is the developer"s responsibility to achieve the interior noise level. The EAW appears accurate and complete for the purposes. of Council review and an environmental impact statement is not needed insofar as Council policies and plans are concerned..: Attached are copies of letters from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District commenting on this EAW. Sincerely, Sandra S. Gati"d"ebri:n~ Chair , SSG:mz Attachment cc: Tom Rulland, Mgr., Environmental Review Section, EQB Karl Nollenberger, Manager, City of Richfield C. R. Payne, Acting Director of Engineering, MWCC 3ames J. Mahady, Engineer, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Tom Caswell, Metropolitan Council Staff An Equal Opportunity Employer ~~~~ihvw~iirn~ • !llRl7E '~ cOfiTROt commt~fion Twui Goes P.rea ~` f~ ~ 1 October 11, .1984 Mr. Jahn.Rutford Referral Coordinator Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101. RE: Metropolitan Cauncil•Referral File No. 12379-1 Dear Mr. Rutford: The Metropolitan Waste Control Caa>znisson has reviewed the Eavironnental Assessment Worksheet. for Market Plaza to be located in the City of Richfield. Because there is .adequate capacity within the Metropolitan Disposal Syst~l, the Cattoaisson has no objection to thisaevelo~nt. Sincerely, C? /~ /p~y~ 4 ~ C. R. Payne.. Acting Director of E~agineering CRP:E?B:CLL 350 ti1ETR0lOUARE BLDG. 7TH S ROBERTlTREET/ lAlfiT PAUIli'If155lOI 612 222.8423 _ -. .. ~~' ~~ ~t • ~ S~~y CFO o~ .~rn~~EH~H~- UVAT~RSH~D CREEI{ C~S7RlCT «~ P.O. Box 387. Wayzata. Minnesota 5b39i 80AR0 Of MAMA6EAS: Oavid H. Ca~uan. Pres.. Albert L Lehman • Jahn E Thomas Michael A. Carrot) . Camitte 0. Andre .James B. McWethy .James R. Speinfey October I8, 1984 Mr. Richard C. Krier Market Plaza Corporation 1650 Shelard Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota .55426 Re: Market Plaza Development .Dear Sir: ia~ -/ We. have received comments from Martha Allen of the Metropolitan Council concerning the Market. Plaza development. Permit approval far the project is required. by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The District's primary concerns. include erosion control while the site is under construction and the rate and quality of stormwater runoff from the developed site.. A permit application is enclosed. Please contact me if you need any additional i nformati an. Very truly your, EUGENE A. NIt~COK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District. J me~ ahad En n r y, gi e bt cc: L,Martha Allen, Met Council ., ~'~ 1linnesota ~~ ~\~NE~T q y~ a a De~arim~ilT of Trar~s~~c~rTaTior~ `, o~ Transportation Bt,ildii~g ~,y ~ 5Q ST. PaLll, ~1lnrleS0Tc3 JJ1JJ ~o~ TR~e~ (612} :'tu>tlt' November 6, 1984 Rick Jopke City Planner 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Binnesota 55423 Re: f~2arket Plaza Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAG~l) District 5 (Richf field - Hennepin County) Dear Mr. Jopke: 296-1652 The Minnesota Department. of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has completed a review: of the above-referenced EAw. t~1e anticipate that the. proposed project will cause little adverse impact to our transportation facilities. tale would. appreciate, however, reviewing the traffic report referenced in Item 28 of the EAW. This report was not attached to the EAW's we received.. Please send a copy of the report to Carl Hoffstedt, Transportation Planning Engineer at our District Office in Golden Valley, phone number {612)545-3761.. Our District Office may be in touch with the City after reviewing the report. Sincerely; ~/.c~eG GG~ Cheryl Heide, Planner Office of Environmental Services ~n Equal 3ppvrtunii;.~ Empioyer DfPAATMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL: DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1135 U. S. PO8T OFFICE b CUSTOMMOUSE ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 58101 REPLY TO ~''fD~r~ ~9~~~~ ATTENTIOiI OF: Construction-Operations _ ;. Regulatory Functions ~~ - - ~~ ~~~ ~i~~~ ~~~ Re : jd.,~~tp,~ll ~~Pdlle2G~7e~.~ ~,2C~ ~,~.~~~:~.~ ~wyEyy su; s,~ ~ ~~.. ~7~ a~ ~" anti ,~. ay li/, aS~E.nn1,~1~~ ~~.~1, ~~~~ We have reviewed the information provided us concerning the referenced project.. The work you propose at the location stated is not. within the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.. No work will be done in a navigable water of the United States,:. and. no dredged or fill material will be .placed in and wa er of the United States, includinb wetlands. Therefore,, a Department of the Army permit i3 not required to do this work. This letter is valid only for~tne project referenced above. If' any change in design, location, ar purpose is contemplated, contact.. this office at (612) 7LS-753 to avoid accomplishment of work which may b:e in violation of Federal iaw. If you.. have any questions, please call ,,G'L`1Lj1E i'~~~• G~! Sincerely, ~~~ ~ ~.~~ Dennis E. ~n ~'G(iief , Regulatory Functions }3ranch Construction-Operations llivision ~k. /,~ ~~~ G~ 6' ~, ~ dG ~~~P~!711~ ~~nn STATE OF DE~A~T~~N~ fl~ NAT~~AL ~~SOU~C~S BOX CENTENNIAL OFFICE.. SUiLDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA . • 55155 DNR INFORMA710N (6121 296-6157 November 2, 1984 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Market Plaza Environmenta Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Dear Mr. Jopke: HLE NO. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR).. has reviewed the above-referenced document. and we offer the following comments for-your. consideration. Our primary concern with this project is that runoff water from the new impervious surfaces on the site may contaminate Richfield Lake. Although surface water runoff"volumes may not increase compared with the existing. pre-development conditions, the quality of the runoff is likely to deteriorate. Richfield Lake, a Type IV wetland is classified as protected waters. The lake. also provides some habits for various species of wildlife. We suggest that you urge the developer to provide small areas on the site where parking lot runoff can seep into the ground. Grass or gravel covered strips or drainageways would facilitate infiltration and reduce runoff. Thank you for the opportunity to colrmlent on this project. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom Environmental Review Coordinator pje 155 c: Kathleen Wallace '_ Ron Harnack Earl Nuber Gregg Downing - EQB Richard; C. Krier - Market Plaza Corporation ~, AN EQUAL OPPGRTUMTY EMPLOYER J • ',, '` WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY. Mr. Richard Jopke, Planner November 9, 1984 City of Richfield 670fl Portland Avenue ' Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Market Plaza ` Dear Mr. Jopke: Mr. Krier furnished me a copy of the ht. P.C.A.. comments on the E.A.W. prepared by Derrick Land- Company for the above project and requested that I respond accordingly. To that end,~I offer. the following: POST-PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE Attached. are worksheets for noise analysis of the residential units in 6Jood Point Condos and Market Plaza Apartments. In each case we. looked at post development traffic noise generated by Lyndale Avenue,. 66th Street & 65th Street. In all cases except one, the noise levels. are within. the acceptable levels. The exception is on the north face of Market Plaza Apartments adjacent to 65th Street where the noise level is computed at 65.5 D.N.L. with the acceptable being 65.0 D.N.L. This can easily be mitigated thru the design of the structure and. the windows. This .computation also does not take into account for the vertical seperation of the units above the roadway. CONSTRUCTION NOISE and OUST Construction noise can be controlled thru the implementation of construction curfews and enforcement of O.S.H.A. standards for equipment and engine., noise. Dust .can be controlled thru proper construction management and enforcement of sweeping or watering dust generating areas. WASTEIrdATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS It is my understanding that the City Public ~dorks is reviewing the. existing system and existing flows. Irle will provide the City Engineer with more detailed data on the wastewater requirements of the two structures as it becomes available. 715 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5528 (812) 546A156 Mr. Richard Jopke November 9, 1984 Page 2 DEMOLITION DEBRIS The specifications for demolition do include provisions for the proper disposal of all demolition debris. I trust that the above addresses the issues raised by the M.P.C.A. If you need any additional information or have any questions,. please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, WESTWOOD NG & ENGINEERING- CDMPANY ,~~''~ .y~~~~ Dennis Marhula Executive Vice President. - DM/pan CC: Richard Krer Attachments Noise Assessment Guidelines WOr'~iC~-~r cT C - Aaar~vay Noise -Page 1 List. all mewcr wads within 1000 2't of the site: 1. 2. 3• 4.- Necessar,~ L~f'arr~ation ~ F~ Road ~2 Rcad ~+3 :~o` 1. Ltistance LZ Feet 11vm the site to t.'~e e~ of t<'~e read b . fa*tr~est la.*~e c. avez~ge (effective distance) 2. D13`..8T1C° t0 stOp sign 3: Foad g:adiertc in percent 4. Average speed.. in mpn a. autor~biles b . heavy trucks -uphill c . heavy tr,~cks -downhill 5. 24 houraver~ number of automa- biles ~d :Ae33~.mm tzucks in both d:r~ctiar~s (AIn) a. automobiles b . medi~.lm tucks c. effective ADT (a + (l0 x b)) 6. 24 hou- average number of heavy t tucks a. uphill b . downtsill c. total. ?. Fraction o£ rii~ttitr~e traf'tic (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 8. 1'z2.*Pic ~~ected for what year? 4~b _._.___ ..~_. ~_ ~ ~ X90 -. ' ~ c C ~a~ a'S~` ~a~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ x ~ ~W I + ~ F '' N ~W ~ ~1 rf + F.+ ~t E..i h'+ c ~i ~ ( ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ `~ ~ cn a rr ~. ~~ A _~_°~~ { 1 1 1 1! I I ~~~Q a : cL to tb N '~7 ?t !t Yt St Yi ~t ~t }~- ~ ~~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ,~ s h u u a u u u I I I I ( I ~ I ~~~ ~ a ~ a a~~ ( I ,~ ~~ ,,J~ I I I I ,~ ~ } ~ I o n u a i ~ c ~ c~ ~ yw~ ~~~~ a a. a ~. a a ~ ~ a '*~ f~D C `~ a i i ~ i ~ ac yt k I~ ~e ~c ac x ~ct-~•~ ~ I I 1 ~ ~~ ~..~ ~. a ~ i ~~~~ ~: O N '- l,'1 ~ ~ n3 ~ ~ ~. v ~ ~~W ~ . _ ~~ o~ W ~ N ~~ N C] ~~r ~a ~~ ! I ~~~~~~ fl ~ s ~ ~~ i ~ t ~ `~ w ~~' ~ I I I ~~~~ c~' ~~~ fD ~ ~s ~~ u u n ~ i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I v b w ~~ ~ r saL'FjaF'=T~ ~ISalS15S2SSd 2S;Ojti Z ~d - ~~Olv n`J'~'lCki - ~ ~-?Sh"~OM i E.~S't" S[ D Noise Assesstaent Guidelines WOr'~~'.r.."~ C - Aaadyvay Noise -Page 1 List. a? 1 a~cr toads w,~thin 1000 2 L of the site 1. -,~ Str~~-~ ~_ 2. (~tr,dal~ ~~ ~ ,~ 3- 4. Necessar,; Lti°crration I. Dist2nce L~ feet from. the site to t.'~e e~'..ge of t.'~e road a. :~e_~es ::.-~e b . fa.~t:,es t la.*~e c. ave.*2ge (effective distance}~ 2. D~.s`,.ance to stop sig'i 3: mad g^adierr in percent 4. Ave~~-e speed. in ~, a. autombiles b . t~a~y tracks - u c. heavy tracks -downhill 5. 24 hour a•~rage n~ber of` automc- biles and :ne3:um tzucks in both d:ectiors (Atn) a. actorobiles b . med. ur,: tracks c. effective ADT (a + (10 x b)) 6. Zu hou~~ average n~er of heavy trsc~cs a. uphill b . dcswr~.ill G. tCtal 7. F~r2ction of nighttime tzsffic (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.} 8. ~2,~'fic projected for what year? Acad. ~1 Road ~2 Fad ~3 road ~4 Jnn, 7.7D , .~ •~ ° ~ °' .th .I~ ~ ,~ S3 x,. ,,.r. y~'r' w y Q,. r+ _ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ,~ !~9 ~ x N ~ ~ ,~ ?~ 1 ~ N d ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 o~ 1 ~ 1 p~ ~` ~~~~ ~ W ~ ~ ` ~ 1 1 1 ~ X11 9 ~~ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ht 1 ~ 31 ~ 9 '9-' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~"~ ~ ~ C ~ W n 1 .r tD ; ~ ,~ ry 1 1 ,~ t n ~ u rv ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. t ~ ~ co tC3 ~ a~ . ~. 1 1 ~ .., ~ ` ~.~~~' 1 1 ~ 1 ~~~ ~ 1 1 -- ~ 1 i G ~ y ~ ~ '~, u a n ~ rr tt b \ ~ ~y 1 u ~ -J C '~ ii ~' n ~~ `' ~ y-»~''S~.C~ n,~~.Se~26S'd 85 ~ot~ ~u~~ ` ~OtJCI-t ~! l7Ei Noise Assessment guidelines WOHE~Sh'~'T C - F~ac~rsy Noise -Page 1 List aZ1. m~ cr zeadg within 1000 ft o1' the site 1. (o~o~` S~Y =~,_.. ., 3• 4. Necessary L*li"ormat"+on 1. Distance i.~ 1~et 1'Zvm the site to t.~;e e~'..ge o f t.'~e road a. ne r:~st=..--e b . I'a.*ww~es t lane a. average (effective distance} 2. Distance to stop sign 3: Arad ~y'BC.i err 1Z1 percent 4. Ave^age speed in mpn a. autombiles b . heavy trucks - u~hi11 c.- heavy trucks -downhill. 5. 24 hour avert number of autom:r- biles 2nd me3i:~n tzucks in both CL~CtiCl'S (ADT) a. ae:tomcb ~ .'yes b . medi~.at: trscks c. effective ADT (a + {10 x b}) 6. 24 hou~~ average number of heavy trucks a. uphill. b . dowr~itll c. total 7• Fraction of nig~ittime traffic (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.} 8. '~Yaf'fic pzo~ected for what Ye~''- Pb~ F4oad ~2 F_, ad ~3 Ao .~~'? ~° ~ICFrSSr..=~ C - .R7R~TA: ;V'OZ~ - Pam 2 ~~ N ~~ n q !t q ~ n c ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ! , cv t t t t N~3~ i v ~~~~~ ~I i I b Eloise Assess~aent C~.'_delines n u I I n I i t t I m ~ I f I t .~ ~~ ~ v~ v ~ ~ ~ Q V U 'Q ~' ~~,, q n u It ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢< ~ ~ ~~~~ I i I I rc n u n ~ z e• ~ ~a x se I ~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~ ~,~~E~ ~ ~, N~~~ I I 1 I Q 4 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ \~' ~t ~>~~~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~~ '~ ~ b ,~ v ~ ~ Z ~. ~ I l l i i l i l x>~~~ It 11 it It tl 11 n it f i a~~~ ~~<iN I I i i I I I I ~I ~ I I ~ < r ~ >e x ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~e x X ~0'e ~ ~" cv a ~~~~ I i I f I I I f ~ ~ ~ M : ~~~ I ~ i I :C C+ y~ C ~ a~ m ,~ ~ ~ a a a a ^' ~~= I I C7 y ~. ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-+ a ,~ .-t a ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ a a ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ i..~i ~ r . ~ u NO~T~{ SI DF- Noise Assessment guidelines WOF~KShr""T C - Acadway Noise -Page l List alJ. a~s;~cr roads w-ithtri 1.0.00 ft of the site: 2. 1'Gt~i ~v'~ //... w ~i7~~r~~.~ 3• 4. ~.~~~.~. Necessarr,~ LTu"oxraat+on I. Aistance i.n feet fiom the site to t'~e e~'.~e of the roas3 ya . :rie~-es ~ :.=-ie 1J • i ~i. wr~es 1r ~~r~e c. average (effective distance) 2. Dis`~.ance to stop sigi 3; Fad g:^adierr in percent 4. Ave: age speed in mph a. aut:~iles b . heavy trucks - ~u c . heavy tracks - dowz~iill ~. 24 hour a•~r2~e n~ber ~o f autom~- biles and :ne~d~~n trucks in both c~~ctior~ (AI7T) a. aa:tom~biles b . medi:m: tracks c. effective ADT (a + (l0 x b)1 6: 24 hou~~ average n~er of heavy trucks a. uphill b. downhill C. total 7. Pra~ction of ni~ittime traffic (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 8. Via,*fic prosected for what year''- Ac Pc~ F~'sa ~Y~ F° ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ - -- ~°, -- - ~ r--- --- ~~s ~~ ~r --1-r'=~ o r' ~~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ fl•~ ~ ~ N~ rr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 w 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7t ~ ~ r? ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~-~ 1 ~~ ~a~ 1 ~ 1 ~_ ~ N ~ yt ,~,~ 7~ 1 1 r,y1~ T~ '~i y~ 1 ~ Z 1 a m u ~ ~ 1~~~ `~, ~ e ~ 1 1 ~ .~+ `"' ' 1 ~ ~ a 1~1 a ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ r ~ ~ ~ t 7~ ~ t~ y O -~ ~ ,~ .~ ~ ~~ i ~ `~ ~ " " 1 ~ ,.J, 1 1 n u ~ ~ .. n ~ ,~- ~, ~ ~~ 1 1 ~ .. ~-^ N ' ~ t CA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ 1 1 ~ 1 l ~~~, ..~ i 1 1 1 ~~ ~ 1 t ro t ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ 1 .~ i ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ 1 u ', ` u ~ ~, r'.i tii ,,. . ~'" :~~, Z~~~~ ~Y Sdu~~ r'""ti~ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 48 Agenda November 19, 1984 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: Promotional Brochure'to Highlight the Advantages of Our City and School System Dear Commissioners.: Officials from. the School District, the Chamber of Commerce and the Executive Director have met on several~oceasions to explore the possibility of a joint venture to prepare an outstanding promotional brochure that could be used to: 1. Tell Richfield~s story to families or individuals seeking a desirable residential community offering excellent schools.., quality municipal. services and convenient shopping; 2. Promote Richfield to young families; 3: Explain the economic assistant programs available to small businesses; and, 4. Serve as a promotional brochure that can be used by realtors, financial institutions, the Chamber of Commerce, the school district and city government.. Mr. Lowell Larson, School Superintendent, has been exploring the cost and other considerations of a promotional brochure for the school district for several months at the request of the School Board. The HRA and school district have the same objectives in promoting Richfield. Here is an opportunity for the city government and the School District to jointly fund and develop a community and school system brochure. The Chamber of Commerce does not have funds to participate. The only ways .businesses could participate would be through the purchase of ads in the brochure (school and city representatives do not recommend this because it will detract from the appearance) or by being a sponsor (donation). -2- Mrs. Jan Jacobson, representing the Chamber Board of Directors, reports that her contacts with several businesses has led her to conclude that the Chamber of Commerce members prefer to put together a separate type of informational brochure that is primarily a listing of businesses in Richfield which contains mostly advertisements. The cost estimates for a 16-20 page high quality promotional brochure will run between $1.1,000 to $15,000 . Copies of two proposals are provided. in your backup. An initial order of 10,000 copies would be ordered. The Executive Director recommends that we join with the School District and commit up to $7,500 or 50~ of the cost far this project. The source of funding includes: 1. HRA budget - Small Business Assistance Fund. 1984 fund balance is $8,648• However, $4,000 of that balance will be utilized to fund the Chamber of Commerce-Community Forum. If funds were to be utilized from this fund, it would be appropriate to make the expenditure from the 1985 budget. It is likely that the expenses will not be incurred until after December 31,1984. 2. Possible MN DEED grant for promotional brochures;, and 3. General. Funds of the HRA and City~Government. 1.984_ .HRA General Fund Balance - $45,054 and 1984 City Government General Fund Balance - $2,323,918. The Executive Director recommends that the HRA Small Business Assistance Fund and, if necessary, HRA General Fund be used to fund all or part of the cost. If state funds can be obtained, HRA funding can be reimbursed. This proposal for a promotional brochure was presented to the City Council at their November 13, 1984 meeting. The City Council unanimously supports the proposal and recommends to the HRA that funding be provided as recommended by the Executive Director. ectfu y mitted, a ohn G. a Wright ' City Manager i JGC/eja • November 8, 1984 - Lowell Larson, Superintendent ••_- Richfield Public Schools 7001 Harriet Abe, Sa. Richfield, NIIJ 55423 Dear Lowell, We are proposing a 24 ar 48 page booklet, 8~' wide by 7" high. - We picked this size to stand out in the realtor's folder. - Fos this booklet we would grovide writings designing, and - `photography..- The budget would be :about $15,500. I have a - - - - dumaay to show om the pager that. we-suggest..- If we were to - • Print- the ~ cover in ~4-color,: this wooled add' approxiuiate3y $6dD '- - - ` . . - - to the printsng cysts and might well"be .worth _it-c~nsidering - - . the use. of the booklet. ., "~~: _ .~: - - . _ You. have a"budget. of aPProximately~ ~3.0OD0 aad if. ths~.~s: the -. - _ case., we should Probably consider cutting the_boak back:tcy. - _ .. :. . -. 24 pages. ~If we do that our budget. woaid.,run •agproximatelg , .~ `~: ~. _ - . . - $11,.000« - :. -. - .. -• .. ~ helg cover the costs- for this p=oleo,.. we might consider _~~ .'.selling sponsorships. It's possible:-to: sell.-ads for.-~it, `_ ;~ - - - _•however I".think sponsorships make better•sense. There, ice _ - Probably slot Qf businesses in the -area-. that would be°`happy - - - -~ to sponsor just 8ueh a publication .for distributioa _to• people _ ,- -- considering moving. to Richf.ieLd. .We-might- sell--aponsarshipg -' £or $100 or more. Lam sure working. with the svper~stendent's ,' _ _ -- - -.. office, -we ctxild get the names and" Bolger Publications could: - _. . 'sell these sponsorshigs. I page this ~ infozmatioci wf,l-I:~ be _ . - :. helgful~ to you. and.- we really would Ii:ke•-to work with you an-: - ~'•- i - - ~ ~~ :. developing a booklet for our camaauaity. _ - - -~ - Z;ardially:_: Yours, _- - ~ _ ` ~ -,~ ,,. 7 .. s~ -~~~~~~~. _ -. f ~.. • ' ~n-~4 r ~' 'Lis. . .""~ ~5- 'Y 3 ~. w - g Y- • 4- '4i' t:' ~ h -~ - _ _ . ~ President '_ _ r . - .~ F _ .a•rr.. _ •aT _ «.. A3 N^~M.:S a..ti r/~ '~ rv '. Y` ~ ' r~ye~~ '~ .. .. tai '1. ~T' - ~ Z~ w~w~~iV .:s..f~~'nf Y ~ 9A FMii~.'. w`L . 1 :~ `-~.: -. '. ~ '_ _ - - - 1 yi J- - 7y.~, t2~ ~~lY'TixH.•;y ,M~W. ~ ~. *~ ~ •< -y` ~~ .`~olger pubt~cat~ons%creative , nR~ng ~" ~~'~ - ~. ~-~' ~'~~' .. ~a `~ `~, ` .R!r A'Wt J ~ .~ ~^ ~ • ~.t l' K 'A'te ~V«l'~~'~•~`3 ! ~ '~...~ ~~_. .~ .c. c a :..~•-. '.. -._ __ ; .~ x`...Sy, ~ ..t~s-:.'~3f'`-` .,~ ,~~y c"^;3+i ~ 3"'vu~ ~t~'~~X r' ,,,''. ,,, 33x1 Locoo ~venucSbutlieasC Mfnneepo(is' Min~esote. 554th -.. z. ''~- trr ,. ~ ~- ~ ~. ,~ » *. _ v, . `ate rr ~~ ;;s•~~"~..~,~,MS-~ ,~ ," ~'~''~' ~-'y. ~. U- r,• '<<.v ~Ye' F.:..+ .. • i j - r h - `"n ~ 1 - i _ ~~ "~f-T~J1f0. i+ r.T'.Y s.a ;` .rc.. ~~tA - 3 itiS.'' ~[~~. r~~rI~- ..A .. i'~- f. '~ YTS _ - - _ - }" y`1t ~,:;- ~ t ~ '2';,. ,, 7 ,~ _ rG ....w .. .::: -..y ~r - .. ' t -aSa ~~. s^;-'.ti "1 3 ~~~ ...L.~.~.rs..Y~ y~ i.:N~v..rt!. ~rf-ti~ _~-_. _~s__... ,~.~.~.__~.. _....-.-__"y'".~..s_~__....:.rw.L :S~S~:+:tsn_ t+M?•_t,..f ...__ .. ..... ._... 1 !, ~ ~ 'i - ~~ ~_ Kiada Associates/Public Relations & Advertising 730 Norwest Midland Bldg. Minneapolis, MN Sj401/612-332-7313. November 7, 7984 Lovell Larson Superintendent Richfield District Office 7011 Harriet South Ri chfi ei d, f4N ~~423 Dear Mr. Larson, 41e have been investigating prices for your projected brochure since your last conversation with Roland Minda. Thank. you very much for the outline and other materials regarding the brochure that you. sent to us. They were-most helpful for our planning purposes. Even in the ,light of the range of subject areas -that you hope. to touch on in the booklet, we remain convinced that. the piece should be no longer than 16 or 20 pages plus cover. It's always difficult, when you have an excellent story. to teTl,, to limit such a project to a lesser number of pages. However, we hope you will keep in mind the purpose of this booklet which is literally as a sales piece. This brochure should hit the high- lights and advantages. of your community and school system. Any attempt to go into myriad detail will only ensure that you will lose the hoped-for enthusiasm .of your reader. I am emphasizing our opinion~in this area because of a conversation l had with Jen Bolger of Bolger Publications. We know Jen well and have often used their firm for our projects. I called her with the thought that if we might collaborate on your piece, there might be a possibility for saving costs for your project. Particularly since we are writers and they are printers, it seemed as though there might be some logical ground for cooperation. In our conversation, Jen mentioned .that you had asked her to come up with prices for a 40 to 48-page booklet. This,. of course, is not what we had discussed together nor do we think it appropriate for your needs as i mentioned earlier. Therefore, I am sending you .some estimates for the specifications as we discussed them. If you have any questions or need any further information, pi ease give us a call. Thanks again for your consideration. Sincerely,. /~ ` t~l~~-''l a Mi nda VSce President ~'~fiv~ f,tn ~~t~ ~i ii ESTIMATE/RICi{FIELD .SCHOOL & COMtAUlYITY BOOKLET ,pecifications: 16 pages plus cover, 8" x 8~" or up to 8~" x 11" finished size 25 photos, no duotones or crossover photos. 2-color,.2 sides l00 lb. Warren-flo cover stock/cover 70 lb. Mountie Matte/inside pages Cover - fu71 ink coverage, bleed and reverse type cut, folded, trimmed and stitched Quantity - 10,000 Cost Estimates: Concept and Design $1,620 Type, stats and keyiines $1,440 Photography $2,500 3-day professional, on location shoot. plus film and processing. Printing (above. specs) $5,200 *Research and Writing $3,500 (Agency fee-includes pro- duction coordination and supervision through to final product). Total $14,260 *A11 costs are estimated except for agency fee. NOTE: All production costs will be billed through to you with no agency mark-ups, our usual procedure for non-profit organizations. 11111/84 PR Brochure Committee Lowell Larson Jeannie Ryan Charles Kauth Sharon Owens Terry Robinson SUrIl~fARY OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 1984 MEETING On Thursday, November 8th the school PR Committee met with John- Cartwright from the City and Jan Jacobsen and Paula Ekstrand from the Chamber to listen to pre- sentations from Minda Associates and. Bolger Publications. Both presented their cost estimates for the .combined brochure that the City and School would like to publish. Minda Associates had met with part of the committee previously and gave an exten- sive presentation on their company and what type of publications they have produced. Roland Minda was present to present a breakdown of their $14,260 price projection. He explain what-their responsibilities would be, showed the committee several brochures that they have done and answered questions. He felt that they would do a superior job in quality of design, art, ideas and writing. The completion time was estimated at twelve weeks. Gen Bolger from Bolger Publications presented their price projection at $15,500, but were suggesting a larger brochure than Minda Associates. She also. had an approximate price of $11,000 on a 24 page brochure. She offered several ideas on a brochure that they felt would meet our needs and would stay within our budget. One example that was presented had a school picture on the front and city picture on the-back and was printed so you could look at either school or city information and. in the middle a city map that could be viewed from either direction would make the transition into the other portion of the brochure, she also suggested using an unusual size paper that could be easily picked out of a folder of materials. She also. made several suggestions on the type and quality of paper. Bolgers would also sell sponsorships at a cost of 20%. Gen answered a number of questions and exhibited several brochures that they have done. After the presentations the committee members discussed both presentations. The following items seemed to be of importance in considering the kind of brochure to be printed• Quality and type of paper the use of four color, two color or shading on pictures the size of the brochure size of printing number of pages to be included in the brochure quality of writing art work concept and design . .After considerable discussion it was decided that the Chamber would not be able to contribute funding for the project. The committee decided it did not want to pursue selling sponsorships or selling copies of the brochure to the Chamber, and that they should be given a number of copies to be determined at a later time. The Chamber would still be given a small amount of room to present the business community in Richfield.. Jan was asked to continue to work with the committee for input and to help evaluate materials from the Chamber's perspective. - 2 - Mr. Cartwright said he is now ready to go to the City for funding and felt they would be able to pay half of the cost of a brochure up to $7,500. He will let Mr. Larson know a$ soon as possible what decisions were made. There was consensus among the committee to use Minda Associates for the. brochure and to encourage them to use Bolgers as the printer, but not to limit them, if they could secure a better bid on the printing. Mr. Larson and Mr. Cartwright will meet with Minda Associates after the City has finalized its commitment.. Mr. Larson will call the committee back together after that meeting to discuss what we need to do. ,. ...: __ _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,-~ Office of Gity Manager November 9, 198~t_ Council Memorandum No.'t76 The Honorable ayor an d Members of the City Council `City of Richfield Subject: RSA Request for Gour_ty Permit to Move Curb Cut in ~- Mediar. Opening on 66th Stare:et and.: OId Harriet `' Avenue _t 20' West Council Members:` Richfield State Agency (RSA). will. be approaching Hennepin County-about-getting' a permit for moving a curb cut and median opening on 6$t,h Street.. At the present time,. it is possible for `westbound. bfi h Street traffic- to take a left. turn through the inedzan that-forms the: left turn-bay for the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection to get to the vacated Harriet Avenue entrance to Richfield Bank & Trust Csee attachmer:t). The new; revised. Bank plan' ind:ica es; the new curb cut would be 120' r~~ to the west. The, new median. cut would require than the. grassy area and three trees west''of the=Grand Avenue curb cut would be removed to a low,stor~age for cars waiting to take-a Left turn. =r. _.. -into the ;szte. .- ~ Withthe new curb cut. being waved further. away from. the ,t. , . Lyndale Avenue intersection, the city staff believes tYtat there -would be ar. improvement in the flow of traffic and less c©n- gestion: at the. L}~ndale_ Avenue and 66th Street inter see ion. This is a County decision. However.., 'the County staff 'normally ;contacts R-ichfield in these matters ;:Unles's the. writer hears from a'member of the council prior to November 16,. the city staff will recommend that the County approve the move of the entrance' to the RSA site., All ebnstruetion costs associated with the move will be the, responsibility of` R:SA. R ectfuY~'s hmitted, ~j r GA~~ ,~f 1 ~~~ LS ~ ~ ar+~' *-1 A {~ ~~% :~ ~ ~~ s ~"t +"'~ ~~ ,~ s ~, ~ .. ' ~••~ +_ ,~re+ ,~;T,~,.....---'-'"'":-~'~ ~ `mac '{ra' •~, ,. ~- •- Q r ~ a fi ~ ~ ~ s r rte. ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ e ~ :' . ,~ p f s n't r c ~ y r ~ 9 9 a ~ ~ ,~ y G '+ p ~ . ~ p. > > ! 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r • O Tn m ~ (A Qi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 0 ~ ~ ~ A M ~ ~ z m v o ~.,,. , G m m ° cn v x Z "' N n ~ G '~ -1 a. Z n ~ o z v Z m ~ ~ ~, s '• l :~ ,~ 0 C _ ~ _` ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ '' Z ` i ~` ~ ~„ ~ v ~ ~ m `•' s . x n G ~ ~ ~ m ~ i """~ m ~ z ~ ~ a N + ' ~ ~ r M ~ ~ ~ Z' Q Z~ p ~ m . V, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. ~7 Agenda November 19, 198 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: Amendment to the Lease-Purchase Agreement between the Richfield .HRA and Richfield Shoppes Developers Dear Commissioners: On October 26,.1983, the HRA and Richfield Shoppes Developers entered into a contract for Private Development and a Lease-Purchase Agreement. The Agreement obligated the Developer to lease and purchase from the HRA a tract and parcel of land at 6545 Nicollet Avenue. The Agreement calls far a $2,500 annual rent payment to the HRA for 15 years and also contains the provision to allow-the developer to terminate the lease and take title to the property upon the payment of a $50,000 lump sum. The HRA was unable to provide possession of the property to the developer until May 15,198. Thus,. the Developer is requesting the HRA to amend the Lease Purchase Agreement anniversary date to reflect the delay in providing possession. The proposed amendment to the Lease-Purchase Agreement (see attachment). obligates the Developer to pay the HRA on or before each anniversary date of the Amendment a sum of $2,500. The amended anniversary date will be May 1, 1985 and every May 1st thereafter far the term of the Agreement. The initial $2,500 payment due upon execution of this agreement has been paid. It is recommended that the HRA authorize the Executive Director and Chairman to execute the attached Amendment to the Lease Purchase Agreement. R~espeetfu~ll~ ~abmitted , John G. Car~twrigh City Manager JGC/eja C AMENDMENT TO LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS. AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 1984 by and. between the Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, DSinnesota, a Minnesota public. body corporate and politic (HRA) and Richfield Shoppes Developers, a partnership consisting of Thomas DuFresne and James Lupient, general partners. WHEREAS, on October 26, 1983 the parties hereto did execute a document entitled "LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT" {the Agreement); and WHEREAS,. the parties hereto are now desirous of modifying and amending the Agreement as hereinafter described. NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended by amending paragraph 3 thereof to read. as follows: "3. Rent. The Developer shall pay the HRA in advance, on the date of this Agreement and on May 1, 1985 and every May 1 thereafter for the term of this Agreement the sum of $2,500 as rent for the leasedrpremises." - This amendment shall become effective only after it has been approved in writing by the trustee for any bonds issued to finance the project. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its C airperson By Its Executive Director