10-28-85 agenda
- T
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. X415
Agenda October 28, 1885
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield .
Subject: A Joint Powers Agreement with the City of
Coon Rapids Which Seeks a Portion of
Richfield's Unused IDRB Allocation
Council Members:
On August 26, 1985, the city council authorized staff to
negotiate with the cities of Minneapolis and Maple Grove for use
of a portion of Richfield's unused IDRB allocation. Neither of
those cities now needs the allocation.
Coon Rapids is requesting $1,500,000 and has agreed to pay
all costs incurred by the transfer. This request, combined with
the Oreek project at 6?~th Street and Lyndale Avenue, would leave
a balance of $1,76,522. Richfield must inform the State of
Minnesota by October 31, 1885, of our intent for the use of the
IDRB's. It would be appropriate to transfer the requested
amount of IDRB's to Coon Rapids and release the -balance to the
state "pool". The city will thus be assured of receiving
back its full deposit.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the
resolution which authorizes the appropriate city officials to
enter into the joint powers agreement .with the City of Coon
Rapids and to direct city staff to inform state officials of i
Richfield's intent to release the city's remaining IDRB
allocation to the state "pool".
Respectfu submitted, ~
John G. Cartwri t
City Manager.
JGC/eja `
i
i
/~i~
l
RESOLUTION N0:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF .COON RAPIDS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield:
1. The City of Richfield and the City of Coon Rapids are
desirous of entering into a joint powers agreement pursuant to
Laws 1984, Chapter 582 for the sharing of entitlement amount of
industrial development revenue bond financing.
2. This Council finds that the execution of the agreement
is in the best financial interest of the City of Richfield.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed
to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
4. The City Manager is directed to transmit a certified
copy of the resolution to the City Clerk of the City of Coon
Rapids.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
~/7- ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA.
Office of City Manager..
Council Letter No. 414
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council.
City of Richfield
Subject: Request From HRA To Conduct A Public Hearing
On The ILN Redevelopment Plan and T ax Increment
Financing District Plan
Dear Council Members:
At their October 21, 19.85, meeting,. the HRA adopted HRA
Resolution No. 269. The resolution approved the. redevelopment
plan and tax increment financing district plan for the proposed
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Project. It also
requests the City Council to schedule a public hearing on the
plans. City staff has prepared the attached resolution
calling a public hearing for November 12, 1985, at 7:00 p.m.
The- proposed plans would be presented in detail at the time'
of the public hearing. The proposed plans are based on the
planning study prepared by BRW. The ILN Land Use Plan and
Phase I Development Plan developed by BRW have been adapted to
,meet the statutory requirements for a redevelopment plan and tax
increment financing district plan. The Land Use and Development
Plans were reviewed and evaluated by the ILN Advisory Committee
on August 2g, 1985. They voted unanimously to approve them.
The Land Use Plan and Phase I Development Plan were presented to
the City Council, HRA and Planning Commission on September 16,.
1985•
On August 7, 1985, the HRA officially received the
redevelopment plan and tax increment finance district plan.
HRA requested the Planning Commission to determine the
..conformance of the proposed plans with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Planning .Commission Resolution No. 52, dated October 8,
1985, found the proposed redevelopment plan and tax increment
financing district plan in conformance with the .Comprehensive
Plan. On October 21, 1985, the HRA approved the plans.
It would now be appropriate for the City Council to schedule
a public hearing on the proposed plans. At the time of the
hearing, a detailed presentation of the plans would be made by
consultants and staff. Because of publication requirements and
the need for the Council to take action. en the. Plans early in
November., the public hearing notice was transmitted to the Sun-
Current on October 2~tth for publication on October 30th.
• It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution establishing a public hearing for November 12, 1985,
at 7:00 p.m.
R spectfu y bmitted,
ohn G. ar right r
City Manager t
V
JGC/eja
•
f
STATE OF MINNESOTA ~ -
000NTY OF HENNEPIN ~ ~ ss
CITY'OF RICHFIELD )
I,.'Thomas P. Ferber,•being the du~yqualified and acting
clerk of the City of Richfield, 'Hennepin County, Minnesota,
do~hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact.
copy of
HRA RESOLtiTION N0. 267
and that the same is on file and. on record .in my office.
Given under my hand and peal
this 22nd day of October 1985: •
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
City of. Richfield
Hennepin County,. Minnesota
C.
HRA RESOLUTION N0. 267
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT: REQUESTING THE RICHF.TEED CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT
PUBLIC HEARINGS THEREON: AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF~.THE PLANS
BE IT RESOLVED by~the Hausing~and 'Redevelopment Authority of
:the City of Richfield (Authority.) as follows:
Section 1. `~:BackAround. ~-,The~Authority finds as follows:
1.01. The Authority on its own initiative has prepared a
redevelopment plan and program (Redevelopment Plan) for the area -
in~the City of :Richfield generally known as the Interstate
Lyndale Nicollet.Area (Study Area) in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes Sections 462.411 to 462.716 (Redevelopment Act) and has
prepared a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78-.(TIF Act).
1.02. The Redevelopment-Plan and TIF Plan are .contained in
a .document entitled "Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment
Plan and Tax Increment District Plan".dated October.21, 1985,
now on file with the Authority.
1.03. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan have been, in
accordance with the Acts, referred to the City of Richfield
Planning Commission which by action taken on October 1985,
Resolution Number 52, has commented on the Redevelopment. Plan
and TIF Plan and found them to conform to and not be in conflict
with the general plan for the development of the City as a
whole.
Section 2.' Referrals. .
2.01. The Authority finds and- determines that the '
objectives of the Redevelopment Act and TIF Act and the City~s
and Authorityts objectives for the redevelopment of the Study
Ar a w
e ill be accomplished by the adoption and implementation
of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan.
-
2,02. The Redevelopment Plan and the TIF-Plan are approved-
and adopted by the Authority.
2.03. The Executive Director is authorized and directed to
transmit copies of the Plans to the governing body of
Independent School District No. 280 and the Board. of
Commissioners of Hennepin County for their review and comment as
provided by the TIF Act.
. Section 3. Establishment of TIF District.
3.01. The Authority respectfully requests the City Council
to conduct the public hearings required by Section 462.521 of
~
the Redevelopment Act and Section 273.74 of the TIF Act as soon
as convenient, and further recommends to the City Council that
it approve the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan.
3.02. The Executive Director is authorized and directed to
transmit a certified copy. of the resolution and the Plans to the
City Council. -
Section 4. Further Action: Financing.
4.01. The~Authority intends to request the `City Council
from time to time to assist in the financing of the public
redevelopment costs identified in the TIF Plan by the issuance _
• of general obligation bonds of the City payable from tax
increments from the TIF-District.
4.D2. The Authority also intends to request the City
Council from time to time to aonsider various other actions
'necessary to the implementation of the Plans including but not
limited to, rezoning of property, the 'u se of eminent domain
-`authority, the execution of point and cooperative agreements,
_ and the use of other powers which the City is authorized~to
exercise on behalf of and in con~unation with the Authority •
pursuant to the~Redevelopment Act and the TIF Act.
4.03. The Authority pledges its cooperation to the City
Council in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield this 21st day of October, 1985.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
ATTEST:
Joan Helm~berger, 5eeretary
- .
_ _ . ~7: ~
RESOLUTION N0: ~'2'
_ RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING .COMMISSION OF THE
. CITX OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA,. PRESENTING THE OFINION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET
REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS OF
_ THE HOUSING:AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
. ; _ _ OF. RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA _
• WHEREAS,- it has been the intent of they City of Richfield to ~ ~
improve conditions in the section of the City of Richfield I,
referred to as the. Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area; and
_ ~ i
_
WHEREAS, the Housing and ,Redevelopment Authority of ~
Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority"),,has now prepared a
redevelopment. plan for a redevelopment project.for the-.. '
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area of Richfield,.Minnesota (the
"P.ro~ect Area") , dated 1985 tthe "Plan") ; and .
WHEREAS, the Plan has:beea prepared .for the :Authority .with
the :cooperation and assistance of the appropriate-city
departments and a,planning consultant;_.and::. _
' ~ rr _ 't
WHEREAS, the Authority has now•transmitted the Plan to the
Planning Commission of the City of Richfield :for -.its review, and
. has requested the ~rritten opinion of he Planning Commission on i
the Plan, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 4fi2.515; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has now .studied .and _
considered said Plan,. which oonsists~of the:
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment and-Tax .Increment
Financing Plans . ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE. CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, that, having studied and
considered the Plan, the Planning Commission, by this
. ' ~ ~ ~
-2- _
. ~ ~
• - resolution; adv~aes' the City Council, `the Authority; and all 1
interested persona, that it is the opinion of the Planning.
Commiaaion that:
1. The Plan provides an outline for the development and
redevelopment of the Project Area and is sufficiently complete -
to indicate the relationship of the Plan to the objectives of
the City of Richfield as to appropriate land uses within the -
' . Project Area,. ,acrd to indicate the general land uses ahd general
• standards of-development or redevelopment within the Project
Area; , l ~ • • .
2. The Project Area~is a deteriorated and deteriorating
area within the meaning ~ of"1Kinneaota Statutes ~4b2.421, Subd. 11 ; •
3. The redevelopment~pro~ect proposed by the~Plan~is
necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of such
deterioration, _
~t. The Project Area is ~sub~ect to conditions preventing• .
• private development and would. not be made available for
- redevelopment without the governmental`assistance and financial
• aid proposed by the Plan;
~5. The Flan affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment
of the Project Area by private enterprise, consistent with the
sound needs of-the locality es a whole;
6. The objectives and purposes of the i~lan conform to and
:-are consistent with the general land=use proposals and planning
ob~ectivea of the :City of Richfield's `Comprehensive Plan.
The acquisition plan is~ consistent with the City of
Richfield's Comprehensive Planc ~ -
8. The traffic circulation `plan and improvements proposed
~~are consistent with the goals and policies of the City of
.=~~.Richfield's Comprehensive-Plan. The Planning Commission will
initiate the process to amend the roadway functional'
class Election plan contained in the Richfield Comprehensive
Plan to reflect the improvements contained in the Interstate-
Lyndale-Nieollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing PTans.
f
. f
_ '3 wing ~°ma?ission
berg X985 by the pia
of ~ct°
8th daY Minnga°ta
p$SSad this of Ric~ield'
og .th8 City
Ch~,irPQrg°~'
Connie H°~gr5on. -
ATTEST'
$ecratar9 .
Steven
-
` _ _ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD ~7_`J
RESOLUTION N0: ~ I
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
ON A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROGRAM
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
WHEREAS,. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield (HRA) adopted a resolution on October 21,
1885 authorizing the rr __.e ation of a Development Program and
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the proposed Interstate Lyndale
Nicollet redevelopment district; and
WHEREAS, such Program and Plan must be presented to the City
Council of he Ci of Richf' ld or n ider 'on nd d ion
t ty ie f co s atz a a opt
prior to undertaking any publicly financed redevelopment work
within the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Richfield as follows:
1. That a public hearing be .held before the City Council at
city hall on the 12th day of November, 1885 at 7:00 p.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard.
2. That the city clerk is authorized and directed to cause to
be published a notice of said public hearing in the official
newspaper of the City at least ten days in advance of the
meeting.
3. That the city clerk or city attorney is authorized to
transmit a copy of the Redevelopment Plan and Program, and
Tax Increment Financing Plan along with a notice of the
public hearing to the county and school district.
DATED:
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
_ l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. X13
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
.Subject: Setting Date for Special City Council Meeting for
Special Assessment-Bond Sale and Canvass of
Municipal General Election.
Council Members:
There is an item on the agenda setting a date for a special
Council meeting on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, at 5:30 p.m.
The special Council meeting is necessary to address the
following items:
1. At the Council meeting of October 1~4, 1985, the City
Council authorized the sale of $1,940,000 General
Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985• These bonds have
been offered for sale on sealed bids on Wednesday,
November 6, 1985• Once received, the bids must then be
awarded by the City Council.
2. The municipal election will take place Tuesday,
November 5, 1985• Pursuant to Section 4.07 of the City
Charter, the Council must meet to canvass election
returns no later than the next Monday following any
regular, special, or primary election to make a full
declaration of the elections results.
Both matters could be handled at one special meeting,
eliminating the neccessity of holding two special meetings.
It is recommended that the City Council schedule a special
City Council meeting for Wednesday, November 6, 1985, at
5:30 p•m. to award the sale of $1,940,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds of 1985 and canvass of the 1985 municipal
election.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
- / " /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Offide of City Manager
Council Letter No. 412
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable i~ayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield .
Subject: Appointment of Hearing Examiners to a Special
Committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Council Members:
In accordance with ordinance No. 1985-~24, passed on second
reading at the September 23, 1985, city council meeting, the
writer appoints, subject to confirmation by the city council,
the following persons to the Special Committee of Hearing
Examiners to hear variance requests to the municipal zoning
ordinance:
1. Mr. Vern Luettinger
7045 14th.Avenue
Former member of the City Council
Planning Commission member
HRA Vice-Chairman
2. Mrs. Connie Hoverson
7408 13th Avenue
Planning Commission Chairperson
The writer anticipates making one or more additional
appointments at a future city council meeting. '
Re ctfull b ted,
~?.rti.i G~/
ohn G. C rtwr t
City Manager
JGC/eja
-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. X411
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Appointment of Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioner
Council Members:
The term of
HRA Commissioner Vern Luettinger will expire at
the end of October, 1985• Commissioner Vern Luettinger was
appointed to the HRA in 1983 to fill an unexpired five year term.
Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners
subject to confirmation by the city council. Mayor Hamilton has
indicated that he will reappoint Commissioner Luettinger to a
full five year term at the October 28, 1985, city council
meeting..
The Mayor's appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for a five-year term expiring October, 1990,~requires
City Council confirmation.
Re ectful s mitted,
/1
ohn G. Car Wright
City Manager
JGC/eja
~l~-~
CITY OF .RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
'Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. X410
Agenda: October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating To Video Gaming
Devices
Council Members:
On November. 26, 198, representatives of the mechanical
amusement device industry appeared before the city council to
protest the annual license fees charged by the city for such
devices. The 198 mechanical amusement device license was $105
per machine and the license fee established for 1985 was $110.
per machine. The position taken by the representatives of the
mechanical amusement device industry, and their attorney, who
appeared before the city council, related to their opinion that
the city license fee was far in excess of the city cost to pro-
vide inspection and licensing services.
State statutes provide that the city cannot use its
licensing power to generate revenues in excess of the costs
actually related to the licensing process. After receiving
testimony on this matter, the council directed the City Attorney
and the Director of Public Safety to work with representatives
of the mechanical amusement device industry to examine the city
fee structure in this matter.
In December, 198, the City Attorney and the Director of
Public Safety initiated the license structure review requested
by the city council. At that time, the city required the
industry to obtain 1985 licenses at the rate established by the
bity council ($110 per machine), so the machines would not
technically be in violation of our licensing code while this
matter was under consideration during the current year. The
industry was informed that any modification in the license fee
structure resulting from the study would be retroactively
applied to 1985 license fees. On this basis, and under protest,
the .required licenses for the current year were purchased.
In examining this matter with industry representatives, it
became clear that the machines creating the real problem for the
industry were video games. The nature of their construction,
and the mini-e.omputer utilized for their operation, created some
_ ~3
unusual maintenance problems. Therefore, the industry practice
is to remove a,mechanically inoperable video machine and replace.
it with one which functions properly. In addition to the
rotation of video machines for maintenance purposes, the
industry rotates the specific gaming devices from one location
to another throughout the year in an effort to maximize
utilization. The present provisions of our ordinance code
require a Richfield license for every operable machine in the
city. Therefore, because of the rotation of these machines this
provision means that the industry is required to buy many more
licenses than those actually needed for the machines in
operation in our city at any one time.
In the city's discussion with the industry representatives,
it was determined that a more practical approach for licensure
of video games, based on the rotation of these games, in and out
of the city, would be to license a particular premises for a
specified number of games. Therefore, .the City Attorney has
prepared an ordinance to reflect this suggested licensing
practice for video games only. Since it appears only video
games are the devices frequently rotated within our city, we are
not recommending a change to premise licensing for other
mechanical amusement devices.
The second issue related to this lengthy study of .video game.
licensure relates to the license fee itself. The relatively
high license fee for mechanical amusement devices was originally
based on the fact that such devices could result in an unusual
amount of police activity related to groups of young people who
tended to utilize .these machines. Our actual experience has
shown that mechanical amusement devices and video games really
do not create any unusual demands for public safety service.
The licensing process itself is similar to that used for vending
machines. Additionally, we have not conducted on sight
inspections of video games more than once a year. Again, this
is similar to the licensing procedure used for other vending
machines.
Based on our actual cost experience, we believe that the
license fee for mechanical amusement devices should be similar
to the license fee for other machine or vending devices.
Therefore, the proposed license fee for mechanical amusement
devices was reduced as a part of the recent budget process to
an amount of $19 per machine for 1986.
In an attempt to address the problems experienced by the
mechanical amusement .device industry with regard to video games,
the City Attorney has prepared an ordinance for council
consideration. Additionally, we propose a revised fee system to
license a premises for video games, as opposed to the
traditional license practice of licensing individual mechanical
devices. We think that this effort to deal with the problems
presented to the city council last November by industry
_ l~
3
representatives will fairly meet their needs and provide amore
effective process for the city in the administration of this
.license activity.
Summary-License-Fee Per Machine ar Premises
"198 1985 1986
Mechanical Amusement
Devices (pinball) $110. $ 19
Video Games 105 110 Store Location'
(a) 1-5 games $ 90
(b) 6-10 .games $150 ($90+$60)
(c) Each additional $ 6
The. $19 license fee for mechanical amusement devices was. set
in the resolution passed. at the .final 19$5 budget meeting when
all fees,- licenses and permits were established for 1986.
The vending machine industry would like. to see Richfield
include all soft drink, candy and snack food vending machines
under the .premises license. The Director of Public Safety does
not recommend this change because the fees now being proposed
reflect the city's cost to inspect anal process license fees.
It is recommended that:
(1) The city council. give first reading to this ordinance
and schedule the public hearing for November 12, 1985;
and, ,
(2) Postpone action on the resolution setting the 1985 fees
for video games until the November 12, 1985, city
council meeting after the ordinance is adopted on
second reading.
Res ectfu ubmitted,
.
John G. Cartwri t
City Manager
JGC/eja
i
I
_ C
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter V of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating
to the licensing of mechanical amusement devices and video games
is .hereby amended in the following .respects:
I. Section 5..18, Subdivision l is amended by adding he follow-
ing:
(3) "Mechanical amusement device" does -not
include video games as rectulated by Section 5..18A
of this Part. ~ I
II. A new Section 5.18A is added after Section 5.18, providing
as follows:
5.18A. Video Games.
Subdivision 1.~ Definition: "Video ame" as
q
used in this s
ection, means any video machine
which, upon the insertion of a coin, or slug,
operates or may be used for a game, contest, or
amusement of any description.
Subd. 2. Scope of this Section. This
section does not apply to the following:
(1) Mechanical video garles which are held or
kept in storage or for sale, and which are not in
use or displaved for use in the city;
(2) Video games of chance licensed by the
state under Minn. Stat. §349.5.0-60.
Subd. 3. License Required.. No person shall
mainta'
in or keep a video game, whether operable or
inoperable, within a building or on premises
within the city, except within a private .resi-
dence, without first obtaining a license for Baia
building or premises..
Subd. 4. A 1'
pp ication. Each owner or lessee
desiring a license for a building or for premises
shall make written application and furnish such
information as is required by the city clerk. If
the applicant is not the owner. of the building or
premises, the application shall contain tha name.
and address of the property owners and shall also
l~~
contain a copy of any lease or other agreement
between the. applicant and owner of the building or
premises.
Each license issued shall .specify the follow-
i.nq
(1) The name and address. of the applicant;
(2) The address of the .premises to be
licensed; _
(3) The name and address of the manager or
managers who will supervise the licensed premises;
(4) The license period;
(5) The number of video ,games licensed to be
on the .premises or within the building.
Subd. 5. License Period and License Fees.
The duration of the license shall be for the
.calendar year or the remaining portion thereof.
The license fee shall be as provided in F~ppend~.x D
of this code.
Subd. 6. Conditions of Licensure.
(1) Premises containing five or more video-
games (a) must be within the general commercial
district of the city .and (b) must not be located
on premises .which -are within 200 feet of anv
residential or multiple residence district.
(2) No wagering or betting far a consid-
eration or any other gambling, other than gambling
authorized by statute, shall be permitted on the
licensed premises. If any video game is used in
violation of state law, the city may proceed in
accordance with .the provisions of Minn. Stat.
§325.53-.56 in addition to the imposition of and
other penalty.
(3) The licensed premises shall be in
compliance with all applicable state and local
regulations dealing with health, zoning, fire and
building requirements.
(4) The licensed premises shall be in the
charge o.f the licensee or his designated manager,
who shall be present on the premises during all
times. the premises are. open. The licensee or his
designated manager shall be responsible for
maintaining order and for dealing with problems
connected with video games on the premises.
(5) The licensee or his .designated manager
shall make all areas of the licensed building or
premises accessible and open during business hours
for police, fire, health and other authorized
inspections.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1985.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
i~-7
RESOLUTION. NO.
RESOLUTION P.NlENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 6957 "
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
.Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
Resolution No. 5957; Section 5, Amuserent and Recreation
Licenses and Permits, shall be amended for the years 1985 .and
thereafter by adding .Section 5(2a) providing as follows:
(2a) Video Games 5.18A
(a} Premises containingl-5 video games -
1 license year $90
(b) Premises containing an additional
6-10 video .games - 1 license year $60
(c) Each additional video game on
premises - (over ZO games) -
1 license year $ 5
1
i
. ~ ~ ~ = z
Section 5. Amusement and Recreation Licenses and Permits, /~J
TYPE OF PfftMIT SECTION
OK L1C~;NSE ttrr~~1TRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE FEE
(1) Arcade 5.17 ~ 1 Year $236
(2) Amusement
Device 5.18
(a) Mechanical Amusement Device 1 Year $110
(b) Mechanical Music Bos ~ 1 Year $ 53
(3) Bingo and -
Gambling 5.19
(a) Daily permit .
Bingo and Gambling, each type 1 day $ 36 .
(b) Annual License -Bingo ~ Calendar Year $236
(c) Annual License - Tipboard Calendar Year $236
(d) Annual License -Paddle Wheel Calendar Year $236
(e} Annual License -Raffle Calendar Year $236
(f) Annual License -Pull Tabs Calendar Year $236
"(g) Annual License - If the licensee is granted a
license for any two gambling activities other
than Bingo (i.e. Tipboard, Paddle Wheel or
Raffle} the license fee shall be $471
If the licensee receives an annual license for
all three types of gambling, the licensee fee
shall be
(4) Itinerant Place
of Amusement 5.20 1 day $1.18
(5) Public Dance 5.21 For each day during permit period
dances ar held. ~ $ 13 '
. No fee for" locations holding
tavern licenses.
(6) General
Amusement 5.22 '
(a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole ,
table (each) 1 year $ 29
a.1 Coin operated 1 year $ 76
(b) Bawling Alley (per lane) 1 year $ 18
(c) Circus 1 year $118
(d} Dance Hall 1 day $118
- D.13
_ i
- _ ~
t'on icenses and Permits ~ -
Section 5. Amusement and Recrea i L
- 13-~~
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIxlwG TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE FEE
(1) Arcade 5:17 1 Year $248
(2) Amusement
Device 5.18
(a) Mechanical Amusement Device 1 Year $ 19
(b) Mechanical Music Box ~ 1 Year $ 19
(3) Bingo and
Gambling 5.19
(a) Daily permit
Bingo and Gambling, each type
(b) Annual~License -Bingo
State
(c) Annual License - Tipboard
License
(d) Annual License -Paddle Wheel .
Required
(e) Annual License -Raffle
(f) Annual License -Pull Tabs
- (g) Annual License - If the licensee is granted a
license for any two gambling activities other
than Bingo (i.e. Tipboard, Paddle Wheel or
Raffle) the license fee shall be
If the licensee receives an annual license for
all three types of gambling, the licensee fee
shall be
(4) Itinerant Place
of Amusement 5.20 1 day $124
(5) Public Dance 5.21 For each day during permit period
dances ar held. $ 14
• No fee for locations holding
tavern licenses.
(6) General
Amusement 5.22 -
(a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole
.table (each) 1 year $ 30
a.1 Coin operated 1 year $ 80
• (b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 year $ 19 ~ '
• (c} Circus 1 year $124
(d~ Dance Hall 1 day $124
D.13
-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. X409
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: First Reading Of An Ordinance To Allow
The Expansion. of Non-Conforming Structures
Council Members:
Two ordinance amendments recommended by the Planning
Commission concern expansion of non-conforming structures.
The first ordinance amendment would allow a non-conforming
structure to be expanded if the expansion meets all applicable
city ordinance requirements. As staff has previously discussed
with the council, the city has been dealing with a number of
variance requests which are minor in nature and come about
because the existing structure is non-conforming. This
particular ordinance item would allow those improvements to go
forward without having to go through the variance process. The
only restriction would be that the addition or expansion would
have to meet such provisions as setback requirements. This
would insure that any addition would not increase the existing
non-conformity of the structure.
The second ordinance amendment would allow a single family
dwelling to be converted into a two family dwelling even though
the existing dwelling would not meet the interior sideyard
setback requirements necessary for a two family dwelling. This
item came. up several months ago when a property owner wanted to
convert an existing dwelling into a two fmaily dwelling. Even
though there would be no expansion of the building, the
ordinance would not permit such a conversion because the
required interior setback requirement for a two family dwelling
is 10 feet, while for a single family dwelling it is 5 feet.
The dwelling in question met the single family dwelling setback
requirement of 5 feet,. but did not meet the two family dwelling
requirement of 10 feet. 'The ordinance amendment would allow for
conversion of a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling,
and would allow such a dwelling to be expanded. However, any
expansion would have to meet the 10 foot setback requirement.
' It is recommended that the city council give first. reading l~
to these two ordinances, and schedule the public hearings and
second readings for November 25,.1985•"
Respectfully submitted,
. ohn G. Ca twr' ht
City Manager
JGC/eja
/f 2J\
AMENDMENT TO-CHAPTER III, PART IV
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD.:
C T F R C F R A
I Y 0 I H IELD DOES 0 D IN:
Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the .City of
Richfield entitled "Zonin Re ulation" is hereb amended in the
g g Y
following respect:
SECTION 3.30, SUBDIVISION. 3, PARAGRAPH E IS AMENDED BY
ADDING THE FOLLOWING NEW SUBPARAGRAPH ~4:
(4) The structure shall meet all setback requirements
for two-family. dwellings except that a single
family dwelling which does not meet the required
two famiT interior side and setback ma be
Y Y Y
converted into a two-family dwelling if the
dwelling is .not expanded or if the expansion meets
a 1 'c r 'n n
1 a li able ct o dl ante re uireme ts.
PP Y q
Passed by the. City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1985.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber. City Clerk
~i
1 I,
I
_ i
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III; PART IV A
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE ( `7
- CITY OF RICHFIELD -
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of Richfield
entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following.
respect:
Section 3.29, subdivision 2 is amended to read as follows:
-
Subd. 2. Nonconforming Uses. Any use, building or
structure lawfully existing as of the date which it was
rendered nonconforming by this part or any previous zoning
ordinance of the city or its corporate predecessory may be
continued even though such use, building or structure may
not conform with the provisions of this chapter for the '
district in which it is located, with the following
exceptions and restrictions:
(1) No existing building or premises devoted to muse
not permitted by this chapter in the district in which the
building or premises is located may be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted~or .structurally altered, unless
- the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the
district in which it is located, except when required by law
_ to do so . -
(2) No such nonconforming use may be extended to
occupy a greater area of land, or be moved to another part
of the arcel.
P
(3) A nonconforming structure maa be exaanded if the
expansion meets ali apAlicable city ordinance requirements.
(3) (4) A nonconforming use may be extended throughout
an existing building provided non structural alterations
are made .
(4) (5) If such nonconforming use ceases for a period
of two years, any subsequent use shall be in conformance
with, the provisions of this chapter. .
(5) (o) If any nonconforming use of Lands on which
there is no substantial building is discontinued for any
period of time, any subsequent use of land shall be in
conformit with the rovisions of this chapter.
Y P
(6) (7) If at anytime a nonconforming building or
• structure is damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, water,
ex losin riot war or an act of God to the extent of more
P g> >
- than 50% of its then market value at the time of the damage ,
then without further action by the council, the -said
building and the .land on which the building was located
lama a conform to all.
shall .from and after the date of such
re ulations of this cha ter exce+pt .that "any lawful
i~l
g P
'sted at
.nonconforming single family residential use which exi
the. time of the adoption of this: amendment may be
- -2-
_ _ ~ _ _ _ . _ 1~-5
reconstructured if it..is damaged or .destroyed _by_fire, .
explosion; or an act of God; provided that the degree of
nonconformity is not increased. The determination of the
extent of the damage and the fair market value. of the
building or structure shall be made by the city council
(Bill 1982-18) 6/14/82
(7) (8) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this.
Code, no junk yard existing as a nonconforming use in a
Residential or Commercial District shall be continued unless
in a Commercial District, such junk yard be completely
enclosed within a building or within a continuous solid
fence not less than eight (8) feet in height and in .any case
of such height as to screen completely all the operations of
such junk yard. The plans of such building or fence shall
have first been approved by the Chief Inspector.
(8) (9) Nothing in this Code shall. be construed to
prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition
of any part of any building or structure declared unsafe by
a proper authority.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield;
Minnesota this day of 1985.
John Hamilton, mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
f~.~
CITY OF RICHFIELD,, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 408
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable. Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Capital
Improvements. First Reading. I
Council Members:
On October 1985, the city council approved a revision to
the 1985 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). This councilletter
is concerned only with changes to monies appropriated from the
Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The original 1985 CIB
budget approved $350,000 to be used to finance certain capital
improvements. On April 22, 1985, Transitory Ordinance No. 17.19
was passed by the City Council providing for such expenditure.
The October, 1985, revision reduced the original appropriation
from $350,000 to $216,000.
The list of CIB projects funded all or in part from the
municipal liquor store operations for 1985 (Special Revenue
Fund) are:
1985 1985
Adopted Budget Revised Budget
Energy Improvements $ 10,000 $ 10,000
City Hall Improvements 10,000 5,700
Legion Lake Park 248,300 150,300
Forestry 4,700 0
Little Bob's Park 50,000 50,000
•Parking Lots Lincoln
Field/Donaldson Park 27,000 0~
$350,000 $216,000
*This project now appears in the 1986 CIB
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
consideration to the transitory ordinance which appropriates
monies from the Special Revenue Fund to reflect the revised
project allocations for 1985• Projects receiving funding from
other sources (Revenue Sharing, Municipal State-Aid, user fees,
etc.) do not require a transitory ordinance for implementation.
. _ //'v
Those projects will proceed in accordance with-the adopted
revised 1985 Capital Improvement Budget.
Respectful s muted,
hn G. Car Wright
City Manager
JGC/eja
~I
it
I _
- //.3
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0._ AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of Richfield does ordain:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and
expedient for .the city to expendmoney-from the Special Revenue
Fund for the making.. of Capital Improvements listed in Seetion 2
hereof, for which the city would be authorized to issue general
obligation bonds.-
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts. of
expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be
.paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2
of the City Charter, are as .follows:
Energy Improvements $ 10,000
City Hall Improvements 5,700.
Legion Lake .Park 150,300.
Little Bobs Park. 50,000
Total $216,.000
Section 3: The expenditure herein authorized shall be made
pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time
by council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of November, 1985-
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
.Thomas Ferber City Clerk
_ f,~
BUDGED SUM~1A~tY
: CAPITAL .:Lrirtcuv ENlH;NT .FUNDS
: °1986 _ _ ,
.
Project Project
PROJECTS Revenues Expenditure
Rereationaland Open -Space:Development ~ ;
Fore~LLy $ 25,000 $ 25;000 - 'I
.....:Park Land :Acquisition 15 ,000 RS 15:,000 ~
Legion :Lake ;mark 225,000 ;SR 425;000 i
- :200,000 SG I
Nature Center :Improvements 15000:SR_ 15,000
Parking hots/Drives 15,000 SR 15.,000
(L3ncoln Field and :Donaldson .Park)
_ Total Recreational "Deve].op,~~~~. $ 495,000 $ ~A.~5,000`
. Right-of-Way Improvements
Alleys $ 150;,000 aSAB $ 150,`000
`Storm Sewer :Improvements. ~1:,700;000'~' . 1,'700;000 I
:Penn/66th West :356,500 "N A 1.,238,000
525,000..FAU
356,500 HC-
:Frontage Road 6gtYi-24th A~~se: 175,000 SG 350,000 ~ ~
. :25,000 SAB
. ,
. : _ 150,000 MSA
:66th-Sherdian/Xerxes ~ 143.,500:MSA 1,080,000
'~,w 584,500 F`AU
284,500. ~iC_
67.~500I; _
Total Right-of-Way Improvements $4,518,000 _ X4,518,000
`Public Facilities
City Hall Cooling Tower $ 10,000 RS ~ '10,000
Water Meters ~ 50,000 UF: 50~~
City Hall :Improvements ,20.,g00:SFi 20,000.
Sludge D~y~~ ,432500 'UF 432;500 ,
Well #7 Repla..~„~.~t 18,000 `IJF' .18
Energy Improvements 10,000 RS - 10y000
..Fire Vehicle Reserve. ..30.,000 RS _ 30,000
Public Safety G„..W.anication Reserve 151000 ASR 30.,000
`5,000 ~RS
TotaY :Public Facilities $ ..600,500 , . 600_,500
TOTAL PRO~7ECTS-. _ ~5,b13~500-° _ ~5,613~500..;
_ E~r~.r'lATEQ 1986 REVE{WES BY SOURCE
Special :Revenues (SR) ~ 315,000 *User Fees {.UF) =$2,200,500
;State Grants (:SG) 375,000 Edina (E) 67:,500
S ~ cial Asses~,,,~,~L Bands EAB 1 000 Henne in :Coon HG
Pe ( ) 75, P ty ( ) 641=,000
Municipal :State .Aid (MBA) 650,000 Federal Aid Urban-~FAU:)
Reverrue ::Sharing `(RS) 80,0001,109:500
Total Estitmted Revenues .
:.85,61.3,500
_ y *Those .:projects supp~~ Lid :by -User Fees are also a part of the :individual
enterprise ftmd -capital Qutlay,
- CITY OF RICHFlELD; MINNESOTA C-1 _ ANNUAL BUDGET
~ J
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS
NEW APPROPRIATIONS
1985 1985 1986
• Budget Revised Budget
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE DFVEI.OPMENT
Fore L~,~ $ 25,600 RS • $ 30,300 RS $ 25,000 SR
4,700 ~ '
Park land acquisition 36,400 RS 36,400 RS 15,000 RS
Memorial P k
Legion Lak~Park 248,300 SR 150,300. 5R 225,000
' 12,200 SG .100,000 OF .200,000 ~
Nature Ceni•er Improvement 15,000 SR
Little Bob's Park 50,000 SR 50,000 SR
Parking Lot s/Drives(Lin- 27,000 SR
coin Fie1G & Donaldson Pk) 15,000 SR
Total Rec reational $ 4.04,200 $ 367,000 $ 495,000
_ RIGHT OF WA t IMPROVEt~NTS
66th Sheridan -Xerxes $ - $ $ 143,560 NSA
. 584.500 FAU
. 284,500 HC .
67,500 E
Alleys 100,000 SAB 100,000 SAB 150,000 SAB
Storm Sewer Improvement. 1(X1,000 OF 300,000 OF 1,700,000 OF
Traffic Stuffy 76/Penn 10,000 N1SA 10,000 MSA
Penn/66th W:st 545,000 MSA 545,000 NSA 356,500 MSA
356,500 HC
• 525:~ FAU
. Longfellow, 146,.000 SG 146,000 SG~~'
66th-24th :venue ~ 10,000 SAB 10,000 SAB
Fri„loge Raid ~ 123,000 SG 123,000 SG 175,000 SG -
69th 24th.~venue ~ 25,000 SAB ~
150,000 MSA
RSA Storm Sewer 180,000 SAB 180,000 SAB~
Market Plaza: Sidewalk 25,000 SAB 25,000 SAB
66th/Pills ry Signal 60,000 P 60,000 P
.Crosswalk Rplacement- 30,000 SAB 30,000 SAB - .
Total Ri -af
Way
Improve nts $1,329,000 $1,529,000 $4,51$,000
CITY OF RICHFlELO, MiNN :SOYA ~_2 ANNUAL flNANCtAI REPORT
/-~o~ _
~ _ _ _ _ ,
.
CAPT'T'Ai• Zi~lrrtvdIIv~v~~~ FUNDS (~,~ivllivur~)
. , - NEW xrrxut'tt.i. n ~ ~ ~ ~w~ -
,
`1885..., , ,.;1985 ~ "19g6
Budget Revised Budget
PtTBLTO FACILl~rl)~ '
City;Hall.Cooler Tower $ ~ $ 10,000 ~?S
:Fire VQhicle Reserve 45,000 RS "15,-000.`RS 30,000 ~tS .
*4Jater Meters 274~~~00 ITF ~79~500 'U~' 50,000 13F
Sludge L?ryer - ~ ~D-y~000 'UF X32,500-IJ~'
-Water .Filters/Controls 10,500 ~JF . .
Public ::Safety ,:Communication ~ ° :
.Reserve 30,000 :RS 30;D00 'RS ' ~ ' , "15;000
City :Hail .Lobby Licensing '10,000 'SR 5,700-~R ~ 15y000 RS
25,000 ?~5 29,30D ~S " 20,000 `fit
~WeTl #7 .Replacement 18,000 OF
*Well #4 Replacement 18,D00 OF 16,250 OF _
:Energy 7..~,~ avements 10,000 ~ '10,000 SR 10,000 ,~5
_
Total 'Public : ;
.3..
Facilities _ $ <,-0.12,500 . $ 406,250' . , ~ 600,500 , `
1vrAL-PRE~7ECTS X2,145,700 X2,302,250 ~5,t~13,500
_ _
-
_
*Those projects supported by User ..Fees { UF) "are .also„ a of the"individual
- enterprise flmd capital outlay;'
_ v - -
- r - - l' -
- ~ 'F -
_ ~ _ -
- ~ - t a -
L"
~ _
t - -
' - -
CfTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ ANNUAL $UDGET
- _ 1~-7
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 85/86
Project to Date Project to Date Project
Appropriations Expenditures Balance
PRO, 'EGT 1/1/85 _ 1./1/85 1/1/85
Recreationa. & Open Space Development
Forestry $ 265,000 $ 265,315 $ 315-
Park. Land . cquisition 148,000 199 , 556 51, 556-
Monroe=Fanwood Park 500,000 507,700 7,700-
Communitytenter Remodeling 170,000 138,432 31,568
Richfield 1,ake PattYway System 300,000 265,969 34,031
A4emorial Perk 200,000 194,120 5,880
Legion Lake ~ 10:500 ?,944 2,556
Nature Cen- ~r Improvements
Parking Lo /Drives
(Lincoln field and Donaldson Park)
Little Bob s Park ~ 2,145 2,145-
Subtota $1,593,500 $1,581,181 $ 12,319
Right-of Wa; ;Improvements
both Sheri/Xerxes Improvements $ - $ - $ - .
Alley Improvements 301,069 272,100 28.,969
Storm Sewet Improvements
Longfellow 6th-69th 3,921 3,921-
Traffic Stt3y 76th/Penn 3,274 3,274-
Penn/66th ?Vest 20,293 20,293-
• Frontage Rc3d 69th-24th Avenue
RSA S L~ er ~ 864 864-
Market Pl Sidewalk
.66th/Pills ry Signal
.Crosswalk: placement
Subtota] $ 301,069 $ 300,452 ~ 617
Public Facilities -
Public Saf~ty Building Improvement .$1,349,850 $1.,34.4,669 $ 5,181
Energy & lding Improvements 195,000 188,885 6,115
Fire Vehicl ~ Reserve
Water Meters
. City Garage Furnace/Roof 60,000 12,032 47,968
Infrastruc re Study 10,000 3,995. 6,005
Water Fil s/Cw~ t,l ols •
Public Saf Communication Reserve
Cedar Site study '18,000 14,695 3,305
City Hall Cooling Tower '
City Hall Libby/Licensing 30,000 2,884 27,116
Weli #4 ReF ~acements
S1 DryE ,
Well #7 Rep lacement
Subtotal $1,662,850 -~1,567,1b0 $ 95,b90
GRAND TOTAL ~ $3,557,419 $3,448,793 $108,626
CffY OF RICHRELD, MINNESO' A C_4 ANNUAL BuoGET -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~>~J/
Office of City Manager. l /
Council Letter No. X07 I~
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council.
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendments To ILN Moratorium Ordinance
Council Members:
At the October 1~, 1985, city council meeting, the council
considered a request from Richfield/Bloomington Honda to
approve a revised improvement. plan and to exempt them from the
provisions of the moratorium ordinance as it relates to the ILN
planning area.
At that meeting, the council directed the city attorney to
prepare an ordinance to. allow Richfield/Bloomington Honda to
proceed with their improvement plans. The council also referred
this matter to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
The ordinance drafted by the city attorney's office would
leave the Bloomington Honda property in the moratorium area and
would exempt them from the provisions which prevent the proposed
addition to the building. It expresses the city's intent to
allow the development to move forward and allows the city to
process the special use permit amendments and issue the
appropriate building permits.
The Planning Commission reviewed this matter and unanimously
recommended that the council take no action to remove the
subject property from the moratorium area and also that the
attached Transitory Ordinance. 17.18 is not an appropriate method
in resolving this matter. City staff concurs with the Planning
Commission findings.
However, if the city council wishes to proceed; it would be
appropriate to give, first reading approval to this ordinance and
schedule the public hearing and second reading of this matter
for November 25, 1985. It is not possible to hold the public
hearing on November 12, 1985, because of publication
requirements.
R pectf bmitted,
/ !/~//jJ~S '
John G. Car Wright
City Manager /
/v O`er
AMENDMENT TO TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
N0. 17.18. AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING
THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA
OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING
AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOP-
21lENTS AND SUBDIVISONS WITHIN SUCH AREA. 'I
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 of the City of Richfield
entitled "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for the Purpose of
Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain. Area of the City,
Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Develop-
ments and Subdivisions Within Such Area" is hereby amended in the
following respect:
Section 3 thereof is amended, by adding at the end thereof,
the following additional subdivision:
"Subd. 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent,
the City from processing and granting permits and licenses
relating to the special use permit. for an automobile sales agency
granted by the City Council on December 17, 1984, for the area
south of 77th Street between the center lines of Grand Avenue
extended and Harriet Avenue, nor shall it prevent the City from
granting amendments to such special use permit. Such special use
permit was granted on the same date that the City-began the process
of enacting this ordinance. It was the intention of the City that
actions necessary to give effect to that special use permit would
be permitted to proceed to completion notwithstanding the provisions
of this ordinance. It is the purpose of this ordinance to express
and give effect to that intent."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of , 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 406
Agenda October 28, 1985
I
The Honorable Mayor I~
and
Members of the City. Council I!,
City of Richfield
Subject: An Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance tc
Reduce the Minimum Lot Size for Single Family
Dwellings from 6,750 Square Feet to 6,500.Square
Feet for Lots of Record as of January 1, 1985
Council Members:
At the October 14, 1985, city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment that
would reduce the minimum lot size for single family dwellings
from 6,750 square feet to 6,000 square feet for lots of record
as of January 1, 1985• .Second reading of the ordinance and
the public hearing was scheduled for October 28, 1985• A copy ~I
of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached to this council
letter.
There are many lots in Richfield with dimensions of 50' x ~
120' and 50' x 130' and lot area of 6,000 and 6,500 square
feet. It is, therefore, desirable for the city council to
initiate a legislative remedy to those situations rather than
compelling owners of these types of lots to go through the
variance process with the added burden of paying for two public
hearings. This proposed amendment would make it unnecessary for
the property owner to obtain a variance in order to develop the
property similar to other lots in the neighborhood. It would
also eliminate the cost of two variance hearings.
Staff Review
The city staff recommends that the zoning ordinance be
amended by reducing the minimum single family dwelling lot size
from 6,750 square feet to-6,000 square feet for lots of record
as of January 1, 1885, because there are many lots of 6,000 and
6,500 square feet that have been developed in the City of
Richfield.
If the proposed ordinance is enacted, the opportunity for
either new homes or for enlargement of existing homes is greater
and the result should be an improvement to the character of
neighborhoods in the .city.
'
~,L
Planning Commission Recommend-anon
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the
city council expeditiously amend the city zoning ordinance to
allow development to occur on substandard platted lots under.
certain circumstances.
The city manager recommends second re~~in~ approval of the
ordinance amendment to reduce the minimum sl~;~ie family lot size
to 6,000 square feet instead of 6,750 square feet to lots of
record as of January 1, 1885•
R pectfu .omitted,:
r
/v
ohn G. Ca twrigh
City Manage
JGC/eja
II
- -
BILL N0.
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV
OF THE ORDINANCE .CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of Richfield
entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following
respects.
1. Section 3.30, Subdivision ~4, Paragraph. (a) is amended to
read as follows:
(a) Minimum lot area;
Single Family dwellin s: 6 750 s uare feet
g ~ q
except as
provided in
paragraph (e) of
this subdivision.)
Two Family dwellings: 9,000 square feet
Other Uses: x+3,560 square feet
2. The following new paragraph (e) is added to Section
3.30, subdivision ~
(e) A lot of record as of January 1, 1985 shall
be deemed to meet the minimum lot area
requirements provided. that it has a minimum _
lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot
width of 50 feet .and. a minimum lot depth of
100 feet. When computing lot area, lot width
and lot coverage the area which is
unencumbered with street, alley or highway
easements shall be used.
Passed by the City Council of Richfield this 28th day of
October, 1985
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P Ferber, City Clerk
. ~
~
C T OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
I Y ,
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 405
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield -
Subject: Approval Of A Final Development Plan, Special Use
Permit, And Second Reading Of Ordinance Rezoning
Property From R To PMR-1 Planned Two Family
Residential For the .Planned Unit Development At
Rae Drive And 66th Street
Council Members:
At the October 1~4, 1985, city council meeting, the council
approved a PUD plan and variance for the HRA housing project
located at.6.6th and Rae Drive. The council also gave first
reading of an ordinance rezoning the property from R to PMR-1
planned two family residential and scheduled the public hearing
and second reading of the matter. far October 2$, 1985. The HRA
has also requested that the city council approve the attached
final develoment plan as required by the city's PUD ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the final development plan and finds that
it contains all information required by the PUD ordinance. The
final development plan is in substantial compliance with the PUD
plan previously approved by the city council. The development
of a common element residential subdivision plan will occur in
the future when the structures are built and property lines can
accurately be determined.
It is recommended that the city council conduct a public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the
rezoning ordinance. It is further recommended that the council
approve the attached final development plan and a special use
permit for the development. Project details are attached in the
backup for your information.
Res ectfull ub fitted,
ohn G. Carty fight
City Manager
- _ ~ BILL NO.
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDLX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN.:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Cade of the City of Richfield, _
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning
districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV,
Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in
the following respects:
Appendix C is amended by adding the following new Section
8A.
Section 8A, Planned Two Family Residential (PMR-1)
1. Lot 1 Rae Addition according to the plat thereof located
in the County of Hennepin and State of` Minnesota
All that part of Seetian 28, Township 28, Range 2~ in the
County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, described as
follows, to wit: Beginning at a-point marked "Judicial
Landmark" on the east and west. quarter section line of
said section distance 410 feet west measured along said
line from the east quarter corner of said section 2$,
thence south at right angles to said east and west
quarter section-line 74.6 feet to a point on the original
Military Reservation line, which point. is $3.5 feet SE1y~
measured alon '
g said reservation line from its
intersection with the east and west quarter section line
of said section said point being marked by a monument
marked."Judicial Landmark".thence South 7y degrees .3$
feet W 140.14 feet to point marked ".Judicial Landmark"~
thence South 7 degrees 10 feet west 115.4~F feet to a
point in the traveled road; thence-north 71 degrees 32
feet west 405.09 feet to point of beginning of the tract
hereby to be described; thence continuing North 71
degrees 32 feet west a distance of 140.53 feet; thence
north 13 degrees east a distance of 165.9 feet; thence
south d3 degrees 50 feet east 140.9 feet; thence south 13
degrees west a distance of 19b.11 feet .to point of
beginning.
Lot 6 and 7 Rae Addition according to the plat thereof on
file or of record in the office of the Registrar of
Titles in and for Hennepin County. '
Lot 8 Rae ..Addition actor ~ '•.a the plat thereof an file
or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles ih
and for Hennepin County (also. known as Lots 1, 2, and 3
Rae Second Addition).
_ _
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1985•
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
. '
-
5 _
r 1 t
_ ~ _ - t I
i
N~ 1 Requirements ; PMR 1 Require,?,~...l.s ; Proposed _ _ _
I I
~ i
~ , I
Maximt~a ; 10 dwelling units/acre ; 10 dwelling units/acre ;7.92 dwelling uti.ts/acre
I
Density ; ? I
1
I
M, n~?s~ i ~ i I i
Setb3ClSS
I
F~ti..L i 30 feet ; Not Applicable ; ~ feet
I I
Rear ! 25 feet ; Not Applicable i~ Structure: 25 feet ~
Deck: 15 feet ~
~ I
Side ; -10 feet ~ ; Not Applicable ; 10 feet
I I
I I
5treetsidei 15 feet ~ Not Appliable i 15 feet
I
~ I
I I
I I
M3x~~~ i - i ~
Floor Areal Not Applicable i 31:339 sq. ft. ; 1'T , 493 sq. ft .
I
~ ~ I
I
~ i ~ ~
r27.I11~ j I I I
Open 5pacei Not. Applicable i 65,844 sq. ft. i 80,474 sq. ft.
• ~ ' I I
~ ~ ~ I
~ I ~ ~
M121i~ i i I I
Livability; Not Applicable ; 40,589 sq. ft. i 45,283 sq•
I I
Space i ~
~ ~ '
~ ~ i i
Mini nnnn I I I I
Recr~..ationi ' Not Applicable i 4,420 sq. ft. i ~ ~I• ft-
I I
Space i ~ I '
I I
y I
I I
Minimum
off-streeti Total: ~ ; Occupant: 11 ; Occupant: 16 -
` ~ Total: 13 ; Total: 35
I I , i.
I ~ ~ i i
I
M3,,ri nn,m ~ -
Lot i 25~ i Not Applicable ~ 17%
. Coverage ! ~ ~ I I
• I ~ ~
I f
I 1 I
jl~ini mti~ ~ j - 1 ? l
Outdoor ~ 60,000 sq. ft. ; Not Applicable ; 80,474 sq. ft. ;
Open Space; ~ i ~ s
• I i I
~ ~
t
LmI i f a
Heigat ; 25 feet ; Not Applicable ; ~ 22.5 feet
~ ~ •
~ ~
I
; ~ ~ ~
.
~
~ ~ ~ .
r., ~
~ ~
o
z z ~
~ ~ ~ -
. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
RO.
W N ~ naq va
~ .
- ,
ti
.q f S1 AYMraN
~Iva+~+a"~rt 4i•:
~?v r ~ ` C~
~ E--- j
M.q'~
MO SQL . -
4M'r~ Sfd(~~- 391
V~l~ ...._._r.- ~ _ ~
F..a
•N
- __~...i.~a - ~ yr+ _
V~ _
s t
f { ~ ,}.y1.a- ~ _ - 1_ ' P~ gip: ~ ; .,,,,t.;
~.1 • ~1~
M
? + y~ '
.e~
~KN iYMil oa~l
j
_~,te_k...-.g~'i~~' y ~N. ~1M yl,, w j..
~ ~ 4i x ~ 1 a
~
~ r
S,~,a,~ a
~l ~ ~ ~~r""""9' ~ ~r~"
II
~I n f
~ 7~
I ~ • y :ern w .
~ !~M
>Z
wr •'w.ra
ay~ M^0d"
~b~ ~ ~
~
( ~
r``' f
1
•
. ~q ~
, \ . ~ ""e.
e ~
1 ~ i
.
' ~ • ~ MH(NrM
\ ~ ~ r 7 i (i ?-wws.. xvt..ASY PIA ..rJ~tt~
j ~^~.,w,l+,.<.it
1 ,e(~ \ ~ •t... \ • i 1 t N.C' ~1r.~~rW..~7/ tr rss.•! ~ NMi.MxNS.rMw
~ \ , l'~ ; 41TiF.a'a+' pir;. {TtK.9 .,nt*" ner..
~e~. 11~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ f~ . +~f d ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ , ' ~ 4 M I' ~ ~r.~ tt+.T ri 1t~(owry Af 4ni ('~(~'N. .1V~
- •t03 1 4~~ ~ E%t~1F3L , ~ ~ ~ i~!aNO:rt eu~~gr~<..rs.~~t'acy~"+r't"tuv.~.u~'rr
` J.• ~ ~•..t-~ 1 \ • ~ .._r... My+.1 C'M~"vr^~s' 1 SNet riv.c
~ti .irs t, rin./t-Y ~ i ~ u.M~ ~ a Ai"' N NiuA- IH ~u(~ar ttrw.t'(
t ti ~ 1`~a .'p,.r" ~ S / ~ ~ . \~'Ny'" ~ ~ ~ ~ «<~~~y
thu
~ L.'`.,w~a
a.iYt+~sK"'.~
t~ w vim ~ \ 1 'w;,~?Li~\>- 4 ~ 1 ~1 s_~-;^ ; , -
- F 'Fi~t1~y " ...~r~ _~!~S!'KS..:°..~._._..lt' ii~r,-u ~
~°-=T'-- tt(+( k". ~
lll_. _
LrY~ 'Ci
7RS1 ...i'
~i~.. ~t~~•1~
_ •a«Bescacc~ M ~htkWN4F~`irtn~nir. p.~r:. ..e...
~.GX Cn{:grtr:~k.li Ca rnrr'
~ ""Y'~?+%1/ ar~rN}aYw~~ w M~ YSI~I crl;r~~li•.~I~ .,tlura11Ni -
_ ~ ~ !
~
AwM
al+••.-~ la}rrYi lea-}
. .
a.+*ai -..r...~
r ~ al..r~ trd l~ 1Jy1
_ rt7
-
v, .sad .
a. Pik;... - 1
Gww r *--N'~'iL. pn
~ ,.i. MVt' 11MY1 R. PJG i - { ~'~1.
Q ~ Hwy ~I ) pAZ -
I~v.w. ..1- ~?)<~R~ . ~ h~':.-.;. ~ r ~~1~L;~~ ~/.N,f-.'t• Y•d`d}}~~
~ ~ Jrr ~ r~ 7NrYronr,~l~ rf' ? ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ r r Z
N~ • kYlw.,~ .j ~ ~ r • 1i' ~
n
3':"' - ; w ~s - Y Iq-rt IiL) ~ ~ d)dllll 1 ~ ~I
~r srs.,nyi~ ay,N . ~ N...H Y.
~••rM}wt N/~vY M ~ 1
.i+r,o H• +'11.1. - ac' ~ +ar ~.p
. tea,,, t
_ f i,, nis w..,, cur fem..--
bad la.*~a+dC~M~ m 1 7Vi
• rlsynn+Y ~ ,j~ ~ N~"vl ~ ire ~rvl, i
1r ~ 1. ~`7
' I
lePa~eyy ~ ' ~ ~
`aa I
Y ~ /
•
t - t ~~j .~•i't _ a-'~ mi'''l"
d" , ~ .
- .!d
,I..,..~~ar,~ Yea ;ft;l W~
_ i~
r~l~ l .a, y,~ra~~
~rnl'xtakt+o,) ~.rai.t l ~ X~Vrt.
j~~~:;~
~
~ r ,
tr"+~) 1;NM9 yv.l`tlrrirstyl °rN(~+r+*'i.~ -
' f
' . ~ ya+~ ~
_ . r
i
~ YA' -
pS. r-° - stir 'r"rr i
,;,f..,,: _ , :r a
r„1 b~*~»v ~,1./.~ ' ! / 1. w` • Vii: ' ~ - \ { ~•.~•pt~F7 :11
t -4
` • ~ y,. ~ pYa,~4.~~~ ~ ~ ~ • ` . ~ rb d~^+ ~ tl• 1 ` j ~ ~m~r+A ~ •.~«'~•t , ~ `ti. +.t,`r'~+o r. - Yy,.~ 4r
, ! wtu'wM;,,.ti t 1 ~-,tva~~1 .~..r _f• I ,a t• ~
~ <r r /*"na~1 ,~1~rlK'~ • r i .+,rr' ?1.' 'N ~.~r~:~,. ~ ,'r'~• •~r 1
~~w•r.,lllw~'µ r rW:r 'H?.j p t ~ - ` ~+,^,.-...a t~~ \;i iS
.~.e t r ~ .`.t,~ L ~ • ..r e ~ f,. ~ 1t • h , ~ ~ 1 ~(}~'Y--~ V 6'~ r/ t ,
r,,,rt.C l ~''*•a,. , r ~ . , N ~ ~ t ttt,_.. ; • T I r , t` .,N;r1
r~ty~t
Pt~.'JbW•:.~-,.1 r. ` .i, ,A•••'rl~r •'<A ~ ..N'~.~~ ` ~1 t,1"r
a.... •.pa. ',:1 tit I l' , !
• \ t of , ~ ~ ~ '
.~f ~I ,h ~9lMi.
~i,N,.t.Sra•wM ~,d ovo* yn,r. 7~~~ 1 * ~ s• •+1 (1 '
l ai4 w M i
~ ~M
f
• '
- t ~l
- _
~di~
rrFt-'-..__ _
_ _
~ 1 , 1
r--•c.~i----
.
!
Ntr
r .
• ,
R ,
r _ Y..
_
NeN - _
~ . r~e = ~
_ r `~qR _ • ....mot . r 1 ~'T~-- a.: n~u
~ ~
~~Ja~'Icrs w ur ' b'
`1~1 ~ ~ 1
. ~ , (
1 ~4
_
- - ' . - -
„
' t~- ".'x" - -
Ikld-. •.4W. - O.
1, _ t -
, .
- -ayt•.~~o.
.
I_._.
_ _ _ .
T*"'-'-fit ~
1. ~f ~'~i ~ ~1~y"/~ 1
- Y' /
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Officeof City Manager
Council Letter No. X404
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Member s. of the .City Council
City of Richfield
Subject:.Request for Amended Planned U-nit Development Plan
And Final. Development Plan for the Richfield State
Agency Development at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South
Council Members:
In March, 1985, the city council approved an amended Planned
Unit Development Plan, Final Development Plan and Special Use
Permit for the planned unit development proposed by Richfield
State Agency at 6625 Lyndale Avenue. The approval included the
following four stipulations:
1. That the parking immediately to the west of the existing
bank building be redesigned by increasing the angle of
the parking stalls and by eliminating the parking stall
on the public right-of-way. A revised design for the
area should be developed and submitted for staff
approval. i
2. That the commercial structure at 6637 .Lyndale Avenue be
removed at~the end of Phase I. I,
I
3. That the city council approve the signage on the
building and freestanding signs.
~1. That the two driveways be widened to 32 feet.
Richfield State Agency has subsequently requested city
approval of further revisions to the plan. The proposed
revisions include the following:
1. The curb cut on 66th Street and driving aisle have been
widened to 32 feet as to the city's stipulation. This
change has resulted in the loss of three parking stalls.
2. The parking area west of the bank structure has been
redesigned to increase the angle. The parking stalls
• within the right-of-way have been eliminated. This has
resulted in the loss of two parking stalls.
3. The east entrance to the bank building has been ~-pC
redesigned to provide a handicapped accessramp.
~4. One parking stall has been added immediately south of
the. building.
5. A landscaped median has been added on the east side of
the former Harriet Avenue across from the bank
building. This has resulted in the loss of thirteen
parking stalls.
6. A driving aisle in the parking area east of Harriet
Avenue has been relocated for better traffic flow. This
has resulted in the loss of six parking stalls.
7. Additional parking is proposed in the southeast corner
of the site. Twelve employee parking .spaces .will be
constructed on an as needed basis in the area between
• the two existing houses on the west side of Grand Avenue
north of 67th Street. Ten additional employee spaces
could be constructed if the house on the northwest
corner of 67th. Street and Grand Avenue is removed. This
house is currently owned by Richfield State Agency.
Access to this parking area would be from the alley off
" of 67th Street.
8. The remote teller building which was to be removed from "
the site will now continue to be on the site. It -will
be located between the parking area for the medical
office building and the bank parking area east of the
former Harriet Avenue.
9. Richfield State Agency proposes to leave the commercial
building at 6637 Lyndale Avenue in place until Phase II
construction of the expanded bank facilities.
Staff has reviewed these proposed changes and found the
following:
1. That the revisions proposed would result in a change in
the ratio off-street parking to the gross floor area in
the building.. Therefore the proposal would not be in
substantial compliance with the previously approved
plans as is required by the city's PUD ordinances. The
city must approve the revised planned unit development
plan, final development and special use permit.
2. The proposal would meet three of the four stipulations
approved by the city council in March, 1985• The
exception would be that the commercial building at 6637
Lyndale Avenue would not be removed in Phase I.
It is staff's opinion that the structure should be
removed as previously stipulated by the council.. One of the
problems which was identified in the LHN redevelopment plan
was fragmented piecemeal development which does not work
well from an aesthestic, traffic or parking standpoint.
The structure is located on an island within the RSA parking
area. The structure does not meet city commercial setback
requirements. Traffic flow around the building is difficult
because driving aisle width is substandard. Traffic flow
and parking are not integrated well into the overall
development. The site has developed independently of the
main bank development which results in confusing traffic
flow patterns. This is a problem in that area of the site
because of the amount of traffic .using -the driveup facility ~I
during peak useage times.
A-major .goal of the redevelopment.-plan has been to
eliminate such fragmented uses and to bring about integrated
development. The city has spent public money to assist this
development in removing the former Kentucky Fried Chicken
structure and the structure at the corner of 66th and
Lyndale Avenue. The developer has agreed to remove the
other structures on the overall site including the structure
at 6637 Lyndale Avenue and the residences on Grand and
Harriet Avenues. Staff believes the removal o~f the
structure at 6637 is important to assure that the goals of
the redevelopment plan overall and for this particular site
are met. The city should require that the structure is
removed at the earliest possible date to insure that a more
integrated development occurs on the site with less
confusing traffic flow patterns and a better aesthetic
appearance..
. The plan originally called for the major bank expansion
to the occur in the first phase which would have brought
about the .total integrated development anticipated. in the
beginning, The developer changed the phasing so that the
total integrated development would not occur until Phase
II. Timing of Phase II is uncertain and perhaps may never,
occur. Therefore, it is important for the city to require
the structure to be removed to bring about a more integrated
development in Phase I.
3. The changes shown on the plan result in the elimination
of 25 parking stalls on the site. Five of these spaces
are lost due to the compliance with the city's
stipulations. The plan indicates that 23 additional i
parking stalls could be provided which would leave the
proposal two short of what was approved in ,March. It is
staff's belief that there should be sufficient parking
provided on the site even if the additional 22 spaces in
the southeast corner of the site are not added. This is
based on current research and recommendations by
national experts on parking which indicate that office j
type uses need to provide three spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross leaseable floor area and retail uses under
X400,000 square feet need to provide 3.$ parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area..
Currently, city .guidelines indicate that office uses
should provide four spaces per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area and retail uses need to provide five
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The
.proposed development, without including the 22 spaces
in the sautheast corner of the site, will provide 3.9~+
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Staff also has. some serious concern about removing the
existing single family.residence on the corner and then
surrounding the remaining residence on Grand Avenue with
.parking lots.
It is staffs opinion that it would adversely affect the
residential uses in that area. The staff recommends
that the plan should .continue to show parking in that'
.area, but that it not be constructed unless .the city
determines that there is a parking problem on the site.
4. The addition of the. remote teller building on the site
should not adversely affect the proposed development.
Adequate access to the building by either vehicular
traffic or pedestrian traffic is possible. Its
location does not eliminate any existing parking stalls.
5. The additional landscape median and Nandi-capped access
ramp do not adversely affect the development. In fact,
they will enhance it by providing better access and by
breaking up the expanse of blacktop area.
6. The revised aisle location provides for better traffic
flow on the site.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that a revised planned unit development
plan, final development plan and special use permit be approved
as proposed with the following two stipulations:
1. That the building at 6b37 Lyndale Avenue be
removed at the end of Phase I.
2. That the employee parking areas shown .on the southeast
corner of the site continue to be shown on the plan but
not be constructed until such time as the city deems the
additional parking to be necessary on the site or until
Phase II of the development.
Planning Commission Recommendation,
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of
the revised PUD, final development plan and special use permit
• with the following stipulations:
_ That th
1 e building at 6637 Lyndale Avenue_be
removed within _g0-days `of the issuance of a certificate
of :occupancy for. the Phase I development..
2. That the employee parking areas shown on the southeast
corner of the site continue to be shown on the plan, but
not be constructed until such time..as the city deems the
additional parking necessary on the side or, until Phase
II of the development. If the city requires the
parking, the new parking areas' hould be screened
from adjacent residential properties. The design of the
sdreening should be approved by staff..
Re ectfu tutted,
. ~v. f
ohn G. Cart '-ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
_
ti i( er . - _ - r - _ _ g =~r -.a ~ Utawe wu aw Mwt
- w - s"' li3tll4 H11Y 189M ~
7 (N/IY~PM\'la Or ~ ' - • - ^\aa ~ J t
FYI V!/ ~ _ -t-•~! ~Y. + I.Y / _ ~ f r /
ji
j{ 4 `i 4
•NOUrs=atra owssra roa I - ~ ~ ~ ~ / _ J
r a • ra/'ss vast i»rsaaN ritfa ~ /
m - rsatrNOS.Y sa uarra _ .k.youNil~~ atnNa t YNVf
~ vs fn•a- satyr atrvNergv slrss ' ( 0731aNarY
O D' m r 1 mwa .arrovas trlarMrrYa - J - , , I 1
D a' fas•s rs sss•t ypralo 7raNae I _ - 1 ~
'a'~fN•t flat taYlttia M'1AIY• YYr~ , _ j
Y' 10a•?1 'rf faa'it r YOi,Mp/IOfY l~tW~Mla•tM of T
'a ftt'i Y'=tH't rswovnf sM.usr,Yln ~ y-._ ~ ~ .
-nsn• • r sous _ ~ r
:riPaiiq v;::c,ra I - - j _ • j=~ 1, . %
anrrsaw -iAi1VMWt180N1411119 ` , ~ h-- j 1 _ 11l1muoav p.
AYQaf t NlYON
'71'd saras'a'rtrarau ~ rl~~__. ~ - -
~m 1'a'aa oal lard owrsrnraaa ~ , q i
fi'JVaf f1? r07WA0Ya OYIaYW lYtOl ( ~ ' a f i : ~ t l,q'~„" I~Illlhl. f
•~~ta 3: saava. as ..ra. vaaru ,1r rear `t l 4 ~ ~''~"'n f _ ~ ~ ~ ~a"I~v' 1 J ~f
tare. Y?t ~YWn . ~ ,,`J~ _
QOrtl aaa •YttNa AaaYla a'f aV . ;~.?W f
•rtfal•awlatYwfoa~aaruo ( ~j J//J~//// ~1
:aarrwfr orrtrsa ~ ` / rt~r..' '
I b..1 r 8- .
a ~
yy otl'tf rifll ?a11Y INlotb ilfr OIttY 1t1`1 ` \ \ ~ 1
•!"f Orf'Of sYlYV YOOta ]7ftNOlttr 1 ,l . ~ a 1 ~.~..1 ~ .~1..~,w~ t l ~(~~\[\~'jj~J) - r
felYO/ ~YAYY ONIO7Mf f90Y0 SS r ll J 1~~/\')'~ S11~•( v , .
'!'t OtYtft +ololA0Y/ fatal Mflt I ~ t` ~ • ' •r- • C ; \
y't OfYfOt wawnoaY fawf NalO 1MNNNM ~ r . ~ j f N i J... 1
'rt a1 Vp1 rtaYr rOOL 1UVMOtIr ~ e ~II
'!'f !{f'ttt ss7Yr OMSI 17N i.
y's sae sts ~vfrr ollrl ssoaro : Tt / / ~ 1 ~
iV1VU 3118 . falaao lyaafw t . ~jS/~~ "I~~/ ~ L j.~ •
_ -
- - a. 1
1
1 ' - -
` 133tl18 H1t9 189M a o
` ~ -
4
~
I
_
- . _ ~o . - ~o _ WE87 dAtH BTgEET _ 11~ ~
a---.. _ ar-'~~ ~ _al__.-~-____. a - _..~.y, ' ~ ~ "t tllZ y:,
1 ~r I
~ ~i
. / _ _
i
J~7,~ C
i
/ oy ~ ~ ~ MEDICAL OFFICE , \ i)~
> ' - SITE DATA:
- _ ~ \ \ ` ' OROS3 LANG AREA:
" i• ~ ~ ~ _ ~ etA, NET LAND AREA:
a " s c f S0S.S00 S.f.
r ~ ' - • ~ ~ AIIOWAStE FLOOR AREAS 1SS,S11 S.F.
~I~ 1 s 0. REVISED _
1 AISLE I MINIMUM OPEN BPAC! REOUIREO: SOS,SSO S.F.
1l I OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
oor,t:o s.f.
Z / g % 7\ \ \ ~ a2 ft. ~ ~ i1 ,',t i n GROSS BUILDING AREA: t00.SS0 i.f..,
1' CI~' '~EEi 1 ASSIGNABLE FLOOR AREA: 90,010 S.F.
Q ~ ~ ' It - ASSIGNABLE FLOOR AREA LE88
.J 7 / 1 ( ~ a~ `INCI ~ ~ I ~la ? / /~~//`///~i ` McOONAlD6 hESTAURANT: bS,UO S.F.
' I// / / O '•N-
^ I PARKING REQUIRED: _
t.L e / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OFFlCE/COMNERCUIL •a 100 . .
1' ti
o l ~
. AT
a aPACOV iooo
i • ~ REMOTE T[Ll R _ r.-. O.F. ITS MACEO
_ E _ I
_ ~
~nm~~ nim alt im
y,` ~ EOT U11ANT 710 [EAiO
~ ~ / REYIggN~1E.,D P ' 1 1 i ~.I + !IT 1 bAC[ia tEATO 00 0?ACp '
i. ACCESl~ ¢°AE~18ED Cuab RADIUS ~ - ! t ~ ~ TOTAL /SS SPACES
_
i W ~ RAMP.-_ . _ - _ _ . ~ 7 (IO N.C.)
r ~
/ `d 1 t ;1 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED:
O; ~ ~ 4bS SPACES
~I ~ i Yg EO , C1 % NORTH ~ iTORY ~ I ¢ai•.~ ~ ~ ( / - I, I Tt?ICAIPMRINO OFACt I10 N.C.i
ADDITION ~ ~
~ Y' I
A~IN 11 ~ _ - ~ 0.0 sT. K U FT.
i - ,
fP •.y ~ v ~ _-y ~ - ~ ~ TrvICAI M.C. OPAL[
- ,
O ~ ~ , la
-
~ j
/ ; ~ I r :rl! ~ „ ~ ' 6UIL~INti SUMMARY: Af010NM1E
_ i' ~ [ I OROp Alf. ~INETI t•F.
,
O / / _ ~ ~ I ! JS ~ 1 - r 1 OANR [[IITINO tU0.01NOt {F.[[O O f. 10,•[O S.F.
~r 11 I - ~y ~~.r ' ~ pNN tOUiNEAOT ADOIiIOMr 7,000 O.F. 0,000 S.?.
LL / I SOUTN a / _ _ _ I`~ "'1 SANK NORiN t !TORT ADDIi/ON 1 a1,0=1 S.F. [1,000 F.
.
hICNF1ElD IEASt '1E~ 8~D 113'- - ~ I MNKrOMr[-w i[LIeRO: OOO S.F. UO ~~I.
SANK S TRUST AOOiTIOi~s..., TO; .Db r'+'; 1 _ N[DICAL OFi1CE0: 0,100 S.6 O,OOp S.R.
ti. _ . Ll~ . ~ _ i' 1 J j 1 COMYIRCIAL /UIlO1NOt a t00 S.?, 1,000 S,F.
NOD) - - ~ •
fMe y _ _ tOTAII t0-j,jjji.7~,- ij j?j .i.
1
'1 _ 1'
. +
i - w T` '
' f. ' 1 _ NVO AOOIDNAOL
1 _
/A~\/"'J~J` `rr IlY-` ~ ~ O Ne00 l 01 -T 100 S.f.
p~ NC
'
pE _
YI
EO
~ - ~ LEA/eot NA b~
~I-...___1 1
J 110E~IA ._.~~_-__._.__...__T. _ a : ~ ~ , Y. I ~ TOTAL ApNINAOIt AR[A
/ { _ FOIIpRA1MOCALCUTATIbIb ~;.Ibe•.F.
-./I r+ ? ~ \I N~ NC~\ IT~,'.' i M ~•{]j _ _ _ _ ' ~ yam,.
3
_ .
_ ~
.
~ - -
- ~
1 -
/
1 Y ~ .-.T ~REYISEI~ !1 /S r.e~ w - f O
f / - ~~.,•(y~..,~`, ' ~ • AISLE ~ ~ b
_ ~ "F' AI\ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ `\\la S J..IOCATION ~ aa- _ I
l a. ~ , fi r L._J I I
y 1, a .JP I~ ~ ~ 1tEEMPL0Y0E A~
7 ~n _ } ~ . _ _a0: 70: rr _ ~ SPACES TO lE
I ~ _ CONSTRUCTED ON
~ ~ _ ~ I • - ~ T{,, _ ~ _ AN A8 NEEDED .
,
1 ~ ~ 1 ~ IN! y _ '•,1'h MrI ~ _ ~ 10 AOOITNNIAL•EMPIOYIt
I PACES RYAN.~AISLE K
. ;'P- - ~ r,t~ ~ ~.I 11 ' ~ .101 y HOUSE ANO GARAGE
_ _ _ ~ F _ _ _ _ ~ i i .L I, - ARE IIEMOYFD 1
I R[YISED BEPTEMSER, IOgg
` ~ ~ y- ( / .i JANUAKY, LOOS -
SIT ~ t - ~ 7R/11 ~1 \ 1~~~ ( ~l . \ yi `v
,1. s ~..i - ~ 'WEST BTTH 58. _ y . q.-___ - ,
' ; I , , " ! . 1 o w fo se sT. NoRTN
- - - - - -
~
.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter. No. 403
Agenda October 28, 19.8.5
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield -
Subject: Second Reading Of Ordinance Rezoning Property From
C-2, General Commercial To PC-2, Planned General
Commercial For The CDR Development At 494 And 35W
Council Members:
At the October 14, 1985, city council meeting, the city
council approved a PUD plan and first reading of a ordinance to
rezone the property owned by CDR Development from C-2 general
commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial. The public
hearing and second reading of the ordinance was scheduled for
October 28, 1985.
• It is recommended that the city council conduct a public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance rezoning the subject property from general
commercial to planned general commercial. Project details are
attached in the backup for your information.
If the city council passes the ordinance on second reading,
the city staff intention is to not publish the ordinance at this
time. Publication would proceed if a developers agreement is
concluded and when the moratorium restriction on rezoning
permits is lifted.
The special use .permit and variance issues described in the
October 14, 1985, city council letter when the rezoning
ordinance was considered on first reading will not be acted upon
until there is an approved developers agreement and the
moratorium is lifted.
Respectful bmitted,
John G. Cartwri t
City Manager
JGC/eja
(.l/
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF I
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield enti-
tled: "Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby. amended in the
following respects:
I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is amended' to read as
follows:
(9) That area lying between the center lines of
77th and 78th Streets and between the center i
lines of Garfield Avenue and .Interstate
Highway 35W except. that part of such area
zoned as PC-2 and described in Section 7 of
this Appendix C.
II. Section 7 of Appendix C is amended by adding paragraph (5)
thereto to read as follows:
(5) The following four .parcels, collectively:
PARCEL 1: 'I
The West ~ of the East ~ of the Northwest 4 II
of the Southwest a of the Southeast ~ of
Section 33, Township 28, Range 24.
PARCEL 2:
The East ~ of the East ~ of the Northwest
of the Southwest ~ of the Southeast ~ of
Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND The
West i of the West ~ of the Northeast ~ of
the Southwest ~ of the Southeast a of Sec-
tion 33, Township 28, Range 24.
PARCEL 3:
The East ~ of the Southwest '1a of the South-
west 4 of the Southeast ~ of Section 33,~
Township 28, Range 24 AND The West ~ of the
Southeast ~ of the Southwest a of the South-
east a of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24,
except that part taken for road and being
described as that part of said Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. which lies
Southwesterly of a line running parallel with
a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the
(.ll
.following described line: From the Southwest
corner of said Section 33, running Easterly
on a line which would pass through the South
.quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1
feet to the point of beginning of the line to
be described; thence running Westerly along
the last above described course for 321.17
feet; thence deflecting to the right at an
angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 1.5 feet;
thence deflecting to the left at an angle of
90 degrees .00 minutes for 100 feet; thence
deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00
minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57
minutes for 389.5 feet; thence deflecting to
the rictht on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve,
delta angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds
for 600 feet and there terminating.
PARCEL 4:
All that part of the East ~ of the West ~ of
the Northeast ~ of the Southwest a of the
Southeast ; of Section 33, Township 28,
Range 24, lying South of the North 315 feet
thereof, except the east 30 feet thereof.
Passed by tte City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this da T of , 1985.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tom Ferber, City Clerk
.
Table 0 '
REPRESENTATIVE MONTIILY VAg1AilONS AS PERCENT OF PEAK MONTH
Hotel fblel
Roomy Roomy Hotel Holei
Month Olllca Relall Reataurani Clneme flosldonllal Weokday Salurda
t~Conlorence Convention •
' January 100'b 6576 N?1% 8096 iD096 8076 6516 100Y. 20'f` .
February 100 85 75\ 70' tO0 80 70 '100 40
Marcb 100 , IO W 50 IUO 85 00 100 80 .
April 100 ~ lU 00 70 100 05 B6 100 80
' May 100 ~ 70 05 70 100 05' 85 100 lOD
June 1110 76 100 100 100 100 00 100 100
July 100 15 10(1 IOU iD0 100 100 100 50
Aupusl (00 76 85 70 100 100 100 100 S0 '
Soplu?nbar 100 75 ~ 80 80 IOO B5 00 t00 70
Oclobor 100 75 80 IO 1W 05 80 100 10 •
Novomber 100 80 00 50 100 85 80 t00 10 "
pocember IDII 100 80 50 100 85 85 100 20
Tabto t0
REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION 6Y PERCENT OF PEAK~IIOUq .
Hotel Component
Ollie ~ Relall geslauranl Cinema RealdeMlal a?onCpDi Hasldanllal ~0p1 (luesl Room . _ Heslawanlllou?ge Conlerar?ce Roan Convenikm Arel?
How of Da~_ Weokda
r~ Selurda~r_ WoekdaK SalwdaK Weekday Salwday pally WeokdaK.__ Saturday Dally WaekdaK-Sat daY _ Woukdalr__ Salwday Dally Dally
6:00 A.M. 396 - - - - - - iQU% 1007E 100% 100% 809E 2096 2096 -
7:00 A.M. 24 2036 B96 39'. 296 216 - 81 85 05 8S 70 ZO 20 - -
8:00 A.M. 89 80 IB 10 5 3 - 78 80 80 85 80 20 20 5096 6096
B.OO A.M. 03 BO 12 30 10 8 73 81 87 65 60 20 ZO 100 100
IO.W A.M. 100 80 ~ _ 88 15 ZO B - 68 71 85 15 10 20 2l1 100 100
11:00 A.M. 100 100 87 73 30 10 50 71 85 35 35 30 30 100 100
12:00 Noon 80 100 07 85 60 30 30X 84 71 85 30 30 50 30 100 100
1:00 P.M. 80 00 iD0 85 70 15 70 b0 IO 85 30 30 1D 15 100 100
2:00 PM. 07 80 07 100 80 15 70 80 11 85 35 35 50 15 100 100
3:00 P.M. 03 10 B5 100 80 15 70 01 73 8S 35 10 55 15 100 100 ~ 1
I:W P.M: 71 10 8I 80 50 15 70 80 78 81 15 50 50 15 .100 100 ~ ~
5:00 PM.. 17 20 79 75 70 80 70 77 81 00 80 60 70 80 i00 100 ~
6.00 P.M. 23 ZD 82 05 80 80 80 85 85 ~2 70 70 DO 00 100 100' ,
7:W P.M. 7 20 BO 80 100 83 80 01 81 81 75 80 100 85 100 100
8.00 P.M. 7 20 87 55 100 100 100 98 02 88 80 80 100 100 100 100 \ ( `
8:00 P.M. 3 - 81 10 100 100 100 08 05 88 85 8:f 100 100 100 ~ 100
10:00 P.M. 3 - O? 38 DO 85 i00 08 80 88 100 100 80 85 50 ~ `
11:00 P.M. - - 13 /3 70 85 80 100 09 ilN3 100 100 70 85 -
12:OU Midnl - - - 50 70 70 100 i Eff3 100 100 5(? 70 - 1
~ _
~ i
i
pARKINCi [tCCpllFt' R p
PEAK tYJUn PEAK IqU NNr PK[~ tZA`i'E . , , .
FACIUIt (JULYS ACJC ~'ACPOR ~
ppnfClNG RA`I'D ~1 _
•O
-^-r Opp s ft.
31~~
OYf 1~
~ Occupancy 17b
0.35 0.44/x'
~ .o ~
1.25~r'O°m
qQ0 roomo
ttotol ~
0.30 3.0/~~~ aq'
~ ~49 ~•o
Bast•~U°~
g~
Coffoo p 300
1.0 0.5
~ ,o .
o.5~aeet
U~q~t~Mt~ ftms. 6po slots
18892
. TO'£ AL
6''.
'~t~
,~X~-~
- - - 1
1111 , ra.., ~ ~ ~ , ; ~ i ri ; i n "u. i i a i 1 / , ; ~ { ' u ( ~ q ' ~ A is
~ U i ' d ~ ~ ~ Qdl ...t' ~ ~ t'j _i p i Spj I { i i ~ ~n { + _ ..t.. ~ ~ M ~ p
~ ~ ~ ~[I ~ 4 ~ ~ i A j - ~ i L?.-~..
p ~ ' Q .[l' ~ p ~1 .p •I ~ p• :'q
~ ~ p ` - - - l Q ~
i n I n I - p I , r1 . , .h..~ ; t~ i , I ~ I 1 a i ~ .a. { Q I • Q -1
~1 q a 1
Ipa}..1-;s`~~ p,•,p tpp~.~~.i i. ,,i q~ ,p 1 ~ - ( p•.
_ ~ ~ I_ 1
is i. h ~ -a_y_ _a,;i..u--,.~.q:i:i ~ .i- _~.nui+, § _:n~ ~~i o~ ~ f ~ _ _ 1 a _
I~ ; I .L.... I i l p..~
~~.;~-~~•~~~:;-a.'I i~; a p-j+i---t~ ~ .q_`;~,; QQQ:'-.~ ,,.a: - p- ~ a- o Q._ Q. .
~ _ _p _ i
'ta b ~t
b 1 p b" Q_ - ..~1 Il Q. ~
IyY~~.l TI•li~l. _
~ nTA~ I.o TQ~ r ~ i p ' ~ , i u_ "pl ~.p_.,_ a' i`ai u1~1 ~ i~-o
~ ! 'a ~ -1 I a I (p t -I M ll -..p-I ( . (J ~ p- q . p.l L p_. _I_ .I I a- I !
a -
r 1 ~ i ~ I n. .p~l I-tt - - ~p l 1 _p...~. I_Q - p-I -o- ~ I - i . o - o . _I_ ~~-I - - -4. I I ~.....Ip. I .
i o ~
- I... I I . - -I- ~ I ~ I
~4 ' i ~ uI I~--t._~_ Iq_~ ..p.) Ip_ tlI n - a a~- n ~-...Q
.
u. _.p. n .n
I I 1,.__~_ i ~ o i 1- --1- -p ~ i p- -1- -I i I- - , o--I -I- I I 1- .I . I L._.
I ! n . Q 1 L~_... _p.l 1..~._.i. _p_I j._Q I- a1 I~ - n"i I ty~'-!.. _o..l i-~ -1-.~Q-1 I a ~ _
( _ _ _ _
_ I
~_li , L..
_ }~..r..rN.,.r .I.N.....rrni ~ji~• .~1~ .~rlr..r..rr 1 W O.YMr~.. ~ ~~T J I' I ~
' ~ ` V . _ _ Rilul? 11«k •.I.pm.n'. CI w. , "'i.~w.l..diY~~-_I ~ _ ._...i. ! 0 ~ ('u~ • - - - - 1
- ~ 'Xi:.? - lL; i_ _ rr i
=T ~ p0 ua.M.- p d - R«t Aw~'p~m.l~ I
t.~ .
r.r..rr...,.....r.w..u...~.~.~r..rrr.u.r.r.r..ru.rrrr•.~ ..r .-~-....r..~.~r..~rr • `
4d.•/clfW Iif~t~way IP1 • i
~ Devebpmont P~opyam •
.I~m.nl rlr? ~ ~J~
Publ,a improvrmenb _ ~ V/wMn~olNo•dw/y. ~~deve~opment fJorih ~iyulu
~p11~~~lEflt pfOQrnHfil Qra?rw a•aw•r ?~o~wnrol• ~....~..i ~aoa.o.p.a eulfw~Ya..n
1,npr+onement t'laan s,aw rl?1~1.111~1, , f./.1 M.r rl,~l~r«11«.1. r~f Uf?~'~'
V N.¦ tlrnd Ma•Iruoa •~•N•~~ •L^_Y..'.'...^. 1~'WNM?11 CIraJ?U•q
• - ~ ppQMMIy ?OI ~.CMM~ RMNbC/ , 1~C~~`~,
~ .-~Lnpov?Inwll? WIII'1~11~?11~•,?.r'tu?arall?ww City of lZic
hlield. MinnesU~a .l
-
\(f ~
-
~ ,
: ~ .
• i
C
. `
• ~ ~
i
~
i .
~
a ` ' ~i
•
:•}:vri'ty
:vi'n4'•: i:L•., v... l'v: :n: i SYV'.,~'•.'`v{k:n}:. yip}
::.?.::i.:..
::~+;t
ttiS. :.i.. ~ ::-~-ir•
A:<:t
......A
n. R .n.... ,.....:,.................h. 6:.....
t ..t.,:...:...,.:. n9
x...,,........... . :~<,n
h... ..,v . :...r: • n,•.,c •s}.:a::.....t•,.:t•:<;;•::t::>.~ .,:n'~
`;.;}%:'•:f:•}..::.: :
. r......_::..:..: AF:: h; ....n.tnxhi{..4.:;. }::.n. .vS:<•}ki,'r::~::i:}:?:4:.
. ......n......, } , ..v..... .......h n :L' :}F.:•.;: .,;.},yt'kktin}i.•.v{v:~:yi•:'•~-:'{.}Y:.:}}:•i:{•is::::.:::'::%.yi?y`~ii::ij•:;y}>
v::.,•: r :,:.....v::.,4 • n,w:.y., ::v. v x:..:.y.. . r. p . is
.....h ....v... :..:.v •:.htt:i
n~•:i. •W-.:...Xiynvn• ea}• vh:v.:nn:,;:•-:v;: Sv,•.}Qnn x+fyv:.n.
..............n•.. n,:.
, c •n•::.:...,.:. ..,%n• ,•:,tm .o}:•:
h::..:•- +•^}:,.};a::+. fi:.,.q ..•:h
~ .t•'t:: ~r.:..:,::,:.::., ...h..:.:.. •::aX.; }9.!^'R?:::
.....r "c ...:........n ....n.:.::,.,.. n...R ..:;nc::,}'>
r . •tt%:?:;:::•':Ey::ia<?::.-.~.:-,,::.~:.:.;;.
.•..,k w , ......n.• : :x,4..C ,::.•,}r:r»}}}}:y;... Y. .:.c: t~o::.L.:: ::.,ry. •:a.:;,,.
.2L. .:..w n.. ..v.... xi•...... . , ,..y'.x•i4:'':. ~u:•}: xrc :.n}., t:..,~..'• ..•:~-n :ky?avr;:•:.a:
n, ,•'?.n,,.. ~ a}:}, is
....:vy:::..vn•.:::: ta.. n }:,h...:...,.n . • • tn• ••t?.:::.: t••}: "•ai}::\ . a...,, ..2K•!:-:, :'F
: x: • };'>~r~ '
t•,.ti:,;.}~.: „>r:. a.~`'-:: t. t>:.y„ g'.. •h 4 ,.<t.:...... .yt nn. C:..•~}w., ...~•3.':.~•'?e.3.. .;a nt..:
...:.n...::... 4 N ..t•:n:.y?. n'Nf•hx^w v:,v,.: v}:ih+}::.::•:•..-.F..,~;?.v, ..'•;,..w,,a.,: ,.....1.....:...nwr:•.v.:ati;:~}};}n;.v::w: }:;k:_:,n-,.;..:.};
t:;:;ti
?;tx:n}: n.•.}•: .•x~:tt.,, ~ np:,<:•:k•{. ,tc'••' ;,;+:fi,..w}}t,: ? ,•ke•}:{;},,:..,k•`a;•yi<:.s~, Sr•:,t.}}. gin::+•: ~w
•:r
:+-i.}.;<• W. v y: ::,Y. v„}. ,7,Ck. v.,: r"{r.
e. :
~y'ft a:.• •.lt, iA:} .:ii
t{k t.i
J•i::: ihjyti%
v?: }:i'.; :tiK•n 4n }iiK ,;:•:v.}. h:: v:?f,,.} ~?r.WA:•..:.}vn: hx:n. ',JX. hn }?:ii~• 'i
.::w ~ •.ttt ,~:y??.~~e.}} .us,•. •~vY•:r,<K; 'i?~:2,4,tn.:}..•r. :F•?< ~?.w,.,i„AA.!5:::~:n:::,}~,..:~: t>:,- .,.f.,
...w;}:•::'•i. ?f.•n ...v}..... in.: ,nt t.v: r.,.:F'4 .:i .1';-.::: .1{!•;tw. ..'Ar•hnn 4:. n•:::} .rh }.w}'•}:}i::::'•:::
i}.-.••nv,{...,. t4?8::
: r.:.n , ,hrn:„ ..vyx:\r. .:.v:
h. :.h:'i}:•},vii} 'i•:}i:{.; a;
P..... Y.... ~+;y~:<:t•
....:......:r'~. .tx. h- } ..r.: rx v. h., .v:.:, ..3 r,-:•.t .,.•.t• ..nt...... n o w ^%:::•}::..u:..?::..~6.~x::a`s•'•T,.: }yv.. v,}:<:'t>:}a`:
:::.vv•n :.v evA.n.._ !,v.-.m. ..:t~::::{. n ~ J..v:.. n... g.,. n , ..F.B`., .n:?:
~{3};r.:.vv:
ryn•.; .LK•}xv'•.
X• •n.... ..Jv w::'•.::
n!}....::. iyF
........:...,ri.:..,., •.:~,~v::::: $}{ti <i. f}':. _ -,v....., t•:: , ,•.v.: •J.?• }:J:rx..:
h; •..:.Y•.. J~".'n. n':•:.v • a} .
}ytin }:.n.ar.•: Sn . n...: ..,..}n.>s a„ ..;,y C:. .:i:~ "y?..k . ,;w}fs`•`•'•?^' ;•;r : :y}F~iti }:•Rti}'.~•;.h,?:.}x<a:S•:`-:.
•ir,: • ....r tt JIa..'a~.r .tt }pt.X•w;}. ?San :?,}4,"'F..aft 4'.. v3•?tt!?. 'i`iwi'
......,.R't't.. --~:n~•.•t~•:.. ~w'.: at..,.t.,.,...}.4.x<?$..:.,..n•.}...:a:.?~+.•. ..:..YS-.. •.•n. 3 .5~:;~,. .ttt..,.:;.,.
• r. , t•:.:.P..•r.n .F },+a n.a .p..vn,• :.:...'}jc. - r n_:.}}
vx•?' s .n... at ^}....:••.a. ::•wn . \ .nv.:^ttF"4..}i,•}'r.•..:L:.. F.H/:35t!.f
v: ~i:ar~.to:}`}e;.:::}::f:?n,}.::.}:L.:.i
c ,..:.,h .x •n,. .n..: ;•.ap ..;,::i:: •::.-`.fi;r.: n:,t?., nZ ,N.. ,t.::ty,,,.:.~.:•n,•..;,:,,:...}}•}:}'.<.?t•.?tr}:h:.~:•:::...,r.. ;>...~::}•r.t::.}•:.w
::..:...........rn. ..y..,;n ?L. t.^
fir,... r :...+yun F +c,:hfi R .,:2'...-,3:~:• r.:a: ,t::.ti
:•ri:}i ...q3 .n..........
:.}.:?:....,r...,....,: •.k^tvr.},...,,f'a~.
,,.y.••, :•ni3: ,...',Fy t u;.:::::
}.,•fi : 4,}}...:.}::.n,. •„y:??:.:?.,:: ;y:.~
v.•.::•.!..,..
s::x:,.}c,t,•.::::.p•. :::s} . "t•'Ynt~. S, ,,..::w:....., . i,~ } ..w,,.atc. .:,.,.c~C•s.. o>. =•r..•.,,,L:+ :uf.
. c : S x <v?.. •+r • :.Rta y..,....:•::;. :
}}vt;f.; $ti\%iv-ih}ii , :•X:n f' £w»},~c::r:t;{}:
: . n,:.n. "n':'yx'?• ..f, iFir rt t a:•y}: a:t•: 'ter.':.}-.:
:.4:: Y :C: r.. y:. ~ h. Y: by^.;: ti{??•}`} } +.n:..n• : v , t?Y.-r;'•:~ : ...;JJ?} r••h• nt..v. .:.4}.. -
'~^K:t3}}+:<t:C.. ...:,i: 'Lf„t~'y ',W,,:ti%v ~tvr}n::nv h,.: n\...... ] r v:h;,r. v. •Y. Gv., .N•4....
:.....n.....r. , w,v n...r}}<y. h•: ~/~:n:<s12'. .~L' 8>.v.},. :hv, /
, n•. x. ...ti L...... .n k...nn. ,n:: `,n:Y ,=+•:0::v •::.v:'..Y,..F;tii}•.::MS:••:nF "•:$:Q: in-~ Svfe..):...$r.:.>.•: r.}.>:~:}j':'}•tii: it?fi:J
:...4•.vr.4rir:~
:sv.•:.,•: .,;y.>:. s:.:•<:.: ~:•,n~•t•:.. twnr.: :,}n}n• n. ..L ,:...:.t..r..::::
R.;; n..„air.}:d.w:~,:'~?,-:
t: .v,.F. ..>a.:: •:S
...........,.>:.,nh•.;...::.:.y::
~i:::.:n}: er . n .u''}}~, ,.n.'+t`• .t}fir. •7,w.r,.ns>r.:.=.Ett. a`t• ::•Sr.:: t,....r4.n. y.,.:,/.,;: :,.nh.:..:: n,; .n.a: .:3}:.,. t.: ,..1.... }:::?kyY},
n,....,:..
~ $TS}n•.•: 3x ~.n:. . r.,. ~s.}:..,n,,:.; ~c~./,,tyn,}}.....:....w.,•:.. ...,}t : :x:*" ~'a:'ty"+::. , ,,,t?pt
.u.•,4}::?$}}::iA}•i•Yi.•$':.....::...:}:5; ...t.\.v Y.• ya , X•: ^,Yvn:t•: yarn ~+W • ...'y.'~..:. ,+•',~•,.::v.4 n<.•. 4.m'•:. :
Y n,.,4'v
~v ':?.~+w.A4a.4*h$.•.v::: •h,:n •.':n:}~;:?t4'^:<J:•Yti%<t•:<•X•: n
n•%w.}:'•:::
?r.:C•:•. '~.4,•t vi+<7i y,.. ij}• :~v~.P.'....:...... .i} :5., .W+,y .:L.., ..q.:
~:}}?"n}~. YiM: nC tb} ::v.:~ nv:~h;\..{i., ~N
n'v.•.,.... ....v.•.MHr .h?••.~.
r.. •4~ ~ .,w, M.;y.. an. , h:~k. Y;T ~vi h•+f.J' .v
v.^...v} :.....ta..:.. :.:{-}4•+WLi,.~i • .•.vF'•:'•' aYX. ~'Wy v+}~'• 1:.:.:...: f t .,4,.:: 'h:?h
~'n:::tr}'n\r}:x.:~}it '~'vs?•};k:?•:::
r"'n}iii=r':'" ::^Q
r: un., tb
:•.o rn T~'7 ~ wF:::
f•~}.,. ~.a?tf,~
^.~.w:•:'
•`ti•; v.}}}~5~: ?oe ~F~?w' ai>~'a3a~fi3~utJOOe?aawoeit«+.1 t..~
.....,.,,Y,..:
iy,:LY7cJJ,~~x ..da(~~%%.:.'ia:,~..S:.Sta~~,•!!:'s°,•~ltti;
'S':i C.. .7~Y'u3$
.~~R INVESTti1E~! s
S
~1~S~fr~=:.D. MINNESa'i 4 KCflSUi~lSiCY KRANK ~SCKSaN AAC}-ti
cL ~ ~ iNG
. -
-
- EXHt_BiT
eT
' tJLTS OF , co ~ CASES
1 2 3' 4 5 6 7
Percent of Percent
6tfrrrated Estimated Ovecestimatiort Savings
Stngie~Use 'typir~l SAared Observed Share0'. Gross
G,,...... Zoning Parking Actual G,ess Parking Peak
Pealt Corte' Peak. Ptak Peak Peak to
' Aatuttutation iaegt, r Arxumutation Acxsnnuiation to to Shared
ltttxed-tlse Pfoteei Type fspacesi fsaacesl tsoac8sl Aciuat ~ Actual Peak i
t. Ofltce/Retaif 5.,749. 5,858 ~ 4 "O 5.370 3°~e - 6°'e 9%
Z Otffee/Aetait Z.~fB 3.744 2.788 2.352 25 19 ~ 6
3. OtfiaelAetaii ~ 772 900 617 ~ 633 22 - 3 25
4. Otltca/Retaii ~ 2,874 3.Dd8 2.291 ~ aa"? 9 -t2 21
i Cffice/Aetatt 162 7J6 154 184. 5 0 5
& OtticalEriterta:,, , 2 1,458 1,879 1,325 1,153 25 14 11
T. Offfca/Erstertainment 872 1,016 ' 714- a64 75 ~ 54 21
8. OtflcaiEntertain _ 1.724. 2112 1,50'7 814 t8t 144 37
2 Oft3ce~liotN 1.145 1.399 1,0013 882 30 to 16
10.Officell~iotellC~..w.ai......~.: 1,527 1.93;1 1.323 725 12a - 82 a2
icelt~foteilEnt . ~ . , 1,Z'ti 1,452 990 525 135 89 46
t fticeltiatettEni ~..~..ent 78d 8132 f~9 809 ~ - 3 ~ -t9
13 Otfice/Aetait/fdoteilEnter. 8.316 9,f3t0 4,242 2.287 2fid 85 1?9
tt. OfficelRelatt/Erstertainment 8fi9 1,094 754 ti00 45 2i3 19
t5. OtficelRetaiftE...:. ~ainment 5,099 5,15? 3,755 2.86.9 78 31 a7
tti OfficNllotet/E,.: _.:ainrnent 2,588 3.188 2.783 1,x98: 73 46 27
t7.Office/HOte! 1,125 1,348 743 594 139 25 64
' Fat thi3 catcutation. fire following Cade standards were used: Office a 4.Q spaces par 1.000 Square feat of Gi.A; retail = 4.0 or 5.0 Spaces per
I~ 1,000 square feet of GLA (function of size;; . ~,...d.rrant a 25.0 sexes per 1,000 square feet of GLA; rasidentiai = 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit;
hate! _ 1.0 spaces per room, with santerenoe at 05 saxes per seat and comenifon space at 30.0 spaces per 1.000 square feet.
? rising results. from Column 3.
~
~X~~B~~
_ CY~I
Table S
REFRES~I't~ T7VE PEAK PAAKiNG 0E11riAND FACTORS
Land-iJsa Unit Weekday Saturday
Office F~.l.~~.g spaces per 1,000 sr~. fit. GL.A 3.00 0.50
Retail ( 400,OC ~ sp. fit.} Parking spacES per 1,000 sq. fit.' GLA 3.80 4.00.
Aetail ( 6a0,Ot~ sp. ft} Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft GLA 3.80 5.00
Aesta+sracrt Parking spaces per 1,000. sp. ft. GLA 20.00 20.00 '
Cinerna~ _ Parking. spaces per seat 0?5 0.30
Residentiat Parking spaces per dwelling unit' ~ 1.00 1.00
Hotel Compone rt
Guest Room Parking .spaces per room 1.252 125=
Res#autanttL< tinge : Partcing spaces per 1,000 sp. ft. GLA .18.00 10.00 .
• Canterence F~oms ` Parking spaces per seat= 0.513 0.50
Conveeztion A °ea Parking spaces per 1,000 so. ft. GLA= 30.00 30.00
'Per orte auto c nmed-per dwelling unit
= Fa..i.,, ~.t2 up to 100. percesrt auto use from the 80 percent :auto. use value indi~l~d by Table 4.
= Used by nort~g pests; tt?e given rates thus are upper bounds, ~+rhic3t are very rarely actaieved.
pendix~, in usin ~ a specific source forthe factors, it is essential to know what season or
time of year an i mode of trove! are represented by tfte factor value. This should be de- ~ •
scribed in te.. ~ ~ of moriih of year (by land-use) and approximate percent of non-auto
` use ~.e., perce~ 2 of .person-trips made by modes other than aute~:
• Seasonal Aa ustment
For demons analyses, all parking factors need to reflect the. same "design
condition." Typ rally, .the 30th highest hourhas been used far highway projects. Simi-
lady, for Bevel ment analyses, the appropriate design period must be selected, i.e.,
the peals seasa~for each iazid-t~se must be determined, based on developer data, other
source, or-stud ~ results (see Table 9}, .
However, be+ :ause the design month frequentfy is different for. each (and•use in a
multi-use Bevel+-~pmerrt, a trial-and-ti:.,,,rtype calcutation may be requnxi to determine
whicft month p! educes tare maximum aggregate parking demand. The intern is to rec-
agnize the "agg*egate effects'° of seasonality. This is the same eancept as .used to de-
tetrnine the imp act of offset peaks an a daily basis.
Using the quarntity of each land-use, test caicuiations {parking demand .factor multi-
plied by floor s~ ace). are made to identify the carnroliing {and-rise. fln this basis, a de•
sign month is selected. Eaci~ parking factor is then adjusted to tfie r ~e monifi. For ex-
r ampte, if Decerr ber were selected as the design month for amixed-use project, tine re-
k ~ tali factor wouk be the normal peak, but the-hotel factor would _be factored to a value
less than its se: ~sana! peak..
~
f
t
~ ~
~ i
y ,
~ _
~ 1 i ~
~ . ly, I~r
r ` 1 I
1 c-- ~ ~ lice
~ ~
_~Y tii~. 1 ilk ~ r'
~ ~ „ p. .
.ail . ' c n ~ C~
M~
~ i'
i ~
~!(.J/ .
~-~q ~ i
~ GIAARU AVE. BOi.
. y \ t r''• if JY;
• ~ '$ti'•~r{
$l.{,.
r7:•;t~' r '7' ~yv ffrrY•k}:
{+'i•~+*~•`:.::: Y
- ~••.{ri:;{%.{'r•' fr • v:•;C;.$,•.{: •}4. $ ?r r f: y .,y.;
, {•ys y.,~•.;.
:.r: •.",~vrr,.r.;:;1$~~•.{11:~y~rf;. b:~ ;?r.+
'tiy y • }>'I•
111111 i i x f:;
rfi .r•::
. 1t~11•
I ~
EME1~$UN AVE. 50. EU~R90N AVE. 8
. ~
M~
p ~ ~
'~1 N ~
~ u S
_ . -
.
.
_ _ .
_ ~ ~
~ _ '
- ?
~ i
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
`i
~ ~ ~ . ,
r
-
Flo- ~
~ J ~ ,
_
i
LAi'~DS~AP~ P~+~ F.~~
. a~~
RICNFi~ MlNNESt~TA KQRSiJNSKY KRANK ~lCKSflN ARC1-~TECTS INC.
'
~ ' ~ N
t{m~~ ENO ~ j ~ i ~l
r^ ,t ! '
1~~ ,
~ , i ~ I ~ ,
~ ~
` - ~ ~ ~ rte- ~ ~ ~ ~{111US . - _ ~!t
~
! .i• • ` . ~ 'tip i ~t ~ f ~ .,^.r W
f ~ .
` J ~ y•~ •ill~w~
~
fr
t
r
t
` ~ 1? S O v O?~l
r a r r t• a O r Q~r a r r r• S c! D~r • r+ r• S O ~r O~r a r1 t 1 a S O tf'
~i'T7rr,L Z~~ ( ~ 1 i 1 j 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ t t _ .r. 1 F - - -
.ya _ ~
wtaarn.as ..r ~ aiern.. _ ~ +
f~
ttiS 7t7tx CR7S tc-"" ~ - ' _
r~-,~ .-a
;
=.~-r.~~
rnz. ~r------i
ittnotaisa~ ~ ~ . OCiC, . , i ~ . F r
' SZ'xl.7LTUtf ' S f t: I~ . , I f t i I i
. _
i r ,t ~
r
. r
.,..,„r_ ..s
r d ~ ~ r ~ f...` }
i~ . ~ tiil~~ll'_
~rr.s~ I i ( i t i i{{ i
Q..~~. a LIrO z . , .
. ~
tilt a t ~ ,
. _ . R
~ i - -
i
• ~ ~'1'.~GA~-R.OSC~3~-~'ALTSC~, ~3~'C~.
CON~G ~t~334r~r~5
T~AIk.u v8?.+1?ION s w e aa. + 8T.RLa.a JBJIL ENGINe.ra3 s LAND 8URYEYOAS .
File No. 085x633
KEI~3CRAHDUH
2B: Ron Eri aksan ~ .
Koraun:.lcy, Krank, Erickson Architects, Inc. .
FBt?H; Ferrol Robinson:}~~
DATE: August ?1', 1985 .
SUBJECT: THAFFIt AHgLYSIS FOR I-35~t~I-=~g~ DEYELOPMEHT FROPOSAL.
This memoran,i..r.. s smmarizes the traffic analysis required far sub-
mission of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The proposed
develapm~at, lac ated is the northeast quadrant of the I-35~e'/Z-~g~
fnterchaage, cans fists of the folloxing uses
Office- 5x0 ?00 s care feet of GFA
~ q
Ea tel X00 'Oams
.The hotel caataina the following facilities:
200 -seat restaurant ~ •
150 -seat ca ktail lounge
200 -seat co 'fee shop ~ •
600 -,person- :eating rooms and banquet facilities
She proposed dev:lopment is contained Within a redevelopment area '
that is currently being studied by the City of Richfield.. To in-
sure consistency betxeen the tax studies, We met xith the consult-
ant on the redev aopment proposal (B81~} and discussed general
assumptions sad p~•oposed roadxay canfiguration for the area.
On the basis of agar vxn analysis and of the discussion With the
above consultant,. xe developed direction of approach of traffic and E
trips generated ~y the proposed site and assigned `rips to the
proposed roaJ..ay , system.
The ~ resin is are si :oxa in Figure 1 - .Direction of Approaca and Fig-
ure 2 - E :fisting end Situ Traffic..
• .
630'I`te~ge 0 :la Czater, I~aO Wayzatz Bhrd., Wayzata. ~iN Sa39I (6I2) 45.0410
• '
~
i~i? ~1 % ~N..,
D
.
8aa Erickson - 2 - August 21, 185
1'he follaxing table shoxs the assumptions used to dL~~~.~:.ne .daily .
oe~ticle trips to the site: _
SI?E TRIP GENERA?ZOH
Lartd Use Unit Daily Tria Rate (3) Srips
Office 600 sq. ft. GFA 10..9 per 1,000 GLA x,905
t~i~n sq. ft. GLA) (1)
Hotel X00 rooms 50.6 per raoa 3.?80
t3b0 occupied rooms)t2) .
~ Total 2riPs - 8,685
Correction for Hultiple ?rips ('EOr) - 7,800
r .
Assumes gross leasable area (GLA) is 90 percent of gross floor
area (~6fl. sq. ft. GLAD .
CZ) Assumes a 90 percent occupancy 1.350 rooms).
C3) Source: ITE ?rip Generation Manual _ •
~I
As xe discussed earlier today, xe x:11 be meeting With you, City. of
8ichfield staff and the caasultants for the City to discuss the
latest assumptions and conceptual. pleas for the site as xell as the
red evelapmeflt area. It may be necessary to revise the results pre-
sented here to conform xith current glans..
.FRIG al ~ ~ '
Attachments !
.
~ _ , «Uay ~.~n~ O t?~? ~,~b'~ "71~,~'V2~~'3.L.1~ 4(V'd "JNLMf, IX•~
- .
~ • ~ .....rl - ~ ,,Lt~,~IG+Vi~d.JSv~lvai~ ..~6..{~ ~
L/M5~
~ 1 -
rep-1 e~'"~r ....>ai.,~...i
. 1 y 1 -'_."'-w„"''~„ t i i~ t 1~ t t .1 1 I I tip' • ~
I ~
' r ( 1 -
1 1 1 1 I 11 ~ ~ 1.
~ ~ ~ t~ )
111 ~ It 1
aa~rlu?Myq~ ! ~ a.~i4~~ : It1 I'• .t~l.l.~ Lla,. •==fib 11"~trt 1 1 ~
.r1 1
4 x 1; corn
t ~ 1 ~ i, - ~~'~~oa c ~ I. 1 I 1 1 ! ill lilt i 1
_ • .
i 1 , i N i 1 - ~ III ~ ~.1 L..i 1 11 -t l ~ 1~ ~ .
_
¦ ._:..l..l.~ 1 1.~.~ 1, JLL'!I~Y q¦ulfn6~1 IffgB g1lR tffM 1 ~ I _
i~R~i~•91UDIII1i1
1~.-. ~~Ia
11Mater.................r...~:~ i ~'1 I~ (
1~it~1111~ir111!nou! 11~Wd tAf _
~ I i '1
• ~''~.~.n"ytl~ .,iN""r~r~G:'~ , .1•~
u.;. Il~,ot!-~'-~'~"~.~--~i!; I _ i '~tr (
• ~~11 ~ Li, . it .1 u u 1-I f ~ i • {I tl 1 si+ tt fi I ~ ~ 11 1 t?" ~ 1 tt - ~
~j w~ ~ 1 ~ '1 Ii ' tl is 11 I 11 , i I 1 ~ ~t l~ 11 ~ ( (
~~SM~ ~ , ~1 • q IL, 11 ~ I . ~ II 11 ~ 1~ 1. ~ . I I~~ i~ 11 1
i 1 l i ~ 1 ~ t ~ _ t/ ~ ( 11 I ii 11 111 . ! 11 ~ ii It • ~ I '1
11 11 ~I X11 ~ 11 I 1 ! l I tII 1 I
- 1 .1• ii. it i1 ' 11 li ~-1 ti i tl it • it II ii ~ 11 • 11 11 ~
~ li li • 11'~ 11 1 11 . ' it 1 ~ II ~ li •i • li ~ 1.11 1 it 11 11 ~ t ~
si U111 11 i i ! 1 ~ 1 1 I iI + ~ . i l t~i ~~....-..,.1 r
11 il~i• 11 1 111 i' t il'iI ib 11 t 1 1 i it ,
.~.ww..iw 4....a ~ 1, ,»po~ I 1 ~.~..Ip ~ i ~ ~~,t~"~;:- f~ .
-i ' 1 1 ~ U ~ lit 11 .1 •1 ~a 4t . ~ - t
!i I~rl 11 II tt 1 it . 1 11 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1~~ ~ t~,,1~i ~ i~ 11 t 11 t 1 ~r.tf
1+~~~ -
tsi ~ li l• .t i1 i 111 :1 ~ 1 II 'I ' 1~ 1.1 I ~ ~ ('11.1 j~ 14 ~ ~'i ~;rti '1 i~ 1 ~~-~'i~~~~l'~' I~ ~ 1
11 1 •1 1 I ttI ~ f i1 ii 1 1 111 i~~ If ' Ii ~ ~t It 11 'q 1 ~
ti li I~ 11 U e 1, it 11 , ~ ~ it ('I ' ~ • 11 ? L1 1, i.1f , 11 11 f' 11 ~ ~ 1 11 ' ~ _
esi ,.1,.,.. = i . ~ ~ 1 l• ~ ,I to ~ ~ ~ • I ~ _
r 1 , 1 11 1{ a ~ It tl 1 , li I it -
ti t 1 i I i~ • ~:i~{ 1 i~ I 1 i~ ' ' • ~ { . i{ ~ ~ 11 ii ' ~ _ Ittll 1 .
~ 1 N '11 1 ~ Iri i ' i i 1 ~ it J1 !I ti ~ 11 1 11 t ~
.1 i •1 op~41~ tt j •il ' i ~ jl 1{ i~ ~ :i 11 11 {I 11 ~ ~ 11
1 = ~,..,r i l 11 I ~ 1 1; l l 1 ! I1 ,11 ; 11 11 1 1 " ; ± t i 1 ~ 11 11 11 ¦
t i I ~ 11 i1 t ti 1.1 tl ~ t1 tt / 11 t t'1 '
11 ~ ~ 1 1 t t 11 I
1 ~ ~ ~ t . 11 ~ LI p ~ ~ t1~ ~ 1 i~ ,H 11 t it ~
it 11 X11 t 11~ ; 11 ~•~1{ 11~,.~11 ~ 11 ~ 11 ~
•1 ~ ~jj ' ~ r , ~ 11 . 1 I I . ~ 11..- 11 1 N i l ~ I 11 11 . ~ ~
v ~ 11 { ~ ~I. it II ~ i t ~ 1 ! i ~ t ~ 1
I ~ t I I ~ ~ 11 1 I i i l~ { ' 1 I .r,.r.1~i ~i' ~ ' ~ i i t i~:.,a... .
' ~ i III 1111 11 ~ I1~11 ~ 11 1 ~ (1 11 j 11 11 , 11 ~
11 11 li it ~i fl t 1 I! 1 1 ~ '-11
11 • i t 1 ~ l l ~i ~ ~ I I + u i 11 ~ ~ /1 • 11 I ~ + i l l ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ 11
i II 11 11 ,11 11, 11• ~1 + 11• I1' t
~ 1 11 ' •14 ~ w~ ~i 1~ ii'~'il 1 s ~ ! ' , ~ ' r 1 I - fl
1 1 ~ r .I (i ~ ? ~ 11 r. i? 11 t 1 1' 1 1 1 II ~ 11 ~ ~ 1 ~ .rj • l 11
11 + 11 u ! I11 11 1 11 11 11 ' 11,j~ 11 1' ~I 1 ~ 111 . ~ ! i 1 t
i~ 1+ 1 I I ,
11' 11 1! , 1 ~ 11 ~ it ~ M - • 1; 11 I ~ 1 11
I • I I 11 ~ ; 111 + + +I I 1 1 j ?
1 11 11. II + •
.11 11 1 , 11 l! II ! 11 ~-1 1n + li 11~ 11 ~ • 11 l ~ 11 11' 17 1~ ~,11 Q 11
1' II ' 1 ~ + ~ 1 11 . • j• ! it I~ 11 U ~ 111 ~ it 1 ~ I1
1 f 11 1 ~ 1 1 r 1 1'! ~1
~ ~ ' II , I I! ,1 ! ii , ~ ~ a~ l II ? ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ .•~1 i • 11 u'. s ! ,1 / 111 t~
t ,
' ! i1 ! t ? i ; ~~1'=~~ 1~(Ib~l ~ 1~1 ~1r 1' ~ ' it ...111 t n +I. 11 ~ i1
1lL.Id~a~l 1 C~Ilsti 1 i' ' ' 11 ' 11 • 1~ I l i l •
• ~ i , ~Yr }11 11 li 1 ! . 1 I i, 111 ? r I~j • i 11 , ~ , , ~ ,1tn
• ,t ~ 11 II 11 it : II 11 . it ~ II ~ 11 Il 1 n • 11 1, 11 ~ ~
~
~~11 1 11. I1 11';;111 II;III 11~ II L 11 `1~ ~ 11~;;11 ~ 11 •!1
1 • • + . r~t,~ ~ 11 11 I I i` I I 11 , `,11 I I I 1 i l l ~ l l 1! 11 11 11 ~ ~
1 1,1 ~ X1,1 i 1 11 ' 11 111 ' 11 1 I I , 11 1 11 ~ I I I + ~ 11 1 ' 11 1 ll . ' 11 ~ 11 - 11
,1. ,'n Ilf1j'll _1111iII ~ 111, ll ~ 11'•'1! ~ cl Il' ill 1 1t ' ~ ,1 ..1
1 !1 ~I ~ ' 1' i n 111 I~ ~I FI I 1~' • 11 ~l 1.1 . ~ a i n 1. l•1 ~ ~
-a~ 1 ~ ~\V~~W ~10~n 1 1 ~_~~t•'Jlll~'..Saad 1 _ • ~IdMI lr~ 11a11.i.=
• ` )~~~1oymM1 ~ ~ ' ~ „'~iCl~l t9a~I~i1 • ~!~•~I~I~~tIB M~ltila~' ' Wrr~• fji~
~ ; ~?.liwl ~ ~ i~r.N ~ ~?11h~... Id .In•ii~Ci~U • ( ~'I'1 ` i•i ~ ~ ~ , +
~1 ~ 111..11 ~•1•.L.t•.I x.111 ~ , / ~ + 1 ~ 1
111 • 1 t 1 ~ 1~ i a ~ ' 1 1
~ 1 1 1 1; ? ? a I I ~ ~
. PF I I • tr11r.11 Cib; +rolat AI'I+,li ~ a~ ~ + w~+w~101w4t -
u+ + ~'1 X11 I ~ 1 1
•
„ ~ w r
'
•
l~'/ ~ ~ ~ ,
f
o
~I ~i. ~ `171K6'~TiOht Q~' AC~1?c•H
_ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i Council.Letter No. 402
Agenda October 28, 1.985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of".the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Variance Request at 6525 Emerson 'Avenue
Council Members:
Proposal
Mr. and- Mrs. Loren Wuttke have made a request for a
subdivision anal avariance of property they own at 6525 Emerson
Avenue. The property in question is a 114.7 x 99.7 foot lot
with an .existing-dwelling. on it. Mr, and Mrs. Wuttke wish to
subdivide the existing lot into two new lots.
Lot A would contain theexisting dwelling and would be 7-0
feet x 99.7 feet. Lot B would be a new lot which would be 44.7
feet x 99.7 feet. The existing dwelling would maintain a proper
sideyard setback. The proposed new lot B would not meet the
city's minimum lot width or minimum lot area requirements. The
lot would have a lot width of :44.7 feet instead of the required
50 feet, and the lot area would be 4,457 square feet instead of
the required 6,750 square feet. There is a proposed ordinance
on the agenda to reduce the size of a residential lot from 6,750
square feet to 6,000 square feet for lots of record as of
January 1, 1985. Proposed Lot B would fall short of this
minimum too. The Wuttkes wish to sell off the new lot so that a ~
new home could be constructed on the property. The existing
house would be maintained and eventually sold also to an owner
occupant. The existing dwelling is currently renter occupied.
The Wuttke's believe the variance is justified because the
present lot is large and the new lot is not used because it is
separated from the house by the garage. They believe that the
variance is necessary to protect their right to .sell their
property and put it to its best use. They believe that their
proposal will be a benefit to the neighborhood because it will
result in a new house and the improvement of the existing house
on a block of deteriorating houses. There are other lots. with
similar widths on the block and the city has granted variances-
- for similar lots on Humboldt Avenue and on Irving Avenue.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
1. Section. 3.30, sudivision 4, requires that lots in the
"R" residence zoning districts have a minimum lot area of 6,750
square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet.
2. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted and found .the I~
following:
1. That there are special ~ircumstancies or conditions
affecting this land not common to .other properties or similar
districts.
It is staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances
present on this particular site which would justify the
variance.. While the lot is larger than other lots in the area,
it is rectangularly shaped and of a common size to other lots in
the city.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for ii
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
I
It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not
preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing single
family residential use could continue on the site if the
variance is denied.
3. That the granting of the application will not
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
improvements in the neighborhood.
It is staff's opinion that granting the variance would not
adversely affect the health or safety and welfare of the public
in the area. There are two lots on the west side of Emerson
Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street which have lot widths
of 44.7 feet. The remaining houses on the block have widths of
50 feet. ht is staff's opinion that ,as long as the dwelling
developed on the site meets setback requirements, the developed
lot would be in character with other developed lots in the
neighborhood. The site in question also abuts the Coach Homes
of Richfield condominium development. It can be argued that
this would. justify the higher density of housing being proposed
here. The proposed addition of anew house and the repair and
renovation of the existing house would also help improve the
conditions on that block and help stabilize the neighborhood.
-Staff Recommendation
The staff has found that the proposal does not meet all
three conditions which must be met for granting a variance.
Therefore, staff-must recommend denial of the two variances
requested. Also, staff opposes the variance because the
proposed lot B would have a width of less than 50 feet and a lot
area of less than 6,000 square feet. The 50 foot lot width and
6,000 square foot lot area are minimum standards. Approval of
the variance would create a substandard lot.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial of
this variance request because it does not meet the three
conditions for granting variances.
Respectful submitted,.
ohn G. Car wri t
' City Manager
JGC/eja
- J-
e
Loren R. Wuttke and. Norma J. Wuttke
TO s RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION, and
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL
6700 Portland Avenue South RE 5525 Emerson Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota Richfield, Minnesota
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My wife and I are hereby making a request far a variance to split the lot
of 114.7 feet wide by 99.7 feet deep into two separate residential lots as shown
on the attached survey by two methods.
1. The first method of lot split would divide the north lot with the
existing fiouse into a 70.0 x 99.7 size- equaling 5979 square feet oP land area.
The sough let for future single family residence would be 44.7 x 99.7. size ~
equaling 445? square feet of land area. ~
2. The second method would enlarge the south lot-with 49.? x 99.? size
equaling 4955 square feet in land area, and would include a side yard set back
variance to zero lot line for the existing house garage wall.
A nice two-story single family residence can be designed and built on the
south proposed lot incorporating either of the above two methods of lot split.
1\~
The three conditions in favor of granting this variance are that:
1. The land that will be the proposed lot is Flat and is all south of the
attached garage of the existing house. Occupants of the home usually use the
back yard immediately behind the home for their personal use. The proposed land
area is usually referred to as "the extra lot". The existing home and garage
would not need to be altered in order to grant this variance.
2. A substantial property right is the right to sell one's property and
to put the property to its best use. We believe its bast use for the nei hbor-
9
ho d
o is as a se orate sin f
p gle anvil home site on the south arcel kee in the
Y P
~ P 9
existing home also. as a single fam~.ly residence. If the variance is granted,
it is our intention to improve the existing home Par eventual sale. to an owner/
occupant. Without .the variance, it is not economical to make improvements that
cannot be returned through a sale.
3. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the health,
safety or economic welfare of any persons residing or working in the neighbor-
ho~d. Nor will it be detrimental to the public welfare. Granting this will be
to the advantage of the public welfare in that tax base .will be substantially
added to the City. Granting the variance will also be to the advantage of the
neighborhood in that improvements will be added to make the area more attractive.
• The health, safety and economic. well being of all inhabitants of the neighborhood
will be improved by the granting of this variance because dollars will be spent
in the neightrarhood to improve and enhance a home that is now below that of the
- . _
- RE: 6525 Emers m Avenue, Richfield
Page Two
others in the area. There are three homes on the East side of Emerson that .can
stand redecora=ing and granting this variance so that work can begin on one of
them is and ca be a catalyst to getting the others to follow suit in the
• decorating pro~ess.
Please gr nt this variance in one of the methods mentioned earlier in this
request, time ~eing of the essence in this matter. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully s::bmitted, -
Loren R` Wuttke Norma ~ Wuttke
Dated Septembe~ 30., 1985
`
~~'lli~
RAN KRUEGER ~ ASSOCIATES, tNC.
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
7382 WASHINGTON AVENUE SO. EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN. 55344 PMONE 812-941.3030
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~
_ _ _
Survey for L ~R E N TJ' I!G ~ I Job No. '7274 I Bk. 4Zg Pp, 4 i ~
i
_ Zo,7 ~ ~ - ~ 99.7 yV65T
. ~ 1
~ 1 I ~ , , cYc~O.vE FENGE oN ~
i?` c ~ L/N~ 1 1
1 I
o- \i
'
~+I ~ i /,/~3/
N 0 : yyou~~~~ ' ~
• ~ ,
f ; io ;35,, ~
~ ~ ; - r ;
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
Q Q ` 1 ' ~ ,i~. D
~ ~ ~ i
~ ' 99.7 WEST _
i pROPOSEU L0T Gf/VL
i i~
! ~
I
s~ 1
I ~ ~
EXIST. ~ 4457 54.FT.
SITE- ,AREA ! a'
/I43b SD. FT/o.26 mac. ~ 1 - ~
1 1
p~oPoSE•O ~ i ,
~ ~ ~
' - 99, 7- LEST
~9~7 50• fT. I N - -
I.
. I .
~~~~r'~~,~~~
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of THE SOUTH 114,7 FEET
of GoTA., S/LVF,evVaoO 2ND ~-l~l~J
County, Minnesota
ADD/TIOr.J Tv 2~GHF/~1.~ . 23 2G SEPTFJ?~i 8E+2 SS
Surveyed by ay o~ , 19
' 1/f•
RON KRI~EGER ASSOCIAT !N
ES, C.
\
- ~ REQIIEST FOB VARIANCE OF l.~ Y L% ~ to NLERSa.~~
FOR PURPOSE OF ~ ~ ~ G7/L.Z~ .
Legal Desor iption : • \
We, the and:rsigned, being owners~of immediate adjoining land as
above described, do hereby. concur with the variance as requested.
Signatire of Owners*' Address
a 1~ ~~Q;, f' ,r~_~ _ y ~y
ff ` 1'~ / r
U
* Signature: may not be re*noved once the petition is signed and
returned •:o the Planning Division.
.
~~l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council.. Letter. No. 401.
A ends October
2 1
B 8 985
,
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request For A Special Use Permit To Allow The Sale
Of Wine At 6344 Penn Avenue South
Council Members:
Proposal
Mr. Norb Stachowiak, Jr, has requested that the city approve
the issuance of a special use permit to allow the sale of
wine at the restaurant located at 6344 Penn Avenue. The
existing Froggi's Restaurant will be converted into a Mamalu's
Barbeque Restaurant. The city has approved a special use .permit
to allow a restaurant at that location previously and this
special use permit request is only to allow the sale of wine.
No structural changes are proposed to the building. The
applicant wishes to upgrade the interior and exterior of the
facility to provide a facility which does not have the fast food
image of other restaurants .along Penn Avenue. The applicant
believes that the sale of wine is important to this image.
There will be no bar. Wine and beer will be offered with food
orders. Their experience in other similar restaurants is that
less than 20~ of their receipts are for wine and beer. The
pro ert is in an I General Industrial zonin distric
P Y g t.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, paragraph a of the zoning
ordinance Lists regulations relating to restaurants if li uor is
q
to be sold on the premises.
2. Section 3.34, subdivision 5, lists the conditions
governing-the issuance of special use permits.
Staff Review
1. The existing restaurant meets all conditions of its
original special use permit.
2. The arkin lot is in need of some atchin The
P g P g
applicant has ordered the patching to be done and
expects it to be completed prior to the council meeting.
. 3. There are no construction or structural changes proposed
other than repainting and new signage to change from a
Froggi~s Restaurant to a Mamalu's Barbeque Restaurant.
4. There are no proposed changes in use on the site except
for the addition of the sale of wine.
5. The proposal meets the standards established far a
restaurant serving liquor.
6. The .granting of-application will not adversely affect
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be
detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the. special use. permit be granted with
the stipulation that the parking lot be patched.
Planning Commission .Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the
council approve the special use permit for a restaurant serving
wine at 6344 Penn Avenue with the stipulation recommended by
staff.
Respectf ubmitted,
~
' ohn G. C rtwri 't
City Manag
JGC/eja
--•c "
3' NIGH DECORATIVE CONC. $LOCK
• ~ FENCE w. SOL10 CAP. ~ .
12T6
~ • .I_ arks , _ . - _
I ~ I ~ I I ~ ' 1`
1
,~~Q P,LAtuTE~' .I i i I i I ~ N
~ I I
RIGHT I I I ~ ~ I
t TURN" e- I ~ i ~ ~ I ~ I I
sign ~ , =f OUT ~
: ~ IN l~ ~~n
. Light .pole fr1 ~I
t. f - i
Jel _ ~
o , ~ ~ 3' hjgh fe^,e
~ ~~i<f ' ~
1i n I
~ ~
o '
i•
i
~
r w1 i
' ~ . - - Light pole !
~ •N
„ I. I t I t M
' h - I i i i ~ LOADING v o•
n _ i • -PLANTER ~ ~ ~ . ---.----a
~ 6
~ ~-Screen woil
~ i '
~ ~
z• -3' nigh hedge ' a
6E~
'o~
e' ; ~ r>
L._.. r v 1 li
e ' Whee-T stop ~ '
~ Q~r
g all spaces
as
~ ~ ~ „ PLANTING AREA
y . I PLANTER (Sod?
127'6 r ~ .i
o. o: a _ n N-~.
~5~25' .I 24' 5'' I SodJ Scale ~ 1~~= 40~
Yr'~~~` Asir, Marshall Seedless
j~ - ~ .
- ~ Barrier curb Maple, Schwedler
• ~ ~ ~ Hedge= Ninebcrk, Qwarf
-
_ _ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of Gity Manager
Council Letter No. 400
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Variance Request at 6228 Penn Avenue
Council Members; it
Proposal
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc., representing the
owner of Lunds Supermarket, has requested that the city grant a
variance to the city's frontyard setback requirements. The
applicant proposes to build a Walgreens store on the-east side
of the existing Lunds Supermarket located at 6228 Penn Avenue.
The proposed new addition will reduce the frontyard setback from
40 feet to 11 feet.
The subject property is in the "I" (Industrial) zoning
district .and currently meets all the setback requirements. The
existing building area is 32,000 square feet. The' proposd new
addition will increase the building area on the site to 43,040
square feet.
The new addition will have a building area of 11,040 square
feet. Anew service area and loading dock for the Walgreens
store will be located to the south of the new addition.
Currently, there are 201 parking stalls on the site. The new
layout indicates a total of 215 parking stalls which is exactly
the same number of parking stalls required on the site according
to the city parking guidelines. However, the.new parking layout
indicates that 32 parking spaces would be located on the
unimproved easement for Queen Avenue on the west side of the
parking lot.
The applicant has indicated that the variance is justified
because it is a reasonable development which ties into the
existing structure well, minimizes impact on the existing
store and parking, and is not detrimental to the area.. The
reduced setback is also appropriate because the building fronts`
the parking lot and not Penn Avenue.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
1: Section 3.3~, subdivision 1(1), indicates that any use
permitted in a C-2 district is permitted in an I (Industrial)
district.
2. Section 3.32, subdivision ~(2), indicates that each
building in C-2 district shall have a frontyard of X40 feet.
3. Section 3.~0, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted.
STAFF REVIEW .
Staff has reviewed the proposal against .the .three conditions
which must be met for. a variance to be granted and found the
following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties or similar,
districts.
It is staff's opinion that there are no special
circumstances present on the site. The site is similar in shape
and size to other commercial sites in the community.
2. That the. granting of the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial .property rights.
It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not
be detrimental to reasonable use of .the property. The existing
(grocery store) use could continue if the variance is denied.
3. T1^=at the granting of the ,application will not
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing. or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or ,injurious to
improvements in the neighborhood.
Staff finds that granting of the variance for the frontyard
setback could adversely affect the health and.welfare of the
persons in the neighborhood. The location of the proposed
service area/loading dock may create traffic hazards on Penn
Avenue when the trucks enter the service area.. Large trucks
would have to either back into or out of the site onto Penn
Avenue. This could create traffic congestion because of the
traffic volumes on Penn Avenue and the site's proximity to the
Penn Avenue/Crosstown intercl^range. At the Planning Commission
meeting the applicant indicated they did not feel this was a
problem because there would only be two semi-truck deliveries a
week which would be during off hours. Other deliveries would be
made by smaller step vans which typically use the front door.
Staff still has some concerns about this, however.
~3- 3
Staffwould also have a concern regarding the proposed
parking on the west side of the parking lot within the Queen
Avenue easement. The street easement area is currently zoned
multiple family residential and as such cannot be used for
commercial parking. If the variance is granted it must be
contingent upon the easement area being rezoned tc commercial or
industrial. -Lf these. spaces are not provided for,.. there will be
insufficient parking on the site to meet .parking needs. It is
also staff's opinion that the city should maintain the easement
until such time as the vacant parcel west of Lund's is developed
so that the need for the street can be evaluated.
It is staffs opinion that granting of the variance would
be an improvement on the site and would increase the tax base of
the city.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance. since the three
.conditions for granting a variance have not been met.
Planning .Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends. denial of
this variance request because the three conditions are not met..
City Manager Recommendation
On. Friday, October 25, 1985, staff discussed this matter
with the applicant who indicated they may request that the
hearing be continued until a future meeting to allow them time
to explore alternatives. If the applicant requests a
continuance, staff would recommend that the council continue the
matter to a .future meeting.
Res ectf submitted
P Y ,
~ J_~
Y~
ohn G. Cartwr ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
_ ~3-~~
KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS. INC. ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS" • WTERIOR DESIGN
August 30, 1985
Board of Ad ' ustment & A eal s
J PP
City .Council, City of Richfield' _ i
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
Members of the Board:
SUBJECT: Walgreen's - 62nd and Penn
Comm.. No. 85-01-0076-01
As agent for the Owner, we are, herewith, applying fora variance on the front
rd
ya setback requirement along Penn Avenue South.. A royal of the re nested
PP q
variance will permit the construction of a Walgreen's store on the east side
of an existing Lunds Supermarket.
The uniqueness of this site dictated siting of the proposed 11,000 square foot
.addition on the east side of the existing building. However, such placement
will require approval of a reduction in the front yard setback along Penn
Avenue from 40'-0" to 11'-0".
. As Architects for the project, placement of the building in this location
allows optimization of building and parking design considerations. The proto-
typical building foot print for Walgreen's has been reduced by placing 2,200
square, feet of storage area on a mezzanine level al]owing incorporation of the
service area and loading dock to the south of the new addition. -The parking
lot will be expanded along its west edge to accommodate the 215 parking spaces
required by ordinance due to .the increase in the total building area. A total
of 217 spaces will be provided. Siting of the proposed addition on the east
side of the existing building will provide reasonable use of the site .and not
disrupt the existing parking or access to the supermarket and nor will it be
detrimental to the public health or safety.
Therefore, we request that a variance of the front yard setback requirement be
granted.
Sincerely,
KO KY KRANK ICKSON A~t1ITECTS, INC.
William J. Lawr A
WJL:skt
570 GALAXY BUILDING 330 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 (612)339-4200
~
~~;I.lI{li;.-lJii1011l1!!1l11ilil~~
UDR pMO.VOfM1.
• ~ ~ ~ .rt
~ ~ ~ ! ,~+J
i s EN1ER
O 213 Ca1C4 PRC)VOtD ~
i
T r~ 1 _
~ 1 ~ 1
EX6IYJG inRrlvc' io ttftuN
. ~ ~ _ C- Q iAR1(NGREQl1REMENiS
. 1 ~ ~ . Z 11jO'S 31.000 Sf. 160 CMS IS /1000) _ _
~
1 M ~ N ~ G ~ WµGREEN'S 11,010 Sf. , fS CMS (f /10001.
~ ~ ES_
sr tn. a+u EM11 ~ ~C'''`~ ~ 111 CMS 10iAL REQU~REQ
'i ERISik1C IUNT'S y~+-r.cx.i... ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 12.000 Sf. y~y~~
. ~ ~ ~iF-~'=~. itl' SEiIAfR (VNtInr~CE REQUREDI -
~ ~ ti~'y~ .tiELZA1JrE
4 '
.
- -
0 1`s-1o 60
SITE PLAN _
~ KoasuNSKr Kruriii enicicsoN'• . _ . VVAICREEN'$ 62ND & PENN AVE. ~ ~ ,rs
~y, a..,......~......m...~.., , ~ " C _ RR~~tD, Mt1~vESOTA . ~
~ f ~...,~.~.~...,o....a .,,.~...e. _ - ~ ,
~ W
V `
¦
•
'`IIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIiillili
1 t ) -
t r t -
t t ~ ~ -
~ t -
t t ) -
1 1 1 -
' r~ ~1 . C~
• 215' GRS ~ F/YFFR
~1 i `
1 ~ ~ G 1
§ J W
- r `ayurtwc E%1T ~ _~rrzr-Y'-
- r --1 fis`OL GD
. ~ ~ -C~.. SK111CE wi~vy-y .is+' s"W1. JfK9~~'.'
~Il~_a0.'~R:
EXi51XJC LUnm'S - a1'VARt
- )2.000 S.F_ '~:~.~Q7F
1 :1T SE)1lAIX (VARIANCE REQURED) .
E__._...._. i~: lOW[rb1ONTO8fVERiID)
i ~ _ , , r,,~ ;
user I ~ J
n:er
t r~ atrt.
~ i=
' \L/ ~
_ ~ ~ - 0 15 30 60 noun ii
• tANDSCAPE• PLAN
KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON , . _ ~ ~ _ . . _ , os...a., aa~.~....~. e.v.a .~wnn...cr
'I Y-...~..~..~.-.....~...... snvq uvWn rucwG ~Z
"RCHtEO~'"~ ~ 1NAtGREEN'S 62ND & PENN AVE. P2
RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA
~ ,.,..,a,. .e,,,...,,, a-
W
1
v
~
~
a
~ 1
~ ~ ~ i1
~1
1
i Q
8 ~ ' t
~ ~
s ~
~ ~
~s ~ ~ ~
ue ~
~ ` g
~ ~
~ ~
~ - 3
1~ ~
~1
.
a'
$ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
' Ott ~
~ ~ ~ ~t
1=' i
~ t ,
i ~
b
~ ~
~
'1~1~~11~1111111111, b ~ ~ ~ 4
4
r
REF: APPLICATION FOR :VARIANCE TO;SUILD A COMMERCIAL HUILD,ING
FOR RETAIL SALES QN LOT AD3ACENT TO LUNDS ERST SIDE.`
WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO SUCH VARLANCE E~ECAUSE
. OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA,-
' WE FEEL THE SAFETY DF OUR CITIZENS,&DTH PEDESTRIAN AND
VEHICULAR, WILL EtE JEOPARDIZED.
WE ALSO FEEL A &UILDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL
OEcSTRUCT THE VIEW pF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY
NOT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV.
I
NAME ADDRESS 'i
J ~ /
V ~ ~ it
L
}~'~s'_~.~v=~~~~'~.~,[~
~ = = J ~ ~ ~n > ,iii ~ ~
v
r _
r
- - -~...--1.~..-
' l
v
i
\ ~~-`~l
±~'.,~.:~:..-yw: i _'~l^' h{ .n.r`.'..~_ir....-~ .'~.4ai`.~r\-~
L'~ (~.Y~r~
~`-=`..d .
-
- ~ ~ rw-.
~ ~ ~'f~• Jam/ _
'J' ~ r ` ~ ~ ~.-ate------~.~--~.- ' ~i" ~ r: I ~ ~~~-~i~--~~.-}~--
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 r-
._----Z~--- v -
REF:' APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE"TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL &UILDING
F7R RETAIL SALES ON .LOT ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE.
W. THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO SUCH VARIANCE $ECAUSE
0= THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA.
We FEEL THE .SAFETY OF OUR GITIZENS,80TH PEDESTRIAN AND
V :HICULAR, WILL $E JEOPARDIZED.
We AL80 FEEL A BUILDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL
OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE BARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY
NJT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV.
N aME ADDRESS
;1 - ,
d
. , j ~
/ G./ J L/
=
f
_ Tr.
s:
--i - J
y_~ l t _ _ ~
r-~~
~=~L~ 1
J ~ ~
f=- ~ -
J
¦
J/ D
REF. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL &UILDING
• FOR RETAIL SALES ON LOT_ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPF~OSED TO SUCH VARIANCE BECAUSE
OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFLC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA.
WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS, 80TH PEDESTRIAN AND
VEHICULAR, WILL gE JEOPARDIZED.
WE ALSO FEEL A £~UTLDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL
OBSTRUCT THE .VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY
NOT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV.
NAME ADDRESS
J - '
/ i J
i ~ ~
~ / ~.~.r~.~`~. ?~~~L III
_
t ~ - ~
J~
l
_,,c'~k: (.t < <(~; Z lam. ~ . c ~ ~ ~ J` ~ C ~ .r
- _-a.~
- -
_1_~~_ ____J _~_.1
- --N-
•,r, ~ i
1 C / - _
~ =---1__~-=~~ ~ ~
•
r
I _ _
_ L acs-
. -
;,~-jam, ~
r ~ L ( S 7
j ~ ;
..____._._.__._.-_._L__.._.s..~J_c_.~._.._
- f.
- 3-ll
REF: Ai~PLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL H~UILDING •
F(:R RETAIL SALES ON LOT ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE.
WE' THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO. SUCH VARIANCE BECAUSE
OF' THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA.
WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS, BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND
VF H I CULAR, WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. 1
WE ALSO FEEL A BUILDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL
OiSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY
NLT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV.
NF ME ADDRESS
~ - ~ , . 4
C~
w.. ~ ' ~.-C-~. rte. ~ l J ~i
~~`~~.~.......w-,
~"i~.~.-.~~w.r~.~.~ui~Gw. ~.r-.r_~.~._.-
- -r---
~ L~
~ -
~ ~--~L'==f=''r-' ~ "L-
JJ
J
r
. .
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ fJ
ffice of Cit Mana er
0
Y g
Council Letter No. 399
Agenda October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council I
City of Richfield '
Subject: Off-street Parking Permit Amendment For The Post '
Office At 65th Street And Rae Drive.
Council Members:
The post office at the corner of 65th Street and Rae Drive
is proposing to construct some. improvements to .the existing
building to make the structure accessible to the handicapped.
They propose to construct a vestibule addition at the current
entrance which will include a lift for the handicapped.
There are currently nine standard parking spaces and one
handicapped parking space along the north side of the building.
The original off-street parking permit approved by the city in
1962 called for twelve parking spaces to be installed and there
is space for 12 standard parking stalls. The revised plans
calls for maintaining the nine standard. spaces and one handicap
space currently existing, but would narrow the area down. The ~
width of the. parking stalls would meet minimum width
requirements. Additional concrete and curbing .would be
installed in front of the new entry to provide better access.
If the existing parking area is maintained no council action
would be required. Staff is working with the post office to see.
if the existing parking can be maintained. If an agreement is
reached with the post office prior to the October 28, 1985,
council meeting, the council will be advised to delete this item
-from the agenda on Monday evening.
It is staff~s~opinion that while there is a shortage of
parking at that particular site and the elimination of two
parking stalls will increase the problem, the need for a
handicapped accessible post office is great... The Human Services
Commission has indicated that a handicap accessible post office
is a high priority need of the city: It is recommended that ~
the council approve the revised off-street parking layout to
allow the handicapped accessibility improvements. to be made.
Respectfu y submitted,
ohn G. Car wr' ht
City Manager
JGC/eja
~ .._--~--a
111 _ /
of , Ty~ 13 ~ _ l ~~1~
_¢k'` - 4d
9- f
- r.,
~ ~ n
~n 3
p.
{ h-ra 1 ~ ~ ' ',Ry ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~t
3 ~
~ _ ~
~ ~ o;a ~
1-
t
.t
. ~ ~
tY
7 -
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, ;MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 398
Agenda: October 28, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and ~
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Execution Of Joint Powers Agreement With The City
Of Bloomington For Inspectional Services
Council Members:
-Since 1982, the City of Richfield has been contracting with
the City of Bloomington for food and restaurant inspectional
services as well as some plumbing, heating and ventilating
inspection services. Last year the contract was expanded to
include forestry services.
The 1985 contract for the above noted services is in the
,amount of $48,000. The Public Safety Director has negotiated
a contract for 1986, based upon a small increase in the number
of food inspection services required, for a total amount of
$50,400. Of this amount, $42,370 is for food and building
inspection services, and $8,030 is for forestry services.
The contract will run from November 1, 1985 through October
31, 1986. _
A copy of the contract is attached for the information of
council members in their consideration of this matter. It is
the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I
concur, that this contract with the City of Bloomington in the
amount of $50,400 be renewed for the period indicated.
R ectfu y s fitted,
r
ohn G. C rt fight
City Manager
JGC/eja
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this day of , .1985, by
and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter "Richfield") and the City of •
Bloomington-("5loomington").
WHEREAS, Ri~hfieid is authorized and empowered to provide for various
tSpe~ ~f ~nsaections and code enforcement ensure *.he public. health,.. welfare
and safety; and
'WHEREAS, it is the desi-e of the parties and the purpose of this
agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of
Richfielc!;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the .mutual covenants and
conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto-agree as follows:
1. The period of this agreement shall be from November 1, 1985,
through October 31, 1986, unless termination occurs.
2. For the period of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide
Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield:
a. Plumbing inspections and code enforcement as
necessary.
b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
inspections and code enforcement as necessary.
c. Food service inspections and code enforcement as
necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be
done of all restaurants and at least one inspec-
tion will be done of all grocery stores).•
d. Tree inspections and code enforcement as necessary.
3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the
inspections and code enforcement activities are conducted and-over the
determination of what enforcement action is appropriate.
4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections
and code enforcement.
i .
• _ _
~ ~ a
5. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of $50,4.00 for services
provided pursuant to this agrement. One-half of this amount shall be due on
May 1, 1986, and the remainder shall be due on October 31, 1986.
6. -This a reement shall terminat
g e as follows:
a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of
written notice upon the other party; or
b. At ahy time, upon. agreement of the parties; ~r
c. in any event on October 31, 1986.
' In t,".e event ~f a ~terriination prior. to October 31, 1985, a pro-
rata reduction. of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur
which. reflects the period remaining on the agreemen± at the time of termination_
Rloo:rinetor, agrees to defend, indemnify and hold .harmless
Richfield, its officers, agents and employees from all actions, liability and ~i
j
damages for property damage, personal injury or death resulting from the acts,
I
omissions or neglect of Bloomington's employees relating to the performance of
its obligations hereunder.
9. Any employee.,assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations
i
hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes
including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits.
Upan .proper execution, this CITY OF RICHFIELD
Agreement shall be a legal
and binding abiigation upon
the City of Bloomington. By:
Its Mayor
i
i
i
City Attorney By:
Its City Manager
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
City Attorney By:
Its City Manager
-2-
I~ _ _ _ _
~a~~~
-
w
July 16, 1985
M
N
'fit
~ Howard Bunce
. t!7
Council Member
Chi 7.608 Sheridan Avenue South
~ Richfield, Minnesota 55423
• N
~ Dear Howard:
~ Steve Devich-has asked. that I respond to the questions
you raised on the attached memorandum regarding our
restaurant inspection program. The basis for restaurant
¦ inspections is provided under the state statutory health
~ code. The provisions of this code are applied uniformly
to restaurant inspections in both Bloomington and Richfield.
~ Additionally, a uniform restaurant inspection. procedure is
_ used in both cities. -
~ Restaurant inspections are provided as a part of the total
~ inspectional services contract we have with the City of
~ Bloomington. This contract runs from November 1st through
October 31st, each year.. In addition to restaurant inspec-
tions, the contract provides for plumbing inspections,
~ heating and ventilating inspections, and forestry inspec--
tional services. The total amount of the cantract for the
current year is $ 4 8 , 000 , of which $ 7 , 6~4 5 relates to
~ forestry inspection services.. The remaining amount of
$40,355 provides for the restaurant inspections, the heating
~ ...and ventilating inspections, and the plumbing inspections.
¦ ® O Our contract with Bloomington has provided significant cost
O savings for-the City of Richfield in providing the required
I'~ services covered by the contract in our community. By way
CU of background, I might just mention that we first starting
contracting with Bloomington for inspectional services
. during the very difficult budget reduction period in 1982.
At that time, Richfield employed 4 people in the environ-
mental health area. These employees provided restaurant
inspection, environmental health inspections and management
of our nursing services program.. As a part of the budget
teiephone:869-7521 (612j
• an equal opportunity empiore~
~a~^~
Page Two
reduction process all 4 positions were eliminated. The .total savings
at that time were $82,300. Under contract, Bloomington took over our
restaurant inspection program and the environmental health inspections
were transferred to other Public Safety employees. Additionally, the
management of our nursing service program was reassigned to existing
Public Safety employees. Since 1982, we have eliminated 2 building- ~
inspector positions and included the plumbing and heating and ventila-
ting inspections in the Bloomington contract.
As a result of these changes we currently have 6 less full-time Richfield
.employees involved in inspectional activities. The cost saving for
providing services under contract are presently in excess of $100,000
per year. Additionally, we feel that the quality of our restaurant
inspection program has substantially improved.
I hope that these comments answer the questions you had with regard to
the restaurant inspection program in our community. If you wish any
additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Morgan, Jr.
Director of Public .Safety
TAM/lje
cc: Mr. John Cartwright
Mr. Steve Devich
_ ~
f: .
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 3, 1985 -
T0: ? Tcm Margan, Public Safety Director
FROM: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Questions Frcm American Legion & Cvuncilmember
Bence
I have received- the following questions from the American
Legion. and Councilmember Bence:
1. Has the City of Richfield adopted the $loomington
Health Code for restaurant enforcement? Which City
Cedes does the Bloomington Health Inspector inspect
by?
2. When does the contract with Bleomington come up for
renewal?
3. What is the City saving in terms of man-hours or
dollars in inspectional services by contracting.
with Bloomington?
Please respond as soon as you can gather the information.
Thanks for your help.
SD:bcc
,CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i Council Letter No. 397
Agenda October 28, 1985 -
The Honorable-Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subjects Special Meeting/Work Session To Discuss Mega Mall-
Related Transportation Issues and Planning
Commission Recommendation To Hire A .Consultant To
Evaluate The Potential Impact Of The Mega Mall
Dear Council Members:
During their review of the city's Comprehensive Plan, the
Planning Commission expressed concern about the impact of
recent proposed major developments along Interstate Highway
49~ on Richfield. .The Commission specifically raised concern
about-the proposed Mega Mall on the old Metropolitan Stadium
site and the Homart Development which is to be located at the
northwest corner of France Avenue and ~9~t. Both of these
projects have the potential to dramatically increase the traffic
volumes on Interstate Highway 49~+ and consequently may affect
not only traffic, but land uses in Richfield.
On September 10, 1985, the Planning Commission passed a
resolution relating to this matter. The Planning Commission -
resolution advocates the hiring of a consultant to study the
impacts of major development proposals and to advise the city on
the best courses of action to take in order to minimize adverse
impact upon Richfield.
Late this summer representatives from Bloomington and BRW
discussed possible transportation system changes in the vicinity
of the proposed Mega Mall. Specifically, an interchange in the -
vicinity of 76th Street was discussed as well as other major
transportation improvements. The city staff met with
Bloomington representatives and their consultant, BRW, on
October 24, 1985, and reviewed the present status of proposed.
transportation system changes. In that this development could
have a major impact on Richfield, it is important for the City
Council to be kept appraised of transportation system changes
which may take place in the near future.
Therefore, a City Council study session has been set for
5:30 p.m., on Monday, October 28th, for the purpose of allowing
Bloomington and their consultant to give the City Council a
~~l
briefing on the status of the transportation planning effort for
the Mega Mall site.. Members of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and the Planning Commission have been invited to
this informational meeting.
The city staff is now evaluating the Planning Commission
.recommendation as well as gathering and analyzing other
information which is being. prepared by a variety of sources on
the transportation system question. Provided in your backup
is the Richfield Planning Commission-resolution and the
Metropolitan Council staff report entitled "a preliminary
evaluation of the proposed Mall of America/Fantasy World
. Project " which is proposed to be constructed in Bloomington.
The attached information and the information at the briefing are
provided to the City Council for the purpose of updating the
Council and allowing Council members to question the consultant
and representatives from the City of Bloomington on the Curren t
status of the transportation planning project and the proposed
Mega Mall.
It is quite possible that in the near future it may be
appropriate to hire a consultant to evaluate the impacts of the
Mega Mall and the Homart developments upon-the City of Richfield
once additional .information has been gathered. However, the
City Council is not being asked to take any action on either
the transportation plan or the Planning Commission's
' reaommendation at this time. The purpose of this study session
is to update city officials on these important issues.
Re ectf y submitted,
ohn G. Ca twr' ht
City Manager
•
ss~-3
RESOLUTION
EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS TO STUDY
AND ADVISE THE IMPACT OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS
ON THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, recently proposed major developments such as the "Mega
Mall" or a similar development on-the old stadium site, and the
Homart Development, at France Avenue and I-494 will have a major
impact on the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission needs to make appropriate
revisions to the City Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission needs to understand future needs
of the City relative to future necesssary Capital Improvements, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission advocates that political action
be taken for the benefit of the City of Richfield, with respect to
the proposed developments.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,. to recommend to the City Council, by
the Richfield Planning Commission, that immediate steps be taken to
employ consultants to study and advise the city as to the impact that
the proposed major developments will have on Richfield traffic,
utilities, environment and quality of life.
Passed by the Planning Commission on this 10th day of September,
1985 .
Connie Hoverson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Steven Quam, Secretary
i
5s~-~
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paui, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359
I
i
I
A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
OF THE
PROPOSED MALL OF AMERICA/FANTASYWORLD PROJECT
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA
Testimony of Metropolitan Council Chair Sandra S. Gardebring
To Committees of the Minnesota State. Legislature
I
September 18, 1985
I
I
I'
I
4°~~ ~
40
~
~
OA rv
gP Publication No. 02-85-130
~tN Cti,t~6
- ssl
s
INTRODUCTION -
Thank you for inviting me to discuss our work on the Mall of America/
Fantasyworld proposal. We have prepared testimony that addresses questions
raised by various- legislative committees.
First, I want to report we are about to initiate a metropolitan significance •
review of this proposal. The Council's Metropolitan Systems Committee .has.
already approved ini iating the review. It will go to the full Council on
Sept. 26, 1985. The metropolitan-significance review will concentrate on two
broad areas of concern. The review will cover the imp act. of the project. on the
metropolitan systems of highways, transit., airports., sewers and parks. It wi17
also cover the economic impact on communities other than Bloomington.
I have attached an outline of the economic study the Council will be under-
taking in cooperation with the Minnesota Departments of Energy and Economic
Development (DEED), Finance and Revenue. Some of you may-have received a staff
report from. DEED this week. That report and-the testimony you will hear today
are the first attempts on the part of the state agencies and the Council to
pull together some. factual data on the Bloomington development.
I want to report on the activities that are now under way concerning this
project and that will lead to a comprehensive report in the coming months.
1. The Council is in the process of hiring a consultant to analyze the
capability of the project to attract tourists and generate retail sales.
2. Our staff has been .working closely with Bloomington's transportation
• consultants, Minnesota Department of Transportation and Regional Transit
Board to ensure-the analysis of the highway and transit impacts .are fully
understood. The Council has retained its own transportation consultant to
provide advice during this process.
3. The Council has been participating in the environmental review process for
the project. The Council has prepared comments on the state environmental
assessment worksheet (EAW) scoping report and the federal EAW scoping
report.. Our staff has been working closely with the city and representa-
tives of the developers to ensure that the timing of our metropolitan
.significance review process and the environmental process do not cause
undue delays in the. project.
4. The Council has held two Committee of the Whole meetings to get background
information on the. project. One. sessions covered the metropolitan signif-
icance process and the fiscal disparities legislation. .Charles Weaver, a
former representative from Anoka County, briefed the Council on the legisla-
tive history of fiscal disparities and the basis for exclusions that were
made to the program.
5. You are one of five legislative committees I will be testifying before on
this topic this week. I hope you will find our report enlightening, but I
would ask you. to understand that: we have not completed our analysis, so
what we are able to tell you today is preliminary. in nature.
1
SS1 ~
DEVELOPERS.' PROPOSAL
I would like to take a little time to review what it is we are analyzing and
to compare it.to the projected development in the airport south .generic environ-
mental impact statement that included the stadium site.
The Mall of America/Fantasyworld project is 11 million square feet in size (see
Table 1). This is broken. down into five primary uses:
• 5 million square feet retail shopping mall (4 million square feet
grossleasable area)
~ 1 million square feet Fantasywor.ld (This amusement and recreation
.area is 23 acres in size.)
• 1 million;squ'are~feet convention center, 500,000-square-feet exh ibit
space (There has been some discussion of reducing this space, but at
this time the specifics are, unc l ear. )
a 2 million square feet of hotel space, which represents 2,000 hotel
rooms
• 2 million square feet of office space
The generic EIS was prepared for the entire airport south area of Bloomington
which consists of about 900 developable acres. At the time the study was
undertaken, there were about 300 acres of vacant land available for develop-
ment,. including the 85-acre stadium site. Table 1 shows the amount of
development that was anticipated ~n the generic EIS for the entire area and for
the stadium site.
When compared to the larger area, the Mall of America/ Fantasyworld proposal
contains significant]y more retail space, a recreation) amusement area and a
convention center. The generic EIS concept contained much more office
buildings and housing units. The stadium site itself contained all the new
retail ,space in the airport south area (900,000 square feet), a significant
amount of office space and some hotel and residential units.
Table 1 also shows the land uses suggested by the Trammell Crow and United
Western development teams that submitted proposals to Bloomington for the
stadium site at the. same time Triple 5 submitted the Mall of America proposal.
Although each contains hotels, retail and residential uses, office space is the
mayor use in the two competing proposals. The Trammell Crow proposal also
contains 100,000 square feet of convention center.
SITE VISITORS PROJECTIONS/TOURISM
There has beena good deal of discussion about the number of people that will
be attracted to this project. A key factor in determining the benefits to the
region and state will be the number of tourists that the project can attract.
First, I'll review the projections of total visitors by the various activities,
and then I'll discuss tourists in some detail.
2
•
~ _ 'table 1 N gmerica
LANG USE COµppRI5t1 µa11 of oriel '
Western & f antas
United sq• ft.
Site** tra+~el Crow _ 6,000.400 ,
' th Stadium Els 950?~ sq' ft•
ort ~ Genet p00 sq• ft. sq, tt.
A~
pep
new 520, ' 2,~.~0
900tp00 sq, ft' p00 sq• tt.
Lance
$ 3,300, 2 ~pp0 rooms
900.040 sq• ft• sq, ft.
3,662,E l~Opp roo~s
Retail/Recreation sq• ft• p units
2,8p0,00d 700 rotes
Other 646,E sq• ft• 360 units QOp sq• ft•
Office/ 7+ 840 rootas 720 units 1 -
G~ercial q,300 rooms 700 units 0 sq• ft' '
iiotel 3,510 units 100,000 sq• ft•
p sq• it•
Residential. p sq• ft•
Convention Center
w
existing and new development. .
ncludes the µet Center facllity•
*jhis includes
**lhis i
ssl-~
SITE VLSITORS PROJECTIONS
A project of this scale will potentially attract a very large number of
people. A basic concept of the developers is that the various uses will serve
to bring people to the site who will then be attracted to the other activ-
ities. The developers believe that Fantasyworld and the convention center will
be major generators for the retail mall. Table 2 shows the most current data
available from the developers on visitors to the site. The visits are broken
down by the primary reason people will come to the site and do not show
multiple trip purposes. While this is the best data, there is still some
confusion about some of the figures. It is important to note that the table
includes both turnstile "clicks.," or counts, and people or individuals. This
means that the'800,000 convention center delegates (individuals) are expected
to stay four days and generate 3.2 million turnstile clicks. The tourists that
come for retail and amusement are expected to visit these areas two times each,
so the total tourists to the site represent 12.2 million turnstile counts or
3,866,666 people.
There was considerable press coverage of the 11 million tourists. expected at
the site. The figure was reported in the original proposal to Bloomington and
was subsequently defined as turnstile clicks as opposed to people. The data in
hand+shows an estimated 3,867,000 tourists will come to the project.
A key finding made clear in the table is that the majority of site visitors
will be local residents. The locally-generated turnstile clicks will represent
59 percent of all visitors. Another way to view this figure is to convert the
turnstile clicks to people, which is done in Table Z. Since local visitors
live .c lose to the site and do not stay overnight, each visitor makes one
.turnstile count. The figures reported for local visitors to the retail and
amusement area are, in fact, people.. But the developers' information does nut
distinguish between tourists who.. stay overnight or whether they come from
within 50 or 100 miles of the site.. If these people are all from within 50
miles of the site, an area.-that has a population of 2,284,760, each person
would have to visit the project seven or more times a year to meet these
projections. If they come from within 100 miles of the site, an area which has
a population of 3,302,425, each person would have to' each visit the project
five times a year to meet the projections.
• TOURISM
The number of tourists that will be attracted to the mall is a critical factor
in determining-the. impacts of the mall on the regional and state economy. The
developers estimate (Table 2) 12.2 million tourist turnstile clicks will- be
produced by the convention center, retail mall and amusement center. Tourists
are defined as anyone who lives more than 100 'miles from the site or stays
overnight.
Retail and amusement tourist turnstile clicks total 6.9 and 2.9 million,
respectively. -Using an average of three turnstile clicks per visitor-yields
actual tourist totals of 2,300,000 for retail-and 966,666 for amusement, or a
total of 3,266,650 people.
The convention-center is projected to attract 600,000 tourists who will stay an
.average of three and one-half days at the site and each attend trade shows or
convention events four times.
4
1
Yabl~
MALI OF AMERICA - TANTASYIi0Rl0
ANNUAL V1SlTS (TURNSTiIE COCKS ANO PEOPLE)
Tourists
Total Ylsits Total Tourists Out of State local Visitors
Turnstile Turnstile Turnstile Turnstile
Clicks People Clicks People. Clicks People Clicks People
Trade and '
Convention 3,200,000 800,000 2,400,000 600,000 2,400,000 600,000 800,000 200,000
Retail 18,900,000 14,300,333 6,900,000 2,300,000 3,400,000 1,133,333 12,000,000 12,000,000
Amusement 7,500,000 5,566,666 2,900,000 966,656 2,350,000 783,333 4,500,000 4,600,000
TOTAL 29,600,000 20,666,666 12,200,000 3,866,666 8,150,000 2,516,666 17.400,000 16,800,000
Turnst{le count: One person that spends four days at a convention is recorded as four turnstile counts.
People: One person that spends four days at a conventioq is recorded as one person.
ASSUMPTIONS
cn 1. Trade and Conventions: Each registered attendee (tourist and local
participant) Ts assumed to go to the trade show or convention event four
Nmes. Each tourist 1s assumed to stay in area 3.5 days. ,
2. Retaii: Each tourist Is assumed to stay in area 1.8 days and visit the
retail mall three times.
3. Amusement: Each tourist Is assumed to stay in area 1.8 days and visit the
amusement center three times.
4. local Visitors: Local visitors to retail and entertainment areas are
assumed to attend these centers once; therefore, the turnstile and person
figures are the same. •
SS1
It is not clear what the. assumptions about length of stay are based on--e.g.,
national surveys, the experience at Edmonton, etc. We have asked the developer
for clarification.
We have also asked whether the number of actual tourists are new (net) to-the
region or whether they represent in part people already coming to the state for
other entertainment purposes. The developers have not been able to answer this
question.
The Council has reviewed data on tourism for the region that helps put these
numbers into some. perspective. Table 3 shows data from a study completed in
1979 on regional travel and tourism. These figures have been increased by 10
percent to account for growth during the past seven years. (As an example,
population from April 1, 1978 to April 1, 1985 increased 6.5 percent and
employment increased 16.7 percent.) Using these figures, the number of people
who come to this region for both recreation, sightseeing and entertainment
(line 4) and shopping (line 5) total approximately 4,158,000. (The definition
of tourist is someone that lives over 100 miles away or someone that stays
overnight, which is the definition the developers are using.) The figure
compares with the 3,266,666 tourist figure used by the developers for retail
and amusement.
The material from the developers does not make it clear if these people are new
tourists or if they are in whole or in part existing tourists. If one assumes
the developers projected only new tourists, this would mean that the number of
people that come to this region that might be considered tourists or to shop
would have to increase by 78 percent. If, on the other hand, we assume the
.developers' estimate includes no new tourists or shoppers, all these visitors
to the region would have to go to the mall to meet the developers' projections.
If a broader definition is made -to include tourism-travelers,. then we could
include people who come-to the region to visit friends and relatives (Table 3,
line 1). It may be reasonable to consider that those people coming to the area
to visit friends or relatives might have time or want to visit the mall. The
total tourists, shoppers and visitors to the region (lines 1, 4 and 5) in this
case would be approximately 11,642,400.
Again, "if we assume the developers' figure of 3,266,666 tourists (excluding
those that.-come to convention and trade shows) are all new, the regional
visitor total would have to increase to 14,909,066 or an increase of 28
percent. If there are no new tourists, one in four of the total of 11.6
million people that come to the region to visit friends and relatives, for
recreation, shopping, etc., would have to go to the mall.
ANALYSIS/COMPARISON OF THE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT
In this section, I'll compare the projections made by the developers to some
existing. conditions to provide some perspective on what is being proposed.
When possible, I'T1 draw .some conclusions about the proposal.
RETAIL
The retail shopping center is the key component of this project. The total
area dedicated to retail space is five million square feet, broken down as
follows: four million square feet is .gross leasable area; the remaining one
6
5 s~
million square feet includes public toilets, corridors, stairwells, elevators,
machine and equipment rooms, lobbies or mall areas.. The developers project
retail sales (1985 dollars) of $1,144,000,000. (Based on discussions with the
developer, this. excludes retail sales of Bloomington residents.)
Tab 1 e 3
TOURISTS-VISITORS TO REGION
10 percent Estimated
1977-78* Increase 1985
1. Visit to friends and relatives 6,804,000 680,400 7;484,400
2. Work or`business 4,284,000 428,400 4,712,400
3. Personal business 3,780.,000 378,000 4,158,.000
4. Recreation, sightseeing,
entertainment 2.,016,.000. 201,600. 2,21.7,600
5. Shopping 1,764,000 176,400 1,940,400
6. Conference and convention 1,260,000 126,000 1,386,000
7. Travel Node, no special
reason to be in TCMA 4,536,000 453,600 4,.989,600
8. All others 756,000 75,600 831,600
25,200,000 2,520,000 27,720,000
*Minneapolis-St. Paul Travel-Tourism People, Dollars and Activities in
the Metropolitan Area= Executive Summary, Uel Blank, Michael Petkovich,
University of Minnesota, Oct. 1979.
Our interpretation of the developers' concept is that Fantasyworld and the
convention center would draw potential shoppers to the retail area. The more
people on-site, the more opportunity to attract shoppers to the stores,
restaurants- and bars.
The key question that needs to be answered is how much of the retail sales will
be shifted from other retail areas in the region and state, and how much might
be considered new. The Council's analysis, when completed, will attempt to
determine where the patrons of the mall will come from. The developers have
provided same indication of this. The Council will analyze the projections in
the coming months. At this time, we have only attempted to set the retail
sales into some context so you might get an understanding of the scope of this
project.
In Table 4, the mall is compared to regional retail sales. The spending level
for the mall is in 1985 dollars. The regional sales `are for 1983 (These are
7
S s/
being updated to 1985.) We recognize there has been growth in regional retail
sales so the comparisons are not thoroughly compatible. Nevertheless, they.
help put the project into perspective.
Table 4
COMPARISON OF MALL OF AMERICA TO REGIONAL RETAIL SALES IN 1983
Mall Percent
Region Mall of Region
53 General Merchandise $ 2,232,488,000 $ 256,662,000 11.5%
54 Food 1,969,219,000 34,505,000 1.7%
56 Apparel 430,258,000 393,830,175 91.5%
57 Furniture .708,511,000 70,405,340 9.9%
58 Eating and Drinking 1,143,532,000 76,496,400 6.7%
59 Miscellaneous Retail 2,965,.813,000 259,791,918 8.8%
$ 9,449,821,000 $1,091,689,000 11.5%
Total State Retail Sales $15,778,379,000 $1,091,689,000 6.9%
Total sales volume at the mall is projected to be $1,144,000,000. For compar-
. icon purposes, we have not included personal business,. auto,. health and
recreation services or motion pictures or amusements in Table 4. Excluding
these categories of sales, the mall will do $1,091,690,000 in sales.
The corresponding figure for the region in 1983 is $9,449,821,000. The sales
at the mall, then, represent 11.5 percent of regional retail sales. When
compared with the state retail sales figures, the mall represents 6.9 percent.
Presently, retail sales in Bloomington represent 5.2 percent of the region's
sales. and three percent of the state sales.
How does the Mall of America compare to the sales at existing regional malls?
Southdale, 6rookdale, Rosedale and Ridgedale malls (this does not include any
retail off -site in these areas) had total sales in 1984 of $485,410,000.- The
Mall of America is projected to have sales two and one-fourth times the
combined sales at these four regional malls.
The average annual sales per square foot at these four malls ranges from $189
to $218. The Mall of America is projected to have total sales of $300 per
square foot. {If sales to Bloomington residents are excluded, the mall is
expected to have sales of $286 per square foot.)
As noted above,. the key question is who will shop in the mall. The developers
have said that, of the total sales at the mall, $774,600,000 would come from
Minnesota residents. Of this, $600 million of sales would be from residents.
within- 50 miles of the mall and the remainder would be from residents living
8
~ ~1-~~
beyond 50 miles.. The remaining $425,400,000 in retail sales are projected to
be from visitors drawn into the area by the mall. An important point needs to
be made here. The material provided b the develo ers has not made. it clear if
y p
all of this. amount wou]d be attributable. to new tourists or if a portion of the
sales would come by attracting existing tourists to the mall. If, in fact, the
sales are attributed to new tourists, these dollars would not have come into
the regional or state economy without the mall and, therefore, these sales
would represent a net increase. If these sales are totally or in part due to
present tourists visiting the mall,- then~a share of these sales would have been
made even if the mail were not built. This question will be explored more
fully in-the Council analysis in the coming weeks.
At this time, the conclusions that can be reached are .that any new major attrac-
tion in the.. region will attract some portiorr of existing tourists. No one
would assume that none of the present 11 million tourist-type visitors would
not visit. a new project as attractive as the developers have described.
Therefore, a portion of the tourist-related business is already in the region
and state, but we do not know how big a portion that represents of the $425
million.
-The developers also make the argument that, because. of the new tourists and
jobs, an amount that ranges- from $592 million to $716 million in additional
retail sales will be created in the region. and state. At this time, it is not
possible to say how accurate these figures are but we know they are based on
two key assumptions: 1) The project will create 40,000 direct and indirect
jobs, and 2) 3,866,666 million tourists will be attracted to the region to
visit the mall. The estimated new jobs seems to be much lower than 40,000
projected by the developer. I'71 talk about employment more shortly. As far as
tourists. are concerned, it appears unlikely these are all new tourists. We
conclude that it is not-.very probable the project. will create $592 million to
$716 million in additional retail sales in the region and state to offset the
$775 million in existing sales that will be shifted to the Ma11 of America.
FANTASYWORLD ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX
The one mill-ion square foot (23-acre) Fantasyworld will be an important factor
in attractin .visitors to the mall. This. complex will be composed of a water
sports parkincluding an ocean wave pool, 15 water slides, water ski machine,
changing rooms-for 5,000 people), submarine lake, space center, ice arena,
marineland, roller rink, art and sculpture court, sports hall of fame, and
fantasyworld pavilion (including a 12-story multi loop roller coaster and a 14-
story free-fall ride).
The developers project -that there will be approximately 7.5 million turnstile-
count visitors to Fantasyworid. We estimate this means 5,566,666 people will
come to see Fantasyworld. Of this total, 4.6 million live within 50 miles of
the site. The tourists who will come to Fantasyworld will generate 2.9
million turnstile counts. If we assume tourists will visit the area three
times during their stay, this means 966,666. tourists will visit Fantasyworld.
Now does this figure compare. to current attractions in the region? It is
estimated that 20 major attractions in the region will have a total attendance
of 14 million in 1985. These include Canterbury Downs Race Track, Carlton
Celebrity Theater, Chanhassen Dinner Theatre, Children's Theatre Co., Chimera,
Guthrie, Little Six Bingo, Minneapolis Institute of Art, Met Center (total all
events), Orchestra Hall (all events), Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Zoo, Old Log
9
ss1~~~~
Theater, Ordway Theatre, Padelford Packet Boats Co., Radisson Playhouse,
Renaissance Festival, Science Museum/Omnitheater, Valleyf air Amusement Park and
the~Walker. '
• In combination, these 20 attractions will spend $15 million for advertising
in 1985. A rough estimate of non local visitors to these 20 attractions ranges
from 15 to 25 percent.. This means 2.1 million to 3.5 million of the 14 million
audience would be from outside the seven-county area. As noted above, Fantasy-
. world is projected to sell 7.5 million tickets. This represents 54 percent of
the total 14 million ticket sold for these 20 major attractions. Fantasyworld
is expected to attract 966,666 people from outside the region. This represents
28 to 46 percent of all the non local visitors who attend these 20 attractions.
Given the very diverse tastes these 20 attractions serve, the attendance projec-
tions for Fantasyworld are somewhat questionable.
CONVENTION CENTER
The project contains. provisions for a convention center. The specific size.
originally suggested was one million square feet. This was a total square foot
figure. The facility will have 500,000 square feet of exhibit space. DEED
commissioned Coopers-Lybrand to analyze the potential revenue impacts if this
convention center and anew convention center planned in Minneapolis (a 300,000
square feet net exhibition space) were both built. A number of conclusions can
be drawn from that report.
1. The two facilities will compete with one another for both local and
national events.
' 2. Both facilities will compete with convention facilities throughout the
state for some local and• regional events. This includes facilities in
St. Paul, Duluth, St. Cloud and Rochester.
3. If only one of these facilities were built, it would operate with a
smaller deficit than if two were built.
4. Either one of these facilities has sufficient space to accommodate the.
' projected events that would be attracted to the area for at least 10
years.
HOTELS
The project calls for the construction of 2,000 rooms and provide accommoda-
tions for some of the convention/trade show attendees and tourists. By the
middle of 1985, the seven-county region had approximately 20,900 hotel rooms.
The 2,000 hotel rooms within the project will increase the regional supply to
22,900, or an increase of 9.5 per cent.
Another way to-,.view the 2,000 additional hotel rooms is to compare them to
major concentrations in the region. In 1985, downtown Minneapolis had 4,721
hotel rooms, St. Paul had 1,715 rooms, and the I-494 strip had 5,428 rooms.
OFFICE SPACE
The project includes the construction of two million square feet of office
space. In the°°spring of 1985, the seven-county region contained approximately
35 million. square feet of rentable office space. This does not include office
10
S S
buildings owned and occupied by an individual company such as the Control Dat a
office building in the airport south area or governmental offices (Source:
Occupancy and Rent Report Summar,v, Spring 1985, Towle Real Estate Co.). The
vacancy rate at that time was 13.2 percent representing 4.6 million .square feet.
of space. If the proposed office space were added to the total rentable space,
the total would be 37 million square feet. This is a 5.7 percent increase, and
would have resulted in a 17.9 percent vacancy rate this year.
In the spring of 19$5, the southwestern part of the region (including
Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina and St. Louis
Park) had a total supply of rentable office space of 10.9 million. square feet
and a vacancy rate of 13.6 .percent. The addition of two million square feet
would increase the total by 18.3 percent and increase the vacancy rate. to 26.9
percent.
In considering these figures, it should be noted that office space construction
and. vacancy rates are: cyclical in nature. Historically, the occupancy of
office space increases to a paint where the vacancy rates may be as low as
three to five percent. Developers start to construct additional space in
response to the market. .Typically, these. construction spurts continue until
the vacancy rate gets to a fairly high level, 15 to 20 percent. New construe-
tion then slows down. until the vacant space is absorbed. The developers have
said that construction of the office space may be the most likely candidate for
any delay in the project.
IMPACTS
The Council will be preparing a complete metropolitan significance report on
this project during the next three months. At this time, the analysis has not
identified all the impacts, both positive and negative,. that this project may
generate. I'm 'going to talk about three of them that we will look at as we
review the project. They are employment, taxes and impacts on the metropolitan
systems--highways, transit, airports, sewers and parks. We haven't completed
our analysis, but we have some interesting facts far you.
EMPLOYMENT
Employment will be generated during both the construction and operating phases
of the project.
Construction Employment
The developers estimate the project .will create 15,300 person years of direct
and indirect construction employment in the Metropolitan Area and an additional
3,500 person years in the remainder of the state. DEED has estimated 12,670
person years of direct or indirect employment from the project. The Council
has not analyzed these estimates in detail. This will be done in conjunction
with DEED and the Department of Revenue during the next three months.
Operational Employment
I'll now turn to "new" jobs being created by the. project, describe the kind of
jobs envisioned and. how the numbers compare to what was forecast for the region.
11
Developers' Employment Estimates. JS`
Table 5 below is a modification of the estimates provided. by the developers.
The Council has eliminated the range of .numbers given for. hotel and amusement.
employment.. We have instead used the mid-point of .the ranges given in order to
make the. table mare readable.
The current proposal estimates 23,530 jobs are needed to operate the mall
project when .all construction is completed and all operations running. The
number quoted here is full-time-equivalent (F.T.E.) jobs. As can be seen in
the table, a good deal of the employment will be part time. This figure does.
not- include the- indirect jobs created by income generated by the proposal. In
order to calculate those indirect jobs, it is necessary to know how many of the
'jobs in the proposal can be described as "new" jobs to the state or region.
. I'll look at this question more later.. According to the Triple Five's
estimates, the"convention center, part of the retail, and part of the .amusement
jobs will be new to_Minnesota. The office jobs, some amusement, and some
retail would be coming to the region with or without the mall.
The convention center, retail and amusement facilities would open in 1988 (we
use 1990 to fit better with Council forecasts). The rest of the hotel and
office space will open in around 1995.
Metropolitan Council Forecasts
Bloomington, under the current Council forecasts, is expected to grow from
59,000 employees to 75,000 between 1980 and 1990. Based on the city's .current
67,000 employment, the city would be expected to add 8,000 between now and
1990. Regional jobs are forecasted to grow from 1,075,000 to 1.3 million
between 1980 and 1990, on to add approximately 112,500 jobs between 1985 and
1990. The mall would account for approximately 21 percent of the forecasted
regional employment growth between 1985 and 19°0. These numbers need to be.
..used carefully: .First, the forecasts are for all jobs in the region, not just
hotel, convention centers, retail, amusement and office. Second, the mall
proposal is assumed to bring new. business into the region,-not just fill the
jobs that werelikely to occur anyway. This~illustrates,.however, the.
importance of the tourism estimates. If the tourists do not come in the `
numbers .projected, then Bloomington will capture. a larger share of the
region's market for economic growth over the next five to 10 years.
Types of Jobs
The types of jobs to be created-are: shown in Table 5. Table 6 is an estimate
of salaries associated with jobs in these industries. The table was taken from
information provided by the developer. We have updated these numbers to
reflect 1985 rather than 1983 wages. Triple Five has qualified this data as
fol ows., and we agree with the qualification:
Average annual wage levels in the hotel, convention, retail, and
amusement sectors are distorted by the significant element of part-
time and casual labor.
The data does give same order of magnitude to the incomes anticipated for the
jobs to be created. They tend to be lower-paying jobs.
- 12
5 51-11
Tab 1 e 5
COMPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES
Total Skilled Casual or Total
Emplo:Yees Management Full-Time Part-Time F.T.E.
Hotel 1,800 190 1,070 540 1,.530
Convention-Center 1,250 40 210 1,000 600
Retail 13,330 1,810.- 5,440 6,080 9,700
Amusement 3,200 400 1,225 1,600 2,400.
Subtotal 19,580 2,440 7,945 9,220 14,230
Office 9,300 9,300
Total 28,880 23,530
Unemployment
Given the relative low wage scale, it is not reasonable to assume that people
will move to the metropolitan area to get these new jobs. In fact, the
developers note in their discuss ion of who will fill the jobs that: "the
generation of employment demand in the retail and service sectors generally
draws workers from that. part of the adult population not currently employed or
actively seeking employment as well as from the registered pool of unemployed."
The developers also estimate- approximately 11,000 unemployed workers statewide.
in those fields, somewhat less than they need. Total unemployment for the
state in April was 126,000 for all occupations and 47,356 for the seven-county
Metropolitan Area.
Net. New Jobs for the State
Net new jobs created by the project for the state are difficult to calculate,
but crucial to the whole debate. We have used a method to calculate these net
new jobs similar to the method used by OEED. The developers, in their original
proposal submitted to Bloomington, presented information (Table 3) that showed
income generated to Bloomington and income generated to the. state. Bloomington
figures were higher than the state because the project will capture some growth
that would otherwise occur outside. of Bloomington. The Minnesota figure is net
income to-the state. The difference between the two represents displaced
income. Furthermore, the developers have indicated that they calculated
overall jobs for the state based on estimated income generated and the "output
per employee." In a sense, we have reversed this estimate. To develop Table
7, we calculated the income per employee based on our F.T.E. numbers and the.
developers" estimates of income generated for Bloomington. We then used that
to calculate net. new employees for the state based on the developers" estimate
of net income to the state. Table 7 gives gross jobs to Bloomington, net jobs
for the state and the displacement (jobs going to Bloomington that would other-
.wise have been distributed around the state, perhaps mostly elsewhere in the
Metropolitan Area). Table 7 also shows indirect jobs created,. based on the net
new jobs in the state.. The developers use an employment multiplier of Z.0 for
13
• S S/-~~
Table 6
" AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE LEVELS
IN SELECTED SIC'S--1985
. Category Annual Wage
Retail Trade
- General Merchandise Stores $ 8,336
. - Food Stores 10,375
- Apparel and Accessory Stores 7,758
- Furniture and Home Furnishing
•Stores 13,519
- Catering and Drinking
Establishments 5,778
Services
- Hotels and Other Lodging Places 8,396
- Motion Pictures 8,576
- Amusement and Recreation
Services 9,915
.
• Tab 1e 7
NET NEW JOBS VS. DISPLACEMENT
New Jobs Displaced
Pro,iect Component Bloomington to Minnesota Jobs
Retail 9,700 3,500 - 6,200
Convention CenterlHotel 2,130 2,130
Amusement 2,400 1,965 435
Office 9,300 9,300
TOTAL DIRECT 23,530 7,595 15,935
TOTAL INDIRECT, 7,595*
GRANT TOTAL 15,190
*Assumes develo s 2.0 em io ent multi lies for stat
p p ym p e DEED believe 1.6 is a
more appropriate multiplier which yields 4,557 indirect jobs for a total of
12,152 new jobs to the state.
- 14 •
the state.. DEED feels that a mu tiplier of 1.6 is more appropriate. In the
final analysis, the Triple Five. proposal would appear to be generating 15,190
new-jobs, excluding the construction jobs to build it. Using DEED's multipli-
er, the figure is 12,152 new jobs.
Based on this analysis,. we conclude:
1. The proposal will in all likelihood- add .new jobs to the state, although it
depends on how successful it will be as a tourist attraction. How sensi-
tive the new jobs are to the tourist numbers has not been analyzed here.
The total new jobs being created are significantly lower than the 40,000
figure that the developers estimate.
2. It would appear that the region .could accommodate th is number of new jobs,
given the forecasts and the currentlevel of unemployed workers, as well as
the l0 years it will take to get all elements of the projects on line.
3. The level of jobs being created are not those most sought after in the
usual economic development efforts of government.
TAXES
L'm now going to turn to the regional impact of the project. if it is included
in, or if it is excluded from, fiscal disparities. I'll also summarize the
developers' and DEED's estimates of tax revenues from the. project.
Fiscal Disparities
One of the financing proposals for the mall project is to exempt it from the
contribution to the fiscal disparities program. At completion of the project
in 1991. Bloomington estimates that $94 million- of assessed value would be
contributed from the. project and $125 million from the entire airport south
district (including the mall).
In recent weeks there have been several. estimates of the impact of
Bloomington's proposed exemption from fiscal disparities. One difficulty is
that:. each uses somewhat different assumptions. However, all agree that. the
primary effect would be on local governments--municipalities, counties, school
districts--and to a lesser extent on property tax-related state aids (e.g.,
homestead credits, school aids).
Since the program redistributes tax base within the. region,. the regional fiscal
capacity remains unchanged (disregarding the fact that the project will use tax
increment financing). The fiscal capacity of all individual municipalities
will change. To the extent that the redistribution is inverse to wealth as
measured by fiscal capacity (market value of real property), poorer places will
have less fiscal capacity and wealthy places more.
The primary effect is to raise. property-taxes in other cities by the amount
these cities would gain under fiscal disparities.. If the project was built and
contributed to fiscal disparities, Bloomington's tax base would increase: by 60
percent of the project's assessed value plus its fiscal disparities share of
the remainder. (Under fiscal disparities all cities contribute and all cities
receive a distribution share.} Other cities would receive a distribution share
of the 40 percent contribution. If the project is exempt from fiscal dispar=
ities, Bloomington receives 100 percent of the project's assessed value .and
15
55~
~D
other cities receive. nothing. Other cities would have less tax base than if 40
percent of the project were .shared.. Tax rates (taxes) in these cities would be
higher than if the project were not exempt.
If the project-:contributes to fiscal disparities, there is a savings in proper-
ty taxes paid by.residents in other cities. If it is exempted, tax burdens are
higher in the rest of the Metropolitan Area. In other words, tax burdens that
might remain in; Bloomington are shifted to other metropolitan taxpayers.
Table 8 shows the amount of tax base cities would not receive if $100 million
of tax base were exempted from the pool today. This is based on the distribu-
tion share cities received for taxes payable in 1985. The table- includes. each
city's share of. the entire pool and its share of total population. The
difference between these shares represents the effect of the wealth adjustment
(a larger distribution to poorer places; a smaller. distribution to wealthier
places). Bloomington is included since it would receive a distribution share.
The share would be somewhat less than shown due to the effect of the wealth
adjustment after the addition of the project.
Although the Council does not gain tax revenue from the fiscal disparities
program, it has supported the program since its enactment. From the Council's
perspective the; metropolitan area is a single economic unit whose residents
live, work and 'shop in different subareas. Regional planning aims to make
the region a be,'tter place to live and do business for all its residents.
Regional investments are partly responsible for where development occurs in the
region. Fiscal disparities provides away to spread the fiscal benefits of
development.
It .would. seem preferable to examine the fiscal disparities program as a whole, •
apart from the ;issue of the Bloomington exemption. If it is examined as a
means of provid;:ing public subsidies, it should be evaluated against alternative
programs such es metropolitan taxes, a metropolitan redevelopment fund or a
metropolitan bond guarantee.
In conclusion, ;the. effect of exempting Bloomington from the fiscal disparities
pool is to increase. property taxes. in other cities of the Metropolitan Area.
If the issue is to finance the public subsidy to the project, alternative ways
of accomplishing this should be-evaluated.
Tax Revenues
The~Council has: not attempted to estimate taxes that. the project will
genera~e. The~Cauncil is working with the Minnesota Departments of Revenue and
Finance on this issue.. The. developers and DEED have estimated tax revenues.
The .developers have estimated the project. will generate $118.9 million to
$136.0 million in direct and indirect new state revenues each year for the life
of the project. The following is a breakdown of revenues by type of tax:
retail sales tax--$54.4 million to $62 million annually; individual income tax--
$47.4 million to $54.4 million annually.; corporate income tax--$5.6 million to
$6.4 fnillion annually; other taxes--motor vehicle excise tax, tax on alcoholic
beverages and highway fuel taxes--$11.5 million to $13.2 million annually.
The DEED study broke down the taxes generated by year from beginning of
construction to full operation of the project.. In this manner, some of the
taxes will phase out once construction has been completed and others wil l
16
i !
TABLE '
DISTRIBUTION PER 1100 MILLION OF POOLEt) BASE ,
1985 1985
SHARE OF DISTRIBUTION POPULATION
:100 MILLION (PERCENT SHARE) (PERCENT SHARE)
A F TON 91619 0.09 0.12
ANDOVER 655746 0.66 0.50
ANOKA 943552 0.94 0.76
APPLE VALLEY 1321855 1.32 1.21
ARDEN HILLS 333238 0:33 U.43
BAYPORT 174385 0.17 0.14
BAYTOWN T 34703 0.03 0.04
BELLE PLAINE 218857 0.22, O.t4
BELLE PLAINE T (7843 0.02 0.04
BENTON T 21961 0.02 0.05 _
BETFIEL 26239 0.03 0.01
BIRCHWOOD 38226 O.U4 0.05
BLAINE (PART) 2300545 2.30 i.59
BLAINE (PART) O 0.00 0.00
BLAKELEY T 13794 0.01 0.03
BLOOMINGTON 2966311 2.97 4.07
BROOKLYN CENTER 1604491 1.60 1.50
BROOKLYN PARK 2902006 2.90 2.37
)3URNS T 104498 O.tO 0.10
BURNSVILLE 1566518 1.57 1.87
CAMDEN T 21046 0.02 0.04
CARVER 45707 0.05 0.03
~ CASTLE ROCK T 44792 0.04 0.07
CEDAR LAKE T 52203 0.05 0.08
CENTERVILLE 59524 0.06 0.05 '
CHAMPLIN 665308 0.67 0.50
CHANHASSEN (PART) ~ 272250 0.27 0.35
CHANHASSEN (PART) 389 0.00 0.00
CHASKA 568771 0.57 0.44.
CHASKA T 9562 0.01 0.01
CIRCLE PINES 267034 0.27 0.19
COATES 10798 O.Oi 0.01
COLOGNE 38661 0.04 0.03
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 1081404 1.08 0.95
COLUMBUS T 202912 0.20 0.17
COON RAPIDS 2578125 2.58 1.98
CORCORAN 223363 0.22 0.22
COTTAGE GROVE 1144839 1.14 0.99
CREDIT RIVER T 119688 0.12 0.12
CRYSTAL 1403043 1.40 1.21
DAHLGREN T 34291 0.03 0.06
DAYTON (PART) 268178 0.27 0.20
DEEPHAVEN 100632 0.10 0.18
OELLW000 17843 0.02 0.04
DENMARK T 29373 0.03 0.06
DOUGLAS T 14183 0.01 0.03 .
EAGAN 1005500 1.01 1.29
EAST BETHEL 488567 0.49 0.35 a 1~
EDEN PRAIRIE 629256 0.63 1.03
EDINA 1133653 1.13 2.20
ELKO 20955 0.02 0.01
EMPIRE T 46118 0.05 0.06 r.~
EUREKA T 36831 0.04 0.06
Table 8 (cont,~
i985 1985 •
SHARE OF DISTRIBUTION POPULATION
=100 MILLION (PERCENT SHARE) (PERCENT SHARE)
EXCELSIOR 100312 0.10 0.13
fALCON HEIGHTS 297505 0.30 0.25
FARMINGTON 251592 0.25 0.22
FOREST LAKE 280073 0.28 0.25
FOREST LAKE T 259096 0.26. 0.27
FRiDLEY 1.435870 1.44 1.45
GEN.LAKE 10523 0.01 0.02
GOLDEN:.VAILEY _ 701064 0.70 ).09
GRANT T / 17241 _ 0. 12 _ . _ 0._16
GREENFIELD 61491 0.06 0.07
GREENVALE T 15190 0.02 .0.03
GREENWOOD 16837 0.02 0.03
GREY CLOUD 11552 O.Oi 0.02
t1AM LAKE 557058 0.56 0.41
HAMBURG 36007 0.04 0.02
HAMPTON 25072 0.03 0.02
HAMPTON t 16951 0.02 0.04
HANCOCK T 9378 0.01 0.02
HANOVER (PART) 13588 O.Oi 0.01
HASSAN T 86060 0.09 0.09
HASTINGS 708705 0.71 0.63
HASTINGS (PART) 1190 0.00 0.00
HELENA T 36419 0.04 0.06
HILLTOP 100978 0.f0 0.04 .
~ HOlLYW000 T ~ 32690 0.03 0.06
HOPKINS 655863 0.66 0.74
HUGO 200487 0.20 0.19
INDEPENDENCE 97750 0.10 0.13 ,
INVER-GROVE HEIGHTS 987016 0.99 0.88
JACKSON T 135198 0.14 0.07
JORDAN 256305 0.26 0.14
LAKE ELMO 283985 0.28 0.28
LAKE ST. CRDIX BEACH 70367 0.07 0.06
IAKELANO ~ 98368 0.10 0.09
LAKELANb SHORES 6337 0.01 0.01
LAKETOWN T 99900 0.10 0.11
LAKEVILLE 848959 0.85 0.80
LANDFALL 221510 0.22 0.03
LAUDERDALE 121770 0.12 O.I1
LEXINGTON 203850 0.20 0.11
LILYDALE 9608 0.01 0.02
LINO LAKES 361398 0.36 0.29
LINW000 T 194722 0.19 0.15
LITTLE CANADA 396902 0.40 0.37
LONG LAKE 82995 0.08 0.09
LORETTO 20017 0.02 0.02
LOUISVILLE T 35275 0.04 0.04 '
MAHTOMEDI 178686 0.18. 0.20
MAPLE GROVE 1178833 1.18 1.25
MAPLE PLAIN 74897 0.07 0.07
MAPlEWOOD 1213331 1.21 1.37
• MARINE ON THE ST. CRDIX 16974 0.02 0.03 v ~
MARSHAN T 66776 O.OT O.OB
•
S ~
Tabls~8 (cont.
1985 1985 .
ShJARE OF DISTRIBUTION POPULATION
6100 MILLION (PERCENT SHARE) (PERCENT SHARE)
HAY T 701:84 0.07 U. 11
MAYER 27909 0.03. 0.02
' MEDICINE LAKE 14206 0.01 0.02
MEOINA 85077 0.09 0.13
MENDOTA 11804 0.01 0.01
MENOOTA HEIGHTS 231805 0.23 0.37
NIESVILLE 8258 0.01 ~ 0.01
MINNEAPOLIS 17060953 17.06 17.71
MINNETONKA 1425347 1.43 1.99 I'
MINNETONKA BEACH 13039 I
O.O
1
O.03
MINNETRISTA 99054 0.10 0.16
MOUND 472805 0.47 0.47
MDUNDSVIEW 93-0493 0.93 0.63
NEW BRIGHTON 1297744 1.30 i. 14
NEW GERMANY 92004 0.03 0.02
NEW HOPE 1226690 1.23 1.12
NEW MARKET 22556 0.02 0.02
NEW MARKET T 59547 0.06 0..09
NEW SCANDIA T 125224 O. f3 0.15
NEW TRIER 10981 0.01 0.01
NEWPORT 175529 0.18 0.17
NININGER T 30860 0.03 0.04.
r-~ NORTH OAKS 68400 0.07 0.15
1D NORTH ST. PAUL 787742 0.79 0.59
NORWOOD 99328 0.10 0.06
OAK GROVE T 238805 0.24 0.21
OAK PARK HEIGHTS 87501 0.09 0.16
QAKDALE ~ 823452 0.82 0.64
0RONO 161666 0.16 0.33
OSSEO 173905 0.17 O. t4
PINE SPRINGS 10569 0.0) 0.02
PLYMOUTH 1322198 1.32 1.80
PRIOR LAKE 383245 0.38 0.42
RAMSEY 718335 0.72 0.53
RANOOLPH 12628 0.01 0.02
RANDOLPH T 28435 0.03 0.02.
RAVENNA T 102600 0.10 0.09
R I ChiF I EL0 185750 t 1.86 1.81
ROBBINSDALE 732473 0.73 0.68
ROCKFORO 54331 0.05 p.02
ROGERS 28893 0.03 0.03
ROSEMOUNT 267057 0.2T 0.29
ROSEVILLE 1445593 1.45 1.74
SAN FRANCISCO T 17958 0.02 0.03
SAND CREEK T 60485 0.06 O.OB
SAVAGE 219383 0.22 0.25
SCIOTA T 57'19 0.01 0.01
SHAKOPEE 417399 0.42 0.53
SHOREVIEW 916924 0.92 0.96
SHOREWOOD 151829
SOUTH ST. PAUL 1223762 1.22 1.01
SPRING LAKE PARK (.PART) 4228.44 0.42 0.31 a
SPRING LAKE PARK (PART) 7206 0.01 0.01
~ 'i
• 1985 1988
SHARE OF DISTRIBUTION POPULATION
• :100 MILLION (PERCENT SHARE) (PERCENT SHARE)
SPRING LAKE T 1127.34•, 0. t1 O. t3
SPRING PARK 5.2409 0.05 0.07
ST. ANTHONY ''b'-ART) 232582 0.23 0.26
ST. ANTIiONY ?ARt) 100838 O. 10 O.4 t
St. BONIFACIi;S 83553 0.08 0.05
St. FRANCIS •89972... 0.09 0.08
ST. LAWRENCE T 11552 0.01 0'.02
St. LOUIS PARK 158B96tt~ 1.59 2.08
St. MARY'S POINT 1.6837• 0.02 0.07
'ST :...PAUL",... °1#9041 t7 14.90 ,'13:09
ST. PAUL PARK 329760. 0.33 0.23
StILLWATER 67496 0.67 0.62
STILIWATER T 8343 0.05 Q.08 I~
SUNFISH LAKE 7778 O.Oi O.O~
TONKA BAY 37174 0.04 0.07 i
VADNAIS HEIOttTS 356548• 0.36 0.35
VERMILLION ..35687• 0.04 0.02 I
VERMILLION T 3683 t• 0.04 0.06
VICTORIA 6;1.625 0.06- 0..09
WACONIA 137372 0.14 0.14
WAGONIA T 45638 0.05 0.07
WATERFORD T 12856 ~ O.Ot 0.02
WAT ERTOWN i 84657 O. 18 0. 10
WATERbWN T 80396 0.05 0.07
N WAY2ATA 86930• 0.09 O.tT
~ WEST LAKELANO T 52775 0.05 0.06
M?EST ST. PAUL 835004 0.84 0.89
WHITE BEAR LAKE (PART) 1303348 1.30 t. 10
WHITE. BEAR LAKE (PART) 8053 O.OI O.Oi
WHITE BEAR T 337309 0.34 0.33
WIlIERNIE 60187 0.06 0.03.
WOOOBURY 436020 0.44 0.62
WOODLAND 11896 0.01 0.03
YOUNG AMERICA 100587 O.tO 0.06
YOUNG AMERICA T 22643 0.02 0.05
v 1
s ~ ~ ~
. - ~ ss~
increase as the various phases of the project open. The DEED study also
assumed that if this project was not built on the site something else would be,
so the construction-related taxes were lowered accordingly. At the peak of
construction,. sales. and use taxes on equipment and building materials would
generate $9.2 million annually; personal income taxes would generated $7,7
million; and employee-generated sales taxes would generate $2.2 million. In
total, during the three peak construction years, $19.I million would be
generated in state taxes.
At full operation,. DEED estimates a total of $63.4 million in state. taxes would
be generated. The breakdown follows: sales taxes--$44.9 million; corporate
taxes--$0.3 million; personal income taxes--$12.3 million; and employee-
generated sales taxes--$4.1 million.
For comparison purposes either the. category of other taxes needs to be
subtracted from the developers' estimate or added to DEED's estimate. If these
u u
other tax revenues are subtracted from the develo ers ro'ections of taxes
p p J
the total increase would be $107.4 million to $122.8 million annuall which ~
y.
compares to DEED's estimate of $63..4 million. III
Clearly, new tax revenues will be generated. The level is unclear at this time.
IMPACTS ON THE REGIONAL SYSTEMS
A major part of the metropolitan significance report and the EISs that will be
prepared on the project will address impacts associated with highways, transit,
air orts and sewers Th r
p ( e egional park system is one of the regional systems,
but no impacts are projected to result from the project). At this time, I can III
give you some information on the impacts from the project.
SEWERS
The increased sewage flow represented by the size of the Mall of America and
Fantasyworld will not significantly accelerate the expansion of the Seneca
Treatment Plant so there will be no additional treatment plant-related capital
costs associated with this development. Whether there will be capital costs
for Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) interceptor sewers depends on
the plans for conveying the sewage. from the site. One alternative would use
only local trunk sewers and local funding. Another option would require some
' regional interceptors, presumably at regional cost.. The city must submit an I,
amendment to its comprehensive sewer- plan indicating which alternative it i
proposes to implement. The Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- I
sion (MWCC) will address which alternative will be selected and how it will be
funded.. All operating costs associated with providing regional sewerage
service for this development will be charged back to the development through
MWCC user charges. ~ ~
I
TRANSIT
The project. proposes to use transit for from one to three percent of the daily
vehicle trips generated by the development. Transit can be provided by a
variety of methods, a number of them privately financed, such as charter bus.
service.• Ride-sharing and other transportation system management approaches
are to be studied in the EIS process: for their ability to mitigate adverse
impacts of the traffic generated by this development. At the present time, the
city's transportation consultant has estimated that $4 million will be spent by
21
~~1~~
the developer for on-site transit-related improvements. An additional $4
million in capital costs could be incurred by the Regional Transit.. Board (RTB)
to provide the20-30 additional peak-hour Metropolitan Transit Commission
(MTC) buses needed to serve the development. The operating costs associated
with MTC service to the-site have not been estimated.
Funding capital and operating costs for transit service provided by tfie MTC
buses is an important concern. Because the city is proposing a tax increment
district fnr the stadium site, property tax revenues for the RT8 from the Mall
of America and';Fantasyworld would be frozen at their current level.. With the
" exception of passenger fares and federal subsidies, no other funding is
available to support MTC service to the site. Alternatives for funding are an
increased .legislative appropriation or a cutback in service to other areas of
the region.
AIRPORTS
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has concluded from its initial
review of the project that it will have no impact on service at Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport. MAC has hired a consultant to analyze. the
project to verify this conclusion. Air passenger trips projected to be
generated from :development at the stadium site are estimated at approximately
1,.323,500 annually,. an increase of 12 percent in the current passenger enplane-
ments of 11 million. These passengers represent about a seven percent increase
in the total number of annual visitors to the airport. Further study of
impacts at the airport may conclude that, while this increase may not affect
the number of gates or landing-takeoffs, it can have an effect on parking and
ground transportation at the. airport.. These. effects may translate into capital
improvements. Airport improvements in the past have been charged back to users
of the airport 'o no general revenues will be drawn on to support them if the
policy is continued.
HIGHWAYS
The third transportation system that will be potentially impacted by this
development is highways. .The metropolitan highway system, primarily freeways,
comprises about 600 miles, or five percent, of the roadways in the region, but
carries a high proportion (b0 percent) of all automobile trips. The completion
of the metropolitan highway system has been~a high priority for the Council.
We have worked very closely with Mn/DOT to accomplish this goal. Today the
goa-1 is within reach. Current plans call for the. completion of all major
highways, such .as I-394, I-35E and I-494, by 1992.
The airport south study recommended improvements to the 24th Av./I-494
interchange and`to Hwy. 77 between Killebrew Dr. and I-494. It included the
interchange at Killebrew Or., direct access to the Met Stadium site north of
Killebrew Or. (called the "Texas. turn"), collector-distributor roads adjacent
to Wwy.~77, and; an underpass at 79th St. and Hwy. 77.
Highway improvements tentatively identified for the Mall of America include all
airport south improvements plus an interchange at 76th St./Hwy. 77, a
connection-.between. 76th St. and 24th Av. at I-494, improvements to the Hwy. 77
and I-494 interchange (including collector-distributor roads) and possibly
widening the mainline of I-494 west of 24th Av. and Hwy. 77 from 76th to 79th.
22
~"C
Cost estimates of improvements prepared to date have been made by consultants
to Bloomington ($50 million) and Minneapolis ($215 million).. The big
difference in the figures is probably due to the inclusion or exclusion of
different improvements. For example, $115 million of Minneapolis' estimate is
for widening the mainline of I-494. The Minneapolis consultant also proposes.-
collector-distributor roads for I-494. Bloomington's consultant did not
include these. improvements. It is too early to say which estimate is more
correct.
Existing commitments for the completion of the metropolitan highway system as
currently planned over the next seven to 10 years will make it very difficult
to finance new sizable projects with existing funding sources. After comple-
tion of the system, a lot of resources will go towards maintaining and
upgrading the 600-mile system. Undertaking major new highway. improvements in
the vicinity of the Mall of America project without ariy new funding sources
would require a extensive reappraisal of regional and, .perhaps, state
priorities.
There currently is no plan on how to finance the transportation improvements.
Likely sources for funding any highway improvements are federa l(interstate and
federal aid urban) and state highway funds. The current ratio for interstate
funding,.which might be applicab le for I-494, is 90 percent federal and 10
percent local. Federal participation for federal aid urban projects is 76
percent. Interstate funding for completion of the system as currently planned
does not envision widening I-494. Another federal source, the 4R funds (mainly
for reconstruction and- rehabilitation.) presently budgeted, would not be suffi-
cient and would probably be needed elsewhere. Future federal funding levels
for interstate construction upgrading are uncertain at this time. Urban Mass
i Transportation Administration funds for transit improvements are also limited
in nature. The projects would be in competition with other projects, both
within the Metropolitan Area and elsewhere in the country.
Estimates of trip generation from the Mal] of America have not been completed.
Preliminary Council estimates for different major activity centers are shown on
Table 9. They are based on regional forecasting. models and traffic counts.
Tab 1e 9
TRIP GENERATION BY MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
Generator Person Trip Year
Minneapolis Downtown 415,000 2000 (est.)
Airport South 345,000. 2000 (est.)
St. Paul Downtown 250,000 2000. (est.)
Metro Dome 130,000 actual count
Ridgedale 103,000 actual count
University of Minnesota 101,000 actual count
MSP International 82,000 actual count
Peak traffic demand for the Mall of America would occur during the usual late. ~
afternoon peak (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.) when background traffic.generated by other
developments throughout. the region is also at a peak. The project will
generate an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 peak-hour vehicle trips. .Lesser peaks
23
• S 5~~~
for:Mall~generated traffic would occur-later in the evening (8:30 to 9:30
p.m.) and Saturday afternoons, when other traffic is at a lower level.. Any
improvements to the regional highway system will be designed to provide a Level.
of Service D (with A being a free flow of traffic and E as a semi-mobi]e
. parking lot).
Bloomington would prefer to see transportation improvements completed by the
time the project opens. This does not seem to be possible, even by accelerating
normal construction schedules, unless extraordinary shortcuts took place in the
preparation of,environmenta] studies, roadway design and construction schedules.
Mn/DOT currently has no improvements for this area in its two-year program.
The county plans to let a contract for the first stage of of the 24th/I-494
interchange improvement by January 1986, and. to let stage II in 1988.
Bloomington's application for federal aid urban funds shows .contract letting-
- for the Killebrew interchange and the direct access to the stadium site (the
Texas turn) in :1987 and 1.988, respectively.
QUESTIONS THAT STILL NEED TO BE ANSWERED
I've pointed out that our analysis of the Mall of America/Fantasyworld is only
just beginning ;and that the data provided here is preliminary. Two significant
questions will 'need to be extensively researched before a comprehensive study
is completed.
1. We don't know the reliability of the projections of tourists or if the
projections. are of new tourists or the attraction of existing tourists.
. This is important in determining new jobs, new sales in the region and the
state and new tax revenues. C~mversely, this data wall tell how many jobs
will be displaced and the amount of sales which will be transferred to this
site from the remainder of the region and the state.
The Council`'-has approved funds to hire a prominent national consultant to
analyze the; potential of this project to attract tourists and other
visitors and to analyze the impact on retail sales.
2. We don't know if a project of this nature will successfully draw occupants,
sales or patrons to its attractions.
We are not aware of any development like the one proposed anywhere in-the
•world. The-. Edmonton Mall expansion that will approximate the size of
this project has just opened so data is not and will not be available to
.help answer this question. -
We think our analysis will help give decision makers some data on which
to make judgments about the potential success of the project, but a
definitive 'answer may not be available until or unless the project is built.
CEO:emp
09.18.85
EP101E, PHDEYI
24