Loading...
06-22-2021 City Council MeetingREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 22, 2021 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Approval of the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session of June 8, 2021; and (2) City Council Meeting of June 8, 2021. PRESEN TATIONS 1. Recognizing the Regional and State Science Fairs winners from Blessed Trinity AGENDA APPRO VAL 2.Approval of the Agenda 3.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A.Consider the approval of the Small Wireless Facility Collocation Supplemental Agreements with Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, that set forth the terms and conditions of collocation on wireless support structures within City right-of-way. Staff Report No. 97 B.Consider the approval of an art installation at the roundabout at 67th Street and Lyndale Avenue that would be a collaboration with The Richfield Arts Commission, The Spread the Sunshine Gang, and city departments in support and celebration of Pride and the LGBTQIA+ community. Staff Report No. 98 C.Consider the approval of an organics drop-off site agreement between House of Prayer Lutheran Church and the City of Richfield. Staff Report No. 99 4.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C ES 5.C onsider the second reading of an ordinance rezoning 23 properties in the vi ci ni ty of Veterans Memorial P ark i n order to be consistent with the adopted 2040 C omprehensive P lan and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. The proposed ordi nance changes zoning designations of properties generally along 66th S treet and P ortland Avenue to either a multi-family or commercial zoning designation in order to allow more intense development in the future. S taff Report No. 100 6.C onsider approval of: 1. A resolution adopting the attached P ortland & 66th S ub A rea S tudy. 2. A second reading of an ordinance establishing regulations for a new Veterans Park Area Overlay District and rezoning properties within the Veterans Park Area to be subject to said regulations. 3. A resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. S taff Report No. 101 R E S O L U T IO N S 7.C onsider a resolution approving a final plat for Lyndale Oaks 2nd A ddition. The proposed plat combines the three parcels compri si ng the Lynk65 redevelopment si te into one parcel. S taff Report No. 102 C IT Y MAN AG E R ’S R E P O R T 8.C ity Manager's Report C L AIMS AN D PAYR O LL S 9.C laims and P ayroll C O U N C IL D IS C U S S IO N 10.Hats Off to Hometown Hits 11.A djournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. R equests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the C ity Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota City Council Work Session June 8, 2021 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 6:15 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Ben Whalen; Mary Supple; Simon Present: Trautmann; and Sean Hayford Oleary Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Blanca Martinez Gavina, Equity Administrator; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant Others Present: Mara Glubka, Human Rights Commission Chair; and Tasha Ostendorf, Human Rights Commission Item #1 CHAIR MARA GLUBKA OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION WILL PRESENT ON A PROPOSED CONVERSION THERAPY BAN FOR THE CITY. City Manager Rodriguez introduced the item and stated staff is asking if Council would like to see this added to the work plan. Chair Glubka presented on a proposal to ban the practice of conversion therapy on minors and vulnerable adults within Richfield city limits. Commissioner Ostendorf briefly described what conversion therapy is and terms associated. Chair Glubka spoke of Dr. Robert Spitzer as he is considered by many to be the father of modern psychiatry. He practiced ‘reparative therapy’ beginning in 2003 but renounced is findings in 2012. Commissioner Ostendorf described the harm it has caused. Chair Glubka spoke on the prevalence of conversion therapy. Council then listened to a story shared by a Minnesota resident. Commissioner Ostendorf spoke on the need for a global ban on conversion therapy that has been discussed by the United Nations- Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Chair Glubka discussed the 20 states that have already passed bans on conversion therapy. A bill was passed by the House of Representatives in Minnesota in 2019 but failed in the Senate. Commissioner Ostendorf spoke on the urgency to pass a ban on conversion therapy as the practices can be extremely harmful. She also referred to letters and statements of support the commission has collected. Council Work Session Minutes -2- June 8, 2021 Chair Glubka then spoke of the recommendation requested by the Human Rights Commission (HRC). Council Member Supple expressed support for moving forward with the work on putting a ban in place. Council Member Whalen thanked the HRC for the presentation and letters of support. He expressed disappointment to see the bill not pass at the state level and asked about an outright ban. Chair Glubka explained the religious aspect as pastors and priests council their followers and this ban is to target licensed professionals who are practicing and not the religious sector. Commissioner Ostendorf stated it gets difficult when adults are involved in the practice as it is more voluntary and their requested ban is to protect minors and vulnerable adults. Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed support for banning the therapy and would like to eventually see it at state level. He then asked about an attempt to limit some religious practices. Chair Glubka provided the ordinance passed in Duluth as an example to follow and would just like to add language regarding vulnerable adults. Commissioner Ostendorf stated the HRC would like information from Council on how to move forward. Council Member Trautmann thanked the HRC for their work and recognized hate crimes against the LGBTQIA+ community. He expressed strong support in moving forward with this work. Mayor Regan Gonzalez she would support working on passing this ban. City Manager Rodriguez summarized Council’s comments, spoke on some research that will need to be completed and suggested putting it on the 2022 work plan. Chair Glubka offered assistance to get this done quickly. Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked staff of a projected timeline. City Manager Rodriguez stated a need to get an estimate on staff hours required, research needing to be completed and an implementation process all need to be assessed before presenting a timeline. Equity Administrator Martinez Gavina spoke of being in touch with other cities to move forward and will update the HRC when additional information becomes available. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he would like to have it publically known that it is a pending item. Council Member Whalen asked about putting out a proclamation while completing the work and placing the item into the work plan. City Manager Rodriguez stated a proclamation would be great idea. Council Work Session Minutes -3- June 8, 2021 ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:54 p.m. Date Approved: June 22, 2021 Maria Regan Gonzalez Mayor Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez Administrative Assistant City Manager CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Maria Regan Gonzalez at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Ben Whalen; Simon Trautmann; Present: and Sean Hayford Oleary Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Neil Ruhland, Communications Manager; Jennifer Anderson, Health Administrator; John Stark, Community Development Director; Melissa Poehlman, Assistant Community Development Director; Chris Regis, Finance Director; Amy Markle, Recreation Services Director; Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Specialist; Jane Skov, IT Manager; Blanca Martinez Gavina, Equity Administrator; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant Others Present: Mara Glubka, Human Rights Commission Chair; Tasha Ostendorf, Human Rights Commission; and Matthew Mayer, BerganKDV; Lance Bernard, HKGI PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Regan Gonzalez led the Pledge of Allegiance OPEN FORUM Brien Hall, 6945 17th Ave S, stated he is not in favor of organized collection and residents should be voting on the item. He also spoke of the recent Planning Commission meeting and how displeased he was with staff. Lindsay Tietze, 6733 Grand Ave S, spoke of current zoning of an area where she would like to open a tattoo shop within Richfield. She has asked Council to consider changing zoning to accommodate the business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Supple, S/Whalen to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session of May 17, 2021; (2) Special Closed City Council Meeting of May 20, 2021; (3) City Council Listening Session of CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting June 8, 2021 Council Meeting Minutes -2- June 8, 2021 May 20, 2021; (4) City Council Work Session of May 25, 2021; (5) City Council Meeting of May 25, 2021; and (6) Special City Council Meeting of June 1, 2021. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 PRESENTATION OF THE PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 9, 2021 AS MARY SUPPLE DAY IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD Mayor Regan Gonzalez read and presented the proclamation to Council Member Supple. Dr. Hines spoke of the impact Council Member Supple has had on the faculty and generations of students over the years. She wished her all the best in her next chapter of life. Gretchen Gifford spoke of everything Council Member Supple offered everyday while teaching. She also spoke of her dedication and advocacy for teachers, students and the community. Council Member Supple thanked everyone for the recognition and support. Commissioner Debbie Goettel spoke of the dedication Council Member Supple conveys in everything she does and how she will continue to make a difference in the community. Mike Supple described how he met his wife, Council Member Supple, and how incredibly patient, kind and giving she is, has been, and always will be. Edwina Garcia described Council Member Supple as a true hero to the entire community as she is someone who truly loves her town and has done tremendous work and will continue to do things with the same passion and dedication. Judy Moe spoke of Council Member Supple’s importance to the community and what an advocate she has been as she not only listens but also takes action. Council Member Trautmann congratulated Council Member Supple and stated her work is not yet done as she will continue to work and support the community. Council Member Whalen described the impact Council Member Supple has had, and will continue to have, on the community. Item #2 PRESENTATION FOR PRIDE MONTH AND LGBTQIA+ PROCLAMATION Mayor Regan Gonzalez read and presented the proclamation to the Human Rights Commission. Commissioner Ostendorf thanked the city for recognizing Pride month. Item #3 PRESENTATION OF THE 2020 AUDIT FINDINGS Matthew Mayer, BerganKDV, presented on the 2020 audit findings for the City of Richfield. Council Meeting Minutes -3- June 8, 2021 Council Member Trautmann thanked city staff for coming in under budget in such a difficult year. Council Member Whalen thanked staff for the presentation and difficult work as 2020 was a hard year financially and tough decisions had to be made. Council Member Supple spoke of the importance of risk management and controls and how Director Regis and staff were able to accomplish so much. Mayor Regan Gonzalez echoed accolades for Director Regis and staff as they have put the city in a good place financially. Item #4 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the agenda Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. A. Consider the approval of an update to the City's Fund Balance Policy. Staff Report No. 87 B. Consider the first reading of an ordinance rezoning 23 properties in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park in order to be consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed ordinance changes zoning designations of properties generally along 66th Street and Portland Avenue to either a multi-family or commercial zoning designation in order to allow more intense development in the future. Staff Report No. 88 C. Consider the acceptance of the quotation from Northland Recreation for $180,000 to replace play equipment at Christian and Fremont Parks and authorization of the Recreation Services Director to execute the contract. Staff Report No. 89 D. Consider approval of an annual request for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Academy of Holy Angels, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South, for their annual Holy Angels Rock the Lawn event taking place Saturday, July 17, 2021. Staff Report No. 90 E. Consider the approval of the Small Wireless Facility Collocation Supplemental Agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Mobility, that set forth the terms and conditions of collocation on wireless support structures within City right-of-way. Staff Report No. 91 M/Supple, S/Whalen to approve the consent calendar Council Member Whalen expressed appreciation for residents who have reached out regarding concerns of rezoning Veteran’s Park. Council Member Trautmann clarified the city does not have authority to take homes for private development. Council Meeting Minutes -4- June 8, 2021 Motion carried 5-0. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None Item #7 CONSIDER RECEIPT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020. (STAFF REPORT NO. 92) Council Member Supple presented staff report 92. M/Supple, S/Whalen to accept the Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ended December 31, 2020. Motion carried 5-0 Item #8 CONDUCT THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR A NEW VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE VETERANS PARK AREA TO BE SUBJUECT TO SAID REGULATIONS. (STAFF REPORT NO. 94) Council Member Whalen read staff report 94. Assistant Director Poehlman reviewed general development principles, personal connections, increasing connectivity, diversifying housing options, commercial uses and sustainable design practices. Lance Bernard, HKGI, presented on the study area, stakeholder engagement including survey findings, design principles including building height, sun shade study and 3D model of potential design. Council Member Trautmann asked about the overlay extending to 67th street. Assistant Director Poehlman explained the overlay extends to 67th street only along Portland where there are some parcel owned by the HRA which are zoned for medium density housing. Within the overlay district, areas are guided and zoned for medium and high density housing along with commercial use. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked what guidance staff would like from Council as this has been through the Planning Commission. Assistant Director Poehlman stated it passed in the Planning Commission but was not unanimous. Council Meeting Minutes -5- June 8, 2021 City Attorney Tietjen recommended Council discuss where each member stands before taking a vote regarding the amendments. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked about the benefits of going to a lower height. Assistant Director Poehlman lowering the height could impact the development and where the Legion will be housed. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated preference of a five story building to provide better framework for a developer. Council Member Supple stated she would like to give the Legion as much flexibility as possible. She expressed support for the amendments of items two and three. Council Member Trautmann agreed and spoke of how important Post 435 is to the city. Council Member Whalen echoed comments on continuing with a five story building to accommodate the most amenities for the Legion and housing. He then asked about the possibility of changing guidelines later on. Assistant Director Poehlman explained that under a Planned Unit Development (PUD), there would be flexibility to go higher in height than the zoning code. To allow for more affordable housing would be something to consider when adding additional height to the building. Council Member Whalen asked if it is likely to make this area a PUD. Assistant Director Poehlman explained Council will want to set parameters before development but it would not be unusual for this site to be considered a PUD as it will most likely contain unique characteristics. Council Member Hayford Oleary disagreed with the parking amendment proposed by the Planning Commission. He preferred original language. Mayor Regan Gonzalez stated her support of a five story maximum for the development. She then asked for more information regarding the second amendment. Assistant Director Poehlman stated the intent is to add the limitations to neighborhood impact. Council Member Supple asked about keeping the original language and adding a portion of limiting neighborhood impact. Council Member Whalen agreed with comments and believes people will continue to become less reliant on cars with the availability of public transit. He then clarified height requirements surrounding this site. He also spoke of the Legion site being private property and they have expressed they are not interested in making it park land. He also asked about parking right next to the memorial. Assistant Director Poehlman explained there are set back guidelines for a future development. Council Member Whalen asked about migratory birds and how they will be affected by the development. Assistant Director Poehlman explained she is not an expert but Recreation Services have been included in potential designs. Council Meeting Minutes -6-June 8, 2021 Council Member Whalen stated when a specific proposal is presented he would like to make sure community engagement is a priority. M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to conduct a first reading of an ordinance establishing regulations for a new Veterans Park Area Overlay District and rezoning properties to be subject to said Overlay District regulations and include amendment for accessibility as well as keep original language with the addition of minimal neighborhood impact. Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed concern for the rezoning on the south side of 66th Street, as the updated zoning will create restrictions on improvements of single-family homes, while offering only limited opportunities for higher-density housing. Council Member Whalen asked Council Member Hayford Oleary if he had an alternate solution to provide. Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed need to continue to revisit the designations on the south side of 66th Street but does not want to hold up the item but would leave it up to staff to revisit. Assistant Director Poehlman explained the overlay district and related rezoning were done based on the current comprehensive plan designations. Changes to the comprehensive plan were not considered either way, but rezoning is required to align the zoning code with the comprehensive plan. Council Member Trautmann asked about utilizing a PUD on the HRA parcels. Assistant Director Poehlman explained a PUD can be utilized when involving affordable housing. A fit-test was completed on the area and believe MR2 is correct but is open to further discussion. Motion carried 5-0 Item #9 COSIDER A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SEEKING STATE BONDING FUNDS TO HELP SECURE A NEW WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER BUILDING. (STAFF REPORT NO. 95) Council Member Hayford Oleary presented staff report 95. M/Hayford Oleary, S/Supple to approve the resolution for support of seeking state bonding funds to construct a new Wood Lake Nature Center building. RESOLUTION NO. 11858 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING BONDING FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO HELP CONSTRUCT A NEW WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER BUILDING Council Member Trautmann spoke of how this is a regional asset and needs reginal support to complete the project. Council Member Whalen expressed concern with what the city will do if it does not receive bonding money to complete the project. City Manager Rodriguez explained the project would need to be reassessed. Motion carried 5-0 Council Meeting Minutes -7-June 8, 2021 Item #10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY MANAGER CONTRACT. (STAFF REPORT NO. 96) Council Member Trautmann read staff report 96. City Manager Rodriguez thanked Council for their support. M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the Resolution amending the City’s Manager’s employment agreement with the City reflecting a salary adjustment. RESOLUTION NO. 11859 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, CITY MANAGER Council Members Whalen clarified staff did supply a comparison report of area city managers for Council review. Motion carried 5-0 Item #11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CITYWIDE ORGANIZED COLLECTION PROGRAM AND CONTRACT. (STAFF REPORT NO. 93) Council Member Trautmann presented staff report 93. City Manager Rodriguez thanked staff for all the hours put into this project and reviewed all the engagements staff completed. Sustainability Specialist Lindholm presented a review of an overall timeline, engagement done with the community, resident feedback collected, negotiation process, customer service concerns and next steps. Mayor Regan Gonzalez expressed appreciation for staff incorporated of resident comments and concerns. Council Member Trautmann recognized the importance of this item. He then referenced the phrase of ‘liquidated damages’ and explained the city has the ability to apply a penalty on a behalf of residents. Sustainability Specialist Lindholm explained the increase in communication between haulers and the city to assist in preventing issues and increasing customer service for residents. City Attorney Tietjen explained the goal is to open communication lines for everyone. She spoke of clauses built into the contract regarding monetary remedy to allow city staff to account for the time spent if a hauler becomes delinquent. Council Member Supple thanked Sustainability Specialist Lindholm for all the research she completed in making this project affordable. Council Meeting Minutes -8-June 8, 2021 Council Member Whalen thanked Sustainability Specialist Lindholm for the presentation and stated this has been an important item for residents for a long time. He also encouraged residents to continue to reach out with questions or concerns. Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked staff and expressed excitement in moving the sustainability needle in the right direction. Mayor Regan Gonzalez echoed comments of gratitude and spoke of how behind the city is regarding waste and recycling options. Council Member Trautmann praised Sustainability Specialist Lindholm for her dedication and efforts in the project along with the level of respect she has shown and continue to show residents. M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to approve a resolution to contract for residential organized collection, including trash collection, biweekly recycling, and a citywide organics program as base collection services. RESOLUTION NO. 11860 RESOLUTION APPROVING OF THE CONTRACT FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LICENSED RESIDENTIAL HAULERS SERVING RICHFIELD Motion carried 5-0 Item #12 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez congratulated Council Member Supple on her teaching retirement. She then reviewed an open forum comment from the June 8 meeting regarding social media posting. She also supplied a brief covid update and asked Council for discussion regarding mask wearing. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he would like to continue wearing masks at meetings. Council Member Trautmann stated his primary concern is risk of transmittance to other but would not mind lifting the mask mandate for meetings. Council Member Hayford Oleary offered to continue wearing masks though the end of June and then moving to voluntary. Council Member Supple agreed to wearing masks. Mayor Regan Gonzalez also agreed to wearing masks and asked staff to come back with recommendations on when and if to list the mask mandate during meetings. Item #13 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Supple, S/Trautmann that the following claims and payrolls be approved: Council Meeting Minutes -9- June 8, 2021 U.S. Bank 06/08/2021 A/P Checks 297256 – 297581 $ 1,146,830.75 Payroll: 162197 – 162497 43398 - 43400 723,732.11 TOTAL $ 1,870,562.86 Motion carried 5-0. Item #14 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Supple thanked everyone for the kind words and proclamation. She also spoke of attending the memorial at Vets Park and thanked the community members for putting on a wonderful event. She expressed excitement for consideration of proposals to decorate specific roundabouts. Council Member Whalen commented on the work session regarding a potential ban on conversion therapy and is excited to move forward with the work. He then commended the class of 2021 and wished them well. Council Member Trautmann congratulated Council Member Supple. He expressed excitement for the pool to reopen and encouraged residents to purchase discounted pool passes until June 10, 2021. Council Member Hayford Oleary congratulated Council Member Supple on her teaching retirement and the impact she has had on the school district. He also spoke of the projects on Portland Ave to include better pedestrian and biking access. Mayor Regan Gonzalez congratulated Council Member Supple again on her teaching achievements. Item #15 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:37 p.m. Date Approved: June 22, 2021 Maria Regan Gonzalez Mayor Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez Administrative Assistant City Manager AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 97 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 6/22/2021 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Olivia Wycklendt, C ivil E ngineer D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector 6/15/2021 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 6/16/2021 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consider the appr oval of the Small W ireless Facility Collocation Supplemental Agreements with Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon W ireless, that set for th the terms and conditions of collocation on wireless support structur es within C ity right-of-way. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: State legislation was passed in 2017 that established statewide requirements for c ities to allow wireless companies to install small c ell facility networks in the public right-of-way. The small cell fac ility networks are commonly known as "small cell wireless" equipment and distributed antenna sy stems. Although the legislation limited many actions the City c an take to control the plac ement of the small cell facilities in the public right-of-way, it did allow for the C ity to enac t a permitting process for the fac ilities. City Council approved amendments to the right-of-way ordinance (C ity Code Sec tion 802) in 2017 to provide additional controls and management if small c ell wireless c ompanies c hoose Richfield as an installation site. The c ode amendment inc luded the following requirement for a Small W ireless Facility Agreement: A smal l wi rel ess facil ity shall onl y be coll ocated on a smal l wirel ess support structure owned or control led by the city, or any other ci ty asset i n the right-of-way, after the appl i cant has executed a standard smal l wi reless faci l i ty coll ocation agreement wi th the ci ty. The agreements under c onsideration are required as stated in the Small W ireless Fac ility C ollocation Agreement between the City and Cellc o Partnership d/b/a Verizon W ireless, signed March 24, 2020. This supplement dic tates what spac e is leased by the City to C ellc o Partnership d/b/a Verizon W ireless, and the appropriate fees and rent for leasing this space. These supplemental agreements have been provided and signed by the Verizon representative. The City has reviewed and approved small cell permit applications for each of the supplemental agreements being approved at this time. Supplemental agreements being approved at this time are for the following locations: 6400 P illsbury Ave 6401 1st Ave RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By motion: Approve the Small W ireless Facility Collocation Supplemental Agreements with Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon W ireless, that set for th the terms and conditions of collocation on wireless support structur es within C ity right-of-way. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT W ireless and cellular service providers are looking for solutions to provide better and more reliable service to c ustomers. One method of enhancing service is to install "small c ell" antennas to fill in areas with poor existing coverage. State legislation was passed in 2017 that allows these antennas to be installed in the right-of-way. The C ity of Ric hfield adopted an ordinance on September 12, 2017 amending C ity Code Section 802 enac ting an agreement and permitting proc ess for small cell facilities within City right-of-way. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Sec tion 802 of the Ric hfield City Code depicts the C ity's c urrent prac tices of permitting the use within rights-of-way. Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, defines public right-of-way including management of standards and costs. Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and 2017 Session Laws, Chapter 94, amending the Act, are interpreted with c onsideration of small c ell wireless technology. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: The attac hed supplemental agreements must be in plac e before the City c an permit small cell fac ilities c ollocated on existing right-of-way support features. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: The City is allowed to c harge fees on the permit review as well as charge rent for fac ilities loc ated in the right-of-way and on C ity-owned support features. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available to answer questions. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: None AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Wolverine S C 05 S upplemental A greement C ontract/A greement Wolverine S C 06 S upplemental A greement C ontract/A greement Verizon Node: MN MIN RICH WOLVERINE 5 Created for the City of Richfield using League of Minnesota Cities Model Contract: Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement EXHIBIT A COLLOCATION AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT This Collocation Agreement Supplement (“Supplement”), is made this day of , 202_ between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota local government unit, with its principal offices located at 6700 Portland Avenue in Richfield, Minnesota 55423, (“Lessor”) and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal offices located at One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920, (“Lessee”). 1.SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY COLLOCATION AGREEMENT. This Supplement is a Supplement as referenced in that certain Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement between Lessor and Lessee, dated March 24th, 2020, (the “Agreement”). All of the terms and conditions of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the Agreement. In the event of a contradiction, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and this Supplement, the terms of this Supplement shall govern. Capitalized terms used in this Supplement shall have the same meaning described for them in the Agreement unless otherwise indicated herein. 2.PREMISES. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee certain spaces on and within Lessor's Property located at 6400 Pillsbury Ave S, Richfield, MN 55423, including the location of the Wireless Support Structure on the Property is shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Equipment Space, Antenna Space and Cabling Space are as shown on Exhibit 2, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3.TERM. The Commencement Date and the Term of this Supplement shall be as set forth in the Agreement. 4.CONSIDERATION. Rent under this Supplement shall be $175.00 per year, payable to the City of Richfield at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 as set forth in the Agreement Lessor is not providing electricity pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Agreement, therefore no annual electrical service fee shall be added to the annual rent due under this Supplement. 5.SITE SPECIFIC TERMS. NONE MIN MN MIN RICH WOLVERINE SC05 6400 PILLSBURY AVE SOUTH 849 SS ST ST W ST PILLSBURY AVE(PUBLIC R.O.W.)W. 64TH ST. (PUBLIC R.O.W.) MIN MN MIN RICH WOLVERINE SC05 6400 PILLSBURY AVE SOUTH NORTH Verizon Node: MN MIN RICH WOLVERINE 6 Created for the City of Richfield using League of Minnesota Cities Model Contract: Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement EXHIBIT A COLLOCATION AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT This Collocation Agreement Supplement (“Supplement”), is made this day of , 202_ between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota local government unit, with its principal offices located at 6700 Portland Avenue in Richfield, Minnesota 55423, (“Lessor”) and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal offices located at One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920, (“Lessee”). 1.SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY COLLOCATION AGREEMENT. This Supplement is a Supplement as referenced in that certain Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement between Lessor and Lessee, dated March 24th, 2020, (the “Agreement”). All of the terms and conditions of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the Agreement. In the event of a contradiction, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and this Supplement, the terms of this Supplement shall govern. Capitalized terms used in this Supplement shall have the same meaning described for them in the Agreement unless otherwise indicated herein. 2.PREMISES. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee certain spaces on and within Lessor's Property located at 6401 1st Ave S, Richfield, MN 55423, including the location of the Wireless Support Structure on the Property is shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Equipment Space, Antenna Space and Cabling Space are as shown on Exhibit 2, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3.TERM. The Commencement Date and the Term of this Supplement shall be as set forth in the Agreement. 4.CONSIDERATION. Rent under this Supplement shall be $175.00 per year, payable to the City of Richfield at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 as set forth in the Agreement Lessor is not providing electricity pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Agreement, therefore no annual electrical service fee shall be added to the annual rent due under this Supplement. 5.SITE SPECIFIC TERMS. NONE MIN MN MIN RICH WOLVERINE SC06 6401 1ST AVE SOUTH W W ST S 1ST AVE S.(PUBLIC R.O.W.)W. 64TH ST. (PUBLIC R.O.W.) MIN MN MIN RICH WOLVERINE SC06 6401 1ST AVE SOUTH NORTH AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 98 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 6/22/2021 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 6/16/2021 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consider the appr oval of an art installation at the roundabout at 67th S treet and Lyndale Avenue that would be a collaboration with The Richfield Arts C ommission, The Spread the Sunshine Gang, and city de partme nts in support and ce le bration of Pride and the LG B T QI A+ community. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: I n support of the community's L GB TQI A+ residents, an art installation has been proposed by the Richfield Arts Commission at 67th Street and Ly ndale Avenue roundabout (see map attachment). This loc ation was specifically chosen by City staff, as the roundabout is one-lane, slow speed, and owned by the City of Richfield. The Ric hfield A rts C ommission would like to inc orporate this art installation into a larger plan to paint two other City -owned roundabouts at a later date that are along the Ly ndale Avenue corridor (not at 66th Street and Ly ndale Avenue). The art installation inc ludes a simple ring of the six pride colors that will be painted with the appropriate paint for the concrete surfac e. The colors include: red, orange, y ellow, green, blue, and violet, eac h having their own significanc e. W ith safety support from Richfield Public W orks, several staff will be painting the surfaces; each individual color section is divided nicely with c onstruc ted breaks in the c oncrete. This project will be a semi-permanent show of celebration and support of the L QB TQI A+ community. Celebrating the vibrant diversity of Richfield is a c ore value, recognizing that our diverse culture is one of our greatest strengths and assets. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By motion: Approve the art installation at the roundabout at 67th Street and Lyndale Avenue that would be a collaboration with The Richfield Arts C ommission, The Spread the Sunshine Gang, and city departments in support and celebration of Pride and the L G B T Q IA+ community. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT J une is pride month and commemorates the S tonewall Riots in 1969, and has become a c ataly st for the gay rights movement and c elebration and support of all those who identify as LGB TQI A+. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): N/A C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: Per resolution, J une is L GB TQI A + Pride Month so it would be symbolic to approve this projec t this month and plan to install it in the summer of 2021. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Overall, the projec t c osts should be relatively minimal. The paint will need to be refreshed every 2-3 y ears to keep the six c olors looking great. Staff Time- sweep and prepare the round-about for painting, projec t planning and purc hasing of art supplies, c oordination of the safety of painters in the roundabout through Public W orks, painting the roundabout Art Supplies- $350 for paint and rollers (this is budgeted through the Richfield Arts C ommission and The Spread the Sunshine Gang). E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : N/A ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): The C ounc il may consider alternate locations for the project in Richfield. The C ounc il may decide not to approve the art project at this time. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type P ride Round-A bout L ocation Map C over Memo P ride Round-A bout A rt D epiction C over Memo 2021 P ride Month P roclamation C over Memo AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 99 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 6/22/2021 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Rachel L indholm D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector 6/14/2021 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 6/16/2021 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consider the appr oval of an organics drop-off site agreement between House of Prayer Lutheran Church and the C ity of Richfield. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The organics dumpster previously at Hope Church had to move in early J une due to construction projects at the c hurch. Staff identified House of Prayer Lutheran Churc h as a potential new site to host the drop-off program and c ollaborate on organics education. Churc h staff agreed to host the dumpster; the site is currently operational, with previous agreement from House of Prayer. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: Approve the site agreement. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT The Organic s D rop-off program launc hed in November 2018 with sites at W ood Lake Nature Center and Hope C hurch. The program has been very successful over the past few years with almost 1,000 households signed up to participate. Hope Churc h is undergoing construc tion during the Summer of 2021 and requested that the organics dumpster be removed for this project. Staff asked House of Prayer Churc h if they were interested in hosting the organic s dumpster and collaborating on organics education, to which they agreed. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): None C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: None D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Organics S i te A greement C ontract/A greement 1 ORGANICS DROP-OFF SITE AGREEMENT THIS ORGANICS DROP-OFF SITE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this 22nd day of June, 2021 by and among the City of Richfield, (the “City”) and House of Prayer Lutheran Church (the “Church”). RECITALS A. The City operates two organic drop-off sites that are free to the public and one of the site locations is proposed as being in the parking lot owned by House of Prayer Lutheran Church at 7625 Chicago Ave, Richfield, MN (the “Property”). B. The City has requested that House of Prayer Lutheran Church permit it the non- exclusive use of the Property to store an organic waste dumpster, a storage container for compostable bags, and to install and maintain signage at the Property. C. The Church is willing to allow the City use of the Property as an organic drop -off site pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Permit. The Church hereby grants the City and its invitees a permit of non- exclusive use of the Property for the purpose of collecting organic waste from the public pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City may not utilize the Property for any other purpose other than to store containers that are used to collect organic waste from the public. The City must use the Property in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 2. Dates and Hours of Access. The City and its invitees shall be permitted non-exclusive use of the Property for organics waste collection beginning on June 11, 2021. 3. Use. The City may use the Property to store and collect organic waste in a dumpster; to install and maintain signage at the drop off site that informs users of the guidelines of the organics collection program; and to store a small storage container to supply registered users certified compostable bags. The City shall contract with a hauler to collect the organic waste once or twice weekly. 4. Maintenance. The City will use reasonable efforts to monitor the site to ensure that the storage containers are in good working order and to check for and remedy any cleanliness issues. The Church will use reasonable efforts to notify the City’s Sustainability Specialist if the Church becomes aware of any maintenance issues that need to be addressed. 5. Term. This Agreement shall be effective beginning on June 11, 2021. 2 6. No Waiver. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under Minnesota Statutes or otherwise. 7. Termination. Either the City or the Church may terminate this Agreement at any time upon 60 days written notice to the other party. 8. Notices. A notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally as follows: a. To the City: Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Specialist 1901 E. 66th St. Richfield, MN 55423 b. To House of Prayer Lutheran Church: Cara Wright, Director of Operations & Communications 7625 Chicago Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 or at such other address that either party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section 9. 9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and may not be amended or modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 10. Governing Law; Forum. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is intended by the parties as the final and binding expression of their agreement and as the complete and exclusive statement of its terms. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements between the parties, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD By: ___________________________ Its Mayor By: ___________________________ Its City Manager HOUSE OF PRAYER LUTHERAN CHURCH By: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM #5. STAFF REPORT NO. 100 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 6/22/2021 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Ryan K rzos, P lanner D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, A cting C ommunity D evelopment D irector 6/14/2021 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 6/16/2021 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consider the second reading of an ordinance rezoning 23 properties in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park in order to be consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said or dinance. The proposed ordinance changes z oning designations of properties generally along 66th S treet and Portland Avenue to either a multi-family or commercial z oning designation in order to allow more intense development in the future. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: I n 2018, the City adopted a final Ric hfield Comprehensive Plan (Plan) to guide future growth within the City. This Plan is meant to inform decisions regarding land use, transportation, parks, and public fac ilities. Cities are required by State Law to ensure that their zoning ordinanc es are in complianc e with their Plan. This inc ludes changing the zoning designation (rezoning) of properties where necessary to align with the Plan. More recently, the City c ommissioned a study to determine the appropriate land use controls for the area in the vicinity of Veterans Park. The City Council will also c onsider the Veterans Park Area Study and a second reading of the acc ompany ing ordinance to establish an overlay zoning distric t at the same meeting as this item. The proposed overlay distric t relies on the properties in the study area being zoned for the uses contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. City staff has identified 23 properties within the study area where the c urrent zoning designation does not align with the rec ommended Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, or C ommunity Commercial uses presc ribed by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed ordinanc e would rezone those 23 identified properties to the c orresponding zoning district designations of Multifamily Residential (MR-2), High- Density Residential (MR-3), and General Business (C-2). Regardless of the City 's decision on the study and overlay distric t, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning in order to ac hieve the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan that is required by State Law. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By motion: 1. Approve a second reading of an ordinance rez oning 23 properties in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approve a r esolution authoriz ing summary publication of said ordinance. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT Planned land use designations for the subject parcels have largely remained consistent over the past generations of Comprehensive P lanning efforts. The American Legion property has been consistently guided for high-density residential uses over this period, as have the medium density residential uses along Portland Avenue and 66th Street. The zoning designation of the subjec t properties has similarly remained largely unc hanged over the last several decades. Past practic e has been to rezone single-family properties that do not align with the Comprehensive Plan only in areas that are ripe for investment or when a project comes forward. Although technic ally required by Law to rezone all parc els to match their Comprehensive Plan designation, staff has made Metropolitan Council staff aware of this polic y and it has been accepted. Given the fact that the City has now undertaken a spec ific study of this area and is adopting specific zoning guidance, it is appropriate to rezone properties. On May 24, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. During the public hearing, members of the public expressed c oncern over additional multiple-family uses in the area and had their questions regarding nonc onformities created by the rezoning addressed by staff. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning as proposed. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Minnesota Statutes Sec tion 473.858 requires that cities amend their zoning ordinanc e so as to not c onflict with the Comprehensive P lan. Current zoning regulations of the subjec t properties do not adequately regulate development to be in conformance with ac companying Medium Density Residential, High D ensity Residential and Community Commerc ial future land uses set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning ordinance would c hange the zoning for the subjec t properties to the corresponding zoning designation, affec ting the following properties: R to MR-3: 6501 Portland Ave; R to C -2: 6505 Portland Ave; MR-2 to C-2 6611 Chicago Ave and the South 75 ft of 817 66th S t E; R to MR-2: 6601 5th Ave, 6617, 6621, 6625, 6629, 6633, 6637, 6645 Portland Ave, 6601, 6609, 6615 Oakland Ave, 6600, 6608, 6611 Park Ave, 701 66th S t E, 6600, 6601, 6609, 6610, 6615 C olumbus Ave. Changing the zoning designation c an c reate a situation where the existing use of the property conflic ts with the allowable uses in the new distric t. W hen this conflict oc curs through the rezoning process the properties obtain what is c alled a legal nonc onforming status. The property rights afforded to legal nonc onforming properties are established by State Statute Section 462.357 Subd. 1e. and the City 's Zoning Code Section 509.25. Through theses protections, owners may use their property in the current manner indefinitely. Property owners may sell the property and the future owner may use the property in the same manner. P roperty owners can repair and generally make improvements to the property; and replac e structures destroy ed by peril. The new zoning district regulations will impact the future use of the property if it is redeveloped or if the use changes. Summary publication of adopted ordinanc es is permitted when the verbatim text of the amendment is c umbersome, and the expense of public ation of the complete text is not justified. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: Cities have nine months following adoption of a C omprehensive Plan to amend their ordinances to conform with the C omprehensive Plan. This grouping of properties is being brought forward at this time to c oincide with c onsideration of the Portland Avenue and 66th S treet Sub-area study and overlay zoning distric t. An additional rezoning ordinance for a group of properties not currently matc hing the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed at a public hearing at the J une P lanning C ommission meeting. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : A public hearing on the rezoning was held before the Planning Commission on May 24, 2021. Notic e of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the site. Minutes from the May 24, 2021 Planning C ommission meeting are inc luded as an attac hment to the report for the c onsideration of the Veterans Park Area Study and Overlay Zoning District which is also on this meeting's agenda. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): None. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: Property owners in and around the subject area. AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Ordinance - Rezone Veteran's P ark A rea Ordinance S ummary P ublication Resolution Resolution L etter 2040 C omp P lan D esignations E xhibit Zoning Map E xhibit D raft P lanning C ommission Minutes May 24, 2021 E xhibit ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING LAND IN THE VICINITY OF VETERAN’S MEMORIAL PARK IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Paragraph 56, Section 3 of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code (General Commercial District (C-2)) is amended to read as follows: (56) M-9 (SE corner, 66th and Chicago). Lots 1, 2, and 3, 4, and 15, Block 3, Terrace Gardens Addition. (Amended, Bill No. 2010-22) Sec. 2. Section 3 (General Commercial District (C-2)) is amended to add a new Paragraph 95 to read as follows: (95) M-5 (Portland N of 66th). That part of the West 1/2 of Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract 434.12 feet North of the West Quarter corner; thence North along the West line of said section, 75 feet; thence East parallel with the East and West center line of said section, 280.3 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said section, 75 feet; thence West parallel with the said East and West center line of said section, 280.3 feet to the point of beginning; Except the East 50 feet thereof. Sec. 3. Section 14 of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code (High Density Multiple Residential (MR-3)) is amended to add a new Paragraph 35 to read as follows: (35) M-5 (“Legion Property”). Par 1: The East 50 feet of that part of the West 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24 West described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West Line of said tract 434.12 feet North of the West Quarter corner; thence North along the West line of said Section 75 feet; thence East parallel with the East and West center line of said Section, 280.3 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Section 75 feet; thence West parallel with the said East and West center line of said Section, 280.3 feet to the point of beginning. Par 2: The West 540 feet of that part of the West 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24 West described as follows: Beginning at the West Quarter corner of Section 26; thence North along the Westerly boundary line of said Section 26 a distance of 509.12 feet for the point of commencement of the tract of land to be described herein, thence North along the Westerly boundary line of said section, a distance of 200 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the East and West center line of said Section 26, a distance of 964.125 feet more or less to a point which is 320.43 feet West of the North and South center line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26; thence South parallel with the said North and South center line of said Section 26, 113.55 feet more or less to a judicial landmark; thence South along a straight line which if produced would intersect a judicial landmark in the East and West center line of said Section 26 at a distance of 964.125 feet East of the West Quarter corner of said Section to a point in said line which is 509.12 feet North of the East and West center line of said Section 26, measured on a line parallel with the West line of said Section; thence West parallel with the East and West center line of said Section, 964.125 feet more or less to the point of commencement. Par 3: The West 540 feet of that part of the West 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24 West described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Section, 709.12 feet North, measured along the West line of said Section, from the West Quarter corner of said section, thence East parallel with the East and West center line of said Section, 964.125 feet more or less to a point which is 320.43 feet West of the North and South center line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26, thence North 123.51 feet more or less to a judicial landmark; thence North a distance of 26.49 feet more or less along a line which if produced would intersect a judicial landmark 499.96 feet North of said first mentioned judicial landmark and 319.81 feet West of the North and South center line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26 to its point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with the East and West center line of said Section and 859.12 feet North of said East and West center line measured along the West line of said Section thence West along said last mentioned line 960.96 feet more or less to the West line of said Section; thence Southerly along said West line, a distance of 150 feet to the point of beginning. Sec. 4. Section 13 of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code (Multiple Family Residential District (MR-2)) is amended to add a new Paragraph 53 to read as follows: (53) M-8 (SE corner, 66th and 5th Ave). Lots 22 23, and 24, Block 1, and the west 1/2 of the vacated alley adjoining said Lots, McCutchan's Portland Avenue Park Addition. Sec.5. Section 13 (Multiple Family Residential District (MR-2)), Paragraph 42 is repealed. (42) M-9 (SE corner, 66th and Chicago). Lots 4 and 15, Block 3, Terrace Garden Addition. (Added, Bill No. 2010-22) Sec. 6. Section 13 (Multiple Family Residential District (MR-2)), Paragraph 43 is amended to read as follows: (43) M-9 (E side of Portland Ave, near S of 66th). Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 034, and the West 1/2 of Lot 26, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340. (Added, Bill No. 2010-22) Sec. 7. Section 13 (Multiple Family Residential District (MR-2)), Paragraph 21 is amended to read as follows: (21) M-9 (SW corner, 66th and Chicago S side of 66th between Oakland and Chicago) Lots 1, 2, and 3, 14, 15, and 16, Okstad Addition; and Lots 3, 4, 15, 16, and 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340; and Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14, Alm’s Addition. Sec. 8. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 1) rezone 6501 Portland Avenue from R to MR-3: 2) rezone 6505 Portland Avenue from R to C-2; 3) rezone 6611 Chicago Avenue and the South 75 ft of 817 66th Street E from MR-2 to C-2; and 4) rezone 6601 5th Ave, 6617, 6621, 6625, 6629, 6633, 6637, and 6645 Portland Avenue, 6601, 6609, and 6615 Oakland Ave, 6600, 6608, and 6611 Park Ave, 701 66th St E, and 6600, 6601, 6609, 6610, and 6615 Columbus Ave from R to MR-2. Sec. 9 This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 2021. Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Sinning, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING LAND IN THE VICINITY OF VETERAN’S MEMORIAL PARK IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced interim amendment of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the interim amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING LAND IN THE VICINITY OF VETERAN’S MEMORIAL PARK IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance rezones 23 properties in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park in order to be consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance changes zoning designations of property generally along 66th Street and Portland Avenue to either a multi-family or commercial zoning designation in order to allow more intense development in the future. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 2021. Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Sinning, City Clerk PORTLAND AVEELLIOT AVECOLUMBUS AVEOAKLAND AVECHICAGO AVEPARK AVE66TH ST E 67TH ST EPORTLAND AVE5TH AVE S± 2040 Comprehensive Plan Designations I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2021\Veteran's Park Rezoning PLU.mxd 2040 Comprehensive Plan Designations Mixed Use Regional Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Park Quasi-Public Right-of-Way (ROW) Veteran's Park Area Rezoning 0 300 600150ft Case No: 21-RZN-03 PropertyProposed forRezoning 12TH AVE S11TH AVE S64TH ST E 67TH ST E ELLIOT AVECOLUMBUS AVEOAKLAND AVECHICAGO AVEPARK AVE10TH AVE S66TH ST E 63RD ST E PORTLAND AVE5TH AVE SR R R R C-2 C-2 C-2 MR-1 MR-1 MR-2 MR-2 ± Existing Zoning 0 400 800200ft I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2021\Veterans Park Rezoning_v3.mxd Case No: 21-RZN-03 Veterans Park Area Rezoning MR-3 C-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 C-2 12TH AVE S11TH AVE S64TH ST E 67TH ST E ELLIOT AVECOLUMBUS AVEOAKLAND AVECHICAGO AVEPARK AVE10TH AVE S66TH ST E 63RD ST E PORTLAND AVE5TH AVE SProposed Zoning 0 400 800200ft Zoning Districts R Single-Family R-1 Low-Density Single-Family MR-1 Two-Family PMR Planned Multi-Family MR-2 Multi-Family MR-2/CAC Multi-Fam + Cedar Overlay MR-3 High-Density Multi-Family SO Service Office C-1 Community Commercial C-2 General Commercial PC-2 Planned General Commercial PMU Planned Mixed Use MU-C Mixed Use-Community MU-C/CAC Mixed Use + Cedar Overlay MU-C/PAC Mixed Use + Penn Overlay MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood MU-R Mixed Use-Regional I Industrial Property Proposedfor Rezoning Proposed VeteransPark OverlayBoundary Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Kathryn Quam, Commissioners Brendan Kennealy, Susan Rosenberg, Peter Lavin, James Rudolph, and Brett Stursa MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Bryan Pynn STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, Asst. Director of Community Development; Ryan Krzos, Planner; Nellie Jerome, Assistant Planner OTHERS PRESENT: For Item #1: Lance Bernard and Jeff Miller, HKGi. See attached list for residents who gave public comments. Chairperson Quam called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Rudolph, S/Stursa to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2021, meeting. Motion carried: 5-0 (Commissioner Rosenberg was absent for the vote) OPEN FORUM No members of the public spoke, no comments received. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Quam, S/Kennealy to approve the agenda. Motion carried: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1 - Consider a recommendation of approval of the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study as a guiding document; and the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District. Assistant Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report. Lance Bernard, HKGi, presented the potential overlay development modeling and the community study feedback. M/Kennealy, S/Lavin to take a five minute recess. Motion carried: 6-0 Robin Jacobson, 6601and 6609 Oakland Ave; Linda Seime, 6438 5th Ave; Jon & Sandy Clay, 6600 Columbus; Lori Grotz, 6214 5th Ave; and Kent Fairbairn, 7020 Stevens Ave, provided comments related to the height of future buildings, heavy traffic, the view and aesthetics of the park from surrounding areas, and disapproval of the existing comprehensive plan designation within the study area. M/Quam, S/Rosenberg to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 6-0 Commissioners discussed the potential for a future extension of Oakland Ave, the parking needs of the park and Legion site, building setback, and building height. M/Quam, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of the attached Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study; and to recommend approval of the attached ordinance establishing the Portland 2 Avenue and 66th Street (PSS) Overlay District regulations for properties in the vicinity of Veteran's Memorial Park. M/Quam, S/Lavin to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to limit the height of buildings to 4 stories or fifty feet, whichever is less. Motion carried: 6-0 M/Rudolph, S/Lavin to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to remove the possibility of having a road north of 66th Street, into the development, either on Oakland Ave o through the park. Motion failed: 2-4 (Lavin and Rudolph voted in support of the amendment) M/Lavin, S/Quam to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to consider modifying the quantity of parking language to establish parking needs at minimal levels necessary to service specific project developments while limiting impact to surrounding neighbors. Motion carried: 4-2 (Stursa and Rosenberg voted against the amendment) M/Quam, S/Lavin to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to add, in section 541.25, Subdivision 1, under Park and Neighborhood Connectivity, “wheelchair/walker,” after the word “pedestrian”. Motion carried: 6-0 M/Quam, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of the attached Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study; and to recommend approval of the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street (PSS) Overlay District with the three approved amendments: to limit the height of buildings to 4 stories or fifty feet, whichever is less; to modify the development principal statement about parking to establish parking needs at a minimal level necessary to service developments while limiting neighborhood impacts; and, to modify section 541.25, Subdivision 1, under Park and Neighborhood Connectivity, to include “wheelchair/walker,” after the word “pedestrian”. Motion carried: 4-2 (Lavin and Rudolph voted against the amendment) M/Rudolph, S/Lavin to take a five minute recess. Motion carried: 6-0 ITEM #2 - Conduct a public hearing and consider a recommendation on an ordinance rezoning property in the vicinity of Veteran's Memorial Park. Assistant Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report for rezoning these parcels to meet with the 2040 Comprehensive plan, an action required by State Statute 473.858. Commissioners and staff discussed parcels that would be rezoned and would therefore contain legally nonconforming uses. Staff clarified that legally nonconforming uses may be repaired, maintained, and improved in perpetuity. Jon & Sandy Clay, 6600 Columbus Ave, and Robin Jacobson, 6601 Oakland Ave, provided comments related to disapproval of the rezoning, and asked about limits on improving and expanding homes that would be legally nonconforming after being rezoned. Asst. Community Development Director Poehlman clarified that nonconforming uses may add additional bedrooms, but not additional dwelling units. Asst. Director Poehlman added that the 3 Comprehensive Plan has already guided these properties for future use and the City is required to follow through on the plans, per State Statute. M/Quam, S/Kennealy to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 6-0 M/Stursa, S/Quam to recommend approval of an ordinance rezoning property in the vicinity of Veteran's Memorial Park. Motion carried: 6-0 LIAISON REPORTS Community Services Advisory Commission: the inclusive playground is now going in, and bids for two additional playgrounds will be reviewed this week. The pool will be open at full capacity this summer, and the band shell will also be used for programming. The planning for the 65- year-old pool line replacement is starting. City Council: Woodlake is celebrating their 50th anniversary, and the Council is making final plans for the organized trash hauling, and public hearing is set for June 1. Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA): the HRA authorized staff to work on discharging the discriminatory covenant on HRA-owned properties, as part of the Just Deeds project. Inclusionary Housing Policy revisions were also approved, leading the way for deeper affordability and ADA accessibility. Richfield School Board: no report. Transportation Commission: the most recent meeting was cancelled, no report. Chamber of Commerce: (none) Sustainability Commission: (none) CITY PLANNER’S REPORT We will return to in-person meetings next month, as the Mayor is planning to rescind the Emergency Order. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting will be Monday, June 28, 2021, at 7pm M/Kennealy, S/Lavin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried: 5-0 (Rosenberg was absent for the vote) The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:28 p.m. __________________________ Planning Commission Secretary Public comments were received at the May 24, 2021, Richfield Planning Commission meeting from the following callers: Item #1: Robin Jacobson – gave two addresses 6601 Oakland Ave and 6609 Oakland Ave Linda Seime – 6438 5th Ave Jon & Sandy Clay – 6600 Columbus Lori Grotz – 6214 5th Ave Kent Fairbairn – 7020 Stevens Ave Itam #2: Jon & Sandy Clay 6600 Columbus Robin Jacobson 6601/6609 Oakland AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM #6. STAFF REPORT NO. 101 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 6/22/2021 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, A cting C ommunity D evelopment D irector 6/14/2021 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 6/16/2021 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consider appr oval of: 1. A resolution adopting the attached Por tland & 66th Sub Area Study. 2. A se cond re ading of an ordinance establishing regulations for a new Vete rans Park Are a Ov erlay District and re zoning propertie s within the Ve te rans Park Area to be subje ct to said regulations. 3. A resolution authoriz ing summary publication of said ordinance. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: On December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted a seven-month moratorium on land use applications for many properties in the area surrounding Veterans Memorial Park (Veterans Park). T he moratorium provided time to conduct a planning study and evaluate whether or not current zoning regulations were consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and would effectively guide development in this unique area. After six months of outreach and research, staff is rec ommending that the Council approve the Portland & 66th Sub Area S tudy (Study) and adopt the attac hed ordinanc e creating the Veterans Park Area (V PA) Overlay Zoning D istrict. Together the Study and V PA Overlay Distric t will guide future development and ensure that private and public investments in the area work together for mutual benefit. T he attached Study documents the engagement process undertaken, the existing policy analysis, and then describes the Development Principles and VPA Overlay District regulations recommended for adoption. T he proposed Development Principles are intended to help express the community's expectations for development in the area of Veterans Park and were developed using community input and direction from City staff and elected leaders. In order to achieve the Development Principles, the creation of a VPA Overlay District is recommended. T he Overlay District regulations will modify the underlying or base zoning regulations to specifically adapt to this unique area. T he regulations of the underlying district will apply unless specifically modified by the Overlay District. Full regulations are available in the attached ordinance; primary changes include: Allowing some mixing of residential and commerc ial uses within single buildings. Allowing multiple buildings on exceptionally large parc els (greater than two ac res). Requiring a variety of housing ty pes in larger developments. Reducing front yard setbac ks along major thoroughfares and specifically requiring landscaping of rear and side setbac k areas that are adjacent to Veterans Park. Requiring pedestrian connec tions along site perimeters in order to provide c onnections between public streets and public amenities. I ncreasing allowable height by 5 feet to acc ommodate potential ground floor c ommercial in the High Density Residential (MR-3) District, but also adding step back requirements for frontages along public streets and public land. Requires tree preservation and a shadow study as part of all development applications adjac ent to Veterans Park. Based on the June 8 Council action and discussion, the following modifications have been made to the attached ordinance: Development P rinc iple addressing "Park & Neighborhood Connectivity" has been modified to incorporate the words "wheelc hair/walker". Development P rinc iple addressing "Quantity of Parking" has been modified to add "while limiting neighborhood impac ts." Added requirement to submit a Bird Collision Reduc tion Plan as a part of new or substantially new development application. W hile the proposed Zoning Overlay District will apply to future development, it does not require any changes to existing parcels. I f and when property owners in the area dec ide to sell to a developer or redevelop their land on their own, the new regulations would apply. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By motion: 1. Approv e a se cond re ading of the attached ordinance e stablishing regulations for a ne w Ve te rans Park Area Ov erlay District and rezoning prope rties to be subject to said Ov erlay District re gulations. 2. Appr ove the attached resolution adopting the Portland & 66th Sub Area Study. 3. Appr ove the attached resolution authoriz ing summary publication of an ordinance establishing regulations for a new Veterans Park Ar ea Overlay D istrict and rez oning properties to be subject to said Over lay D istrict regulations. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT Veterans P ark is an important community asset, providing year-round recreational opportunities for Ric hfield residents and visitors. The 108-ac re park includes important fac ilities (ic e arena, pool, mini-golf, band shell), as well as as natural spac e, and the Veteran's Memorial. T he City's Comprehensive Plan guides land uses along the edge of the Park, along Portland Avenue and 66th Street, as a mix of low to high density residential and community commercial, but provides no specific guidance for how these parcels relate to the Park itself. Planned land use designations in Veterans Park area have changed only slightly over the past 25 years, modestly expanding and contracting the c ommercial areas at the 66th & Portland interchange and vary ing residential densities along both streets. The Legion site has been guided for higher density housing since 1997. The C ity most recently studied the 66th Street portion of the proposed study area in partnership with Hennepin County, prior to the road reconstruction (2011). I dentified next steps inc luded continued collaboration with property owners in the area of Veterans Park to strengthen the relationship between public and private spac es. The moratorium temporarily halted land use applic ations for properties with a Planned Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential, High D ensity Residential, or C ommunity Commercial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): An Overlay D istrict creates a set of regulations that are specifically tailored to a particular area. Underlying Zoning D istrict regulations will apply unless specifically modified by the Overlay Distric t. As a separate action tonight, the Council will be asked to consider a second reading of an amendment to the base or underlying zoning of several parcels in the study area. State Law specifically requires that the City modify base zoning districts to match the Comprehensive Plan. This required ac tion has been deliberately separated from the disc retionary ac tion of adopting the Overlay Distric t Regulations. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 24. T he Planning Commission recommended approval (6-2; Lavin, Rudolph dissenting) of the Study and ordinance with amendments as follows: 1. Reduce the allowable height limit in the M R-3 District to 4 stories or 50 feet whichever is less. (6-0) 2. Replace the Quantity of Parking Development Principal to read: "Establish parking needs at minimum needed to service specific development while limiting neighborhood impacts." (4-2; Rosenberg, Stursa dissenting) 3. Modify the language in the Park & Neighborhood Connectivity Development Principal to read: "Increase connectivity to Veterans Memorial Park by incorporating vehicle, pedestrian, wheelchair/walker, and bicycle connections between park destinations..." (6-0) An additional amendment to remove the requirement that sites north of 66th Street plan internal traffic c irculation to leave open the possibility of a north-south road on the west side of the pool failed (2-4; Quam, Rosenberg, Stursa, Kennealy dissenting). Summary publication of adopted ordinanc es is permitted when the verbatim text of the amendment is c umbersome, and the expense of public ation of the complete text is not justified. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: The moratorium is sc heduled to expire on J une 24, 2021. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : Notic e of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper. While not legally required, notice of the hearing was also sent to individual property owners and tenants in the area. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): Approve a sec ond reading of the attached ordinanc e with modific ations. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: Lanc e Bernard & J eff Miller, HK Gi (land use c onsultants) AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Resolution - A dopt P ortland & 66th S tudy Resolution L etter Ordinance Ordinance Resolution - S ummary P ublication Resolution L etter P ortland Avenue & 66th S treet S tudy E xhibit Map - Moratori um A rea E xhibit Zoning Map E xhibit D raft P C minutes May 24, 2021 E xhibit A dd'l P ubli c C omment (Written)E xhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB AREA STUDY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has undertaken a study to determine the appropriate land use controls for the area in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park; and WHEREAS, the outcome of this study is a document entitled Portland and 66th Sub Area Study; and WHEREAS, the Portland and 66th Sub Area Study provides important guidance for the redevelopment of land in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the adoption of a Veterans Park Area Overlay Zoning District based on the information presented in the Portland and 66th Sub Area Study; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the context provided by the Portland and 66th Sub Area Study is valuable in guiding future development and should be considered in the development review process, similar to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other redevelopment district plans; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Portland and 66th Sub Area Study is hereby approved and adopted to serve as a guiding document in the development review process for parcels in the Veterans Park Area Overlay District. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 2021. Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Sinnig, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR A NEW VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT; AMENDING SUBSECTION 512.01 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY CREATING NEW SUBSECTION 541.25; AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA OF PORTLAND AVENUE AND 66TH STREET TO BE SUBJECT TO VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 512.01, Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 512.01. Zoning districts. Subdivision 1. Establishment of districts. In order to carry out the purposes and provisions of this code, the city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: Residential Districts Single Family Residential R Low Density Single Family Residential R-1 Two Family Residential MR-1 Multi-Family Residential MR-2 High Density Multi-Family Residential MR-3 Commercial Districts Service Office S-O Neighborhood Business C-1 General Commercial C-2 Mixed-Use Districts Mixed-Use Regional MU-R Mixed-Use Community MU-C Mixed-Use Neighborhood MU-N Industrial Districts Industrial I Planned Unit Development Districts Planned Residential PR Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-1 Planned General Commercial PC-2 Overlay Districts Airport Runway Overlay District AR Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District PAC Cedar Avenue Corridor Overlay District CAC Veterans Park Area Overlay District VPA Sec. 2. Section 541 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding new subsections after Subsection 541.23, the new subsections to read as follows: 541.25. Veterans Park Area (VPA) Overlay District. Subdivision 1. Purpose and intent. The Veterans Park Area Overlay District promotes both redevelopment of existing structures and new development to provide a balanced mix of compatible uses in proximity to the Veterans Memorial Park. Design regulations are provided to produce structures of consistent character and of appropriate scale that transition from single family residential to higher density mixed use and community commercial. The intent of the Overlay District is to guide the design character of redevelopment and revitalization in ways that are sensitive to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and its surrounding land uses, while adhering to the Portland & 66th Sub Area Study’s guidance and Development Principles: • Personal Connections: Support redevelopment projects that preserves and enhances the ability of residents and users of Veterans Memorial Park to make personal connections to the park. • Park & Neighborhood Connectivity: Increase connectivity to Veterans Memorial Park by incorporating vehicle, pedestrian, wheelchair/walker, and bicycle connections between park destinations (e.g., the Memorial, lake, ice arena, and swimming pool), neighborhoods, and redevelopment sites along Portland Avenue and 66th Street. • Diversify Housing Options: Use redevelopment sites to expand the mix of housing in the area such as row/townhouse, affordable units, courtyard apartments, courtyard cottages, and live-work units. • Convenient Commercial: Encourage a mix of community and small neighborhood commercial businesses in proximity to residential areas and the park destinations as an important amenity for residents and park visitors. • Sustainable Development: Use sustainable design practices and new technology in developments that will help create a healthy, sustainable, vibrant neighborhood, and contribute to the park environment. • Building Transition: Require site design and building architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions between single family residential neighborhoods and higher intensity uses. • Building Heights: Locate the tallest portions of buildings away from adjacent low density residences. For sites adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, locate the tallest portions of buildings away from the park’s open areas. • Building Massing: Locate and design buildings to preserve views to/from the park’s open areas and minimize potential shadowing of the park. • Quantity of Parking: Minimize parking needs by leveraging the study area’s location along multimodal corridors to reduce the use of the automobile while limiting neighborhood impacts. Subd. 2. Creation of district and applicability. The Veterans Park Area (VPA) Overlay District shall apply to properties designated within Appendix 1 of this Code. Subd. 3. Applicable regulations. All permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in the underlying Districts shall be allowed in the VPA Overlay District with the following additions, qualifications, and/or exceptions. The following abbreviations are used below: Permitted use - P Accessory use – A Conditional use - C a) MR-3 in the VPA Overlay District: • Offices and clinics – A • Restaurants Class I (serving alcohol) – A/C • Restaurant Class II (traditional/cafeteria) – A • Restaurant Class IV (take-out only) – A • Retail services, general – A • Retail services, neighborhood – A • Taproom/cocktail room – A/C • Additions for accessory uses: o All accessory uses shall be contained within the principal residential building. o All accessory uses shall have street frontage. o All accessory uses shall be located on the ground floor and shall not exceed 15,000 square feet. b) C-2 in the VPA Overlay District: • Assisted living facilities, nursing, or rest homes above ground floor commercial – P • Dwelling, multifamily above ground floor commercial – P • Live-work units above ground floor commercial - P Subd. 4. Bulk and dimensional standards. All bulk and dimensional standards applicable in the underlying districts, as found in Subsections 525.11 (MR-2), 527.11 (MR-3), and 534.11 (C-2) of this Code, shall apply in the VPA Overlay District with the following additions, qualifications, and/or exceptions: a) MR-2 in the VPA Overlay District: • Front yard setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 10 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet along. • Parking shall be located in the rear and/or side yards of the building. b) MR-3 in the VPA Overlay District: • Building height: The principal building heights shall be a minimum of 20 feet and up to a maximum of 55 feet or 5 stories, whichever is less. o Building heights shall be measured from the building footprint’s average ground level elevation. o Floors above the third floor shall be stepped back a minimum of 15 feet when adjacent to public streets and public land. Step backs may be adjusted depending on specific site conditions and building placements. • Maximum building coverage: 40% • Front yard setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 15 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet. • Rear and side yard setbacks: When adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, the required rear and side yard setbacks shall prioritize greenspace and landscaping as a transition/buffer to the Park. c) C-2 in the VPA Overlay District: • Front yard setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 15 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet. • Rear and side yard setbacks: When adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, the required rear and side yard setbacks shall prioritize greenspace and landscaping as a transition/buffer to the Park. • Parking shall be located in the rear and/or side yards of the building. Subd. 5. Other performance standards. All additional performance standards applicable in underlying districts shall apply in the VPA District with the following additions, qualifications, and/or exceptions: a) MR-2 in the VPA Overlay District: • A minimum of one primary building entrance shall face Portland Avenue or 66th Street depending on where the property is located. • Properties directly adjacent to or across the street from Veterans Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50% of the existing square footage of a building shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application. b) MR-3 in the VPA Overlay District: • Residential development shall include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the study area. • A lot larger than two (2) acres is allowed to include a second building for all permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in the MR-3 District. • The two buildings shall be grouped into a single polygon to assess compliance with required setbacks. • Existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible. • Pedestrian facilities shall be placed along the site’s perimeter to provide walking connections between the public street and public amenities such as Veterans Memorial Park. • Stormwater shall be managed onsite by using best management practices, such as raingardens, green roofs, and bio-infiltration swales to create aesthetically pleasing and useable public spaces or underground systems. • Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street. • A shadow study shall be required as part of the development review process to evaluate potential impacts of shadowing on adjacent properties, measured by the sun’s position at the time of the summer solstice. • A minimum of one primary building entrance is required on each street façade and at least one building entrance every 75 feet of each street façade. • Properties directly adjacent to or across the street from Veterans Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50% of the existing square footage of a building shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application. c) C-2 in the VPA Overlay District: • Existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible. • Pedestrian facilities shall be placed along the site’s perimeter to provide walking connections between the public street and public amenities such as, Veterans Memorial Park. • Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street. • Stormwater shall be managed onsite by using best management practices, such as raingardens, green roofs, and bio-infiltration swales to create aesthetically pleasing and useable public spaces or underground systems. • Properties directly adjacent to or across the street from Veterans Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50% of the existing square footage of a building shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application. Sec. 3. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding a new Section 22 to read as follows: Section 22. Veterans Park Area Overlay District (VPA) (1) M-4,5,9. Properties zoned as C-2, MR-2, or MR-3 as described in Sections 3, 13, or 14 of this Appendix, in that area lying between the center lines of Highway 62 and 67th Street East and the center lines of 5th Avenue South and 11th Avenue South. (2) M-5 (NE corner, 11th Avenue and 66th). Lot 9, Block 2, Eliason Fourth Addition. (3) M-5 (SE corner, 11th Avenue and 66th). The West 1/2 of Lot 1, Block 1, Jerpbak’s First Addition. Sec. 9. This ordinance constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 6501 Portland Ave S, 6505 Portland Ave S, 6527 Portland Ave S, 500 66th Street East, 6601 5th Ave S, 6600 Portland Ave S, 6601 Portland Ave S, 6613 Portland Ave S, 6617 Portland Ave S, 6621 Portland Ave S, 6625 Portland Ave S, 6629 Portland Ave S, 6633 Portland Ave S, 6637 Portland Ave S, 6645 Portland Ave S, 6601 Oakland Ave S, 6609 Oakland Ave S, 6615 Oakland Ave S, 6600 Park Ave S, 6608 Park Ave S, 701 66th St E, 6611 Park Ave S, 6600 Columbus Ave S, 6610 Columbus Ave S, 6601 Columbus Ave S, 6609 Columbus Ave S, 6615 Columbus Ave S, 6600 Chicago Ave S, 811 66th St E, 6611 Chicago Ave S, 817 66th St E, 901 66th St E, 6600 10th Ave S, 1001 66th St E, 1015 66th St E, 6601 11th Ave S, 1100 66th St E Sec. 10. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Sinning, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR A NEW VETERNS PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF PORTLAND AVENUE AND 66TH STREET TO BE SUBJECT TO SAID OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced amendment of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR A NEW VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT; AMENDING SUBSECTION 512.01 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY CREATING NEW SUBSECTION 541.25; AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA OF PORTLAND AVENUE AND 66TH STREET TO BE SUBJECT TO VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance establishes additional or modified zoning regulations for properties in the vicinity of Veterans Memorial Park near the intersection of Portland Avenue and 66th Street. Regulations establish design principles, allowable uses, bulk and dimensional standards for buildings, landscape and setback requirements for sites, and additional application requirements. This ordinance applies these rules to the following properties: 6501 Portland Ave S, 6505 Portland Ave S, 6527 Portland Ave S, 500 66th Street East, 6601 5th Ave S, 6600 Portland Ave S, 6601 Portland Ave S, 6613 Portland Ave S, 6617 Portland Ave S, 6621 Portland Ave S, 6625 Portland Ave S, 6629 Portland Ave S, 6633 Portland Ave S, 6637 Portland Ave S, 6645 Portland Ave S, 6601 Oakland Ave S, 6609 Oakland Ave S, 6615 Oakland Ave S, 6600 Park Ave S, 6608 Park Ave S, 701 66th St E, 6611 Park Ave S, 6600 Columbus Ave S, 6610 Columbus Ave S, 6601 Columbus Ave S, 6609 Columbus Ave S, 6615 Columbus Ave S, 6600 Chicago Ave S, 811 66th St E, 6611 Chicago Ave S, 817 66th St E, 901 66th St E, 6600 10th Ave S, 1001 66th St E, 1015 66th St E, 6601 11th Ave S, 1100 66th St E Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 2021. Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Sinnig, City Clerk PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN | JUNE 2021 PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN02 STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of the Portland Avenue & 66th Street Sub Area Study is to guide future private development in proximity to Veterans Memorial Park. The 2040 Richfield Comprehensive Plan recognizes Veterans Memorial Park as one of the City’s premier destinations and envisions ways to strengthen development in the area. The Comprehensive Plan guides land in the vicinity of the park for a mix of uses, including medium to high-density residential and community commercial. The Plan does not provide guidance about how private redevelopment in the area will interact with Veterans Memorial Park. To help ensure that private investments work in harmony with Veterans Memorial Park and upcoming investments (D-Line Bus Rapid Transit), the City commissioned this study to determine the appropriate land use controls for the area (see Figure 1). Study objectives include: »Establish development principles that define how different types of redevelopment can be designed to be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and Veterans Memorial Park. Development principles are intended to be a tool for the community, the Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff to assist in planning, designing, and evaluating future development proposals for the study area. »Explore potential zoning changes to align property that is currently zoned for Low-Density Residential, but guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, or Community Commercial land uses. »Recommend a preferred approach for implementation (e.g., zoning districts and an overlay district). »To avoid Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan reflects a common vision for the area that has been determined through a separate planning process. The vision for the study area has included a mix of Medium to High Density Residential and Community Commercial uses dating back to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. JUNE 2021 03 ´0500FeetLegendProject BoundaryProject BoundaryParcelsFigURE 1. STUDY AREA • Richfield HRA Property PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN04 PLANNING FOUNDATION This study presents an opportunity to imagine how redevelopment around Portland Avenue and 66th Street might complement Veterans Memorial Park. it is also an opportunity to consider a much broader vision for the area, which includes future bus rapid transit (D-Line), improved pedestrian/bicycle connections, and the potential for residential development with increased density. The following plans help describe this vision in more detail and were used to help inform this study. 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ADOPTED IN 2018) The City of Richfield is required by state law to update its Comprehensive Plan every ten years. The last update was approved in 2018. The Comprehensive Plan is a statement of what the City of Richfield wants to become. it is a set of goals and policies designed to achieve a community wide vision. The Comprehensive Plan is based on a composition of concepts, patterns, and relationships that deal with integrating the social aspects of a community with its physical development. it includes directives for maintaining strong residential neighborhoods, it emphasizes the importance of parks and open space, and it seeks to maintain quality infrastructure. One of the more prominent chapters in the Comprehensive Plan includes the Land Use Plan. it gives people a visual representation of what the community is expected to look like in the future. As it pertains to the study area, the Land Use Plan has guided property along Portland Avenue and 66th Street for High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Community Commercial (see Figure 2). The Land Use Plan for this area has stayed relatively the same from previous Comprehensive Plans - dating back to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. 66TH STREET CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN (MARCH 2011) The 66th Street Corridor Master Plan seeks to improve the economic viability and market position of existing and future uses on the 66th Street Corridor, while enhancing the pedestrian character and enhancing the multimodal opportunities of the corridor. The Plan addresses land use, transportation and open space aspects of the corridor and provides recommendations for future improvements. JUNE 2021 05 LOGAN75th VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494 78th 77th 76th OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th 72nd 73th 71st 69th 70th DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOWN HWY 62nd 67th 68th 66th 65th 64th 63rd COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494 19008009001000110012001300180060050040030020050100124200300324400500620700720800900100011001300140015001600170018001001524190060012000007001400290028002700260025002200210020003000150016001700240031002300Current Land Use Map UPDATED: 5/1/2019 Current Land Use Water Park Detached Residential Attached Residential Commercial Mixed Use Public/Quasi-Public Vacant Right-of-Way Railroad Quasi-Public SCH DPLX ±0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (2012) AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN (2018) Richfield has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan, which help describe the importance pedestrian and bicycle networks play in the City’s overall transportation system by offering an alternative means of transportation. Both of the Plan’s recognize Portland Avenue and 66th Street as important corridors that help pedestrians and bicyclists move throughout the community. The Bicycle Master Plan also recognizes Portland Avenue as part of the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN). According to the Metropolitan Council, the RBTN make up the “trunk arterials” of the overall system of bikeways that connect to regional employment and activity centers. METRO D-LINE – BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) Construction of the METRO D Line bus rapid transit (BRT) project is scheduled to begin in early 2021. The D Line will substantially replace Metro Transit Route 5 with fast, frequent, and all-day service. Bus rapid transit brings better amenities, faster service and a more comfortable ride. The D-Line corridor follows Chicago Avenue and Portland Avenue to American Boulevard, ending at the Mall of America. The alignment serves North Minneapolis, Downtown Minneapolis, the Midtown area medical facilities, and the Chicago-Lake Transit Center. The alignment crosses into Richfield south of TH 62, then turns east on American Boulevard, serving commercial uses before ending at the Mall of America. Planned BRT stops along Portland Avenue in Richfield include 60th, 66th, 70th, 73rd, and 77th Street. LOGAN75th VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494 78th 77th 76th OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th 72nd 73th 71st 69th 70th DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOWN HWY 62nd 67th 68th 66th 65th 64th 63rd COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494 19008009001000110012001300180060050040030020050100124200300324400500620700720800900100011001300140015001600170018001001524190060012000007001400290028002700260025002200210020003000150016001700240031002300Current Land Use Map UPDATED: 5/1/2019 Current Land Use Water Park Detached Residential Attached Residential Commercial Mixed Use Public/Quasi-Public Vacant Right-of-Way Railroad Quasi-Public SCH DPLX ±0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles FigURE 2. EXiSTiNg LAND USE Study Area PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN06 PLANNING PROCESS The study’s planning process occurred over a six month period between January 2021 and June 2021. During this time, the City placed a moratorium on development until June 24, 2021 to allow time to explore appropriate development controls for the study area. The planning process included opportunities for property owners, community members, members of the American Legion, and Veterans Memorial Park users to share ideas and comment on draft materials. Community engagement was predominately structured around on-line engagement to ensure people could stay involved during the pandemic, while physically distancing. The study’s outreach efforts are highlight below. Study Website: A study website was created to host on-line surveys and informational videos. The website contained study information, updates, key findings, recommendations, and invitations to participate in the planning process. Postcard Mailing: Postcards were mailed to property owners in proximity of the park to inform them about the study and how to provide feedback. Survey: Early on in the planning process, a survey was posted on the project website (see Attachment A). The survey helped gain a better understanding of the public’s thoughts on potential development within the study area. A virtual tour of precedents (examples) throughout the metro was also used to depict Medium to High Density Developments for the study to consider. A total of 75 people responded to the survey or wrote comments directly to staff. general themes from those who participated include: »People generally support a mix of land uses and higher density residential developments (e.g., condos, apartments, and senior housing). »There is a strong desire to see improved pedestrian/bicycle connections within the park and between developments and the park. »People are concerned about building heights, traffic volumes, and the potential increase in park users associated with a new development. JUNE 2021 07 Another survey was launched near the end of the planning process to confirm the study’s design principles and draft findings (see Attachment B). A total of 110 people responded to the survey or wrote comments directly to staff (between May 6 and May 14, 2021). general themes from those who participated include: »People largely agree redevelopment projects should enhance connections to the park. »People largely agree redevelopment projects should embrace sustainable design practices. »People strongly agree that building heights should be minimized to protect views to/from the park’s open areas. »A large number of people disagree redevelopment should expand the mix of housing or commercial uses in the area. »Written comments suggest more can be done to educate the public about the City’s Comprehensive Plan and how it guides private development. it is important to note this study explores ways to balance private development in proximity to the park. Veterans Memorial Park is not being proposed for redevelopment. Informational Videos: informational videos were posted on the project website. The informational videos included a presentation with a voice over explaining the materials. The first video explained the study purpose and objectives, while the second video highlighted key findings and draft recommendations. Stakeholder Meetings: One particular area of focus included the north-east quadrant of 66th Street and Portland Avenue. This site includes the Richfield ice Area, Richfield Swimming Pool, American Legion, and Morris Nilsen Funeral Chapel, and a Memorial for Veterans. A larger portion of this site is guided for High Density Residential and owned by the American Legion. The Consultant Team met and/or spoke with American Legion representatives on several occasions to discuss their aspiration for development and to share study findings. Project Management Team: The Project Management Team (PMT) included the consultant team and City staff. The PMT met three times to review and discuss study finding and coordinate public engagement activities. City Council/Planning Commission Workshop: On April 27, 2021, City Staff and the Consultant Team met with the City Council and representatives from the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission to discuss preliminary work and public outreach activities related to the study. PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN08 DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES The development principles are used to help express the community’s expectations for development within the study area. The development principles were developed using community input and direction from City staff and elected leaders. »Personal Connections: Support redevelopment projects that preserves and enhances the ability of residents and users of Veterans Memorial Park to make personal connections to the park. »Park & Neighborhood Connectivity: increase connectivity to Veterans Memorial Park by incorporating vehicle, pedestrian, wheelchair/walker, and bicycle connections between park destinations (e.g., the Memorial, lake, ice arena, and swimming pool), neighborhoods, and redevelopment sites along Portland Avenue and 66th Street. »Diversify Housing Options: Use redevelopment sites to expand the mix of housing in the area (e.g. row/townhouse, affordable units, courtyard apartments, courtyard cottages, and live-work units). »Convenient Commercial: Encourage a mix of community and small neighborhood commercial businesses in proximity to residential areas and the park destinations as an important amenity for residents and park visitors. »Sustainable Development: Use sustainable design practices and new technology in developments that will help create a healthy, sustainable, vibrant neighborhood, and contribute to the park environment. »Building Transition: Require site design and building architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions between single family residential neighborhoods and higher intensity uses. »Building Heights: Locate the tallest portions of buildings away from adjacent low density residences. For sites adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, locate the tallest portions of buildings away from the park’s open areas. »Building Massing: Locate and design buildings to preserve views to/from the park’s open areas and minimize potential shadowing of the park. »Quantity of Parking: Minimize parking needs by leveraging the study area’s location along multimodal corridors to reduce the use of the automobile, while limiting neighborhood impacts. JUNE 2021 09 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following section provides an overview of the study area’s existing conditions. EXISTING LAND USES Veterans Park is one of Richfield’s signature parks that offers a variety of recreational and programming activities, community gathering spaces, walking paths, and scenic views. The Park’s southwest corner has been anchored by the Minneapolis/Richfield American Legion Post #435 since 1956. The study area is approximately 77 acres (excludes roads). Based on the City’s Existing Land Use Map (see Figure 2), the study area is comprised of approximately 39% single family homes, 5% multifamily residential, 11% commercial, 44% public land, and 1% vacant. The existing commercial (e.g., American Legion) and public land uses (e.g., ice arena) are characterized by larger surface parking lots and low lot coverages. The bulk of single family homes were built in the 1940s and 1950s, while multifamily residential land uses followed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. ZONING Existing zoning in the study area (see Figure 3) consists of: »Single Family Residential District (R): The purposes of the R District regulations are to protect and preserve the single-family residential character of the R District; reserve appropriate locations for single-family dwellings; provide opportunities for cluster housing development; minimize traffic congestion and the overloading of utilities; and provide residential locations that are safe, attractive and quiet. »Multifamily Residential District (MR-2): The purposes of the MR-2 District regulations are to reserve appropriately located areas for multifamily dwellings; preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family residential district while permitting higher population densities; provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development, thereby allowing greater intensities and a wider variety of housing types; minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size (or density) in relation to the surrounding land, buildings, or infrastructure; and to provide multifamily residential areas that are safe and attractive. PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN10 »High-Density Multi-family Residential District (MR-3): The purpose of the MR-3 District regulations are to reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities; preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family district, while permitting higher population densities; provide space for semi-public facilities needed to complement urban residential areas and space for institutions that require a residential environment; minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the surrounding infrastructure; and to provide multifamily residential areas that are safe and attractive. »General Business District (C-2): The C-2 District allows a wide variety of retail and service businesses that may serve a trade area encompassing Richfield and beyond. Despite the commercial nature of these land uses, the City expects them to have an attractive appearance from all sides, to be compatible with nearly residential properties, to minimize adverse effects on surface waters, and to not significantly degrade the level of service or safety on nearby roads. PLANNED LAND USES (2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) The planned land uses identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 4) for the study area consists of: »Low Density Residential (LDR): The LDR category has been derived from the Single-family Residential category dating back to the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. The LDR category allows for the mixture of single-family detached and attached units, such as duplexes and lower density townhomes. LDR development ranges from 1 to 7 units per acre. FigURE 3. ZONiNg Study Area JUNE 2021 11 »Medium Density Residential (MDR): The MDR land use category was derived from the MDR and the Medium- High Density Residential (MHD) category included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. These two categories have been combined to better clarify development patterns and the intent to allow for higher density housing, such as townhomes or condominiums ranging from 8 to 34 units per acre. The allowed density would be limited to no more than 4 stories. The MDR category also includes manufactured homes and some presence of office use. »High Density Residential (HDR): HDR includes multi-unit and multi-building developments at a more intense scale. HDR development ranges from 35 to 100 units per acre. HDR uses are primarily located in areas convenient to transportation, shopping and social services in order to support higher concentration of people. Development greater than 100 units per acre can be achieved through the PUD approval process. The appropriate building height will vary by development and depends upon the characteristics of the development and its surroundings. The HDR category would also allow for some presence of office use. »Community Commercial (CC): CC accommodates a wide variety of retail goods and services that are more intense than neighborhood scale commercial, but generally not uses that attract customers from throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. CC uses are intended to serve residents of Richfield and the immediate vicinity around Richfield. CC uses are primarily located along major local corridors, such as 66th Street, Penn Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, and Portland Avenue. Office uses would preferable be located above retail uses or situated in stand-alone building developments. Overall developments could be up to a total building size of 150,000 square feet (Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 to 1.0). ´0 400 Feet Legend Project Boundary Project Boundary 2040 Planned Land Use Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial ROW Parcels ´0 400 Feet Legend Project Boundary Project Boundary 2040 Planned Land Use Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial ROW Parcels FigURE 4. 2040 COMPREHENSiVE PLAN PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN12 REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS in recent months, the City and property owners adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park have received multiple inquiries about redevelopment options. One area of interest has been the American Legion property, which is guided for High Density Residential (HDR). The American Legion has expressed interest in redeveloping their property. At the time of this study, the American Legion reported that they were exploring all of their development options including standalone building(s) and mixed use building(s) that include residential units (market rate and Veterans housing), meeting and banquets space, and a restaurant/bar. This study assumed the American Legion will continue to have a presence on site and require a 10,000 to 14,000 square foot space to meet their needs. Another area of interest includes property owned by the Richfield Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Their property is located on the east side of Portland Avenue and south of 66th Street (see Figure 1). The HRA has plans to develop this property at some point in time and is guided for Medium Density Residential (MDR). This will likely include attached housing units (e.g., townhomes) that front Portland Avenue. ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES Figure 5 depicts issues and opportunities discovered during the planning study process. This map helps convey some of the items property owners and developers should be aware of when exploring their development options. Respectfully, a majority of these issues and opportunities are associated with the American Legion property as it pertains to high density residential development. The following items (key) corresponds with Figure 5. A. There is a strong desire to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections between properties and the Memorial. B. There is an established tree line that is viewed by many as an amenity and serves as a buffer between the Memorial and buildings/parking lots. C. There are limitations on how this property can be used (e.g., development or stormwater management) based on DNR rules and regulations. D. in general, the public is concerned about potential impacts (building heights and traffic) a development may have on this site with the park, pool, and ice arena. E. The American Legion property is guided for High-Density Residential and zoned for Single Family Residential and is considering their development options. F. There is a 20 foot grade change between Portland Avenue and the ice arena. g. There are limited opportunities to connect a roads between a development and the ice arena. Vehicle traffic should be handled internally and be separated from the ice arena parking lot. However, there are opportunities to build stronger pedestrian and bicycle connections between a property, Veterans Memorial Park, ice arena, and pool. H. Accessible parking is needed for the Memorial. i. There are concerns that future development may have potential implications to the pool (shading). A B C D E F G H I JUNE 2021 13 J. This site is guided for Community Commercial. There are no redevelopment assumptions known at this time. K. These locations represent future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. This project is scheduled to begin in early 2021. L. Hennepin County is the responsible roadway agency for Portland Avenue and 66th Street. Therefore, development proposals will likely be required to submit a traffic study to Hennepin County for their review. A traffic study typically describes any access modifications to the site, anticipated traffic volumes associated with a new development, travel demand management strategies, and an analysis of the development’s impacts to exiting and future traffic operations. M. The Richfield HRA owns three parcels near the proposed BRT station that are guided for Medium Density Residential (MDR). Portland & 66th Sub Area Study A C E K K I H D L F B BRT BRT J G M FigURE 5. iSSUES AND CONTEXT J K L M PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN14 ZONING EVALUATION The City’s official controls include ordinances, fiscal devices and public programs that are established to carry out the Comprehensive Plan’s land use, housing, transportation, public infrastructure, parks and open space goals and policies. The City’s Ordinances, as established in the City Code, are the primary tools for implementing the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies. Of particular note and relevance to the Comprehensive Plan is Chapter V and Appendix B of the City Code, which contain planning and land use regulations, and the City’s Zoning Code. Official controls, such as zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and the zoning map are required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. it is important to note this study does not explore any changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan went through a separate planning process that established the study area’s planned land use designation (e.g., Medium to High Density Residential), which date back to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS There are several zoning changes that should occur in the study area to better align a property’s land use plan designation in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 4) with the appropriate zoning district (see Figure 3). Findings from this evaluation are summarized below: 1. There are twenty (20) parcels guided for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and zoned for Single Family Residential (R). The most appropriate zoning district that aligns with the MDR land use designation for this area is Multifamily Residential District (MR-2). 2. The American Legion site is guided for High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Single Family Residential (R). The most appropriate zoning district that aligns with the HDR land use designation for this area is High-Density Residential District (MR-3). 3. Property that is guided for Community Commercial (CC) are zoned accordingly - general Business District (C-2). 4. Property that is guided for Low Density Residential (LDR) are zoned accordingly – Single Family Residential (R). JUNE 2021 15 SITE CAPACITY STUDY Concepts were created to test the development capacity for properties guided by the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential (see Attachment C). Areas of focus include the American Legion, property owned by the HRA (see Figure 1), and a select number of properties along 66th Street. The concepts were reviewed and discussed between the Consultant Team and Project Management Team. The concepts were also used to help facilitate discussions with stakeholders (i.e., American Legion and Hennepin County) and elected leaders. The concepts served the following purposes: »To articulate the study’s design principles »To evaluate potential access points »To test density ranges and building heights (see sidebar) »To test parking requirements and needs »To generate ideas for design standards »To identify potential development constraints it is important to recognize the concepts are not intended to represent specific development plans. They should be viewed as ideas and a source of inspiration when exploring redevelopment options that are consistent with the study’s design principles, 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and recommended zoning changes. PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN16 BUILDING HEIGHT There are significant differences in typical building heights for residential, commercial, office and mixed use buildings. For example, residential buildings tend to have lower ceiling heights (10 to 12 feet) than retail or office space (12 to 14 feet). The MR-3 zoning district has a maximum building height of 50 feet. This development regulation is intended to limit building heights to five stories. However, a five story (50 foot maximum) residential building may be hard to achieve based on today’s construction standards when integrating a commercial use (e.g., American Legion) on the first floor. This is demonstrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 also suggests a maximum building height of 55 feet could provide enough flexibility for a developer to achieve a five story residential building with a commercial use. A five story building (~55 feet) was further tested to help address the following items: »Visual impacts to the park and Memorial »Shading implications to the pool »Site lines from Portland Avenue and 66th Street »Relationship (scale) with adjacent single family homes This was achieved by creating a visual 3D model (see Attachment D) that offers different perspective points between a 55 foot building(s) and its relationship to the park and adjacent land uses. A shadow study was also created to determine if there is any potential shading implications to the pool during the summer solstice (see Figure 7-9). These visual aids helped determine how a new development can work in unison with the park and adjacent land uses. BUILDING HEIGHT The City uses a mix of standards in the zoning code to define building height. Examples include: • Section 507.07, Definitions: Subd. 59: “Height of building.” The vertical distance to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs; to the deck line for mansard roofs; and to the average height between the highest roof ridge and its associated eaves for gable, hip and gambrel roofs, as measured from the average elevation of the lot adjoining the front building line. • Section 507.07, Definitions: Subd. 124. “Story.” That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space between such floor and the ceiling above it. • Section 525 Multifamily Residential District (MR-2), Subd. 525.11. Dimensional Regulations: Maximum building height is 35 feet. • Section 527 High Density Residential District (MR-3), Subd. 527.11. Dimensional Regulations: Maximum building height is 50 feet. • Section 534 general Business District (C-2), Subd. 534.11. Dimensional Requirements: Maximum building height is 40 feet. JUNE 2021 17 6’ 6’ 10’ LandscapingSidewalkSidewalkPortland Ave Townhomes Porch 42’34’44’ Apartments/CondosApartments/Condos American Legion American Legion Patio Below-ground Parking 56’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 5’ 10’ 20’50’ FigURE 6. CROSS SECTiON EXAMPLE FigURE 7. 5 STORY BUiLDiNg FigURE 8. 8 STORY BUiLDiNg FigURE 9. 12 STORY BUiLDiNg SHADOW STUDY Figures 7 - 9 helped determine if there is any potential shading implications to the pool during the summer solstice. Findings suggest buildings that exceed five stories could have potential shading implications to the park and pool. This finding may vary depending on the placement and size of the building. PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN18 FINDINGS Findings from the site capacity study (see Attachment C, visual models (see Attachment D) and shadow study (see Figure 7-9) include: 1. Building Coverage: A dimensional regulation for the MR-3 zoning district includes a maximum building coverage of 30%. The site capacity study for the American Legion property determined this percentage may limit a development’s ability to achieve higher density ranges that align with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (35 to 100 units per acre). The maximum building coverage for the MR-3 zoning district within the study area should be adjusted to reflect the City’s Mixed Use zoning districts that range between 25% and 75%. 2. Building Height: The maximum building height for the MR-3 zoning district within the study area should be adjusted by five (5) feet (50 feet to 55 feet) to provide some flexibility for meeting today’s construction standards for a mixed used residential building. 3. Building Stepbacks: Upper story stepbacks for buildings over three (3) stories will minimize visual impacts from the park, pool and adjacent land uses. 4. Front Yard Setbacks: A dimensional regulation for the MR-3 zoning district includes a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet. The site capacity study for the American Legion property determined this minimum requirement may limit a development’s ability to create more flexible open space buffers between building(s) and the park (side and rear yard). The front yard setback should be adjusted to reflect the City’s Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N), which has established a minimum 15 foot and maximum 25 foot front yard setback. 5. Land Uses: in general, City staff, elected leaders, and stakeholders are in favor of a mix of uses in the study area and agree the concepts help convey the design principles (e.g., connectivity and diversity of housing). 6. Landscaping: Established tree lines located along the American Legion’s property will help minimize visual impacts between structures and the Memorial. 7. Parking: Parking requirements may influence what can be achieved on a property from a density perspective. Shared parking strategies should be explored to minimize the number of parking spaces required for a new development. it is assumed a mix of parking (surface and structured) will be needed for a mixed-use development on the American Legion site, while providing a limited number of shared surface spaces for the Memorial. 8. Shading: Buildings that exceed five stories could have potential shading implications to the park and pool (see Figure 7-9). This finding may vary depending on the placement and size of the building. JUNE 2021 19 RECOMMENDATIONS This section identifies the recommended actions for implementing the study’s objectives and development principles, while addressing some of the study’s findings. REZONING As part of the zoning evaluation, it was determined there are inconsistencies between the study area’s planned land uses and zoning districts. These inconsistencies should be addressed to be in compliance with state law. The following recommendations include: »Parcels guided for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and zoned for Single Family Residential (R) should be rezoned for Multifamily Residential District (MR-2). Existing residential land uses will be allowed in perpetuity until a property owner choses to redevelop their property. At that time, the development will need to follow the City’s Zoning Code for a MR-2 zoning district. »The American Legion site is guided for High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Single Family Residential (R). This site should be rezoned to High-Density Residential District (MR-3). »There are seven properties guided in the study area for Community Commercial (CC). These properties are aligned with the appropriate zoning district - general Business District (C-2). No rezoning changes are needed at this time. PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN20 ESTABLISH AN OVERLAY DISTRICT The City should consider adopting a zoning overlay district for the study area to help implement the Development Principles, while providing some flexibility for mixed used development to occur in the High-Density Residential District (MR-3) and general Business District (C-2). The purpose of an overlay district is to establish more specific design regulations for specific areas. Overlay district regulations are in addition to the requirements of the underlying or base zoning district. An overlay district typically provides requirements (or incentives) intended to preserve the character of an area. increased flexibility in setting overlay district regulations is possible since the standards can be more closely tailored to an area within the community that shares certain characteristics. The additional layer of zoning requirements proposed for this overlay district include development standards that are reflected in Attachment E and summarized throughout this section. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R) There are no development standards being recommended for the R zoning district. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (MR-2) Development in the MR-2 zoning district will need to be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Residential development should include residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the study area. Development Standards A. Parking shall be located in the rear and/or side yards of the building. B. The minimum front yard setback shall be 10 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet. C. Buildings entrances shall front Portland Avenue or 66th Street depending on where the property is located. D. A minimum of one primary building entrance shall face Portland Avenue or 66th Street depending on where the property is located. E. Require a Bird Collision Reduction Plan as part of new or substantially new development applications. SiNgLE FAMiLY PRECEDENT MULTi-FAMiLY PRECEDENT JUNE 2021 21 HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (MR-3) Development in the MR-3 zoning district will need to be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Residential development will include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the study area. Potential housing types may include townhomes and multi-family buildings. Redevelopment in the MR-3 zoning district will be complementary to the Veterans Memorial Park and consist of multi-family residential buildings. The overlay district will allow some flexibility for commercial or office space to be integrated into a residential building. Potential uses may include a restaurant, bar, coffee shop, meeting space, or banquet space. Commercial and office space uses should be complementary to the residential uses and park users. HigH-DENSiTY MULTi-FAMiLY PRECEDENT Development Standards A. Residential development shall include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the study area. B. The principal building heights shall be a minimum of 20 feet and up to a maximum of 55 feet or 5 stories, whichever is less. -Building heights shall be measured from the building site’s average ground level elevation. -Floors above the third floor shall be stepped back a minimum of 15 feet when adjacent to public streets and public land. Step backs may be adjusted depending on specific site conditions and building placements. C. A lot larger than two (2) acres is allowed to include a second building. -The two buildings shall be grouped into a single polygon to assess compliance with required setbacks. D. The maximum building coverage shall be 40%. E. The minimum front yard setback shall be 15 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet. F. Existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible. g. Pedestrian facilities shall be placed along the site’s perimeter to provide walking connections between the public street and public amenities such as, Veterans Memorial Park. H. Stormwater shall be managed onsite by using best management practices, such as raingardens, green roofs, and bio-infiltration swales to create aesthetically pleasing and useable public spaces or underground systems. i. Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street. PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN22 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2) Development in the C-2 zoning district will need to be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed overlay district includes some flexibility that will allow some residential uses with a commercial development when it is not the predominant use. Development Standards A. Residential uses are only allowed on upper floors of a building with permitted uses on the ground floor. B. Existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible. C. Pedestrian facilities shall be placed along the site’s perimeter to provide walking connections between the public street and public amenities such as, Veterans Memorial Park. D. Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street. E. Stormwater shall be managed onsite by using best management practices, such as raingardens, green roofs, and bio- infiltration swales to create aesthetically pleasing and useable public spaces or underground systems. F. Require a Bird Collision Reduction Plan as part of new or substantially new development applications.gENERAL COMMERCiAL PRECEDENT J. When adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, the required rear and side yard setbacks shall prioritize greenspace and landscaping as a transition/buffer to the Park. K. A shadow study shall be required as part of the development review process to evaluate potential impacts of shadowing on adjacent properties, measured by the sun’s position at the time of the summer solstice. L. A minimum of one primary building entrance is required on each street façade and at least one building entrance every 75 feet of each street façade. M. Require a Bird Collision Reduction Plan as part of new or substantially new development applications. JUNE 2021 23 ATTACHMENT A - SURVEY 1 Portland and 66th Sub-area Study Survey Tell us about yourself: Answered: 102 Skipped: 5 I visit the study area to shop or do business. I work in the study area. I live in the study area as a renter. Other I live in the study area as a homeowner. I visit the study area to use Veterans … 0 20 40 60 I visit the study area to use Veterans Memorial Park.45 42.06% I live in the study area as a homeowner.42 39.25% Other 9 8.41% I live in the study area as a renter.4 3.74% I work in the study area.1 0.93% I visit the study area to shop or do business.1 0.93% If you responded "Other," please explain below: The word cloud requires at least 20 answers to show. Answers Count Percentage Response Count Answered: 7 Skipped: 100 This is the real gem in Richfield that would be left untouched fexcept for development in areas that ha ve not already been zoned commercial such as the Funeral home.. Keep some character in this small town city, PLEASE! 1 There are over 200 different birds that uses the park whether for migration or nesting. It already is a je wel as a nature habitat. Nature does not need improvement. Humans are the problem. 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Note: I live a block east of Veterans Park, which is close to the study area, but I'm not sure if it's consi dered part of the study area.. 1 My name is Donald Belkengren and I am the current president of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial, located just north of the Legion post 435 property. 1 Live next to study area 1 Legion Post member and Board Member of The Honoring All Veterans Memorial 1 0 Please select your age range: More than 65 years old Between 51 and 65 years old Between 36 and 50 years old Between 19 and 35 years old Under 18 years old 0 10 20 30 40 AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage Answered: 106 Skipped: 1 Under 18 years old 0 0% Between 19 and 35 years old 25 23.36% Between 36 and 50 years old 27 25.23% Between 51 and 65 years old 34 31.78% More than 65 years old 20 18.69% What types of residential redevelopment should be explored within the study area? Assisted Living Other Senior Housing Apartments Townhomes Condos None 0 20 40 60 None 59 55.14% Condos 30 28.04% Townhomes 26 24.3% Apartments 24 22.43% Senior Housing 16 14.95% Other 16 14.95% AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage Answered: 105 Skipped: 2 Assisted Living 10 9.35% If you responded "Other," what other types of residential redevelopment would you like to see in the st… The word cloud requires at least 20 answers to show. Veteran related housing... or if city can purchase then be city activities related such as Community Ce nter. 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Only across 66th from the park.1 None.1 NONE, Please save our park as a natural area!1 No residential 1 no development as this land was donated to keep it as open as public land! do you remember cutting down the oak trees? 1 Low-income housing!1 I would like to see the study area within Veteran's Park be planted with native plants to benefit wildlife and water quality in the park. 1 Disabled Veteran Housing 1 Development with NO reduction of natural areas. This is a prime spot for imprtant songbirds.1 Apartments or condos to house veterans who are low income or just getting started in careers after th eir military service. 1 Apartments must be multi use. It adds a lot and is really efficient use of space. I believe they promote pedestrian traffic as well. 67th and Portland would likely need lower speed limits or narrower street wi dth to promote slower speeds. 1 ResponseResponse CountCount Answered: 15 Skipped: 92 Anything but more high density housing. We have too much of that already in Richfield, and traffic is a lready bad on Portland. Why does the city refuse to listen to home owner concerns about high density low income housing? 1 55 plus 1 0 What types of commercial redevelopment should be explored within the study area? Hotel/Motel Office Space Fast Food or Convenience Food Pharmacy Automotive Services (Gas Station or Repair) Convenience Store Other Grocery Store Retail Coffee Shop None Taproom/Cocktail Room Restaurant 0 20 40 60 Restaurant 48 44.86% Taproom/Cocktail Room 46 42.99% None 42 39.25% Coffee Shop 40 37.38% Retail 25 23.36% AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage Answered: 103 Skipped: 4 Grocery Store 20 18.69% Other 15 14.02% Convenience Store 11 10.28% Automotive Services (Gas Station or Repair)10 9.35% Pharmacy 9 8.41% Fast Food or Convenience Food 8 7.48% Office Space 8 7.48% Hotel/Motel 3 2.8% If you responded "Other," what other types of commercial redevelopment would you like to see in the … The word cloud requires at least 20 answers to show. TEST - LANCE 1 Reuse if the Legion for restaurant or coffee shop 1 Reestablish Richfield legion post 435 on the lower lever of building to face the Veterans Memorial on t he north side. 1 Only locally owned businesses!1 None. None at all. The business there should remain, as should the homes.1 NONE 1 Multipurpose apartments. See the Highlands Bridge redevelopment.1 Meeting Space 1 invest in ecological services provided by the park 1 ResponseResponse CountCount Answered: 15 Skipped: 92 If purchased , buyer provide space facing memorial for Legion activities (Meetings, Ceremonies, food and drinks 1 Development that does not disturb or reduce current natural areas and 4 stories or less to reduce imp act on songbirds and waterfowl. 1 Community Center/Rec Center with youth programming, with the Hockey arena and swimming pool st aying. Also, local businesses are always great, especially ones that represent Our diversity! Local Ro ots has been awesome, breweries bring in great revenue. 1 Community center 1 Brewpub, Find a space in Richfield for Lyn65 Restaurant!1 American Legion restaurant, bar and meeting rooms.1 0 Do you support mixed-use developments (e.g., housing with ground-level commercial) within the stud… Yes Neutral No Yes 35 32.71% Neutral 19 17.76% AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage Answered: 99 Skipped: 8 No 45 42.06% Are there aspects of Veterans Memorial Park that you think could be improved? park walkingpaths area Leave Nature people park. Natural picnic development space benches trails Improved green housing bike dog pathwildlifeparking area.waste station money water Make nice trash additional amenities pool walk - / large Lighting alone. Portland treesfloating golfpartcommercial high paths. improved. open nature. community courts grills family buildings Veterans be. upkeep Christmas Tree boardwalk spaces traffic. circulation Lots color replaced Trailpathway Bridge provide Expanded added space. parks rink guests building. safety featuresawful improvement. density neighborhood. bikes areas bandshell marsh center entrance minigas live spend Improve compliment indoor biking signage Protecting programming protect it.focus city. areas. save destroy pedestrian maintaining alone! input makes Add Clean lakes build enjoy Fix 1 20 love one. replacing section lake niceryoung stay is! is? is.bit set kids. barely run 66th put lot base soft city Ave. is!! Full ? 1. 2. semi 3. lap St. Yes, would love to see a dog park, even a small one. Walking paths could use replacing and the path through the northern section of the lake (floating plastic) could be redone to be nicer like woodlark nat ure center. Volleyball courts near the water could attract more young people, and park grills and or pic nic benches could make for nice family outing spots 1 yes trails can be improved but this park should/must stay as is! please look up who donated this parce l!!! 1 Why not just leave the area as is? Further development of the area around the park will only disturb th e wildlife there through changing water levels and distribution, sunlight effects of tall buildings, and fre quent songbird and waterfowl deaths by hitting hundreds of windows. This is very upsetting. Please re consider. 1 Veterans Park is perfect as it is. Please leave it be.1 Upkeep of trails; stop Christmas tree sales.1 Trash needs to be picked up much more regularly. The boardwalk is in poor condition and has no han drails. The nature spaces should be preserved and cared for. 1 ResponseResponseResponseResponseResponse CountCountCountCountCount Traffic. The only way in and out of the park/pavilion is on Portland/64th. During peak times (Farmers Market Saturdays, Christmas Tree sales, etc..) this can be a bit congested. Perhaps an additional entr ance/exit? 1 Traffic circulation could be improved between the various amenities at the park. Consider linking the p arking lots between the picnic shelter and pool with an interior Parkway, but preserve the park charact er (very narrow roadway like Minneapolis’ parkways, unique pavement color, speed bumps, etc.) 1 The walking trails haven't been repaired or replaced in probably 20 yrs. The play area's replacement's weren't thought out very well. The original set up was more flexible and entertaining for kids. 1 The walking trail and pathway around the park. The bridge that goes through the brush area is unstabl e and people can barely use it to walk through the area. If the walking pathway going around towards the highway were improved then it would provide a larger area for people to walk or run around in the area. 1 the walking paths should be resurfaced and the playground could be expanded or another added in a different spot - its often quite busy. aside from that, people who go there go for nature and green spac e. Leave it untouched 1 The walking paths need to be repaved / replaced with more signage/maps of the parks throughout. Pa rking needs to be restricted at the Pool/Hockey Rink if a large shopping/living space is going in to rese rve it for the pool / hockey rink guests and not for residents and or guests of the residential building. A dditional lighting / other safety features should be added for individuals walking alone. 1 The round about on 66th and Portland is absolutely awful for pedestrians. It needs improvement. I am very concerned about putting a large housing development in the area will not help with congestion, pl us they generally are not visually appealing. I appreciate having low density housing in my neighborho od. 1 The paths are in very rough shape and should be resurfaced. I use it every day and it is not smooth fo r bikes or walking. I also think there are areas that could use more picnic benches and trees that provi de shade. 1 The park and nature area needs maintenance. It has been degraded by garbage, dog waste and gen eral abuse. Building the bandshell was a waste. 1 The only thing that I can think of is some sort of handrail/rope to hang onto when on the Floating walk way through the marsh area--similar to what Woodlake Nature Center has on their Floating Bridge 1 The bike path on Portland at the entrance to the mini golf parking needs work as it forces you to enter a lane of traffic. 1 The best part of living here is that it’s single family homes. Not townhomes or condos or apartments. T ake out all the center mediums put in a couple years ago. Remove the one way on Oakland. T&T is th e best hometown (Richfield motto) gas station perfectly located. If we wanted to live where there was a lot of commercial or high turnover rates we would move to Minneapolis. 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Spend some money on the park - improve paved walkways.Include amenities that compliment the par k like Indoor batting cages or other indoor recreation facility. More separation between walking and bik ing paths. 1 Signage of the trails and circulation could be improved. As it is there are often bikers on the walking p aths. Lighting and safety amenities could also be improved. 1 Restoring and protecting the natural resource base of the park. Providing soft programming so people understand the value of Nature in the city and strive to protect it. 1 Respect for the ecological value of the park rather than a focus on development to make money for th e city. Housing and commercial development can take place in other areas. 1 Repave walking/hiking paths to better accommodate bikes/roller blades.1 Protecting green spaces and nature 1 Please save park for walking, birding, and a natural habitat. Don't destroy it with more development.1 Permanent trash containers near the "Honoring All Veterans Memorial" to help keep it respectfully cle an. 1 Pedestrian and bike access improvement on Portland Ave. Could use sports field and outdoor ice rin k. Alcohol allowed during events in pavilion. 1 Paths could use a new top coat 1 Not improved, leave it alone. We are running out of green space in Richfield. We need open green sp ace for migrating birds. 1 no 1 No bikes on the trails.1 More signage about the park and how it connects to other parks and trails would be helpful.1 Maintain the natural space; improvements to paths.1 Less commercialization, more focus on maintaining natural areas.1 Leave the park alone!1 Leave it alone! It's a little gem in the middle of the city. I doubt my input will mean anything. It seems t hat when asked for input, it makes no difference to the powers that be. Case in point, all the ridiculous roundabouts. 1 Leave it alone 1 Keep it natural 1 It would be nice to have some interpretive signs about the natural features of the park, such as the kin ds of trees and wildlife found there and what drainage the marsh is part of (that is, where the water co mes from and where it goes). Also it would be nice to have flower beds to add color to the park. 1 Instead, spend money on maintaining the existing features.1 Instead of development you should clean up the lakes and protect the park to continue to support the wildlife within it!!!! You have housing and shopping nearby so why would you destroy parkland??? Car e for what you have because once it is gone you cannot get it back!!! Do you want another Richfield L ake?? It is surrounded by shopping and housing and look how awful it is!! Full of trash and garbage--- UGLY!! 1 Improved, probably not. I realize Richfield would like to raise money through more people paying taxe s, but why cannot things be left alone ? The apartment complex near 66/Queen ruined the area. All of the “new” buildings weren’t designed to fit into the neighborhoods but rather a inexpensive cookie cutt er building. I realize I am most likely in the minority but it just makes me shake my head in shame. 1 Improve upkeep of walking paths and benches.1 I walk the park daily and think the paths could be improved. More rest areas to take in the wildlife. So me other things like a rose garden or open space is nice. The bandshell is a waste as it is not used an d an eye sore. Update the picnic area for people using it. (real bathrooms). Keep T and T as a gas sta tion is necessary for this area. Don't build a high rise. Lots of empty commercial space in the area alre ady. 1 I go to Veteran's park to enjoy nature. I would prefer to minimize additional amenities.1 I enjoy the many loops available. Lighting would be my number 1 improvement.1 Fix the walking and biking paths! Leave the Natural part of the park for nature.1 Answered: 61 Skipped: 46 Fix the leaking floating bridge. Clean up the lakes of trash. Enforce the pedestrian path as a path for p edestrians, not bikes. Leave the wildlife alone. 1 Do not build high density housing. It will ruin the park.1 Consider Vondlepark in Amsterdam as a prime example of a superb park. More trees for shade and h ammock usage, bocce courts and other places for families to gather. 1 Cleaning up the area where the Legion was 1 Bike repair station, e-car charging, community garden 1 Bike connections and paths 1 Benches upkeep... Community centet 1 Bathrooms 1 Add and upgrade benches and picnic tables.1 A safer boardwalk, more unpaved hiking trails, 9-hole disc golf course, grills and fire pits would be fun. Keep the mini golf and farmer’s market. Expanded Arts and Nature programming for kids and adults. More use of the amphitheater and the green space nearby. Bocce ball courts. Make it even more fun! Upgrades to benches and picnic spots. 1 A more connected entrance to nature. A gateway of sorts that would compliment the new developmen t and be welcoming to the park. 1 A bike repair station with vending unit of bicycle materials would be nice. Trail patrol by police.1 1. There could be a few more waste receptacles along the walking paths and I think that free dog was te bag dispensers would encourage more people to pick up after their dog. From our experience, a go od portion of the park users (including ourselves) are dog walkers that live in the neighborhood. 2. Th e large parking area behind the American Legion seems like wasted, unused space. It is always empt y save for a parked semi truck or other random vehicles. 3. My wife is a lifelong swimmer and she thin ks that the pool could open for lap swimming in the mornings during the summer and that might bring extra business and community engagement. Currently she drives to St. Paul every morning to swim in stead. 1 0 What are your top three (3) redevelopment concerns for the Study Area? Lighting Building Façade (Materials) Parking Landscaping Other Surface Water Runoff Noise Building Height Traffic Type of Development (e.g., apartments… Size of Development (e.g., number of … Building Proximity to Veterans Memorial… 0 20 40 60 Building Proximity to Veterans Memorial Park 56 52.34% Size of Development (e.g., number of housing units)46 42.99% Type of Development (e.g., apartments, condos, or townhome s) 41 38.32% Traffic 33 30.84% Building Height 30 28.04% Noise 25 23.36% Surface Water Runoff 24 22.43% Other 14 13.08% Landscaping 13 12.15% Parking 13 12.15% Building Façade (Materials)12 11.21% Lighting 12 11.21% Answers Count Percentage Answered: 103 Skipped: 4 If you responded "Other," what else concerns you about redevelopment in the study area? The word cloud requires at least 20 answers to show. Answered: 13 Skipped: 94 You have one of the best wildlife areas in the metro 1 The impact on plant and animal life in the park.1 TEST - LANCE 1 Should be Park and or Veteran related aspects to design.1 Potential for vandalism at the Honoring All Veterans Memorial 1 Maintaining the green areas of the park. It's such a nice natural area and would be nice to keep it that way. 1 Loss of businesses and community spaces 1 Losing nature.1 I don’t want to make more room for cars and e away from biking a walking 1 I am concerned about all of the above. You should not limit it to 3.1 Environmental impact/sustainability in addition to water runoff 1 disturbance, noise and pollution from construction 1 Add underground parking or plenty of pervious space. Surface water runoff shouldn’t be an issue, ther e are regulations that must be met. There’s an added safety concern with increased population. 1 0 What matters most to you when considering redevelopment directly adjacent to Veterans Memorial Par… Response Count park areaspace people park. Veterans development Richfield wildlife natural buildings community City area. housing Green density traffic habitat concerned high great preserving urban water Portland live family residential parkingbuilding make housing. noise lot 66th memorial design apartments birds Nature Maintaining areas Legion beauty remain quiet Richfield. low lower income retail property accessible love leave important Lake home wildlife. moved development. Part single units existing commercial care pollution families feel - living pool redevelopment. Honoring ruining space. homes Memorial. Keeping trees environmental impact neighborhood big increasedcurrent townhomes pedestrian matters supports vet's Wood destroy park's idea pass large developing respect hope increasecreate residents. preserved activity areas. Center local options coffee enjoy frequently Moving potential grow way. adjacent integrate height long peaceful is. exist wild things needed. higher foot traffic. options. move forward Lyndale Avenue support end Street France Avenue.picnic valuable walk Veteran's drive .. it. money on. gem leftEast bike loss close fit Post 30 62350 435 1000 shed dog. sort de # drink 50th ties it’s life heat & 1. 2. 3. 4. 1st ice disc iTacoI’d fit. meet R. Wildlife 1 Why? Leave it alone.1 What matters most is the wellbeing of the many insects, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and pl ants that rely on this park as a habitat refuge in an urban area. The marsh and ecosystem it supports clean our water and air. 1 Welfare of wildlife, too many people, park becoming unsafe.1 Vet's Park is an important wildlife corridor that supports Wood Lake and the nature in vet's Park needs protection. Also I am concerned about our water source and the water that will leave the park via Minn ehaha Water shed district. 1 Veterans Park is home to many varieties of birds and other wildlife. It would be shameful to hurt that p opulation. 1 Traffic; namely on Portland (I live off of Portland).1 To not do anything that would take away from the park or destroy the habitat of the wildlife there 1 To me, maintaining Veterans Park's nature areas around Legion Lake and the walking paths is most i mportant. Before we moved here we had no idea what a wonderful park this was. There is outstandin g natural beauty and a wide array of wildlife that inhabit or pass through the park. It is frequented by many birdwatchers and nature enthusiasts--I pass them almost daily on walks with my dog. I would be disappointed if the park became some sort of de facto, unappreciated backyard for a large high densit y housing development. I am all for developing the underutilized land along the park's southwest corn er, but it should be done with respect to maintaining the essence and natural beauty of the park. 1 ResponseResponseResponseResponseResponseResponseResponseResponse CountCountCountCountCountCountCountCount This part of the community I would hope would remain as many single family units or redeveloped sa me # units for existing housing. I am concerned that the increase in commercial and residential withou t parking will create headaches for residents. We bought knowing the area as a quiet single family are a. 1 This park needs to be preserved as a space for birders, walkers and people seeking a quiet natural sp ace away from the noise and activity of the playground areas. Unlike Wood Lake Nature Center, Vets Park has not received the care and maintenance on a year-t0-year basis to preserve it as a destinatio n. I am concerned if there is large-scale development this park will become a haven for after-hours de structive activity and drug use, and will no longer be a safe place for those who visit. That would be a shame. 1 This is important habitat for wildlife, especially songbirds and waterfowl. I live in Richfield and do not want to lose any of this natural area and do not want light pollution into the park. Any building would n eed fritted glass to avoid songbird deaths. 1 This area of the city needs some revitalization. It would be great to have small, local options to dine, g et coffee and or a drink that would compliment the area. We enjoy this park immensely as a family an d I frequently say it is the main thing I have enjoyed about relocating to Richfield. You have a lot of yo ung families moving in, and many because they were priced out of the city. I know we are here now a nd not sure about staying because we miss our urban neighborhoods. Richfield has a lot of potential t o grow in a unique way. 1 The upsetting of the adjacent wetlands, pools, woods, and all of the accompanying wildlife.1 The two I think of first is how the buildings will integrate into the surrounding park areas. Low height (n ot more than three stories) and ample green space would go a long way. The park already suffers by having it's northern edge defined by Hwy 62, being "surrounded" by high buildings that utilize every sq uare inch of surface area for building and parking lot would really harm the feel of the park. 1 The park is peaceful the way it is. There needs to be no new buildings. It is already a regional destinat ion and people will come no matter what buildings do or don't exist nearby. 1 The area should remain wild with no encroachment. Veterans park is a jewel. One of the nicest things about Richfield. More housing is not needed. 1 The addition of higher density housing leads to heavier foot and vehicle traffic. With lower income den ser housing comes crime. Look to the Hub for retail, brewery, or elevated food options. 1 That you are considering high density low income housing. PLEASE STOP!!!! I know you will ignore t hese comments and move forward. Just like the city moved forward with all of those ridiculous rounda bouts down Lyndale avenue, tearing down property where Lyn65 is for more high density housing. Cit y needs to support higher end places like Lyn65. Richfield has become a restaurant desert and magn et for high density low income housing. Look at 66th street and Penn - France avenue. Now you want to extend all that density and traffic all the way to Portland and beyond? This is the last straw and I'm moving. After living here for 30 years. There are no "engagement opportunities" - that is a complete jo ke. 1 That there is a building that provides more rental space for lower income people and that traffic is able to get around the area seamlessly without much interruption. That the buildings are accessible to thos e with disabilities. That there is free meeting space offered in the area for groups that would like to me et. That it does not interrupt traffic on Portland Avenue. Would like to keep the pool and other activitie s that the community uses for family activities. Enough parking should still be available after redevelo pment. The park should remain accessible to the community and the picnic area should still remain op erable. 1 That the park and the wildlife are not negatively affected.1 That the city leaders are trying to use such a valuable asset not only to Richfield but also to our neigh bors as a conduit to make Richfield less of a community and more of a city.. Go for a walk in Veteran's Park.. have a picnic by the Farmer's market, play miniature golf, seek the serenity of the war memoria l.. then go for a drive to 50th and France and see what crammed development can do .. Don't do this t o our community! 1 That promises (even "we'll do our best to make that happen") get upheld with accountability from local government. 1 That no development occurs and the economic value of the park be considered.1 that it ties in with and does not over shadow the park 1 That it integrate well with the park, not be an eyesore 1 that it adds to the park and does not take away from it. This means are there things to do or see or sp end your money at when you are done visiting the park or vice versa to go visit the park after you hav e done , seen, or spent money at you want to relax and take in the out doors at Veterans Memorial Pa rk 1 That development not detract from thriving wildlife in the area.1 That design does not encroach upon the Honoring All Veterans Memorial 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Space , it’s nice to be able to see 1000 yards in all directions without something being taller than a ho me. 1 Ruining green space. Ruining the character of this town. Eliminating precious single-family homes, rui ning the natural area. I.e., don't do those things. 1 Richfield has plenty of unused retail space and potential areas for redevelopment. It makes better sen se to focus on filling this up, prior to taking this project on. 1 Richfield has a gem of a park with Veterans Memorial. I think the ability to get away from city life is po ssible in the park the way it is. We didn't need the pavilion (water under the bridge now). And we don't need a bunch of apartments looking down at the park. So what matters most to me is keeping the par k a area with trees, water and serenity. I know we have airport noise, but that is most of Richfield. KE EP IT THE WAY IT IS!! 1 Preserving what green space Richfield has left for the health of its citizens. The environmental impact of the project. The amount this development would contribute to climate change. 1 Preserving the natural space as much as possible. Urban trees canopy create innumerable benefits in cluding fiscal. Studies show kids do better in school when they have access to green spaces. If we wa nt to protect our urban habitat we have to de-commodify every stretch of green space. You should con sider expanding the tree canopy into the lawn along 66th to the east of the folly (AKA bandshell). Area s with more trees correlates to people with improve breathing and lung health, improved water manag ement, lower urban heat island. 1 Preserving the largely natural character of the park while allowing for reasonable residential and/or co mmercial development. I'd prefer that any development have landscaping that would be appropriate f or its location next to the park. 1 Preserving the integrity of the park.1 Preserving quiet residential neighborhood, preserving natural aspects of the Park 1 Pollution and trash. Inherently will be many more people in direct contact with the area, that may or m ay not care about preserving the park. Almost certainly will end up with way more litter. 1 Personal safety and preservation of wild spaces within the park.1 Parking and vandalism at the Honoring All Veterans Memorial.1 Park overuse.1 not overpopulating the area. Too many people in the park, to much traffic. The pool is already often ve ry busy which would only be more so. We came to Richfield to live in the "Urban Hometown." I don't w ant big buildings and tons more people and more crowding of the park. it will also detract from the bea uty of the area. 1 Not over crowding the area with people and traffic and maintaining the urban home town feel.1 No more apartment buildings 1 Needs to make area Lively and easy to bike and walk around 1 Moving Richfield forward with useful amenities that will bring in new residents and serve future/young er residents. As a resident who moved to Richfield from Minneapolis, I still find myself heading back in to the city for many bars/restaurants, coffee shops and tap rooms. 1 more housing is needed to make overall housing more affordable.1 Minimize impacts to the park (follow NEPA/MEPA & MPCA).1 Maintaining the desire for residents to want to go to the park with a large multi-story residential compl ex in the middle of it. 1. Ensuring parking restrictions to guests of the pool/hockey rink without having paid lots. 2. The safety of the park 3. The cleanliness / upkeep of the park 4. Bringing in the right kind of commercial businesses. 1 Loss of habitat for existing wildlife. Noise and trash!!1 loss of green space, increased foot traffic, increased litter.1 Losing green space, traffic volume, noise, people losing their homes.1 Less concerned about height or density of buildings; up to 4-5 stories would be fine as long as the buil dings are up against Portland, and lower closer to the actively used parts of the park. Most important i s quality architecture and building materials, timeless design built to last and blends well with surroun dings. 1 Keeping our city accessible and diverse, environmental sustainability, increasing options for shopping, dining and socializing 1 Keeping crime low, congestion, the empty buildings that need addressing already in the neighborhoo d. The old Rainbow, old Payless, the random empty structures on 66th and 1st need development bef ore this area of Richfield. I am really opposed to having high density housing so close to my house. It makes my neighborhood feel less intimate and more suburban. 1 Keep the feel of an open community park. Keep the pool and ice arena, we love them!!!1 Keep as park .. no 350 units 1 It would be great to have an “upgrade” for families, as we already use veterans park frequently. We w ould love to get more use out of the space without compromising the environment. Rosland park in Ed ina made upgrades to modernize and it gets a lot of use with a great Art Center as well and disc golf. Very family-friendly is the theme, so if residential is considered, make sure it would work for the moder n family (condos, and not too many). The park is a gem in our city, so the least amount of environmen tal impact is best. Something that captures the flair of our diverse town would be incredible! 1 It takes the beauty of veterans park away from the general public. I don't want to drive down Portland or 66th and see buildings, I want to see the park. 1 It should not intrude on the park or block views of the park for nearby homeowners.1 It should NOT be developed.1 It should be strictly put up for a vote by the citizens. No intervention by City Council and developers/co ntractors. 1 It should be kept natural. No multi unit housing.1 It needs to be done with the current community in mind. I think changing out old apartments for nicer apartments or townhomes is great, but if these butt up against single family homes, design it so that t he privacy of those homes are protected. I actually like the idea of townhomes replacing some of the c urrent smaller apartments, as townhomes make a better transition from residential. Also, consider curr ent community favorite businesses. My husband and I go to iTaco (grocery) frequently for specialty et hnic groceries. I’d love to see more businesses like restaurants and breweries move in, but care need s to be given in how to transition from residential to commercial. 1 It need to fit the park environment. Throwing in retail or housing doesn’t fit. Choose amenities that fit with parks or recreation. 1 It is a valuable area because it is a natural habitat for many birds and animals. This value needs to be preserved 1 It is a natural , peaceful place. Don't destroy wildlife by building big housing units.1 Influx of too many people causing park and facilities to be overcrowded and noisy. I like the wildlife at the park and would hate to see it unduly disturbed! 1 Improving on the areas ability to be a community resource and improving equitable growth of living op tions. 1 I'm incredibly concerned about developers coming in from outside our community and gentrifying the area. East Richfield has many low-income families and renters and I worry that rent will increase in th e area to match the high rents associated with new development. Also I think new buildings should try and blend in with community buildings that already exist in the area. I'm so tired of feeling like I don't b elong in my neighborhood because I can't afford to live in the fancy modern architecture that redevelo pers love (like what's happening with the 66th and Lyndale redevelopment. 1 I'm concerned that it will be replaced with an auto-oriented building design, when it's location next to t he park is ripe for pedestrian and bike focused infrastructure 1 I would like to see the Legion post 435 be a big part of the development of the property that the legion now stands on. It would be a great amenity to have it facing the "Honoring All Veteran Memorial" wher e veterans and visitors can relate to both. The memorial will continue to grow beyond my lifetime and would be a great legacy to leave behind a statement of honor to those who served. 1 I would like to see multi-use development with ground-level commercial. Pedestrian friendly, green sp ace, connection to the park, public establishments. 1 I go to Veteran's park to enjoy nature. I do not want the wildlife to be detrimentally affected by more p eople and noise. 1 I don't support any redevelpment the park need to be left alone It doesnt need to be ruined for more r etail we don't need or apartments 1 I don’t want my property value to go down. Even stArting this project has possibly affected my propert y value. People might not want to buy my home if they know it is slated to be torn down in the near fut ure. I’m pissed!! 1 I do not want a thousand more people living close to the park. Part of the charm of the area is that it's not super crowded all the time, and I wouldn't want a lot more people around. 1 I am really hoping that the space is used to maximize development but also ensuring that there is a g ood mix of businesses and apartments/condos. It would be great for this area to see more pedestrian friendly opportunities to shop, eat, and recreate easily 1 Answered: 87 Skipped: 20 I am on board of The Honoring All Veterans Memorial located in Veterans Park, north of the proposed development site. Whatever future decisions are made should consider the proximity to an existing m emorial that deserves respect for personal quiet reflection. I would hope the planners would consider developing the space on ground floor as a viewable and easily accessible area to the Memorial. It wo uld be ideal if the American Legion Post is given first option to occupy that ground floor space. Adequ ate parking immediately adjacent to the handicap sidewalk entrance is a necessity, especially when w e conduct Veterans holiday events throughout the year. The HAVM Board members would be happy t o meet with the City Planners if needed. Thank you for this survey. Respectfully submitted, Brian R. P eterson. 1 Green space incorporated into use of land.1 For development NOT IN the park I would be concerned about increased traffic since I live on Portlan d Avenue and 73rd Street 1 Flow of traffic, proper design time, public space to attract people.1 Destruction of natural habitat, noise pollution, over use 1 construction timeframe/level of interruption 1 Avoiding negative impact on birds and other animals that live, nest, and migrate through the park 1 0 What do you like about the precedent development examples? Please explain. parkarea development parking buildingsidea spacenice examples Richfield housing building apar tments area. living built underground smaller 66th Legion pedestrian landscaping NOTHING.restaurant people residents green spaces urban mixed sideCommunity store good easily Grand single love feel include 3 Nothing! / scalestorytaller Centennial south proposed - connections Apple senior room group Icelevel1 4 50 435 amenities (pool playground space) interiorstreets developments (less stories) Significant lighting exteriorimmediately (like give work ideas site bad clear care TEST NA (I find #34 @ #36 lot mix live in.I’d is. VFW " & West. Nothing!2 Nothing 2 Underground parking for residents, their own private amenities (pool / playground / green space), inter ior streets, smaller scale developments (less stories), Significant lighting of exterior spaces for safety. 1 They all look nice but the 4 story or taller buildings immediately adjacent to a park (like at Centennial Lakes) give it a feeling of an urban manmade park that just doesn't work for Veteran's. So I like those i deas and some mixed use on the south side of 66th but on the Legion site or the Funeral Home if it ev er redevelops I think going taller than 3 stories would be a really bad idea, possibly even capping it at two. 1 The proposals are not clear on the website of what it will mean. How many buildings are being propos ed, what height, how many units, etc.? Please update us with more info. 1 The examples seem to be unnecessary when considering all of the spaces within Richfield that could use much care and attention. 1 That they are not in Richfield 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Pedestrian connections and landscaping are important. Preserve as many mature trees as possible.1 Nothing. Leave it alone.1 Nothing. If it becomes housing it will undoubtedly be unaffordable for the average citizen.1 nothing no changes are needed 1 Not sure.1 Not a damn thing.1 None!!!1 NONE of it 1 No development would be better for nature.1 Nature..recreational opportunities.. Wildlife..birds..1 NA (I haven't beena ble to find those, sorry).1 Looking at examples #34 Gabella @ parks development in Apple Valley and #36 Ecumen Seasons S enior Apartment in Apple Valley. I would like to see no more than a building with a maximum of four flo ors with the lower floor being for Legion post 435 and business that would help the community with st ore fronts that faced Portland Ave. Parking should be all around the building with underground parking for the residents of any apartments. This would not crowd the parking lot for the visitors to the Memori al Park or the veterans memorial and have plenty of room for the shoppers of the retail businesses. 1 I would prefer the smaller, shorter buildings.1 I would like the area to be accessible for pedestrians and bikers and attract a diverse group of residen ts. 1 I really like the Henley apartments and Centennial Lakes examples because they offer a good mix of r esidential and office/business development while still including natural elements and connecting easil y to the surrounding area. I also enjoy the Excelsior and Grand example since it connects easily to sur rounding parks and provides more opportunities for individuals to live in the area instead of single resi dential spaces. 1 I really don't, but realize it is inevitable.1 I love the idea of bringing more businesses to the area. I do not like the idea of condos and apartment s. One reason we moved to this area was for the more urban feel and to be out of the cities. Adding al l these medium and heavy size living complexes is not helping with the urban feel. What Richfield nee ds is grocery stores, restaurant options and shopping options. 1 I love that we're hoping to bring more new families and residents to Richfield with the increase in hous ing available. 1 I liked the connection of living to green space in a number of the examples. The variety of living option s was nice as well. 1 I like upgrading infrastructure.1 I like the penn and Coventry townhomes for their modern appeal and private entrances. These would make good transitions from single family homes to larger apartments or businesses. I like sienna apar tments for its underground parking that allows for more green space and landscaping above. I like the mixed use of excelsior and grand and would love to see a coffee shop, ice cream parlor, restaurant, or brewery move in. For high density to replace the old legion building, I like the look of the lakes, with its asymmetric modern design. All of the examples with gabled roofs look outdated and out of touch. Ric hfield already has too many senior living communities. I’d like to see more modern buildings that attra ct young professionals and young families 1 I like smaller scale up against the park. The 3 story buildings I think are best. I think mixed use with th e ground level being retail/food/drink would also be nice. Would be nice for having a day out at the par k where you can easily stop off for a snack or whatever. 1 I like landscaping that elevates the curb appeal of the neighborhood. I also like pedestrian and bicycle connections. 1 I like 66th street the way it is with single family homes and the existing apartments along with a few s mall businesses. 1 I don't understand the amount of "development" you are talking about..however, the recent developm ent on the east side (cedar Avenue) certainly has more Police reports now than any other part of out c ommunity.. what will keep that from spreading to new development in the Veteran Park area.. 1 I don't like them 1 I don't like the idea of anything taking the place of the existing Pool, Ice Arena or land where the Band Shelter just was built, or where the picnic area/playground area is. I do like the idea of something mor e useful to everyone being in the VFW and Morris Nielson area (if they are both being sold?) such as a grocery store and restaurant. I feel the same for the area right across the street on 66th--that I woul d be open to low level construction that is useful to the whole community. I've heard the idea of a larg er Community Center being built here, which I feel would be perfect use of this area on the corner! 1 I don't can't say I like any of the precedent development example. We have plenty of multi unit housin g space in Richfield. Look at what is being built across from Target. 1 I do not want development in the park.1 I do like multiuse development, and I think the area could benefit from some higher density use that w ould promote a more pedestrian friendly use. 1 I believe the right areas are being explored, but please be sure that we don’t compromise too much of the park spaces by building nearby. It’s already got a great blueprint for a community-based, centraliz ed hub for recreation. Businesses should complement that vibe/aesthetic. 1 I am open to the type of building that is built in the area. If housing units are proposed for the corner of Veterans Memorial Park then it should include a public space like a restaurant, space that people can rent like the American Legion has. One of the other corners on Portland Ave and 66th street can inclu de a gas station or convenience store and another corner can include a restaurant or bar. This would make the area more vibrant. It would be nice for some of the buildings to have flowers and a tree in fr ont of it for decoration and enough lighting. It would be nice to have a free meeting space if people wa nt to book a room for up to 50 people - a place with either a couple of tables and stackable chairs or ju st chairs, etc. 1 Answered: 50 Skipped: 57 High quality construction built by local construction workers to maximize the benefits to the surroundin g communitites. 1 Don't like any of them. Inappropriate for Vets Park area.1 Consider the Chamberlain apartments, there are multiple cars and traffic constantly flowing into and o ut of the area. We used to go on walks here but with all the traffic it’s becoming less safe. This is what I fear for this development. 1 Community space.1 Basically nothing. At least the "improvements " seem to be on the other side of 66th.1 Again I'm very concerned about the size of housing and how that will affect the pond/wildlife and cong estion of having more people living so close by. Turning onto Portland 1 block south of 66th already fe els dangerous and if often very difficult for pedestrians. 1 Absolutely NOTHING. It will probably lead to crime in the park as well.1 **In all honesty, I despise the look of most of the examples. There is an epidemic of horrible cookie-cu tter design elements in so many new developments. Please, no orange! My favorite examples are Exc elsior & Grand, The Edgewater, and Parkway West. These buildings blend in to the surrounding area well and don't look so "replicated". Small extra investment in aesthetics could have lasting positive eff ects for the city. I think that a group of smaller buildings would look more like a neighborhood than a m ega-structure that envelops all the new housing. Natural landscaping is a plus. As with any walkable p ark, I think pedestrian connections are definitely important. I'm sure ample parking could be accomplis hed from a good underground parking space/ramp if this will be a large development. 1 0 How would you characterize a sustainable development? developmentgreen spacesustainable park water materials energy built future space.parking communityfriendly solar pavement means areas building Richfield residents buildings. environment good adds mixed public Housing environmentally minimal increase stand TEST ecological area - increasing infrastructure services surrounding naturalLeaving generations end idea Leave resources opportunities change environmental views rent % increases year Buildings compost ways lots levels traffic noise character neighborhood. citizens existing eyesore commercial properties access community. preserves long term pedestrian/bike storm tax power technology habitat 20 quality time paired innovation etc. Thriving LANCE related match. don’t add funds schools plop 80-120 unit (like hoe idea. Stop pave inch folks put top (esp.high all. Tear Vets #1 past pays baseuse.(or out)lot gas Well built with quality architecture that will stand the test of time, paired with ecological innovation in st ormwater, solar, less pavement area, etc. 1 Unnecessary!1 Thriving of wildlife!1 the one that is not built 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Sustainable means increasing infrastructure and related services to match. Developers don’t add fund s for schools, sewer, water and roads when they plop down 80-120 unit apartments. Sustainable also means not adversely effecting the surrounding areas with lighting and adverse natural conditions (like sun). 1 sustainable is leaving everything hoe it his so the park isnt ruined for other generations 1 Sustainable development means building with future generations of Richfield residents in mind. I kno w that I am just one voice. At the end of the day what matters most is getting a collective idea of what this neighborhood/community needs, for both now and in the future, and pursuing that idea. 1 Sustainable development includes choosing not to further commercially develop some areas, focusing instead on preserving and increasing their ecological value. 1 Stop developing and leave some green space. Do you really need to pave every square inch of Richfi eld? 1 ResponseResponseResponseResponse CountCountCountCount Something that used sustainable resources and techniques in construction and design (GREEN)1 Something that has opportunities to grow and change with the times as it ages 1 Something small and the environmental aspects of the park taken into consideration.1 Ridiculous and unnecessary.1 Retains balance of green space and people. Saves trees. Doesn't block views of the park Doesn't thre aten wildlife 1 Rent control and placing limits on the % increases in rent year over year, including increases between new tenants. New buildings should have requirements for % of reused/recycled materials and folks sh ould put solar on top of the buildings. We should try and have rainwater reclamation built into the land scaping. Also, we need municipal compost, both in the area, and across Richfield. I think we should al so try and find ways to ensure that there's both enough parking, but that we aren't wasting space by h aving parking lots take up so much space, so maybe underground parking garages (esp. for the high density) and an increased prioritization of connecting people with metro transit. 1 One that would not generate unreasonable levels of traffic and noise or fundamentally change the cha racter of the general neighborhood. 1 One that sustains nature and not destroy it for “progress”.1 One that does not take away green space.1 One that allows for a cohesive environment for new opportunities without harming the good things tha t were there before the development began. Safety to citizens is a critical component to any developm ent these days. 1 One that adds to the vibrancy of the community but does not intrude too much upon existing green ar eas and wildlife. 1 Not knowledgeable enough.1 not allowed 1 No further development 1 No development at all.1 More single homes that are larger than the typical rambler here. Restaurants and Brew Pubs. Tear do wn the Hub instead of ruining Vets park. That place is an eyesore and should be #1 priority for Richfiel d to address 1 Mixed use, retail and commercial public space on the lowest levels and mixed use housing above. So me lower income housing, mixed with higher end properties to take advantage of the surrounding pro perties, views, access to "things of interest" and something that adds to the community. 1 Meets the needs of the community without depleting or degrading natural resources 1 Leaving green space undisturbed where it belongs.1 Leave it alone.1 Keep it as park..no development since all houses were removed in past along Portland 1 It preserves the character of the park environment, above all, and does not invite lots of more vehicula r traffic. 1 It doesn’t take more than it gives back. Weather it be compost, reusable energy, pervious pavement, r euse rain roof water. 1 I see sustainable development as green spaces. In an economic sense I see it as developments that offer continuous long term funding or services to the immediate community. 1 I guess I don't really understand the use of the word 'sustainable' here? Sustainable by whom?1 Housing that is and will remain affordable for Richfield residents as well as businesses/office space th at is relevant to our communities current and future needs. 1 Have no idea what this means?1 Green infrastructure (green space, plants, pedestrian/bike friendly) storm water friendly pavement, en ergy efficient building. 1 Good thought of use of space and materials used in the space.1 generates enough tax revenue to cover public lifecycle expenses - see StrongTowns.1 Fits in with my neighborhood.1 environmentally friendly, uses solar power and green technology , has minimal long term impact on th e park, the contractor pays the workers a decent and fair wage and union labor is used. 1 Development that would serve the community without being an eyesore down the road 20 years. One that would sustain a tax base far into the future with both the commercial and residential use. 1 development that is actually wanted by the citizens of the city 1 Answered: 53 Skipped: 54 Developement that balances habitat preservation and improvement with racial justice and sustainable growth. Seeing green space and habitat as an urban good versus paved development. 1 Carbon neutral, pedestrian/bike friendly, minimal traffic increase, minimal noise increase, increase (or at least no loss) in green spaceI 1 Buildings built to last with modern energy usage and environmentally friendly materials while protectin g the park land. 1 Building into brown space and not into green space.1 Ample parking, amenities for residents, access to public transportation.1 Adequate green space, storm water management 1 A sustainable development to me is a development that is thoughtful and conscious of the materials b eing used but also thinking about using green technology to power these new buildings. In addition, th inking of rooftop gardens could be an interesting concept. In addition, being mindful to limit the amoun t of runoff is important. 1 A development that successfully considers its environmental, energy, cultural, and community impacts and finds ways to fit in (and not stand out) to the existing (environment, energy, culture, community) 1 A development that preserves the greenspace around it and adds some additional trees or flowers on the property around the buildings. It should allow for the containment of water and allow water runoff i n the right direction from heavy rains and snow melt. It should not emit a lot of gas into the air and sho uld be insulated properly. Something that does not pollute the environment to a large extent and can h elp curtail climate change. The use of the right building materials to make it more environmentally frie ndly. 1 0 Please provide any other comments you may have about potential redevelopment throughout the stud… park area communit yRichfield cit y traffic housing people park. 66th buildapartments love places space veterans projectAdding it . natural area. retail buildings GREEN businesses feel live Don’t small walk make good street homes Portland city.leaveland redevelopment Richfield. important Legiondevelopment living residential move bring place community. SPACES adjacenthouse Pool parking options years wildlife quiet sense making Lake center made commercial ruin lot makes street. - Vet's hub here.high building idea immediately single family hope 2hard citizens talkneighbor ice memorial close develop change north Veteran's Park! resident property view peace bird bike asset improved stronger plan character species Vets etc. ago wanted story folks built home great Families includeadditionaltax incomeplayexperience nature Ave. Ave enjoy stores it’s alone. local run I’d big 3 4 25 6833 pressed find this. favor Serveinterestsagenda. rink fun stay all! Bill add in. turn fly bit is. facelift safe Ties fable path thing NE base baby Im / You would be hard pressed to find citizens who live in Richfield who actually want this. I have yet to ta lk to one neighbor who is in favor of it. Serve the interests of the citizens of the city, not your own agen da. 1 With the pool, ice rink and memorial being so close to eachother, I wonder about parking and traffic co ngestion entering/exiting the proposed site. 1 Why develop a natural area. Plenty of options to change things on Penn north of 66th.1 We need pedestrian crossing lights at 66th and Portland ASAP 1 We don’t really have many bars/breweries in the area and I think it would be a fun way to build comm unity after the pandemic ends! 1 Veteran's park needs to stay a park! no housing or retail development! please call and let me know w hen I can talk in front of you all! 612-300-7148 thank you Bill resident for over 25 years and love the p ark and know how this property was donated! 1 Veteran's Park is one of the few places where one can view wildlife and have a small space for peace and quiet in the city. Leave it alone!! 1 Veterans park is a jewel and should be preserved. It is highly used by the community and by people o utside the comunity who come to bird, mini-golf, bike or walk the trails. Seeing this space as an asset to be improved and protected is a stronger long-term goal than paving it over. 1 This plan does not seem to make logical sense when there are several unused and terrible looking bu ildings and land available for redevelopment within Richfield. Please consider cleaning those up and making good use of those first. 1 ResponseResponseResponseResponseResponseResponse CountCountCountCountCountCount This park is vitally important to birds and bird watchers from far and wide. It provides a rare confluenc e of low-impact human activity and nature. Please do not let its unique relaxing, natural character be d iminished. For example, the green space between Legion Lake and 66th Street should not, under any circumstances, have any structures add to it. It is very important for the sanity of city dwellers to have such scenes available to look at and/or walk in. Natural species must be protected. There are many ot her places in Richfield where development or redevelopment can happen. Vets Park should be disturb ed as little as possible. If new multifamily housing is desired, let it be restricted to lots in the area that already have aging apartments on them or the veterans center, etc. 1 This is off topic probably, but years ago Richfield wanted to build multi story buildings to get older folk s out of their homes to free up homes for younger people. I f you look at what is being built by the Tar get store.. number one anyone living in a residential home probably can't afford the cost of thee place s and secondly they are multilevel. Now I don't think people are looking to move out of their one story homes and into something they have to go up and down 3 stories..Just saying. 1 This is a great area for families and kids, and I don't want it to turn into something massive. It should maintain its character whatever is done. 1 There should be long hard decisions made with thoughts not only of gain that leaders think may come from development in this area but also of the loss there can be to those who use the park as it is now.. Not only the people but all the natural plant and animal species that are affected with development.. P LEASE DO A LITTLE GREEN THINKING!!! It's not all about $$$$ 1 The redevelopment ideas are a good opportunity to revamp this area of Richfield and modernize it. it should include a good mix of residential, commercial and recreational that can bring additional tax doll ars to Richfield. 1 The project seems to value the land as measured in dollars. Of course, more taxable income for the ci ty would follow. Please consider the value this land adds to our community that is immeasurable. Chil dren use that area to fly kites. Play catch with their parents. Go sledding in the winter. Families bring b lankets and picnic out there. People in our community go to the park to experience a bit of nature and to try to get away from the city. Looming buildings would ruin that. Adding a giant parking lot next to th e lake would ruin that. You're forgetting what the park is already giving to us. It's a place to exercise a nd breathe fresh air. Don't forget to value what makes a community a community. 1 The park is peaceful the way it is. Larger buildings along 66th Street would detract from the beauty an d peace of the park. It is already a regional destination and people already come here without adding a denser population. If any development is done, 66th Street from 12th Ave. to Cedar Ave. could inste ad use a facelift with so many small businesses along the street. 1 Thank you for allowing us to have input. I wish the community center project would still happen, as I fe el strongly that it would bring more use to the park and build a stronger community for our families. If t here is need for more input, I am happy to participate in other forums: Aric Bieganek 6833 2nd Ave S 7636004998 1 TEST - LANCE 1 Stop!!!! You are tearing this city up enough!!1 Slower traffic, improved transit, and better pedestrian/bike infrastructure on Portland Ave will be essen tial to making the area safe and accessible for all. 1 Please stop devaluing our natural spaces in East Richfield. Just because more people of color live in t his half of the city does not make our green spaces less important or valuable. Do not allow greed to f urther imperil the ecosystem at the park. Clean water and clean air are priceless and critical for the he alth and wellbeing of all residents. 1 Please listen to those who do not wish this area developed any further.1 Please listen to homeowners 1 Please do not encroach on the park itself, especially the wild spaces. When the weather is nice I take walks there almost every day. I enjoy the wildlife, the flora, and the peacefulness. Wood Lake does no t have the same 'vibe' and I would have to drive there vs. being able to walk to Vet's Park. 1 People need a quiet natural place within reach of their homes. Trees and Marshland do wonders for p eople and their mental health. 1 Parks are gathering places. It is crucial to utilize them as community spaces and not retail or housing. The Hub is a good example of poor choices. If the hub had been made into a park it would offer more to the community than it does currently. It is in dire need of revitalization. Don’t just give up and move on to destroying another green space. Adding more retail chains or a pharmacy would do nothing to b enefit the community that already lives here. Elevated dining or a brewery/brewpub would be a welco me addition compared to convenience stores or chains. Adding high density housing on the edges of t he area in question would block off the park from the community. You would essentially be selling off t he park, it’s view, and use to a housing complex. How does that benefit the current community? How many of the examples of developments provided, have lower level offerings to the community? 1 No more apartment buildings. Its RUINING Richfield 1 My biggest concern is to protect the "Honoring All Veterans Memorial" from vandals. We should respe ct all those who have their names engraved and the future names to be put on the memorial. With the legion being a good neighbor, I think this can be accomplished. 1 Make a new community center for resident to use for social activities. Ties in with the pool , golf and h ockey. Don't destroy the park 1 Leave Vets Park alone. Read the Aesop fable about killing the goose that laid golden eggs 1 Leave as is..makes Richfield a livable community. No condoms etc.1 Just leave Vet's Park alone.1 It should be done with Prevailing wage and local hire preferences 1 It seems Veterans Park is looked at for re-development over and over because of the land available. The park is a treasure in our city. It is a place to enjoy quiet and wildlife, to walk and bike. I'm fine with upgrading current amenities but not ok with adding new amenities. I believe we should preserve the g reen space we have. It offers a respite from hurried life. To be able to be in nature in the middle of the city is of great value and one of the reasons I love living here. Portland and 66th street traffic is very h eavy already and building condos/apartments with mixed use businesses along the project area will in crease traffic on these roads. Bringing additional traffic could be problematic for traffic and pedestrian s considering the plan to decrease Portland from 4 to 2 lanes north of 66th street. 1 If purchased , buyer provide space facing memorial for Legion activities (Meetings, Ceremonies, food and drinks 1 I want a Labyrinth walking path at Vet's Park! Can this happen?1 I think if the corridor along 66th is all converted to medium-density housing, traffic will be an issue sinc e 66th was converted to one lane (which I think was a mistake). I get a little nervous about having a lo t of rental units vs owernship units with the proximity to the park. Non-stakeholders will have less ince ntive to keep the area clean. But also understand the need for rentals. 1 I think building up across the street from the park makes a lot of sense but am VERY hesitant about b uilding up directly adjacent to the park. To me the different parts of the study area should be treated v ery differently. 1 I really would love to see "development not displacement" listed as a priority for this project. Existing c ommunity members shouldn't be evicted or alienated from our community for the sake of having a pre ttier street. I think that priorities should be given to local businesses (both in construction contracts an d in the businesses that eventually occupy those spaces). We don't need another walgreens or dairy queen in the area. We need places where community can thrive. Also I think it would be neat to includ e a nature/sustainability/climate change educational feature in the area once it's completed, even just a sign/poster thing that folks can read and learn more about what was done here. (Kind of like the rain water reclamation sites along University Avenue near Hamline Avenue in St. Paul). I think that what y ou did to the American Legion was a dick move, and I worry about what might be done to other small l ocally owned/community run businesses in the redevelopment area. 1 I love the idea of bringing more businesses to the area. I do not like the idea of condos and apartment s. One reason we moved to this area was for the more urban feel and to be out of the cities. Adding al l these medium and heavy size living complexes is not helping with the urban feel. What Richfield nee ds is grocery stores, restaurant options and shopping options. 1 I love living close to veterans park. As it stands, I am one house away from preexisting apartments th at border the park. If changes are made, I’d like those changes to ultimately raise my property value; not lower it. Don’t have commercial immediately adjacent to single family homes, and don’t have apart ments that will tower and dwarf single family homes stand immediately adjacent. Otherwise I am all fo r redevelopment. Walkability was a big deal when we picked our house four years ago, and I’d love fo r this area to be even more walkable! 1 I live within three blocks of the park, so while not in the study area I am immediately adjacent to it. I ru n through the part several days a week. I worry about traffic, noise, and loosing the sense of being aw ay from the bustle that you can get in the park. 1 I feel that the openness and welcome feeling that Veterans Park has now for the whole community ne eds to be kept--this is a place to come to walk, bike, play, meet friends, see others from the communit y at places like the Pool, Farmers Market and Concerts at the Bandshell. Blocking that NE corner with a big wall of apartments or business would really be sad. 1 I am really excited about this project and hope that the project will bring more retail as well as resident ial space to the community. In addition, I hope that the development has some affordable housing opti ons to allow for a wide range of individuals to live in this space and not just high income individuals. I am also interested in seeing how the project can support Richfield and create more destinations for p eople to come to and experience all that the city has to offer! 1 GREEN SPACES are an important city asset now and in the future!!!!1 Get rid of minimum parking requirements to fully take advantage of the investment in bus rapid transit.1 Answered: 51 Skipped: 56 Do not develop it. You will ruin the park, the water park, and the ice rink.1 Developing commercial and small business opportunities in the area would increase tax base and offe r updated buildings and appeal. I also hope it won’t move existing ones from the area. I love the park cause it’s an escape from the city. Don’t build a city around the thing. If we wanted to live among cond os and apartments I would have bought a house downtown Minneapolis. 1 build baby build 1 Again, Im not thrilled at the idea of making high density housing or anything more than 2 stories high. There are many places around the hub that need attention before a project changing the landscape of the park and residential feel of the veterans park neighborhood. Please don't build monstrosities in th e neighborhood that would make it regretful for me to have bought a house in this area. 1 Adding apartments to an area with traffic issues already will only make it worse. There are enough em pty retail buildings in Richfield - we do not need to build new retail spaces. Apartments can be built ot her places than adjacent to park. The fact the park doesn't bump up to housing makes it feel safer. Ri chfield is the hometown suburb - Hometown to me means single family housing, not stacks of apartm ents on each other, quit taking away the small town / home town feel of Richfield. 1 0 PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN24 ATTACHMENT B - SURVEY 2 PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 1 / 31 49.09%54 18.18%20 10.00%11 7.27%8 15.45%17 Q1 Personal Connections: Support redevelopment projects that preserves and enhances the ability of residents and users of Veterans Memorial Park to make personal connections to the park. Answered: 110 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 110 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Not s ure what that means 5/13/2021 2:38 PM 2 Are y ou as k ing if we need better paths for ac c ess and more park ing f or t he park ? Yes . People need to be able to park c lose by the veteran’s memorial not way over by the play ground. That lot gets f ull on bus y day s and is too far for many to walk ! 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 3 Really don't underst and where y ou are going with this quest ion. You want to know if we should have more sidewalks into the park to promote acces s ? 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 4 As long as it’s not multi unit housing or tall buildings.5/10/2021 7:25 AM 5 don't want to loos e the natural habitat s for all t o enjoy while not mak ing profit 5/9/2021 9:54 PM 6 The cont inuity of park us age s hould not be damaged by redevelopement just f or profit 5/9/2021 2:25 PM 7 key mes s age here is RESIDENTS 5/9/2021 10:07 AM 8 It fine just as it is 5/9/2021 9:47 AM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 2 / 31 9 I support projects that enhance the park itself- repav ing paths , a sound barrier on the Norths ide along 62, inc reasing native plant gardens. 5/9/2021 8:44 AM 10 Although Veterans is a "premier " destination in Richfield, it still has the feel of being a "quiet park ". I would like to preserv e this as much as possible. 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 11 I do not think the park needs to be redev eloped.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 12 Your redev elopment will ruin the park w/private development.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 13 This is a stupidly worded ques tion. What is a personal c onnection? Is that to a tree or connec tion to a s k y scraper? Could mean both. So I don’t c onnect wit h s k y s c rapers. Does that mak e s ense? Or do y ou think this is a stupidly worded question. Please call me any time. 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 14 Keep as is 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 15 I think the land from the area s hould be part of the park and k ept a natural area.5/7/2021 6:38 PM 16 This will bring more traffic to streets t hat were onc e 4 lanes but are now res tricted to two.5/7/2021 3:57 PM 17 Do not allow new building in the park that belongs to the residents of Ric hfield and not to only our city leaders 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 18 There is no mention of the Legion -- the Legion needs to hav e a strong, highly vis ible building onsite. They have been there for over 50 y ears . 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 19 Leave the park alone. Of anything add to the green s pace bot surround it with high dens ity housing. 5/6/2021 9:54 PM 20 This s houldn't even be a question. Veterans park is one of the best parks in the s tate, it would be a c omplete s hame t o build Apt/Condos anywhere clos e to this landmark... 5/6/2021 8:13 PM 21 The only enhances needed are new paths . Let the park be.5/6/2021 5:10 PM 22 "Preserv ing and enhanc ing" c an be defined too many different ways f or me to giv e a reasoned answer to this . 5/6/2021 4:53 PM 23 I rejec t the premise of "redevelopment"; it's code for ruin the park evermore 5/6/2021 4:44 PM 24 Neither additional dev elopment nor redevelopment would enhance the c ommunity or the park.5/6/2021 4:03 PM 25 This ques tions assumes “redev elopment ” is pos itive.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 26 What exac tly needs to be redev eloped? Highris es s urrounding green s pace is a terrible idea...Ric hfield has developed enough by dis placing s ingle family homes 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 27 No high dens ity housing near the park!5/6/2021 1:35 PM 28 Keep t he legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 29 No redevelopment, pleas e. Keep t he Vets Park area res idential as it is now.5/6/2021 1:22 PM 30 No more Dev elopments no more TI Fs let us realize the pros and cons of ex ist ing developments f irst 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 31 It would depend on what the redevelopment is . No apartments or hous ing!! Open land is not plentiful any more, and it is wonderful to hav e t he area for walking, picnic k ing, etc . Please do not put housing there - as lik e the housing by target, it look s t errible and makes every thing look sc runched together. Hous ing of any kind, particularly hi-rise, would take away f rom the area’s charm 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 32 As long as t he plans f o mot tak e single f amily homes .5/6/2021 11:05 AM 33 I believ e a community c enter where the Legion currently is would greatly enhanc e the park 5/6/2021 10:53 AM 34 Would like to see more trees, maybe a garden, integrated art/s culptures in open areas, etc. Als o is a great s pace to see urban wildlif e. I heard there were otters I hav e yet to see and that keeps me c oming back to find them :) 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 35 What are y ou trying to as k by this ques tion? How do you intend f or people to make an individual connec tion?? 5/6/2021 10:04 AM 36 Do not take people's homes or scum up the view with tall apartment buildings 5/6/2021 9:59 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 3 / 31 PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 4 / 31 30.63%34 26.13%29 13.51%15 15.32%17 14.41%16 Q2 Park & Neighborhood Connectivity: Increase connectivity to Veterans Memorial Park by incorporating vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connections between park destinations (e.g., the memorial, lake, ice arena, and swimming pool), neighborhoods, and redevelopment sites along Portland Avenue and 66th Street. Answered: 111 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 111 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Bic ycle lanes within reas on, not dominant.5/13/2021 2:38 PM 2 Improve the parking and the sidewalk s into the park lik e along the 66th street entrance t o the ice arena has no s idewalk walking in and there is currently no path to connect to the walking paths as they only made a path to the bands hell! 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 3 Connec tion to memorial garden by handic apped and elderly people is import ant. Parking by memorial is a mus t. But let's not fill the park with criss crossing s idewalks and roads. 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 4 Portland Av e NEEDS to be safer for families - es pec ially those with small c hildren who us e the park for recreational ac tivities . 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 5 As long as it’s not multiunit hous ing or tall buildings 5/10/2021 7:25 AM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 5 / 31 6 Need more recycling, better pick up for rec y cling and trash if y ou are wanting to inc reas e f oot traf fic with elec tic bus es 5/9/2021 9:54 PM 7 The space being redev oped s hould be part of the Park 5/9/2021 2:25 PM 8 Yes except adding vehicle lanes 5/9/2021 11:12 AM 9 Seems to me there are enough park ing and bik e t rails 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 10 We hav e plenty of high and medium dens ity apartments . It's a horrible idea to put a high density apartment/housing on Veterans Park (old Legion). 5/8/2021 11:31 PM 11 Although I would not oppos e improved pedes trian and bicycle connections, I would s trongly oppose inc reas ed v ehicle ac cess. The park ing lot Veteran's Park c urrent ly has is subs tantial enough to ac c ommodate the v olume of vis it ors . 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 12 There are already ex ist ing sidewalks, streets , and bik e paths that connec t people to the park.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 13 No. J ust no.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 14 There are already plent y of access points , but there needs to be repaving of the pat hs.5/8/2021 8:06 AM 15 Provide bett er acc es s for bike and pedestrians, minimiz e v ehicle traffic on 64th 5/8/2021 8:03 AM 16 This is also a s tupid question. There is one answer and multiple questions here. I agree that we should c onnect by incorporation c onnect ion for all of t he above but not between each dest ination. 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 17 Keep as is 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 18 I have actually been told by the city and county that they would NOT add additional pedes trian cros swalks at Port land and 66th St reet when ask ed. Odd s ince the point is to make MORE access ibility and s afer cros sings 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 19 particularly when y ou are walking around the park , you have to go behind the ic e arena, ad that spot is a bit uns ight ly. would be nic e if the paths were more 'offic ial' 5/7/2021 5:52 PM 20 More traffic = more nois e. It is hard to cross 66th or portland on foot now. Don't make it worse!5/7/2021 3:57 PM 21 The park c urrent ly has sufficient access 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 22 Better crosswalks. Lighted and s imilar to the one by loc al roots.5/7/2021 12:58 PM 23 Crosswalks on 66th at Park and other loc tions are adequate.5/7/2021 10:45 AM 24 This princ iple does not address that the Legion has their Post home t here and that the Legion needs to continue to have a highly vis ible and large enough building to s erve the entire communit y. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 25 Als o add movable seat ing 5/7/2021 8:42 AM 26 The park is v ery ac c es sible already.5/6/2021 8:58 PM 27 As long as it doesn’t t ake s ingle family housing 5/6/2021 8:46 PM 28 Bik e path/lanes run in all sides , not s ure how more c onnect ed it needs to be?5/6/2021 5:10 PM 29 ...but see abov e comment 5/6/2021 4:44 PM 30 There are already pedestrian and bicycle c onnections between all of these plac es. No one is inc onv enienc ed by not being able to driv e f rom the rink to the park without going around the bloc k . 5/6/2021 4:03 PM 31 These already ex ist to great ext ent.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 32 A plan showing intended c hanges is nec es s ary prior to ans wering this question 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 33 Mak e the park us eful for the existing communit y 5/6/2021 1:35 PM 34 Already hav e plent y of bik e ac c es sibility. Keep the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 35 Paths are good. Redev elopment is bad 5/6/2021 1:22 PM 36 AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INVOLVE REMOVING EXISTING HOMES 5/6/2021 1:05 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 6 / 31 37 Bik e/pedestrian path down 64th st in both direc tions would be great c onnect ing target shopping to eas t richfield 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 38 There is already plenty of c onnect ivity. The single driving lane each way on 66th already causes Is sues with traffic when you get behind a bus, a polic e car that mak es a traffic stop, a garbage truck. There is plenty of acces s already 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 39 There as lready is adequate access to the park .5/6/2021 11:05 AM 40 Agree with pedes trian and bik e c onnections . Enough vehicle ac c ess already.5/6/2021 10:43 AM 41 Does t his mean more roads, as phalt? Then, no. I’m unc lear what this ques tion is asking 5/6/2021 10:15 AM 42 I do think the park and areas s hould be acces s ible. I hav e conc erns about more of the limit ed green s pace being des troyed to accomplish that goal. I want the park presev ered but access ible. 5/6/2021 10:04 AM 43 We already have bike lanes, it is f reely nic e right now 5/6/2021 9:59 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 7 / 31 5.41%6 9.91%11 6.31%7 18.02%20 60.36%67 Q3 Diversify Housing Options: Use redevelopment sites to expand the mix of housing in the area (e.g. row/townhouse, affordable units, courtyard apartments, courtyard cottages, and live-work units). Answered: 111 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 111 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 We don’t need diversified or any other housing at the park. It is a c ommunity park and s hould be pres erved. Keep the s pace open as park . We c annot eas ily get back green s pac e once it's gone. 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 2 How about don't build there!!!5/12/2021 9:48 PM 3 we do not want multifamily built in the park . Please do not knoc k down hous es that are across the street of Vet's Park . 5/12/2021 12:12 PM 4 As a homeowner, I along with many others in the communit y are oppos ed to s uch high-dens ity apartments that will bring crime to the area. We along with many others hav e invest ed in renovating our homes and do not want to s ee s uc h a negative impact on the c ommunity. 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 5 As a home owner on 5th Ave S., I - and many others - are oppos ed to a high-dens ity development being planned/located on the current American Legion s ite/park ing lot adjac ent to Vet eran's Memorial Park. We feel such housing would disrupt t he fabric of our community, 5/10/2021 3:19 PM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 8 / 31 create more traffic /noise and potentially facilitate petty theft/c rime - s omething ALL homeowners in t his area are highly oppos ed to! 6 The res idential sites currently going up is not diversity housing, they are monster buildings that ruin the site lines to the park and s treets . 5/9/2021 9:54 PM 7 If there is true affordable housing 5/9/2021 9:10 PM 8 The areas s hown should not be converted to housing at all!5/9/2021 2:25 PM 9 I'm in favor of medium density vs high. Townhomes (yes) v s apartments 5/9/2021 11:12 AM 10 We do not need high dens ity hous ing in that c orridor, we are a SMALL TOWN suburb, keep us small town. Keep single f amily homes the priority for dev elopment. 5/9/2021 10:07 AM 11 Leave the residential hous es int act 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 12 I lov e the div ers ity that is Ric hfield. I feel as though redev elopment s ites will expand higher- end units and actually dec reas e the amount of affordable units . 5/9/2021 8:44 AM 13 More single family homes. If any thing, we need to align with trends promoting property value inc reas es . 5/8/2021 11:31 PM 14 Single family hous ing is in Richfield's bes t interest. I understand that this will likely not remain, but I believe that "affordable hous ing" and/or inc reas ing population through multi-f amily hous ing will lead to exponential potential for deterioration of the park's current aesthetics. 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 15 The exis ting housing c ompliments the peac efulness of t he park .5/8/2021 4:29 PM 16 No skysc rapers, towers, or condos to s hade the park.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 17 We almost need a moratorium on s enior and high dens ity 5/8/2021 8:14 AM 18 There are already plent y of housing options along 66th, plus new ones near Target. I am strongly agains t adding tall buildings along Port land. 5/8/2021 8:06 AM 19 Leave park a park and buy the properties as they bec ome available to claim more park area. Not more housing. 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 20 We do want Minneapolis-lite, no 2040. Foc us on public safety and c rime reduction versus your quest to be lik e Minneapolis 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 21 This is a neighborhood area and s hould stay that way. No HIGH RISE apartments or LOW INCOME pleas e 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 22 this needs to be done carefully with thought toward exis ting s ingle family homes , so things transition nic ely 5/7/2021 5:52 PM 23 Mak ing these c hanges makes way for lowering community standards of nois e, peace, and quiet. 5/7/2021 3:57 PM 24 This s ounds lik e the city jus t wants more money. Our city is already a very diverse communit y. 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 25 The homes & apartments that are established are great jus t the way they are.5/7/2021 12:58 PM 26 Please do no ttake any additional exis ting homes .5/7/2021 10:45 AM 27 No reference to the Legion in this principle. The City needs to incorporate what the Legion needs to continue their mis s ion of serving v eterans, elderly , y outh and low-income families. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 28 It would mak e t he area more appealing and add depth 5/7/2021 8:42 AM 29 I do not believ e there s hould be any high dens ity housing in the 66th and Portland area. If there is I would be oppos ed to anything above 2 or 3 stories. I think this is a good opportunity to build townhouses , that blend in wit h the housing already in the area. Ideally I would lik e to s ee 2 s tory townhouses , with the first floor being wheelchair acces s ible. 5/7/2021 12:17 AM 30 Please dont turn this into a low c ost or high density hous ing area towering over t he park 5/6/2021 9:54 PM 31 I am s o tired of nothing but housing developments going up on ev ery open inc h of s pace around here. And all the high ris e buildings t ake away from being able to see the c ity. Too 5/6/2021 9:24 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 9 / 31 many high buildings and enough already with apart ments and other dwellings . Please s top!!! 32 LEAVE IT AS IS 5/6/2021 8:13 PM 33 I would have to see the plan. A mixed plan that didn't exceed 2-3 s tories and was well blended to t he s ingle family housing would be great 5/6/2021 5:57 PM 34 Apartments/town houses are their own little communit y, which defeats t he idea of making the park more ac cessible. It will do the complete oppos it e 5/6/2021 5:10 PM 35 We need more affordable hous ing. That's it .5/6/2021 4:53 PM 36 Many bus ines s es will retain a heav ily online work force after the pandemic. The need to liv e in an urban area will dec line as a res ult of this. People are going to choose to move further away from the metro if there is no need to commute. 5/6/2021 4:03 PM 37 I am not look ing to add hous ing to the neighborhood. It is already quite urban and we do not need a greater number of residents or more available housing. The purpose of the c it y government is to s erv e the communit y in the way it wants ...not push development projec ts to inc reas e t ax rev enue and programming opportunit ies (unles s those are goals for most res idents. For my part, I don’t want more neighbors, busier streets, or more programs. 5/6/2021 3:15 PM 38 These areas should be cons umed by t he park t o pres erve the env ironment.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 39 Please s top removing single family homes and putting in multi-st ory dev elopments 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 40 High density housing will destroy the natural s unlight to the park and increase parking and res idential traffic, which will disrupt the wildlife habitats of the park. No high density hous ing! 5/6/2021 1:35 PM 41 No apartments. Low profile commercial retail. But k eep the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 42 I agree, but am trus t no more exis ting homes will be eliminated in the area to build additional housing? 5/6/2021 1:25 PM 43 Keep t he s ingle family neighborhood feel as is ,5/6/2021 1:22 PM 44 Same as question 1 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 45 No!!!! k eep the land open or put another res taurant -type plac e there 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 46 Leave the s ingle family homes ! Sick of bloc ks and bocks of high density housing. High density does not enc ourage families . 5/6/2021 11:05 AM 47 We hav e enough c ondo's and apart ments 5/6/2021 10:56 AM 48 We need more affordable hous ing. We also need an equitable community center.5/6/2021 10:53 AM 49 Div ers ify housing in a way that minimiz es v ehicular t raff ic.5/6/2021 10:43 AM 50 Res ident ial s etting could lead t o more waste, debris/garbage in the park, more traffic (street and walk way s ), added public s afety concerns (more c hance for assaults and other c rimes ), streets c annot s upport the addit ional traffic (turns on and of f Port land or 66th going both directions ; may lead to needing street renov ations) 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 51 Ric hfield has n't finished current housing developments.5/6/2021 10:04 AM 52 Nope! Why would y ou do this?! Clutter up t he area and increas e population dens ity, hard NO 5/6/2021 9:59 AM 53 Quit tearing down s ingle family homes and des troying the v ery make up of t he c it y. Just s top!5/6/2021 9:54 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 10 / 31 11.61%13 35.71%40 14.29%16 10.71%12 27.68%31 Q4 Convenient Commercial: Encourage a mix of community and small neighborhood commercial businesses in proximity to residential areas and the park destinations as an important amenity for residents and park visitors. Answered: 112 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 112 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Although I s upport small busines s locations in Ric hfield, no bus ines s es or buildings s hould be added in t he area along the park. 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 2 I like the idea of places for s mall bus inesses t o be able to t ry and make ago of it. I don't think in the park is the right place. 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 3 Would welcome small bus iness es that are within walk ing dis tanc e and help enhance the communit y. 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 4 No commerc ial bus inesses on Parkland. Park s should be a place for people to connec t nature.5/10/2021 7:25 AM 5 Please c onsider quality non fas t food dining emulating eat street of Nicollet Ave, Upt own Grand St in St Paul 5/10/2021 7:07 AM 6 We need more s mall bus iness but not thes e c rac k er jac k large c orporat ions , again prof its do not justify des troying the park 5/9/2021 9:54 PM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 11 / 31 7 Priority to BIPOC bus iness es .5/9/2021 9:10 PM 8 We s hould not s ell off parts of the park for commercial use. The Nilson funeral home is OK.5/9/2021 2:25 PM 9 I'd love to see 66th street from target t o Veteran's park look lik e wes t end.5/9/2021 11:12 AM 10 We do not need businesses in that area. It should be k ept a nic e outdoor s pace that can be enjoy ed by many, not commerc ialized. 5/9/2021 10:07 AM 11 But not at the expens ive. Of current residential homes 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 12 I am not oppos ed to developing the empty lot on c lose to the corner on Port land and 66th but there are many bus inesses along 66th already - they might be a bloc k or two further east but I would agree wit h developing some of these areas before c hanging neighborhood f eel along the sout h s ide of 66th. 5/9/2021 8:44 AM 13 There is already an appropriate "...mix of c ommunity and small neighborhood c ommercial businesses in proximity to residential areas and the park dest inations". To "encourage" more would increase vehicle traffic in and around the park, dist urb wildlife and may adv ers ely affec t the cleanliness of the park. 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 14 66th Street already offers many commerc ial bus ines s es , espec ially east of the park. It would detrac t from the park to add any more commercial businesses than there are already. 5/8/2021 4:29 PM 15 Leave the bus ines s es there alone.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 16 Support, don't destroy s mall businesses. Every development project is remov ing 8 s mall businesses and replacing them with 1 or 2 large chains. 5/8/2021 8:14 AM 17 Res taurants lik e Sea Salt and Sandc as tle are very popular at Minneapolis park s , can something similar be added near the playground on the eas t side of the park? More attract ive than the ice cream place and offering adult options. 5/8/2021 8:06 AM 18 If people want t o go to the park. They want to enjoy nature. If t hey want retail, they can go to a retail area. We don’t need retail in the park. We need more park in the park 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 19 Keep as is . No housing displacement 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 20 I think that t oo muc h c ommerc ial bus ines s es in the park can c reate negativ e impac ts on wildlife and nature, es pecially with litter from tak e out food etc 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 21 businesses that make s ense lik e c offee shops or lunch plac es . Not pawn shops , gas stations, or f uneral parlors. 5/7/2021 5:52 PM 22 No rowdy businesses such as certain types of res taurant s and all drink ing establishments !5/7/2021 3:57 PM 23 They are c urrent ly many busines s in Ric hfield already that provide the needs of the residents 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 24 Local root s is a great addition, along with the enc hanted rock garden mov ing clos er.5/7/2021 12:58 PM 25 Please do not replac e homes with mix ed/c ommercial developments.5/7/2021 10:45 AM 26 Again, where is the Legion building -- the Legion needs t o receive the highest priority in this area -- and t hen every thing els e is planned around the Legion. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 27 I think this would 100% mak e the park more of a destination!!5/7/2021 8:42 AM 28 No big stores!!!5/7/2021 12:17 AM 29 As long as it doesn’t t ake s ingle family homes 5/6/2021 8:46 PM 30 The current mixed community is great. I wouldn't want to see a ton more added bec ause the neighborhoods already have high traffic volume 5/6/2021 5:57 PM 31 Would espec ially like to see affordable s pace for independent bus iness es .5/6/2021 5:48 PM 32 As long as it's not rez oning.5/6/2021 4:53 PM 33 Spac e for these businesses already exists on 66th s treet and Portland.5/6/2021 4:03 PM 34 While I wouldn’t mind seeing a f ew more restaurants or s mall businesses, this ques tion is very vague. I am very wary of “encouraging” development. 5/6/2021 3:15 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 12 / 31 35 Inc reas ed traffic will mak e the park feel less lik e a park.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 36 Again, context necessary 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 37 As long as said c ommercial use is valuable to the community and doesn't disrupt the park .5/6/2021 1:35 PM 38 Agree. Smaller non suburban businesses and keep the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 39 Will this increase traffic in the area?5/6/2021 1:25 PM 40 No new bus inesses around Vets Park, please.5/6/2021 1:22 PM 41 Do not remove current res ident homes on 66th between portland & 12th!5/6/2021 1:05 PM 42 Serious ly Richfield is just minutes from any thing y ou c ould want. Do not take s ingle family homes for busines s es whic h brings more non-res idents and theref ore increases c rime. 5/6/2021 11:05 AM 43 Small/local s hops would be good. No chains are needed in this area.5/6/2021 10:53 AM 44 Would lov e to see more neighborhood res taurants as well as s mall unique local bus ines s es and organizations (avoid s trip mall s ty le franchises) 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 45 Added traffic on streets, with more people trying t o mak e turns with busy s treets c an lead to more accidents 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 46 One thing I apprec iate about Richfield is the v ariety of local bus ines s es 5/6/2021 10:04 AM 47 Not needed and wouldn't be utiliz ed 5/6/2021 9:59 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 13 / 31 42.34%47 25.23%28 9.91%11 6.31%7 16.22%18 Q5 Sustainable Development: Use sustainable design practices and new technology in developments that will help create a healthy, sustainable, vibrant neighborhood, and contribute to the park environment. Answered: 111 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 111 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 This c omment is too vague and broad to agree on. We should add only things to beautify the park s pac e lik e sc ulpt ures /gardens . Also k eep mos t of it green s pace. A s olar flower c ould prov ide interest and be a source of electric it y for the park. 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 2 Don't build. Or how about some solar flowers to help generate electricity for pool/ic e rink and have a nice look . 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 3 sust ainable design practic es equate t o v ery high ex penditures and increased t axes 5/12/2021 12:12 PM 4 As long as t he design is not on commercial buildings nor tall buildings nor multi-unit housing 5/10/2021 7:25 AM 5 Only if y ou c an commit to all incomes of liv ing and not brining in people from Edina 5/9/2021 9:54 PM 6 The City had an opportunity for a c ommunity center and chos e to inc orporat e those residences into the park. 5/9/2021 2:25 PM 7 I'm not s ure what is meant here, but if you mean c ity provided wi-fi, garbage / rec y c ling / compost, then I agree. 5/9/2021 10:07 AM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 14 / 31 8 How many more people can the veterans park subs tain 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 9 I don't see how big housing units can help c reate sust ainable development.5/9/2021 8:44 AM 10 I would fully support s ustainable design practic es that would maintain the "health" of the park , its v isitors and immediate res idents. 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 11 I’m in favor of sustaining a v ibrant neighborhood and park, but adding multi- resident housing would detract from that . 5/8/2021 4:29 PM 12 Sus tainable sounds ex pensiv e 5/8/2021 8:14 AM 13 Keep as is 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 14 How c an you bring in more people and not raise c rime levels ?5/7/2021 3:57 PM 15 I don’t feel there’s a need for any more busines s or housing in Ric hfield that brings more c rime to t he c it y. They already c an’t prov ide a c rime f ree env ironment 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 16 Please, another principle that does not addres s at all the importance of the Legion to be the primary f ocus for this property. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 17 It needs to be sustainable, honest ly it shouldn’t ev en be a ques tion 5/7/2021 8:42 AM 18 Preserving t he park should be the #1 priority of the project.5/6/2021 9:24 PM 19 AGAIN LEAVE THIS AREA ALONE 5/6/2021 8:13 PM 20 Only if there are no apartments, c ondos or businesses on park land 5/6/2021 5:45 PM 21 If there is any new dev elopment, it must be done sustainably.5/6/2021 4:53 PM 22 Dev elopment s are unnec es s ary and deplete the character of the city.5/6/2021 4:03 PM 23 “Sustainable design practic es ” is vague. I also believe our neighborhood is vibrant and needs little or no “development” 5/6/2021 3:15 PM 24 Again, adding housing and bus ines s will tak e away from the park .5/6/2021 3:09 PM 25 As long as you keep t he legion and litt le vegas 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 26 I have no idea what kind of new terminology this implies s o I c annot ans wer.this i 5/6/2021 1:22 PM 27 Do not remove current res ident homes on 66th between portland & 12th 5/6/2021 1:05 PM 28 As long as t he requirement is on the dev eloper and not residents via TIF 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 29 And in the c oncept of this, does not mean high dens ity hous ing.5/6/2021 11:05 AM 30 Sus tainable des ign and new tec hnology us ed in the creat ion of a community cent er would put us on the map! 5/6/2021 10:53 AM 31 Any thing that is built should be s ustainable but I do not agree that we need high density “dev elopments”. 5/6/2021 10:47 AM 32 Minimize v ehic les/park ing lot res tric tions, bike park ing, green spac e requirements, minimiz e nois e, lighted s ign brightness limit s, mindful of wildlif e in the area 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 33 Again disagree with redevelopment of any k ind in t his area 5/6/2021 9:59 AM 34 Stop tearing down single family homes 5/6/2021 9:54 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 15 / 31 30.00%33 19.09%21 19.09%21 7.27%8 24.55%27 Q6 Building Transition: Require site design and building architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions between single family residential neighborhoods and higher intensity uses. Answered: 110 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 110 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Don’t build anything in the park es pecially not high dens it y/intensity!5/12/2021 9:54 PM 2 Don't build high intens ity in the park!!!!!!!!5/12/2021 9:48 PM 3 However, I'm oppos ed to high dens ity dev elopment in the area.5/10/2021 3:19 PM 4 Oppos ed to high-dens ity development[s] adjacent to Veteran's Memorial Park unles s mix ed- use/condominiums. 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 5 No high dens ity housing in Veterans Park . No tall buildings. Perhaps a low rise community cent er. Or nature building similar to Wood Lake. 5/10/2021 7:25 AM 6 Need t o incorporate site lines of the park to mak e s ure flight plans of birds are des troyed 5/9/2021 9:54 PM 7 Let these spaces remain part of the park !5/9/2021 2:25 PM 8 Dis agree with higher density uses in this area!5/9/2021 10:07 AM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 16 / 31 9 Onc e again to many people. Us ing the park?5/9/2021 9:47 AM 10 I don't want higher intens ity us es therefore, there would be no need for an appropriate trans ition 5/9/2021 8:44 AM 11 We need to limit height of any new developments .5/8/2021 11:31 PM 12 I would like to limit the "high intens ity " us es altogether, but if they are going to happen regardless then of course I would hope there would be "appropriate trans itions ". 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 13 I am opposed to higher intensity uses adjac ent to the park.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 14 Leave the neighborhood alone.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 15 ...or don't replac e t he 1R 5/8/2021 8:14 AM 16 Please don't build any thing tall, or long rows of buildings that block all the views, es pecially on the north s ide of 66th or t he east side of Portland., 5/8/2021 8:06 AM 17 Again, I would live in Minneapolis if I wanted Richfield to be Minneapolis . Focus on crime reduction! 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 18 except that we really don't des ire high density right in the spac e adjacent to the park . We hav e plenty of apartment buildings by the park on both the s outh and wes t side 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 19 What's wrong with single family homes. (I live in an apartment on the circle of 66t h and Portland.) 5/7/2021 3:57 PM 20 Do not want a new building around our park that’s currently used by my children 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 21 No reference has yet been made t o what the needs of the Legion. The Legion is 95 years old; has been on this s it e for ov er 40 years and focus es all of their act ivities to help v eterans, low inc ome and community. The Legion needs to be t he firs t priorit y in this project . 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 22 Yes, Ric hfield needs t his everywhere!! Like how does cedar not hav e sc reening???5/7/2021 8:42 AM 23 I feel like this is contradictory. an appropriate transition would not be high intensity. Appropriate transitions would be no more than 2 stores , and not hiding t he park f rom the s treet. 5/7/2021 12:17 AM 24 Keep Richfield s ingle family res idential 5/6/2021 9:25 PM 25 No more hous ing!5/6/2021 9:24 PM 26 Another dumb ques tion 5/6/2021 8:13 PM 27 Yes, architec ture sty les should retain the c ommunity aes thetic .5/6/2021 4:03 PM 28 I am in fav or of single family residential neighborhoods and a reas onable number of multi-unit housing...I do not s ee a need for building more “high intensity use” s ites. Again, as a resident, I don’t want a denser c ommunity “developed” and I would really like the city to s top pushing this agenda on res idents. 5/6/2021 3:15 PM 29 Fancy words to me that mean more sidewalk s and roads in the park .5/6/2021 3:09 PM 30 Stop adding so many high dens ity dev elopments before Richf ield c eases to be the resident ial communit y it was, is and should be 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 31 I don't trust that the city planners hav e the ability to do t his as they hav e prov en wit h prev ious ly approved project s that they don't have an understanding of what this ev en means . Giant apartments do not belong near park s nor backed up to single f amily homes . 5/6/2021 1:35 PM 32 But no high rise high dens ity apartments . Keep lit tle Vegas and the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 33 Do not remove current res ident homes on 66th between portland & 12th 5/6/2021 1:05 PM 34 Dont build HD projec ts 5/6/2021 11:21 AM 35 Dis agree bec ause we should not be building more high density until we see ramifications of exis ting projects 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 36 Stop the high density housing. So this ques tion is irrelevant. You are destroy ing the c harac ter and charm of Richfield by going to all high density. 5/6/2021 11:05 AM 37 If thes e transitions happen, it needs t o be done well and the people being pushed out need to 5/6/2021 10:53 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 17 / 31 be c ompensated. 38 Again, build sus tainably and beautifully, but don’t add high dens it y.5/6/2021 10:47 AM 39 Woofta! I have a mas ters degree in the social sciences and have read this ques tion s everal times, but s till don't understand it! 5/6/2021 10:13 AM 40 Stop tearing down single family homes. To put up high density will NOT enhance Vet s Park , it will DESTROY it. 5/6/2021 9:54 AM 41 The new t ownhomes by Target are horrible. If new high dens ity residential buildings will go up I would prefer traditional look ing rowhomes not modern designs that look terrible. 5/6/2021 9:48 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 18 / 31 45.87%50 14.68%16 18.35%20 1.83%2 19.27%21 Q7 Building Heights: Locate the tallest portions of buildings away from adjacent low density residences. For sites adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, locate the tallest portions of buildings away from the park’s open areas. Answered: 109 Sk ipped: 3 TOTAL 109 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Don’t go so tall it look s like a different Veterans Park are.5/13/2021 2:38 PM 2 Our park is not the place to build any thing with more than one s tory. We don’t want the f eeling of a city in our natural park setting. 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 3 Don't build or only build 2 stories. Anything taller will dominate the park...5/12/2021 9:48 PM 4 Again opposed to high-density living Veterans memorial park.5/10/2021 3:19 PM 5 Oppos ed to high-dens ity development[s] adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park unless mixed- use/condominiums. 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 6 No new buildings in the park unless it is a c ommunity building.5/10/2021 7:34 AM 7 No tall buildings should be built in or around Veterans Memorial Par.5/10/2021 7:25 AM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 19 / 31 8 NO higher than 3 stories 5/10/2021 7:07 AM 9 If y ou put large buildings around the park, you are not for nature. You are only for profit. Mus t consider t he long term effects of big buildings when they are not green lik e no glass, living walls. Practice what Finland and Sweden are doing in their new housing 5/9/2021 9:54 PM 10 Put them in some other part of Richfield 5/9/2021 2:25 PM 11 Don't have high buildings in this area!5/9/2021 10:07 AM 12 Why do we need high density hous ing 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 13 Again, I don't want tall buildings any where near Veterans park 5/9/2021 8:44 AM 14 I'm leaving Richfield if y ou build property value lowering apartments on Veterans Park.5/8/2021 11:31 PM 15 I would not like t o s ee any buildings more t han two s tories tall next t o the park. I f buildings taller than s ingle s tory are to be erect ed then yes , I would like the tallest portions of them to be as far away from the park as possible. 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 16 Tall buildings would detrac t from the beauty and peacefulness of the park.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 17 Do not ruin the park by building towers .5/8/2021 4:29 PM 18 ...or don't have more t han 3 s tories / 30ft in hight 5/8/2021 8:14 AM 19 A better option is to not build anything tall at all, it will ruin t he ov erall aes thetic of the park.5/8/2021 8:06 AM 20 Would lov e to see City of Richfield expand veterans park without any commerc ial or res idential development 5/8/2021 8:03 AM 21 Stupid ques tion. There is no option for me to say what I want if I don’t want buildings. You have not allowed for anyone in t his survey to voice ideas and options that don’t include buildings . This is a v ery biased quest ion that will lead people in one direction. Who did you hire to make up thes e v ague and biased ques tions ? the city can do better than t his. 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 22 Poorly worded ques tion and v ery poorly c ons truct ed s urv ey.5/7/2021 8:33 PM 23 Please do not put any tall buildings to encroach on our skyline views and sunsets. The natural beauty and open s pace feeling is what attrac ts people to the park. People in a metro area crav e open natural areas that are not hemmed in by tall buildings . Take Richfield Lake, for ins tanc e. When y ou walk around that lak e, you feel like there are buildings and windows staring down at you from all s ides . No matter how y ou point the camera, you always get a reflection or a background with a building in it. YUCK! Please don't mak e s ome huge towering building by t he park . Keep our s paces open and peaceful. Please keep the area jus t part of the park instead of redeveloping it. This is our only chanc e to increase park s ize and preserv e it for future generations. Why do you think it is a destination? BECAUSE it is a natural area. Keep it that way ! 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 24 Don't you mean talles t buildings ? How can you separate a building into portions?5/7/2021 3:57 PM 25 No building any thing around our park 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 26 Don’t alter the current landscape 5/7/2021 12:58 PM 27 First, inc orporate the needs of the Legion as priorit y -- then come up with principles that support and enhanc e the Legion's ability to serve their c ommunity. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 28 While I agree with this I don't think that anyt hing should be more than 3 stories, and s hould not bloc k the view of the park. 5/7/2021 12:17 AM 29 No tall buildings at all 5/7/2021 12:04 AM 30 Do not build sk y sc rapers next to our park 5/6/2021 9:54 PM 31 Preserve the park v iew 5/6/2021 9:24 PM 32 What?5/6/2021 8:13 PM 33 2-3 story maximum (c urrent heights of the few apartment buildings - t hose could be remov ed & replaced but don't add a t on more 5/6/2021 5:57 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 20 / 31 34 Would prefer that exceptionally tall buildings not be allowed in Veteran's Park .5/6/2021 5:48 PM 35 BUT NO BUILDI NGS ON PARK LAND 5/6/2021 5:45 PM 36 Do NOT put in a tall building where the funeral home currently s its , as it would s hade the pool.5/6/2021 4:53 PM 37 I am not sure just what type of height we are cons idering. I would say no to a high rise.5/6/2021 4:13 PM 38 However, anything t aller t han c urrent s truct ures bordering the park is too tall.5/6/2021 4:03 PM 39 Any neces s arily tall s tructures should be as unobtrusive as pos s ible.5/6/2021 3:15 PM 40 This is a moot point because the added traffic will deter from the park.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 41 Don't build mult i story buildings around Vets Park 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 42 No tall buildings.5/6/2021 1:35 PM 43 How about no buildings taller than 2 stories and k eep the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 44 No tall buildings, pleas e 5/6/2021 1:22 PM 45 Do not remove current res ident homes on 66th between portland & 12th 5/6/2021 1:05 PM 46 No tall buildings anywhere 5/6/2021 12:55 PM 47 I gues s it is already a done deal s o why as k thes e ques tions 5/6/2021 11:21 AM 48 We must have s tric t limit on higher (i.e. 3 st ories in full) ins tead of c ontrolling layout to make them taller 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 49 Don’t want to s ee any buildings over one s tory 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 50 There s hould be no high buildings by the park and ruin the view.5/6/2021 11:05 AM 51 No more new buildings 5/6/2021 10:56 AM 52 Res trict building heights to protect v iews and minimiz e shadows 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 53 Buildings aren’t nec essary 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 54 Don’t hav e a building that looks over the trees in the area 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 55 No high ris e buildings!5/6/2021 10:21 AM 56 Don't put any bldgs....5/6/2021 9:59 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 21 / 31 62.73%69 14.55%16 7.27%8 1.82%2 13.64%15 Q8 Building Massing: Locate and design buildings to preserve views to/from the park’s open areas and minimize potential shadowing of the park. Answered: 110 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 110 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Extremely important.5/13/2021 2:38 PM 2 A max imum height of one story is what we should maintain if anything is built. It s hould keep to t he c urrent s tatus quo. Better y et, don’t build at all! 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 3 2 s tories max or better yet do not build anything 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 4 No new buildings in the park unless it ’s a c ommunity building!5/10/2021 7:34 AM 5 No tall buildings should be built. Only low rise buildings s imilar to Wood Lak e nature c enter 5/10/2021 7:25 AM 6 Yes, put them somewhere else!5/9/2021 2:25 PM 7 don't tak e away the views of the park when driving by, don't build here 5/9/2021 10:07 AM 8 If new buildings are are an end point then yes, but why change any thing 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 9 Wit h the spaces under rev iew, I don't see how it is obtainable to preserve the view. I liv e on the 5/9/2021 8:44 AM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 22 / 31 Eas t s ide of the park and I do not want to see high ris e in the sky line 10 As stated earlier, the buildings and homes c urrently adjacent to the park add to its peac e and beauty. New development would detract from it. 5/8/2021 4:29 PM 11 Don't build new buildings.5/8/2021 4:29 PM 12 I so miss the day s I c ould walk around woodlake without seeing s k y scrapers 2 bloc ks away 5/8/2021 8:14 AM 13 Keep all new buildings to a minimum.5/8/2021 8:06 AM 14 Same as the prior question. This is insane!5/7/2021 10:25 PM 15 as explained above, we don't want to see the building in t he photos of s unsets and we c ertainly don't want s ome HUGE towering rec tangle box. If it is going to be there, vary the roof height and giv e it a c ottage-like feel with angled roof peaks and charm so that it look s like a storybook des tination, not a metropolis pleas e. Or as I st ated before, keep it nat ural! 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 16 This is great for the people who vis it the park. But what about the res idents near the park? Is it OK to bloc k us ? 5/7/2021 3:57 PM 17 The priority to preserv e is the prominent and c ontinued location of the Legion at this Portland property. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 18 See #7 5/6/2021 9:54 PM 19 Don't build buildings c lose to this s ite.5/6/2021 8:13 PM 20 Replace old dated buildings with mandates new landlords would need to allow long standing res idents preference at c heaper rent 5/6/2021 5:57 PM 21 Would prefer that exceptionally tall buildings not be allowed in Veteran's Park .5/6/2021 5:48 PM 22 STREETS SHOULD BE BOUNDARIES SO NO VIEW AFFECTED.5/6/2021 5:45 PM 23 But what about t he traffic night mare that will c ome wit h high density bldgs in that area. I t’s not great now after hockey games 5/6/2021 5:10 PM 24 New dev elopment is not nec es sary.5/6/2021 4:03 PM 25 buildings and dev elopment are cons tantly t hreatening to ov ert ake what green spac es we have. Where they are es s ential, buildings s hould always come s econd to t he park env ironment. 5/6/2021 3:15 PM 26 Simply pres erv ing views isn’t enough. New buildings are the problem.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 27 Don't build mult i story buildings around Vets park 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 28 No tall buildings or high density housing near t he park s .5/6/2021 1:35 PM 29 Low buildings. Like the legion is now. Lower than s treet level and keep the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 30 No tall buildings. No bloc k ing the v iew of the park from 66th or Portland 5/6/2021 1:22 PM 31 Do not remove current res ident homes on 66th between portland & 12th 5/6/2021 1:05 PM 32 No buildings = no s hade issues 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 33 No tall buildings by the park.5/6/2021 11:05 AM 34 Enough with redev elopment lik e this 5/6/2021 10:56 AM 35 Res trict building heights to protect v iews 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 36 The building s hould in no way impact t he park negativ ely 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 37 No bldgs 5/6/2021 9:59 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 23 / 31 22.32%25 19.64%22 16.96%19 10.71%12 30.36%34 Q9 Quantity of Parking: Minimize parking needs by leveraging the study area’s location along multimodal corridors to reduce the use of the automobile. Answered: 112 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 112 #COMMENTS (100 CHARACTER LIMIT):DATE 1 Be realis tic rather than idealistic. An aging population is n’t not going to s tart biking or walk ing. More saf ety measures necess ary for women and girls to feel s afe walking and biking alone. 5/13/2021 2:38 PM 2 DO NOT reduce parking. When we do have fes tiv als and activ e t imes in the park it can be very diffic ult to find parking and we should not be limiting families from c oming becaus e of it. Mos t res idents in Richfield have v ehic les. We wouldn’t use the park more if you lev eraged the mult imodal c orridors. That actually can lead to more vandalism. 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 3 Do NOT decrease park ing. This will c reate problems for events lik e the 4th of July or other groups. Thos e ev ents make Richfield a des tination. I have s een park ing mostly full a number of t imes pre Covid19. Let 's not driv e parking out into the neighborhood if we can help it. 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 4 Seniors c annot bik e, rollers k ate, or us e Sk ateboards to get to the park.5/10/2021 7:34 AM 5 People need a place to park. Not ev erybody has mobility espec ially in Richf ield.5/10/2021 7:25 AM 6 Mus t start to think about more and saf e bikes lanes v s parking, need to think about connecting 5/9/2021 9:54 PM Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Str ongl y dis agr ee 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St rongly agree Agree Neither agree nor dis agree Dis agree St rongly dis agree PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 24 / 31 people by other modes of transportation v s hav ing a large hot parking lot taking up room that could be used better 7 The park ing lots that are there are us ually already full, don't limit park ing and push people to park on residential streets as it brings other is s ues lik e littering, etc 5/9/2021 10:07 AM 8 No need for more parking with the current situation or any new development 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 9 Every time this is done, you run out of parking....5/8/2021 8:14 AM 10 Additional parking on s ite more fav orable than parking within t he neighborhood 5/8/2021 8:03 AM 11 Huh? I hav e a college degree and my wife has a masters in education and we both agree the wording of this one is craz y. Englis h is a sec ond language for many people in our Cit y. I thought you wanted the opinions of people. I think you s hould redo this surv ey with clear simple unbiased ques tions. Whatever y ou find for results is going to be sooo biased. 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 12 People have been able to figure out how to ac c es s the park v ia many modes of transportation without city council intervent ion. J ust say you want more bike lanes if that is your objec tiv e. 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 13 I am not exactly sure what y ou are try ing to say here. This is poorly worded. I want to hav e nic e pedes trian trails and bike trails but I also want to have spac e for people to park and use automobiles . 5/7/2021 6:38 PM 14 This area is swamped with v ehic ular traffic . Most of thos e people need to driv e t heir cars . How will you limit traffic to what already exis ts or less? 5/7/2021 3:57 PM 15 Abs olutely not. Prioritize the Legion park ing needs as top priority for this princ iple.5/7/2021 10:38 AM 16 Add more pedes trian and bike lanes , and narrow 66th so people don’t driv e s o fast 5/7/2021 8:42 AM 17 People with dis abilities always get s c rewed when it comes to parking. It usually means that dis abled people c an't go any where during peak times , like week ends. 5/7/2021 12:17 AM 18 Don’t keep building things without appropriate park ing 5/6/2021 9:25 PM 19 People need to driv e. Limit cars , you limit who will go.5/6/2021 9:24 PM 20 Um... farmers mark et, Christmas trees, the 4th and big hoc key turnys. Let alone one of the decent playgrounds for kids. 5/6/2021 8:13 PM 21 I dis agree with the movement to minimiz e park ing standards that will provide inadequate park ing. 5/6/2021 5:48 PM 22 SENIORS CANNOT WALK 2 MILES TO PARK!5/6/2021 5:45 PM 23 So you remov e the park ing lots and now everyone going to the rink or pool have t o park in the neighborhoods? Not s ure you want kids c rossing 66th that often 5/6/2021 5:10 PM 24 This is already the cas e. The only parking prov ided is for the pavilion and it is neces s ary f or the farmers market. 5/6/2021 4:03 PM 25 We s houldn’t need much more parking if we don’t build multi-unit hous ing and expansive shopping/busines s es. I don’t want to live in Edina. 5/6/2021 3:15 PM 26 No additional parking, please. Pres erv e t he park land.5/6/2021 3:09 PM 27 Ens ure adequate park ing for any and all development.5/6/2021 2:16 PM 28 Know what else will prevent park ing is s ues ? NOT BUILDING HUNDREDS OF UNITS NEXT TO THE PARK! 5/6/2021 1:35 PM 29 Large lots already there. Keep the legion 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 30 The park meds parking if you don't want to dis turb nearby neighborhoods 5/6/2021 1:22 PM 31 There needs to be much c onsideration for handicapp parking AND parents with young kids /strollers . Do not remove c urrent res ident homes on 66th between portland & 12th 5/6/2021 1:05 PM 32 Sean O'Leary mus t be drooling to get rid of Ric hfield of s treets .5/6/2021 11:21 AM 33 It’s been discussed and proven over and ov er that expec ting mas s t rans it and bikes does not correlate wit h less vehicles 5/6/2021 11:11 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 25 / 31 34 We hav e enough bike lanes.5/6/2021 11:05 AM 35 Just s top 5/6/2021 10:56 AM 36 Already enough v ehic ular amenities. Encourage other means of t rans portation that already exis t like c ontinued bik e and led infras truct ure as well as bus stop upkeep. 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 37 This would reduce nois e and traffic in the already bus y area 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 38 I don't know how to answer this. It would be 's trongly agree' for me and my f amily personally. But I'm not s ure if the city/community is there yet. 5/6/2021 10:13 AM 39 Parking is s uffic ient now 5/6/2021 9:59 AM 40 People drive cars , get that through your head. The Chamberlain has zero park ing, and our neighborhood is now a park ing lot. Learn from your mis tak es . Again for the people ik the back, PEOPLE STILL DRIVE CARS. 5/6/2021 9:54 AM 41 Address risk of parking at rink/pool if not enough park ing is at the res idential bldg. Res idents will still have to park somewhere. 5/6/2021 9:22 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 26 / 31 Q10 Please use this form to leave additional comments. Answered: 76 Sk ipped: 36 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Keep it beautiful in that area please 5/13/2021 2:38 PM 2 This s tudy was worded in s uch a way that c ertain ans wers c ould be tak en two different ways. It was very difficult to answer in a way that we feel y ou would clearly understand our viewpoints. The comment sect ions for eac h ques tion were helpful but we are still concerned about the statistics being s k ewed if only the answer c hoic es are look ed at. Having a plan to pres erv e the park s hould have been an option overall. 5/12/2021 9:54 PM 3 I realize lik e ev ery thing else in Richfield it is already decided what will be done. We will end up with a multi story monster engulfing the west side and taking away not adding to the park experienc e. We s hould get s omething that brings beauty or adds t o our parks. Solar tracking flowers? Art? Real f lowers ? Mix of thes e? 5/12/2021 9:48 PM 4 Please do not remov e homes on the perimeter of Vet's Park. Pleas e do not bring low income housing into the park area. 5/12/2021 12:12 PM 5 exciting but frightening 5/10/2021 5:42 PM 6 I st rongly oppos e high density apartments in this area due to the impac t it will have on our neighborhood. Bring s mall businesses to the neighborhood mixed with condos . We did not inv es t in our home and renovate to have high density housing impact our neighborhood and bring down our home v alue. 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 7 Again, we are all for redev elopment in the study area if it enhanc es the communit y, inc reas es home v alues and provides amenities to t he local area. This does not mean however that res idents who have called this neighborhood 'home' for the pas t 'x ' y ears want their investment; e.g., home and normal daily liv es impact ed by the eyesore/burden of a high-dens ity projec t. If I were to openly - and without bias ed - poll my neighbors and those direc tly adjacent to - or within the st udy area - I can confidently tell y ou they 'd have no issues with this t ype of redevelopment in that retail atroc it y on 66th and Nicollet Av e S.; e.g., the HUB. #Bulldoze HUB2040. 5/10/2021 3:19 PM 8 I walk around Vets Park every day and I enjoy s eeing all the wildlife in t he park , I hope all new development ef fort s will tak e int o ac c ount the impact of wildlife in the park. Als o I would love to some basketball hoops at the park or an additional outdoor volley ball court as I k now they would be well us ed. 5/10/2021 11:58 AM 9 The park s hould accommodate s afe walking, biking, and meet the needs of senior citiz ens and children. 5/10/2021 11:51 AM 10 It would be s o nice to see some s ort of all inclusiv e c ommunity center in the area, one t hat caters to all ages . Our youth need a place to be, es pecially during the colder months . 5/10/2021 8:44 AM 11 Leave the park alone! We do not need hous ing on our park. If we do not put a communit y cent er on the park, then no more buildings. We have enough affordable housing in Richfield. What makes a c ity v ibrant is to have multiple types of res idential opportunities.May be the city Counc il should come up wit h a percentage of how many of each we should hav e. Us e the bell curv e. So much high income, so much low income, and t he largest amount being middle inc ome. 5/10/2021 7:34 AM 12 I don’t want to s ee any commerc ial mix to use housing building in Veterans Memorial Park. A low ris e c ommunity center perhaps . That park is a jewel and allows people t o c onnect with nature. Keep commerc ial building, high-rise building, commerc ial building out of that park . 5/10/2021 7:25 AM 13 If y ou us e large buildings in this area, housing that is too expens ive for the y oung or inc ome lac k ing, y ou are going to loos e all that this good about this area. Profits ov er nat ure will not las t and we will looked at being the nex t Edina whic h we s hould do better than Edina b/c we can. 5/9/2021 9:54 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 27 / 31 14 The Mas ter Plan for the park has not been to add any residential or c ommercial fac ilities. Any uses considered for the American Legion s hould follow t hat conc ept. The use of t he s pace, may be ev en the existing building, for an enhanced Community Center would work well 5/9/2021 2:25 PM 15 Thank you for surveying us and work ing to improve our awesome city.5/9/2021 11:12 AM 16 Please do not build high dens it y housing here, k eep it a beautiful peac eful area of Ric hfield. Let us be the "central park" of the Twin Cities by not selling out to large buildings but k eeping our green space 5/9/2021 10:07 AM 17 There mus t a formula that calc ulates park s ize to the number of people t hat it can substain without reducing the quality of the park 5/9/2021 9:47 AM 18 As not ed above, I think Ric hfield should foc us more on propert y v alue inc reas ing act ivities and not about mass housing. One of the great part s about Richfield is we are right next to Minneapolis , Edina, and Bloomington and in many way s , our c ity is muc h more affordable t han thes e c ities. As with the s tock mark et, y ou buy and hold. This is how Ric hfield residents like it. By being adjac ent t o housing areas with higher property values, y ou will see gains in v alue unles s the cit of Richf ield goes about dec reas ing that value by eating up single f amily homes and beaut iful parks and replacing with mas s hous ing. 5/8/2021 11:31 PM 19 My conc ern is that the development of the area in/around the park will compromise the current integrity of the park . The park is a gift in this neighborhood and I would love to maintain the quiet nature-in-the-middle-of-the-city env ironment. Pleas e be c areful in the decis ions that will be made. 5/8/2021 7:04 PM 20 Tearing down ex ist ing hous es to build multi-res ident housing would hurt t he neighborhoods and detrac t from the park. 5/8/2021 4:29 PM 21 Do not let any dev elopers ruin Veterans Park t he way they are damaging Queen Av e or Sheridan Park . 5/8/2021 4:29 PM 22 This park is a true gem for this part of the area, and it needs to be pres erved and not ov er- built. Plans for all s ort s of new buildings will drast ically change the feel of t he park . There should be phas es that are re-c ons idered after the projec t has begun. Additionally, I would love to see a sound barrier wall along the nort h s ide of Veteran's park to block Hwy 62, muc h lik e along I-35 through sout h Minneapolis. 5/8/2021 8:06 AM 23 We s trongly enc ourage this area to ex pand the park as parkland and not any housing or commercial use. We live along 64th st reet and traf fic already is high along this road. If park land improvement is not feasible then we would lik e to s ee s omething v ery low density that would will keep additional traffic down 5/8/2021 8:03 AM 24 The questions were hard to ans wer bec aus e they didn’t allow for my opinion. It was quite obvious that the decision has been made that building development is happening and you have squelc hed a s ignificant number of hones t opinions to be voiced for thos e who don’t want buildings but want more park s pace. I’m saddened and disappointed that the city will, once again, say that they gave the public ample opport unities to dis c us s their ideas, but it won’t matter bec ause of how the c ity manipulated the peoples respons es. I want more park spac e and for the city t o reclaim the buildings like the legion, and the home and the mortuary as they might be av ailable to buy. Onc e hous ing goes in, it c reeps into the park forever. We need to keep every inch of Park and buffering properties we c an. We s hould not put multi st ory buildings within sight of the part. When in the park, y ou s hould look out to trees or res idential lots whic h also have trees . Not to a retail s tore or condo full of windows . 5/7/2021 10:25 PM 25 Again, poorly des igned survey. Most of the questions are written for the c ouncil to interpret that res pondents are supporting t heir Minneapolis -lit e agenda. Our counc il reeks of Met-c ouncil stupidity. 5/7/2021 8:33 PM 26 These ques tions are so poorly worded. It is really hard to understand what is meant by t he wording of thes e ques tions. Honestly, we have an opportunity as a community to purchase this land and preserve additional acres of the park and make it bigger and better. We will never have this opportunit y again to preserve open land and nature in this part of t he park and I think the city should purc hase this with the public in mind--this is a des tination BECAUSE it is a natural area and putting buildings with housing in this area creates a quas i-privat e feel to the park lik e it is "owned" and meant mainly for those liv ing in t he apartment c omplex or townhomes. This park is for EVERYBODY and should stay that way. We have enough t all apartment building box es around Richf ield Lak e and s o do NOT do this to Veteran's Park. 5/7/2021 6:38 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 28 / 31 People enjoy watc hing the firework s on the fourth of J uly. A tall building will bloc k the view of everyone liv ing behind this building to the wes t, and that is sad and unfair to tak e away the views of such a special part of our city's patriot ic celebration. We als o like to preserve our sunsets and v iews without a tall building in the background. Pleas e do NOT put any tall structures here! Perhaps this loc ation c ould be used to draw more people to Richfield by expanding the city pool to inc lude more water features s uch as a wave pool, lazy river, is lands , obst acle course, and more! Look at what other communit ies have done with their pool and water areas. We could do SO MUCH! People c ome from all ov er, families with s mall children, school groups , yout h, and more, to enjoy a large outdoor pool area and new features keep it exciting and att rac tive. It is a perfec t loc ation with the picnic and play areas and bands hell nearby as well as nature trails and bike trails. THINK of all the wonderful opportunities the city has when it pres erv es SPACE! Ins tead of filling it with another apartment building. We have s o many already. We don't need to be another met ropolis . We need (and LOVE) the s mall-town feel of our c ommunity. We like t he quiet s treet s and s mall single family homes and neighborhood park s . If we want to add tall apartment buildings, look to our c ity "c enter" area, such as the Hub and Ly ndale and 66t h s treet where we c an c reate a nicer "downtown" feel, something like Hopkins has done with a historic or vintage look as well as modern. Something like 50th and France, with trendy outdoor areas and shopping. That would be GREAT by the Hub. But NOT by Veteran's Park, whic h is more of an outdoor, nat ure-loving des tination. If you want to put money into something, add to t he park . That is what I think most of us want. Thank you. 27 There is not much crime in this neighborhood now. Pleas e don't inv it e more crime in by prov iding a c ulture where crime thriv es. Don't look at t his as a way of increasing t he tax base by bringing in more people. Look at it as a way to ruin the peace in a peaceful neighborhood. Put bigger buildings around t he Hub area, not in people's backyards. 5/7/2021 3:57 PM 28 We’ve leaved here a long time and I’d rather pay higher tax es they ruin our city by adding more housing that alway s brings more crime to the c ity. You can get to anything you need quic k ly currently in Ric hfield and that’s why we live here and wish to c ontinue to. People who are mak ing this ty pe of decis ions normally don’t liv e in the area they want to c hange. And mos t of if not all the changes are only made to increase rev enue for the city. I have to live within my budget s o the city needs to learn how to do that als o. I realize cost go up but it should not happen becaus e c ity leaders want to mak e themselv es look good 5/7/2021 2:00 PM 29 Thru out this ent ire s tudy, there has been no " hard fac ts" in writing as part of this s tudy..about the the Legion and its his toric al and active inv olvment in this property's pas t; and the importanc e of the Legion to continue in a highly prominent vis ible building including ensuring the parking needs and ev ery other objectiv e need of the Legion is protec ted by ordinanc e. The City has done a fine job of disrespect ing the many men and women associated with the Legion and the signific ant contribution of $$ and s ervice to all nonprofits that provide s erv ice to those in need the mos t. 5/7/2021 10:38 AM 30 Glad Ric hfield is think ing progressiv ely!! Don’t lis ten to the nay-s ayers on Fac ebook pleas e, thes e are all good ideas ! 5/7/2021 8:42 AM 31 This is an opportunity t o go well bey ond what is required by the ADA for accessibility, and t ruly mak e ac c essibility a priority, and not jus t the bare minimum to be in compliance with the ADA. There s hould be a Bus drop off area, like a HUB, not just how it is now where the bus jus t stops in the street. Als o there s hould be a drop off area/s for Metro Mobility and cars to drop off people with disabilities, or who cannot walk far distances. More than one drop off area would be ideal. This is the hardest for s eniors and others who cannot walk far dis tances , when they go t o the zoo, the fair, or large parks , and the drop off area is half a mile, or more from where you want to go. We als o will need more t han one drop off site if you are going to limit park ing spots. The rat io required for how many dis ability parking s pots y ou hav e to have in relat ion to the total number of parking s pots has not been updated in decades and there are way more people with dis abilities now, and the population will cont inue t o grow, due to better medical c are, and the Boomers aging. Cutt ing down on parking s pots us ually means that people without disabilities are more lik ely to park in dis abilit y s pots , which no one ev er enforc es . What this us ually means is that people with disabilities c annot go plac es during peak times. For example, people wit h a disabled family member, or s enior, knew that they could not go to the mall of america on the weekends unless they got there when they opened t heir doors becaus e all of t he disability parking would be t aken. This means no partic ipating in farmers market, big events at the park, etc, You just have to accept that you can't go. If there are good plac es for bus drop off, and not jus t in the s treet the way it is now this would help bec ause it would be eas ier to tak e the bus to the park . Small merchants would be great, as a destination, 5/7/2021 12:17 AM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 29 / 31 as well as regular park goers. As far as walking, t here is the HUB and Target, and if y ou liv e right in the middle of the two it's not as easy to walk to. It would be nice to have some things to walk to in that area. 32 Leave the park alone! Let the legion sell prov ided t he neighboring homes v iews are not affected. Ric hfield, c ome on now, you're already building a TON of apt buildings....finish and FILL thos e before y ou s tart any more! 5/6/2021 11:20 PM 33 I would lov e to s ee a s plash pad added. There are none in Richfield!5/6/2021 10:40 PM 34 Please leav e this park alone. Of y ou mus t build more high dens it y homes pus h it to the Hwy 77 / 494 corridor. 5/6/2021 9:54 PM 35 Keep t he American Legion at the park.5/6/2021 9:39 PM 36 The city council will c ontinue to ignore the long term res idents until t hey are held ac countable or t he c ommunity leaves 5/6/2021 9:25 PM 37 Preserve the park and k eep the views. By the way, is the bandshell ever going to be used f or anyt hing???? I am completely agains t more hous ing. 5/6/2021 9:24 PM 38 No high ris es .5/6/2021 9:17 PM 39 Building apartment s of any kind, especially high dens ity, would take away from t he beauty of the park. 5/6/2021 8:58 PM 40 Don’t t ake s ingle family homes. Richfield will lose its s mall town feel in a big city 5/6/2021 8:46 PM 41 We the city of Richfield have enough low income apartments, $600-700K c ondos, old folk homes. Leav e the park s alone, the more parks you tak e away the more people with good inc ome and education will leav e. Don't get money hungry, think of it as if y ou were a kid. Would you rather be able to walk around a nice park not f illed with dumb apartments and condos or NATURE. 5/6/2021 8:13 PM 42 Prefer to see the higher volume st ay down off of Portland rather than create additional high volume on 66th s treet as you drive Eas t from Portland 5/6/2021 5:57 PM 43 No new cons truction, No cutting down trees , No tearing down of any ex isting homes, No new retail. 5/6/2021 5:48 PM 44 I oppos e dev elopment on the Veteran's Park s ite that would be too intensive near a wildlife area. Whatever goes in on the Legion s ite, I want an environmental impact study conducted. 5/6/2021 5:48 PM 45 DO NOT TAKE ONE FOOT FOR NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS IT IS DOR A COMMUNITY CENTER OR COMMUNITY HEALTH CLUB. 5/6/2021 5:45 PM 46 Ric hfield is turning into downtown Minneapolis and taking all open spac es and building high rises. It will soon no longer be the Urban Hometown and be an ext ension of Minneapolis . Not what I signed up for when becoming a res ident. 5/6/2021 5:10 PM 47 Don't bastardize this space t o mak e a buck.5/6/2021 4:53 PM 48 I want to see dev elopment of a disc-golf course in one of our park s . Maybe Veterans park is suitable. I f you are not the right person to cons ider this , would you pleas e pas s the request on to someone who is? Thank you in adv anc e. 5/6/2021 4:13 PM 49 I st rongly oppos e buildings in this area, particularly tall ones that will s hade the pool and open rec reation areas . Our park s and the open s pace they provide are t he gems of Ric hfield. Leave them alone 5/6/2021 3:57 PM 50 Please s top try ing to dev elop Richf ield into a dens ely populated neighborhood with bus ines s es and housing s tack ed on t op of each ot her f or miles. Your residents like having s afe neighborhoods and good roads and we love our parks...but we are not South Minneapolis or Edina and don’t want to be! Listen to your c ons tituents and st op trying to mak e Richfield more populous!! 5/6/2021 3:15 PM 51 I’m disappointed in the wording of these questions . They are worded in s uch a way to st imulate positiv e respons e to building bus ines s es and high density housing in vet eran’s park . I ex pect surv eys to be written impartially. It’s a park with fores t, s wamps and animals . This s hould not be “redeveloped” with said items. There is s uffic ient ac c ess already from almost all sides. I can’t imagine v eteran’s park with “views” of high dens ity hous ing, no matter how architec turally 5/6/2021 3:09 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 30 / 31 pleas ing. The increase in traffic , c onst ruc tion, noise will obviously negatively impac t Veterans park . The wording of these questions are obvious ly leading. I expect c ivil serv ants to lis ten to the community rather than influenc e it. 52 Please do not put high or medium dens ity in this area. Expand the fac ilities that we already have e.g. the park and pool. 5/6/2021 2:36 PM 53 Please just s top the high dens ity, mult i story development on t he borders and all of the main corridors throughout Ric hfield...enough already 5/6/2021 2:16 PM 54 Do not tear down any houses along 11th Av enue, 66th or Portland. We do not want apartments, condo, townhomes built near or in the park. This will take away from the park. Vet erans Park is not a premier des tination. It is us ed as a quiet park for res ident s liv ing near the park and for thos e who want to drive a s hort dis tanc e to get to the park . The VFW does need to be cleaned up and s omething c ould be built in that location that would add t o the amenities of the park. Housing would not add to the park amentities. 5/6/2021 2:00 PM 55 STOP TAKING HOMES FROM FAMILIES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. STOP BUILDING. NOTHING HAS BEEN FINISHED OR MAINTAINED IN YEARS. 5/6/2021 1:36 PM 56 Not lik e y ou'll lis ten anyway, but y ou already have several unf inished gigantic high dens ity housing projects in progress . We hav e not yet seen the impact on s c hools , roads , parks, etc, yet you want to forge ahead on int roducing even MORE. Ric hfield is a first ring suburb, not Minneapolis proper. "The Urban Hometown" Richfield touts as a motto is steadily being s tolen from its residents by greedy city planners and gov ernment off icials . Our schools aren't even rated in t he upper half of the st ate, but tax reductions are being giv en to commercial apartment developers c ons tantly. Res idents in single family homes have 6+ story apartments towering over their backy ards, tak ing away t heir privacy, reduc ing their property 's total value (bec ause no one want s to live where there is no park ing and people c an wat ch ev ery move you mak e on your own property), and Ric hfield just keeps approv ing thes e projects . If you want high dens ity housing s o badly, focus on actual high dens ity areas --the hub sits as a largely empty park ing lot and an empty groc ery st ore, and is an an area where high density housing mak es s ens e. Ins tead, you plan t o ov ers hadow large portions of the park wit h a tall apartment building, and add hundreds of vehicle and residential traffic which will have a negativ e effec t on the wildlife that mak es Veteran's Memorial Park their home. The bright, s unny areas of the pool and park where exis ting c itizens enjoyed spending their summer day s will be s haded and overcrowded and apartment resident s who didn't want to pay for parking s pots will c rowd the lots at the park and ice arena. Furthermore, y our plan appears to inc lude tak ing exis ting single family homes, driving more and more res idents away. Yes, there is a s hortage of affordable housing. No, many of thos e people don't want to live in yet another cook ie c utter generic apartment. They want s ingle family homes they can af ford and can use to build wealth and c ommunity roots . Please don't do this plan. If priv ate development MUST come to the former site of the Legion, pleas e make it a low level multipurpos e c ons truct ion. Perhaps retail or c ommunity use rooms on the first f loor and a max of two lev els of housing abov e. No high density housing in this area! 5/6/2021 1:35 PM 57 Keep t he legion and the atmos phere there. We don’t need it to look like t he new weird condos next to target that s tand out lik e s ore t humbs. Keep the legion and little Vegas! 5/6/2021 1:30 PM 58 I'm in my 30th y ear of living in this neighborhood and homes were eliminated when the roundabout was put in at 66th & Portland. I am retired now and s incerely hope homes on Oak land Av enue will not be eliminated like they were on Portland (direc tly behind my hous e on the West s ide). 5/6/2021 1:25 PM 59 Please k eep the open feeling around this park . Do not reduce open spac e 5/6/2021 1:22 PM 60 Acc ording to the pos t card s ent to residents near Vets, it appears res idential homes on 66th between portland & 12t h will be remov ed and low density hous ing & shops will be added. This mak es NO sens e & is v ery ups ett ing t o c urrent residents ! Why not put that money into updating t he old, unkept, commerc ial buildings along 66th from 12th ave to Richfield Pk wy?? Vet s park is beautiful, adding buildings and low dens ity living to the s outh side ( where homes currently are) would distract from the peacefulnes s of the area. In the 35 years I hav e lived in Ric hfield, far too many family & friends were forced t o mov e f rom their beloved homes (Best Buy area, Target area, Chamberin apt area). As with the dev elopments, just listed, the city 'heard' conc erns from the residents , but went ahead and did it any ways....which mak es surv eys lik e this point les s . 5/6/2021 1:05 PM PORTLAND AND 66TH SUB-AREA STUDY 31 / 31 61 When y ou as k thes e ques tions do y ou ev en c are to read the c omments? It is already a done deal go-ahead slam HD housing and make it all s ec tion 42 housing. 5/6/2021 11:21 AM 62 I am a long-time Richfield res ident (ov er 40 y ears ) but when I was in a wes t-Metro suburb, my mom still liv ed here (before I c ame back ). I think any type of a multi story unit would be a bad mov e for that area, and would enc ourage more crime. Look at the high-ris e buildings and the crime they bring in Minneapolis. People s ee those opportunities , and there is eas y acc es s to that area for those people. That is just one reason but a key one. 5/6/2021 11:11 AM 63 Please s top tearing down s ingle family homes . It's already hard enough to find s omething affordable. 5/6/2021 11:07 AM 64 The rec ent changes to Richfield has des troyed the c harm and c harac ter of t he c it y. Hav e y ou never noticed that high dens ity brings c rime? And Ric hfield has more than it's fair s hare of both. 5/6/2021 11:05 AM 65 We hav e enough redev elopment that inc ludes apartments & condos . What we need is to foc us on the business still in our c ity 5/6/2021 10:56 AM 66 I know it’s been rec ently v oted down, but this is our c ity ’s chance to utiliz e the vacanc y of the Legion s ite, in combination with the s tructures already pres ent in t he area (park , lak e, pavilion, pool, ic e arena, band s hell) to c reate a c ommunity center in the city that meets the needs of res idents in a way that the c urrent building at Augsburg has never been able to do. How much private inves tor funds are needed to persuade city leaders hip to move forward wit h s uc h a thing? I’ll raise the money! I’m here to talk whenev er: BJ Skoog // beejskoog@gmail.com 5/6/2021 10:53 AM 67 No high ris e structures taller than 3 s tories 5/6/2021 10:46 AM 68 Keep in mind people use this space to peac efully enjoy the env ironment (open green s pac e of the large park, c ommunity —farmers mark et/bands hell/pool, enjoying wildlife) in a city already filled with nois e and lights due to its proximity to Minneapolis and the airport and highways. Any thing that will contribute to maintaining Veterans Park as that peaceful oasis much like Woodlak e s hould be encouraged. 5/6/2021 10:43 AM 69 Building apartment s that will not be aff ordable around a perfect ly good neighborhood is not a good idea. I don’t live in t hat neighborhood but I would be furious if everything in t he plan would happen by my hous e 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 70 Hav ing a large apartment building in the s ame block as better and park, es pecially in Portland is going to inc reas e ac c idents and reduc e traffic f low. An apartment building that is tall, will not fit in with the ot her buildings in t he area. This would t ake away from the parks ascetic , mak e the park more busy, increase potential crime, and increase garbage, debris and c leanlines s of the park. 5/6/2021 10:24 AM 71 Don’t build up around the park, it will lose the neighborhood feel.5/6/2021 10:21 AM 72 I am not sure why more housing and c ommercial projects need to be done along Portland when there are already s ome s trips of v ac ant bus inesses along that road and there are unf inished housing projects in development. I think more areas of the park should be dedicated to prairie res toration 5/6/2021 10:04 AM 73 This is absurd! Stop overpopulating a green spac e and stop tak ing people's homes. Very bad idea and bad for the environment 5/6/2021 9:59 AM 74 Would lov e more food/drink options near the park - a brewery, patio rest aurant, anything like that. Today many of the dining options in Ric hfield feel dis c onnected from the vibrant natural spaces we hav e in Ric hfield - we c an *either* go to the park or go to eat, but never both. A model that comes to mind is Sea Salt res taurant in Minnehaha park. Provide more opportunity to help people *stay* in the park, not just c ome visit for an hour and need to leave at lunc htime, or rely on bringing their own food - it would help es tablish t he park as a Third Place (htt ps://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Third_plac e) IMO. 5/6/2021 9:58 AM 75 Leave Vets Park, and t he c orridor and single family homes alone. Bad planning has already dest roy ed much of Ric hfield. J ust stop! 5/6/2021 9:54 AM 76 I firmly believe we need a bigger communit y c enter such as what Shoreview or Eden Prairie has. This would be s uch a wonderful addition to Ric hfield. 5/6/2021 9:48 AM JUNE 2021 25 ATTACHMENT C - SITE CAPACITY STUDY 6’ 6’ 10’ LandscapingSidewalkSidewalk LandscapingPortland Ave TownhomesPorch 8’ 4’ 26’ Trail Boulevard Existing Road 8’46’24’ Trail Stormwater Feature 30’34’44’ Apartments/Condos Common PlazaAmerican Legion Patio Apartments/Condos The Legion Below-ground Parking Below-ground Parking Courtyard Amenity Space 65’75’40’42’60’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ Concept 1 Section | American Legion Site Redevelopment 5’ 10’ 20’50’ ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 FeetConcept 1 Design Assumptions Additional access is provided (e.g., right-in/right-out) onto Portland Avenue south of the site Enhanced pedestrian connections are provided to and from the site Pedestrian plaza and outdoor seating Building 1 (5 to 6 stories and approx. 75 to 160 units*) Building 2 (5 to 6 stories – approx. 85 to 200 units*) Surface Parking: 26-72 spaces Under Building Parking: 192-258 spaces (1 or 2 levels) Base Design Assumptions North/south pedestrian connections between the site, pool, and the Veterans memorial Vehicle access is located north of the site on Portland Avenue (traffic control TBD) Surface parking is provided to accommodate American Legion guests and Veterans memorial visitors Ground level or underground parking is provided for residents Stormwater management (ponding) is designed to be a site amenity and serve as a buffer between development and the ice arena Trees are preserved to the north between the parking lot and Veterans memorial * Unit ranges based on 1,000 sf – 800 sf average unit size / each individual floor plate P Common Plaza Private Courtyard LegionwithPatio Stormwater R-I / R-O Full Access Walk-up Units Below-ground Building 1 Building 2 Connection to Memorial Connection to Park Fire Access Drive Connection to Pool Connection to Ice Arena Parking Access Drive Surface Lot P CARRY SECTION CUT DOWN TO SHOW ELEVATION Concept 1 Design Assumptions » Retain access (e.g., right-in/right-out) onto Portland Avenue south of the site » Enhanced pedestrian/bicycle connections are provided to and through the site » Pedestrian plaza and outdoor seating » Building 1 -5 stories, 75 to 127 units* » Building 2 -5 stories, 85 to 165 units* » Sur face Parking: 26-72 +/- spaces » Enclosed Parking: 192 +/- spaces (1 level) Base Design Assumptions » North/south bike and pedestrian connections between the site, pool, and the Veterans memorial »East/west bike and pedestrian connections » Vehicle access to/from Portland Avenue is shifted north on site (traffic control TBD) » Sur face parking is provided to accommodate American Legion guests and Veterans Memorial visitors » Enclosed parking is provided for residents » Outdoor open space requirement of 300 sf/unit, with potential of 150 sf being provided by individual balconies and porches » Maximum lot coverage of 30% » Stormwater management (ponding) is designed to be a site amenity and serve as a buffer between development and the ice arena » Trees are preserved to the north between the parking lot and Veterans memorial * Unit ranges based on 1,000 sf – 800 sf average unit size / each individual floor plate American Legion Site: Concept 1 6’ 6’ 10’ LandscapingSidewalkSidewalk LandscapingPortland Ave TownhomesPorch 8’ 4’ 26’ Trail Boulevard Existing Road 8’46’24’ Trail Stormwater Feature 30’34’44’ Apartments/Condos Common PlazaAmerican Legion Patio Apartments/Condos The Legion Below-ground Parking Below-ground Parking Courtyard Amenity Space 65’75’40’42’60’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ Concept 1 Section | American Legion Site Redevelopment 5’ 10’ 20’50’ 6’ 6’ 10’ LandscapingSidewalkSidewalkPortland Ave Townhomes Porch 8’ 4’ 26’ Trail Boulevard Existing Road 48’16’ Sidewalk Drive with Parking Stormwater Feature 42’34’44’ Apartments/CondosApartments/Condos American Legion American Legion Patio Apartments/Condos Apartments/Condos Below-ground Parking Courtyard Amenity Space 56’60’62’105’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 5’ 10’ 20’50’ Concept 2 Section | American Legion Site Redevelopment Below-ground Parking ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200Feet P P P P P Concept 2 Design Assumptions Additional access is provided (e.g., right-in/right-out) onto Portland Avenue south of the site Limited pedestrian plaza space and outdoor seating Enhanced traffic circulation and additional surface parking is provided onsite Building 1 (Veterans Housing) (5 stories and approx. 95 to 125 units) Building 2 (Market Rate) (5 stories – approx. 85 to 105 units) Surface Parking: 88 spaces Under Building Parking: 68 spaces Base Design Assumptions North/south pedestrian connections between the site, pool, and the Veterans memorial Vehicle access is located north of the site on Portland Avenue (traffic control TBD) Surface parking is provided to accommodate American Legion guests and Veterans memorial visitors Ground level or underground parking is provided for residents Stormwater management (ponding) is designed to be a site amenity and serve as a buffer between development and the ice arena Trees are preserved to the north between the parking lot and Veterans memorial * Unit ranges based on 1,000 sf – 800 sf average unit size / each individual floor plate Walk-up Units Connection to Memorial Connection to Park Connection to Pool Connection to Ice Arena Private Courtyard Stormwater Building 1 Building 2 Surface Lot LegionPatio Legion Below-ground PBelow-ground P Connection to Memorial R-I / R-O Full Access CARRY SECTION CUT DOWN TO SHOW ELEVATION Concept 2 Design Assumptions » Retain access (e.g., right-in/right-out) onto Portland Avenue south of the site » Limited pedestrian plaza space and outdoor seating » Enhanced traffic circulation and additional surface parking is provided onsite » Building 1 (Veterans Housing) -5 stories , 95 to 125 units* » Building 2 (Market Rate) -5 stories, 85 to 105 units* » Surface Parking: 88 +/- spaces » Enclosed Parking: 68 +/- spaces Base Design Assumptions » North/south bike and pedestrian connections between the site, pool, and the Veterans memorial »East/west bike and pedestrian connections » Vehicle access to/from Portland Avenue is shifted north on site (traffic control TBD) » Surface parking is provided to accommodate American Legion guests and Veterans Memorial visitors » Enclosed parking is provided for residents » Outdoor open space requirement of 300 sf/unit, with potential of 150 sf being provided by individual balconies and porches » Maximum lot coverage of 30% » Stormwater management (ponding) is designed to be a site amenity and serve as a buffer between development and the ice arena » Trees are preserved to the north between the parking lot and Veterans memorial * Unit ranges based on 1,000 sf – 800 sf average unit size / each individual floor plateAmerican Legion Site: Concept 2 6’ 6’ 10’ LandscapingSidewalkSidewalkPortland Ave Townhomes Porch 8’ 4’ 26’ Trail Boulevard Existing Road 48’16’ Sidewalk Drive with Parking Stormwater Feature 42’34’44’ Apartments/CondosApartments/Condos American Legion American Legion Patio Apartments/Condos Apartments/Condos Below-ground Parking Courtyard Amenity Space 56’60’62’105’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 5’ 10’ 20’50’ Concept 2 Section | American Legion Site Redevelopment Below-ground Parking 6’ 6’ LandscapingSidewalk SidewalkSidewalkPortland Ave 8’ 4’ 26’ Trail Boulevard Existing Road 42’19’12’ Sidewalk Drive with Parking Stormwater Feature 52’28’44’ Apartments/CondosApartments/Condos American Legion American Legion American Legion Patio 32’ Apartments/Condos Below-ground Parking Courtyard Amenity Space 52’48’ Apartments/Condos 48’62’66’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 5’ 10’ 20’50’ Concept 3 Section | American Legion Site Redevelopment Below-ground Parking ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200 Feet ´0 200Feet Below-ground P Below-ground P P P P P Concept 3 Design Assumptions Redevelopment includes other properties in the NE quadrant Limited surface parking for American Legion guests and Veterans memorial visitors Vehicular drop-off zone Enhanced traffic circulation and additional surface parking is provided between the site, pool, and ice arena Building 1 (6 stories and approx. 75 to 90 units) Building 2 (6 stories – approx. 250 to 310 units) Surface Parking: 52 spaces Under Building Parking: 216 spaces Base Design Assumptions North/south pedestrian connections between the site, pool, and the Veterans memorial Vehicle access is located north of the site on Portland Avenue (traffic control TBD) Surface parking is provided to accommodate American Legion guests and Veterans memorial visitors Ground level or underground parking is provided for residents Stormwater management (ponding) is designed to be a site amenity and serve as a buffer between development and the ice arena Trees are preserved to the north between the parking lot and Veterans memorial * Unit ranges based on 1,000 sf – 800 sf average unit size / each individual floor plate Connection to Park Connection to Pool Surface LotExpansion Connection to Ice Arena Private Courtyard Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Legion Plaza Connection to MemorialConnection to Memorial Stormwater New Street New Street Commercial R-I / R-O Full Access CARRY SECTION CUT DOWN TO SHOW ELEVATIONAmerican Legion Site: Concept 3 Concept 3 Design Assumptions » Redevelopment includes other properties in the NE quadrant » Surface parking for American Legion guests and Veterans memorial visitors relocated to the interior of the site » Vehicular drop-off zone » Enhanced traffic circulation and additional surface parking is provided between the site, pool, and ice arena » Building 1 -5 stories, 50 to 75 units* » Building 2 -5 stories, 209 to 240 units* » Surface Parking: 52 +/- spaces » Enclosed Parking: 216 +/- spaces Base Design Assumptions » North/south bike and pedestrian connections between the site, pool, and the Veterans memorial »East/west bike and pedestrian connections » Vehicle access to/from Portland Avenue is shifted north on site (traffic control TBD) » Surface parking is provided to accommodate American Legion guests and Veterans Memorial visitors » Enclosed parking is provided for residents » Outdoor open space requirement of 300 sf/unit, with potential of 150 sf being provided by individual balconies and porches » Maximum lot coverage of 30% » Stormwater management (ponding) is designed to be a site amenity and serve as a buffer between development and the ice arena » Trees are preserved to the north between the parking lot and Veterans memorial * Unit ranges based on 1,000 sf – 800 sf average unit size / each individual floor plate 6’ 6’ LandscapingSidewalk SidewalkSidewalkPortland Ave 8’ 4’ 26’ Trail Boulevard Existing Road 42’19’12’ Sidewalk Drive with Parking Stormwater Feature 52’28’44’ Apartments/CondosApartments/Condos American Legion American Legion American Legion Patio 32’ Apartments/Condos Below-ground Parking Courtyard Amenity Space 52’48’ Apartments/Condos 48’62’66’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 5’ 10’ 20’50’ Concept 3 Section | American Legion Site Redevelopment Below-ground Parking                                       6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ 86)HHW ´0 500 FeetLegend Project Boundary Project Boundary Parcels P P BRT Bus Stop Treeline Buffer Stormwater Connect Surface Lots in Second PhasePhased Townhome Developments R-I / R-O Full Access Southeast Quadrant Redevelopment: Concept 1                                       6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ 86)HHW ´0 500FeetLegendProject BoundaryProject BoundaryParcels BRT Bus Stop Treeline Buffer Stormwater Stormwater 28 Units on 2 Floors Underground Parking (1 space /unit) 20 Units on 2 Floors Full Access R-I / R-O             6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\ 86)HHW ´0 500FeetLegendProject BoundaryProject Boundary Parcels P P BRT Bus Stop Treeline BufferStormwaterConnect Surface Lots in Second PhasePhased Townhome DevelopmentsR-I / R-O Full Access Southeast Quadrant Redevelopment: Concept 2 ´0 500 FeetLegend Project Boundary Project Boundary Parcels Medium-density Residential Infill Examples along 66th Full Access Full Block with Staggered Parcels 66th Street Side StreetSide StreetSide Street66th Street Full Block with In-line Parcels Half Block Full Access Full Access Framework Assumptions » As properties become available for purchase, in the case of willing sellers, redevelop single family homes so that they are in line with the recommended medium-density residential zoning » Preserve existing high quality trees where possible » Access from side streets (not off of 66th Street) » New residences front 66th Street where possible and keep parking in the rear (surface or attached) » 3-story maximum height (to match existing MDR) » Provide a buffer to existing residential homes PORTLAND & 66TH SUB AREA STUDY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN26 ATTACHMENT D - VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF A CONCEPTUAL 5 STORY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2021 27 ATTACHMENT E - PROPOSED OVERLAY DISTRICT LANGUAGE 541.25. – Veteran’s Park Area Overlay  District. Subdivision 1. Purpose and intent. The Veteran’s Park Area Overlay District promotes both redevelopment of existing structures and new development to provide a balanced mix of compatible uses in proximity to the Veterans Memorial Park. Design regulations are provided to produce structures of consistent character and of appropriate scale that transition from single family residential to higher density mixed use and community commercial. The intent of the Overlay District is to guide the design character of redevelopment and revitalization in ways that are sensitive to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and its surrounding land uses, while adhering to the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Sub Area Study’s Development Principles:  Personal Connections: Support redevelopment projects that preserves and enhances the ability of residents and users of Veterans Memorial Park to make personal connections to the park.  Park & Neighborhood Connectivity: Increase connectivity to Veterans Memorial Park by incorporating vehicle, pedestrian, wheelchair/walker, and bicycle connections between park destinations (e.g., the Memorial, lake, ice arena, and swimming pool), neighborhoods, and redevelopment sites along Portland Avenue and 66th Street.  Diversify Housing Options: Use redevelopment sites to expand the mix of housing in the area such as row/townhouse, affordable units, courtyard apartments, courtyard cottages, and live-work units.  Convenient Commercial: Encourage a mix of community and small neighborhood commercial businesses in proximity to residential areas and the park destinations as an important amenity for residents and park visitors.  Sustainable Development: Use sustainable design practices and new technology in developments that will help create a healthy, sustainable, vibrant neighborhood, and contribute to the park environment.  Building Transition: Require site design and building architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions between single family residential neighborhoods and higher intensity uses.  Building Heights: Locate the tallest portions of buildings away from adjacent low density residences. For sites adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, locate the tallest portions of buildings away from the park’s open areas.  Building Massing: Locate and design buildings to preserve views to/from the park’s open areas and minimize potential shadowing of the park.  Quantity of Parking: Minimize parking needs by leveraging the study area’s location along multimodal corridors to reduce the use of the automobile, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Subd. 2. Creation of district and applicability. The Veteran’s Park Area Overlay (VPA) District shall apply to properties designated within Appendix I of this Code. Subd. 3. Applicable regulations. All permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in the underlying Districts shall be allowed in the VPA Overlay District with the following additions, qualifications, and/or exceptions: The following abbreviations are used below: Permitted use - P Accessory use – A Conditional use - C  MR-3 in the VPA Overlay District: o Offices and clinics - A o Restaurant Class I (serving alcohol) – A/C o Restaurant Class II (traditional/cafeteria) - A o Restaurant Class IV (take out only) - A o Retail services, general - A o Retail services, neighborhood – A o Taproom/cocktail room – A/C o Additions for accessory uses:  All accessory uses shall be contained within the principal residential building.  All accessory uses shall have street frontage.  All accessory uses shall be located on the ground floor and shall not exceed 15,000 square feet.  C-2 in the VPA Overlay District: o Assisted living facilities, nursing or rest homes above ground floor commercial - P o Dwelling, multifamily above ground floor commercial - P o Live-work units above ground floor commercial - P Subd. 4. Bulk and dimensional standards. All bulk and dimensional standards applicable in the underlying districts, as found in Subsections 525.11 (MR-2), 527.11 (MR-3), and 534.11 (C-2) of this Code, shall apply in the VPA Overlay District with the following additions, qualifications, and/or exceptions: a) MR-2 in the VPA Overlay District:  Front yard setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 10 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet along.  Parking shall be located in the rear and/or side yards of the building. b) MR-3 in the VPA Overlay District:  Building height: The principal building heights shall be a minimum of 20 feet and up to a maximum of 55 feet or 5 stories, whichever is less. o Building heights shall be measured from the building footprint’s average ground level elevation. o Floors above the third floor shall be stepped back a minimum of 15 feet when adjacent to public streets and public land. Step backs may be adjusted depending on specific site conditions and building placements.  Maximum building coverage: 40%  Front yard setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 15 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet.  Rear and side yard setbacks: When adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, the required rear and side yard setbacks shall prioritize greenspace and landscaping as a transition/buffer to the Park. c) C-2 in the VPA Overlay District:  Front yard setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 15 feet and the maximum shall be 25 feet.  Rear and side yard setbacks: When adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, the required rear and side yard setbacks shall prioritize greenspace and landscaping as a transition/buffer to the Park.  Parking shall be located in the rear and/or side yards of the building. Subd. 5. Other performance standards. All additional performance standards applicable in underlying districts shall apply in the VPA District with the following additions, qualifications, and/or exceptions: a) MR-2 in the VPA Overlay District:  A minimum of one primary building entrance shall face Portland Avenue or 66th Street depending on where the property is located.  Projects facing Veteran’s Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50% of the existing square footage of a building, shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan as part of their development application. b) MR-3 in the VPA Overlay District:  Residential development shall include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the study area.  A lot larger than two (2) acres is allowed to include a second building. o The two buildings shall be grouped into a single polygon to assess compliance with required setbacks.  Existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible.  Pedestrian facilities shall be placed along the site’s perimeter to provide walking connections between the public street and public amenities such as Veterans Memorial Park.  Stormwater shall be managed onsite by using best management practices, such as raingardens, green roofs, and bio-infiltration swales to create aesthetically pleasing and useable public spaces or underground systems.  Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street.  A shadow study shall be required as part of the development review process to evaluate potential impacts of shadowing on adjacent properties, measured by the sun’s position at the time of the summer solstice.  A minimum of one primary building entrance is required on each street façade and at least one building entrance every 75 feet of each street façade.  Projects facing Veteran’s Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50% of the existing square footage of a building, shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan as part of their development application. c) C-2 in the VPA Overlay District:  Existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible.  Pedestrian facilities shall be placed along the site’s perimeter to provide walking connections between the public street and public amenities such as, Veterans Memorial Park.  Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street.  Stormwater shall be managed onsite by using best management practices, such as raingardens, green roofs, and bio-infiltration swales to create aesthetically pleasing and useable public spaces or underground systems.  Projects facing Veteran’s Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50% of the existing square footage of a building, shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan as part of their development application.     Veteran's Park Area Study Area 2040 Planned Land Use Proposed Study / Moratorium Area Mixed Use Regional Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Park Quasi-Public Right-of-Way (ROW) ± 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 Miles I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\City Planner\Projects\66th & Portland\2020 Moratorium Area - Proposed 001720.mxd Veteran's Park 66th StreetPortland Avenue 12TH AVE S11TH AVE S64TH ST E 67TH ST E ELLIOT AVECOLUMBUS AVEOAKLAND AVECHICAGO AVEPARK AVE10TH AVE S66TH ST E 63RD ST E PORTLAND AVE5TH AVE SR R R R C-2 C-2 C-2 MR-1 MR-1 MR-2 MR-2 ± Existing Zoning 0 400 800200ft I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2021\Veterans Park Rezoning_v3.mxd Case No: 21-RZN-03 Veterans Park Area Rezoning MR-3 C-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 C-2 12TH AVE S11TH AVE S64TH ST E 67TH ST E ELLIOT AVECOLUMBUS AVEOAKLAND AVECHICAGO AVEPARK AVE10TH AVE S66TH ST E 63RD ST E PORTLAND AVE5TH AVE SProposed Zoning 0 400 800200ft Zoning Districts R Single-Family R-1 Low-Density Single-Family MR-1 Two-Family PMR Planned Multi-Family MR-2 Multi-Family MR-2/CAC Multi-Fam + Cedar Overlay MR-3 High-Density Multi-Family SO Service Office C-1 Community Commercial C-2 General Commercial PC-2 Planned General Commercial PMU Planned Mixed Use MU-C Mixed Use-Community MU-C/CAC Mixed Use + Cedar Overlay MU-C/PAC Mixed Use + Penn Overlay MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood MU-R Mixed Use-Regional I Industrial Property Proposedfor Rezoning Proposed VeteransPark OverlayBoundary Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Kathryn Quam, Commissioners Brendan Kennealy, Susan Rosenberg, Peter Lavin, James Rudolph, and Brett Stursa MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Bryan Pynn STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, Asst. Director of Community Development; Ryan Krzos, Planner; Nellie Jerome, Assistant Planner OTHERS PRESENT: For Item #1: Lance Bernard and Jeff Miller, HKGi. See attached list for residents who gave public comments. Chairperson Quam called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Rudolph, S/Stursa to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2021, meeting. Motion carried: 5-0 (Commissioner Rosenberg was absent for the vote) OPEN FORUM No members of the public spoke, no comments received. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Quam, S/Kennealy to approve the agenda. Motion carried: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1 - Consider a recommendation of approval of the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study as a guiding document; and the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District. Assistant Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report. Lance Bernard, HKGi, presented the potential overlay development modeling and the community study feedback. M/Kennealy, S/Lavin to take a five minute recess. Motion carried: 6-0 Robin Jacobson, 6601and 6609 Oakland Ave; Linda Seime, 6438 5th Ave; Jon & Sandy Clay, 6600 Columbus; Lori Grotz, 6214 5th Ave; and Kent Fairbairn, 7020 Stevens Ave, provided comments related to the height of future buildings, heavy traffic, the view and aesthetics of the park from surrounding areas, and disapproval of the existing comprehensive plan designation within the study area. M/Quam, S/Rosenberg to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 6-0 Commissioners discussed the potential for a future extension of Oakland Ave, the parking needs of the park and Legion site, building setback, and building height. M/Quam, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of the attached Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study; and to recommend approval of the attached ordinance establishing the Portland 2 Avenue and 66th Street (PSS) Overlay District regulations for properties in the vicinity of Veteran's Memorial Park. M/Quam, S/Lavin to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to limit the height of buildings to 4 stories or fifty feet, whichever is less. Motion carried: 6-0 M/Rudolph, S/Lavin to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to remove the possibility of having a road north of 66th Street, into the development, either on Oakland Ave o through the park. Motion failed: 2-4 (Lavin and Rudolph voted in support of the amendment) M/Lavin, S/Quam to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to consider modifying the quantity of parking language to establish parking needs at minimal levels necessary to service specific project developments while limiting impact to surrounding neighbors. Motion carried: 4-2 (Stursa and Rosenberg voted against the amendment) M/Quam, S/Lavin to amend the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Overlay District to add, in section 541.25, Subdivision 1, under Park and Neighborhood Connectivity, “wheelchair/walker,” after the word “pedestrian”. Motion carried: 6-0 M/Quam, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of the attached Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study; and to recommend approval of the attached ordinance establishing the Portland Avenue and 66th Street (PSS) Overlay District with the three approved amendments: to limit the height of buildings to 4 stories or fifty feet, whichever is less; to modify the development principal statement about parking to establish parking needs at a minimal level necessary to service developments while limiting neighborhood impacts; and, to modify section 541.25, Subdivision 1, under Park and Neighborhood Connectivity, to include “wheelchair/walker,” after the word “pedestrian”. Motion carried: 4-2 (Lavin and Rudolph voted against the amendment) M/Rudolph, S/Lavin to take a five minute recess. Motion carried: 6-0 ITEM #2 - Conduct a public hearing and consider a recommendation on an ordinance rezoning property in the vicinity of Veteran's Memorial Park. Assistant Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report for rezoning these parcels to meet with the 2040 Comprehensive plan, an action required by State Statute 473.858. Commissioners and staff discussed parcels that would be rezoned and would therefore contain legally nonconforming uses. Staff clarified that legally nonconforming uses may be repaired, maintained, and improved in perpetuity. Jon & Sandy Clay, 6600 Columbus Ave, and Robin Jacobson, 6601 Oakland Ave, provided comments related to disapproval of the rezoning, and asked about limits on improving and expanding homes that would be legally nonconforming after being rezoned. Asst. Community Development Director Poehlman clarified that nonconforming uses may add additional bedrooms, but not additional dwelling units. Asst. Director Poehlman added that the 3 Comprehensive Plan has already guided these properties for future use and the City is required to follow through on the plans, per State Statute. M/Quam, S/Kennealy to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 6-0 M/Stursa, S/Quam to recommend approval of an ordinance rezoning property in the vicinity of Veteran's Memorial Park. Motion carried: 6-0 LIAISON REPORTS Community Services Advisory Commission: the inclusive playground is now going in, and bids for two additional playgrounds will be reviewed this week. The pool will be open at full capacity this summer, and the band shell will also be used for programming. The planning for the 65- year-old pool line replacement is starting. City Council: Woodlake is celebrating their 50th anniversary, and the Council is making final plans for the organized trash hauling, and public hearing is set for June 1. Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA): the HRA authorized staff to work on discharging the discriminatory covenant on HRA-owned properties, as part of the Just Deeds project. Inclusionary Housing Policy revisions were also approved, leading the way for deeper affordability and ADA accessibility. Richfield School Board: no report. Transportation Commission: the most recent meeting was cancelled, no report. Chamber of Commerce: (none) Sustainability Commission: (none) CITY PLANNER’S REPORT We will return to in-person meetings next month, as the Mayor is planning to rescind the Emergency Order. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting will be Monday, June 28, 2021, at 7pm M/Kennealy, S/Lavin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried: 5-0 (Rosenberg was absent for the vote) The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:28 p.m. __________________________ Planning Commission Secretary Public comments were received at the May 24, 2021, Richfield Planning Commission meeting from the following callers: Item #1: Robin Jacobson – gave two addresses 6601 Oakland Ave and 6609 Oakland Ave Linda Seime – 6438 5th Ave Jon & Sandy Clay – 6600 Columbus Lori Grotz – 6214 5th Ave Kent Fairbairn – 7020 Stevens Ave Itam #2: Jon & Sandy Clay 6600 Columbus Robin Jacobson 6601/6609 Oakland 1 Melissa Poehlman From:ashleague@juno.com Sent:Friday, May 21, 2021 3:17 PM To:Melissa Poehlman Subject:Planning Commission meeting Melissa, I am concerned about the amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. My husband John and I live at 6338 11th Ave. So. and our backyard is adjacent to Veteran's Park. Any changes to the neighborhoods adjacent to the park would directly affect us. An environmental concern I have is that any larger buildings near the park would interfere with migratory lanes of birds. Veterans' Park is well known to birders, and people from miles around come to see the birds migrating through or inhabiting Veterans' Park. Large buildings would block those flight patterns. Another environmental concern is that larger buildings would detract from the aesthetic appeal of the park. A park is a place of peace to go to get away from buildings and crowds of people, a place of calm. Having denser housing and larger buildings would detract from this Richfield gem that we call Veterans' Park. The existing houses, buildings, and trees maintain the peace and calm of Veterans Park. If the city is looking for a way to increase the tax base, look along 66th Street between 12th Ave. and Cedar Ave. There are some commercial locations there that could be improved with the buildings that are being proposed for the Veterans Park district. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mary Ann Ashmead 1 Melissa Poehlman From:heidi Bruneau <heidibruneau@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 23, 2021 10:52 PM To:Melissa Poehlman Subject:Veteran's Park This is response to the Veteran's park area 2040 plan. I live in the area and apalled by this plan. It's just dispiable. We need our green spaces not large eye sore building which ruin the landscape and effect the animals. It will be devestating to this area. The legion area should be expanded as more park space. No more overpriced building and certainly no more retail we don't need. Now the main concern of this is the re-zoning. NO. A lot of nerve. This just shows the lack of concern for people. We are all just human garbage our lives don't matter. re-zoning any of the existing houses and apartments is unexcetable. I know many people that would have no where to go if they had to move. You know nothing of the circumstances of the people in these houses and apartments. But we don't care about people. I will NOT be reading any responses to this moral actions are the only response needed 1 Melissa Poehlman From:Birgit Johnson <schckbrgt@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, May 23, 2021 6:25 PM To:Melissa Poehlman Subject:Future Development 1 Melissa Poehlman From:Anne Weinauer <anneweinauer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 24, 2021 1:06 PM To:Melissa Poehlman Subject:Planning Commission Open Forum re: Veteran's Park commercial development. I would like to comment on the multi-family housing being considered. Firstly Vet's Park is a true gem for our city. It is surrounded by commercial and residential development. To replace a one-level building (American Legion) with a high-density housing project is so objectionable on so many levels. There is significant multi-housing development going on already across from the Home Depot/Target location. In addition, the buildings themselves are aesthetically displeasing in that they are boxes on top of boxes. The Park is already requiring significant clean up when people picnic and leave their trash everywhere, even though there are plenty of disposal bins especially around the pavilion. I can't think that surrounding the park with high-density multi-housing will improve the property in any way, I use the park to walk my dog on a daily basis and so appreciate the peace and natural beauty. I do hope the Planning Commission will consider taking the high-density housing off the table. I don't have a high expectation that it will as I do believe, as other residents do, that input from the public is meaningless since the "deal is already done" by the Commission as evidenced by the "study" which has been done. Thank you. From:cllewis419@gmail.com To:Melissa Poehlman Subject:RE: Portland and 66 project Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 5:59:32 PM Why high-density housing? We have enough trouble with traffic as it is on Portland. Sometimes I have trouble getting out of my driveway because of the traffic. The housing I referred to is behind Cub. Also with the possibility of so many people you will over crowd our schools. Our property taxes keep going up and yet you are doing everything to destroy our neighborhood. I think that we do vote for our officials. I for one will be going are the neighborhood letting people know what you have told me. I am a Widow and it I loose the value of my house I won’t be able to afford a nice place to live. You are dealing with more than property you playing with peoples lives. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Melissa Poehlman Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:20 PM To: cllewis419@gmail.com Subject: RE: Portland and 66 project Ms. Lewis, Thank you again for your comments; we will include them in our public feedback. Are you asking who to contact about the study? That is me. There is, as of now, no project proposal for the Legion site. If an application is submitted, a public hearing will be held to consider the particulars of the request. The designation of the property for high-density housing was approved by the City Council on November 13, 2018 as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan review process took place over approximately 18 months before that and included a series of public meetings and a public hearing. While it would be exceptionally difficult for the City Council to change that designation, the study that we’re undertaking now could influence the look and design of anything that is built. I am not aware of particular problems related to housing on Nicollet Avenue. Is there a particular group of homes that is a concern for you? Melissa Melissa Poehlman, AICP Asst. Director of Community Development | City of Richfield ( 612.861.9766 From: cllewis419@gmail.com [mailto:cllewis419@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 10:48 AM To: Melissa Poehlman Subject: RE: Portland and 66 project There are many of the neighbors whose oppose this project. Who do we need to contact? As taxpayer we do have rights about what goes into our neighborhood and I found it hard to believe that you, as the governing body, don’t have any say in the matter. If we have to we will go to court to stopped a project that will put, from what I heard, 400 units and overrun our neighborhoods. Nicollet ave is a prime example of low cost housing while the police are always over there. Carol Lewis Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Melissa Poehlman Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 1:26 PM To: cllewis419@gmail.com Cc: Lance Bernard Subject: RE: Portland and 66 project Hello Ms. Lewis, Thank you for your comment; we will add it to the other comments that we have received. I do want to make one point of clarification; the City is not planning to build anything. The American Legion owns a piece of property that they are planning to redevelop. Multi-family housing is allowed on their site and the City does not have control of the particular rents of a project unless we participate in the financing. The study that we are conducting is looking at whether or not there should be particular rules related to the design of buildings in the area of the Park. This would include things like height, building materials, windows, how far a building should be set back from the park, landscaping requirements, etc. Thank you again for your comments. Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts. Sincerely, Melissa Melissa Poehlman, AICP Asst. Director of Community Development | City of Richfield ( 612.861.9766 From: cllewis419@gmail.com [mailto:cllewis419@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 3:26 PM To: Melissa Poehlman Subject: Portland and 66 project I have heard that you are going to build low income housing which I am strongly opposed too. I don’t think that you need to build on every piece of vacant land and over run the park with people. There are a lot of people that live in Minneapolis and use Veteran Park on a regular basis. My neighbors feel the same way as I do. The value of our houses have gone up in resent years and the decisions you make could affect their value. Carol Lewis Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From:Melissa Poehlman To:"Sandy Clay" Cc:"Lance Bernard" Subject:RE: Portland and 66th survey Veterans Park Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:54:53 AM Sandy, I’m sorry the survey didn’t work for you. How frustrating! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Melissa Melissa Poehlman, AICP Asst. Director of Community Development | City of Richfield ( 612.861.9766 From: Sandy Clay [mailto:clay6600@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:59 PM To: Melissa Poehlman Subject: Portland and 66th survey Veterans Park Hello Melissa (and to others it may concern), Here are my thoughts about redevelopment around Veterans Park. The survey didn’t work well on my phone when I tried to submit it and it deleted my answers (frustrating to say the least). So here are some of my ideas below. I am a long time homeowner in the redevelopment area for Veterans Park. By the way, my family and I use this park daily and love the natural setting. We like to enjoy sunsets in the park without a tall apartment building getting in the way. We like the open space. I think this property in question (American Legion) should be purchased by The city of Richfield and kept as park. We can never get this land again if it is sold and built on. I think the best idea is to expand the outdoor pool into a water park with lazy river, various pools, climbing wall, etc. Many cities have amazing water parks. Ours is very basic. And this area for sale is abutting the pool area. This would be a great opportunity to invest in our community instead of more, sigh, apartment complexes. Water parks are a great family destination and would attract visitors to our city. Even if it just stayed grassy parkland I would be thrilled. We LOVE our park’s green space and our community is so land locked. We can’t expand outwards to get more land. What we have is it. And to have land to add to our park would very much benefit our community as a desirable place to live. For our existing park— improvements include: Connect trails in places that there are none such as a walking path around the play area and another around the small pond near the play area that reconnects to the play area. Also one behind the band shell. Docks and bridges and gazebo to the island would be neat. Keep or improve the amazing floating bridge path. We love that!! Plant new kinds of trees throughout the park such as white pines and birch trees to give it a northern Minnesota feel. Add more benches. Offer more flower or ornamental gardens. Create a peace garden labyrinth path. More grass. More trees. More natural areas!!!! Once a piece of land is developed it can rarely if ever return to a natural setting. Please NO high density skyscraper apartment buildings to clutter our natural sky and park space. If a park has a big apartment building in or near it it starts to feel like it is a quasi public space and more belonging to the apartment building. This is OUR community park. Keep big tall apartment buildings OUT! A green space would be the perfect addition to Veterans Park to enhance and expand it. What a wonderful investment in our community I want Richfield to purchase this land to preserve it as additional park space. I don’t want the park to become a “backyard “ for an apartment building. It is a community park and it should stay that way! No tall apartment building. No high density!!! I like landscaping and high quality look to a building but I don’t want a building built there please. It would be a good place for an additional ice rink down the road if the arena ever expands. Or a perfect place to expand our pool into a water park, as I suggested above. Thank you for considering my thoughts and suggestions. Please preserve our parks and sky view so it looks natural. No apartment buildings rising up in the distance getting in the way of sunsets and nature photography. People NEED natural areas without high rises around them. It reduces stress and is one of the number one things new and perspective homeowners look for when deciding where to purchase a home. A park and natural outdoor spaces. Keep our community a small town feel—the kind we boast about on all our brochures “the small town suburb”. Not a big city with apartment buildings everywhere. Please keep these ideas in mind when you consider the options. Thank you Sandy Clay 6600 Columbus Avenue Richfield From:Judy Moe To:Lance Bernard Cc:Katie Rodriguez; John Stark; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Melissa Poehlman Subject:Re: Survey question Date:Friday, May 7, 2021 8:51:22 AM Thanks so much Lance! On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 8:29 AM Lance Bernard <lance@hkgi.com> wrote: Judy, Another quick follow-up… Here is a new (shorter) link for the project website. https://bit.ly/2RsLeGt Thanks, Lance Lance H. Bernard | Associate – Planner | HKGi | Mobile: 320-420-7768 www.hkgi.com From: Judy Moe [mailto:richfielddisabilityap@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 12:33 AM To: Lance Bernard <lance@hkgi.com> Cc: Katie Rodriguez <krodriguez@richfieldmn.gov>; John Stark <jstark@richfieldmn.gov>; Maria Regan Gonzalez <MRegan@richfieldmn.gov> Subject: Survey question Hi Lance, I have a question about the survey on this page. I would like to encourage people to take the survey, but it won't allow me to link to it because it says I already took it, so I can't get to the original survey page. The page I gave you the link to is so long and busy and then the link to do the survey is way down with a little blue thing to click on. I realize there is a "Survey" button to click on that makes you jump down to that area, but it is a multiple step process, and everything just seems to blend together. I can't send or post a link that I have to include a long explanation about how to find the link to click on. This is an example of barriers to getting feedback from the community, and not just people with disabilities and seniors. When you feel like you have to jump through hoops to participate, and you aren't computer savvy, or don't have a lot of time, it just seems more complicated than it has to be. Just my 2 cents. If you could send me a link directly to that survey page I would really appreciate it. Thanks - Judy Moe Richfield Disability Advocacy Partnership 612-386-2638 From:Melissa Poehlman To:"Karen And Kent" Bcc:"Lance Bernard" Subject:RE: Veteran’s Park Date:Monday, March 8, 2021 10:58:27 AM Mr. & Mrs. Fairbairn et. al. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this out. I’m so sorry that you had trouble with the survey. Your comments will be incorporated into the survey responses. Sincerely, Melissa Melissa Poehlman, AICP Asst. Director of Community Development | City of Richfield ( 612.861.9766 From: Karen And Kent [mailto:mermoo@q.com] Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 9:58 AM To: Melissa Poehlman Subject: Veteran’s Park Hello Melissa Poehlman, Thank you for taking time to hear our responses to the Veteran’s Park area. We tried to fill out the survey. Some of the questions were a bit confusing. We weren’t certain what you were trying to ask. Our daughter Lisha filled out the survey online and it did not process her response. Very frustrating for sure! Even though the survey says it is open through March 8 it said the survey was closed. Therefore we are emailing you directly. Please consider this email responses from five citizens. You asked us what we like or dislike about Veteran’s Park: We love the green areas at Veterans Park and some of that has been removed over the years. Sadly, there are now areas that we once enjoyed as “park” that has been built upon and in other areas where there once was nice grass it has become weeds and not the soft grassy areas where the kids once ran up and down or people threw frisbees or played catch. Please work hard to keep, maintain and develop our green grassy park. We love having a veterans memorial at Veteran’s Park! We appreciated that the Veterans Memorial area had parking directly next to it in the parking lot of the American Legion so that our veterans could easily park and walk a short distance up to the memorial anytime. We would like to see this still be available. But the rest of the space we would like to see turned into green park space with areas to picnic, swing or to just enjoy nature. Maybe offer some informational boards to explain a little about the park, it’s name and history as well as it’s natural habitat and what wildlife is found there. Those boards could also include the name of the person or family who donated the land. We appreciate the picnic shelter area/farmers market area, but it is the only one in the park so If any structure were to be erected, a smaller personal group sized pavilion/ picnic shelter would be nice. Our family has used the amenities at the park: the playground, the ice cream shop and miniature golf, The veterans memorial, as well as the hockey arena and our Richfield pool. We love the Richfield pool! That is the destination point for many from various cities in the Minnesota and Wisconsin area. It has always been a popular pool. The park really has a number of developed areas already. And we really miss the green spaces that these places have taken up or taken away from the park. Our park needs more green space. We also love having the pathways to walk and wish there were a few more connections of the pathways. There are just a few areas where you can see everyone walks across the grass leaving a muddy mess. For example, we need a pathway to connect the west side of the band shell to the path. We need a path around the playground like we used to have so that parents can get exercise while their children are playing. The path behind the ice arena is usually muddy and too low to properly use. When walking into the park from the south driveway entrance there is no sidewalk so you have to walk in on the driveway towards the arena and then you cannot walk directly to the path without going on the grass. They make you continue to walk on the driveway towards the entrance of the hockey arena before connecting to the path. I am uncertain if there is a path connecting the Portland Avenue entrance to the playground. These walk areas should be fixed. Please do not allow for any housing to go in the place of the buildings currently along Portland Avenue adjoining the park. Please be aware that if apartments went in there it would do a number of things. Number one, it would block the skyline. Number two, it would block the view of the park from the road. Decreasing the beauty of our thoroughfares. Number three, it would cause the park not to feel as much like public space. It would feel more like a shared space with the residents of the apartments. Number four, it would reduce the aesthetic pleasing qualities of seeing nature and green space which brings calm and peace. Number five, our parks are the best amenities/assets Richfield has to offer its residents. This housing would take away from all of the citizens of Richfield: value. Richfield invested money to make the park area along Portland Avenue be visible to passers by. Houses used to line the west side of Portland Avenue and were removed. Volleyball courts were added with aesthetically pleasing green space for picnicking surrounding it and the parking lot and universal playground were added. The city worked hard to open up the view and use of the park by removing buildings. Don’t cover it up with new buildings. Continue the good work they began to create a gem in our small city. We have plenty of areas that high-rises and apartment buildings have gone up in Richfield. We need to defend and maintain our parks and green spaces and improve upon them only in ways that leads to more enjoyment of the natural beauty. Sincerely, Kent and Karen Fairbairn Lisha Fairbairn Ethan Fairbairn Nancy Fairbairn Please note: The views expressed here represent the feelings of all 5 adults listed above. We are all long-time citizens in Richfield. AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #7. STAFF REPORT NO. 102 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 6/22/2021 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Ryan K rzos, P lanner D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector 6/14/2021 O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 6/16/2021 I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N: Consider a resolution approving a final plat for Lyndale Oaks 2nd Addition. The proposed plat combines the thr ee parcels comprising the Lynk65 redevelopment site into one parcel. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Development plans and a preliminary plat for the redevelopment project known as Ly nk65 were approved in April of this year. The applicant has now advanc ed to the final plat stage of the platting process. T he proposed plat would combine the three parcels comprising the development site into one new lot. The final plat is a tec hnical document formalizing the the c ombination of land c omprising the development site, and is not a reconsideration of land use approvals for the development. The proposed final plat request meets requirements and is consistent with the preliminary plat; therefore staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N: By motion approve the attached resolution appr oving the final plat of Lyndale O aks 2nd Addition. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT The C ity Council approved development plans and a preliminary plat for the development on April 27, 2021. I n addition, a portion of the Ly ndale Avenue right-of-way was vacated to acc ommodate the designs for the plac ement of a trail and the building. The final plat dedic ates additional right-of- way for the roundabout that will be constructed at the intersection of Ly ndale Avenue and 65th Street; as was required as a condition of the vac ation approval. Approval of a final plat was a condition of the land use approvals and the vacation of the portion of Lyndale Avenue. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): All plats or subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.358 and the newly updated S ec tion 500 of the Ric hfield City Code. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S: Per S tate Statute, the City has 60 day s from the date of submittal of a c omplete applic ation to issue a dec ision regarding a final plat unless the applicant agrees to an extension. A complete application was received on May 27, 2021. The Council must render a dec ision by J uly 26, 2021. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION : The City Attorney has reviewed the final plat. ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S): None. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: Representatives from Enclave Companies and W estwood Professional Servic es. AT TAC H ME N TS : D escripti on Type Resolution - Lyndale Oaks 2nd A ddition F inal P lat E xhibit Lyndale Oaks 2nd A ddition F inal P lat E xhibit C ontext Map E xhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT FOR LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, Enclave Companies (“Applicant”) has requested approval of a final plat that combines land generally located at the northeast corner of Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street W, on land that is legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed final plat of LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION on Tuesday, June 22, 2021; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION satisfies the requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinances. 2. Final approval of the plat of LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION is granted with the following conditions: a. The applicant must address to the City Attorney’s satisfaction all items listed in the plat opinion letter prepared by the City Attorney’s office. b. The applicant must address any outstanding comments by the City’s Public Works Department regarding easements for drainage and utility purposes. c. The Applicant must submit two mylar copies of the plat for signature by the City. d. The Applicant must file the final plat with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within two years of the approval of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 2021. Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Sinning, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CURRENT LEGAL DESRCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 2, J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION. And Lots 4, 5, 19, 20 and all of Lot 18 except the Northwesterly 25 feet thereof, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; together with those parts of the vacated alleys in said Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS, described as follows: Beginning at the most Northwesterly corner of Lot 19 in said Block 6; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 19 and its extension to the Northerly line of Lot 5 in said Block 6; thence Easterly along said North line 114.29 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Westerly passing through the Southwesterly corner of Lot 6 in said Block 6 to the centerline of the vacated alley adjoining the Northeasterly line of Lot 18 in said Block 6; thence Northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the Northeasterly extension of the Southeasterly line of the Northwesterly 25 feet of said Lot 18; thence Southwesterly along said extension to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 18; thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line to the most Easterly corner of said Lot 18; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 18 to the Southerly corner of said Lot 18; thence Southeasterly to the point of beginning. And Lot 3, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS. And That part of Lyndale Avenue South as dedicated on J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly and northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 2, Block 2, said J.N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION; thence South 43 degrees 36 minutes 53 seconds East, assumed bearing along the westerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 5.38 feet to the point of beginning of the right of way to be vacated; thence South 46 degrees 32 minutes 19 seconds West, a distance of 7.69 feet; thence South 43 degrees 27 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 68.71 feet; thence Southeasterly a distance of 34.87 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a central angle of 20 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds, a radius of 99.00 feet, and a chord which bears South 53 degrees 31 minutes 55 seconds East, to said westerly line of Lot 2 and said line there terminating. Sheet 1 of 2 SheetsSUBJECT TO CHANGEWITHOUT NOTICEDRAFT COPY LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITIONCITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTAThis plat of LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the CIty of Richfield, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof heldthis day of , 20 . and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTABy By Mayor ManagerRESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that taxes payable in 20 and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this day of , 20 .Mark V. Chapin, County AuditorBy DeputySURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, MinnesotaPursuant to MINN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this day of , 20.Chris F. Mavis, County SurveyorBy COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that the within plat of LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION recorded in this office this day of , 20 ,at o'clock .M.Martin McCormick, County RecorderBy DeputyREGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that the within plat of LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION was filed in this office this day of , 20 ,at o'clock .M.Martin McCormick, Registrar of TitlesBy Deputy KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Lynk 65, LLC , fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:Lot 2, Block 2, J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION.Torrens PropertyLots 4, 5, 19, 20 and all of Lot 18 except the Northwesterly 25 feet thereof, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; togetherwith those parts of the vacated alleys in said Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS, described as follows:Beginning at the most Northwesterly corner of Lot 19 in said Block 6; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 19 and its extension to the Northerly line of Lot5 in said Block 6; thence Easterly along said North line 114.29 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Westerly passing through theSouthwesterly corner of Lot 6 in said Block 6 to the centerline of the vacated alley adjoining the Northeasterly line of Lot 18 in said Block 6; thence Northwesterly along saidcenterline to its intersection with the Northeasterly extension of the Southeasterly line of the Northwesterly 25 feet of said Lot 18; thence Southwesterly along saidextension to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 18; thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line to the most Easterly corner of said Lot 18; thence Southwesterly along theSoutheasterly line of said Lot 18 to the Southerly corner of said Lot 18; thence Southeasterly to the point of beginning.Abstract PropertyLot 3, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS.Abstract PropertyThat part of Lyndale Avenue South as dedicated on J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southeasterlyand northeasterly of the following described line:Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 2, Block 2, said J.N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION; thence South 43 degrees 36 minutes 53 seconds East, assumed bearing alongthe westerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 5.38 feet to the point of beginning of the right of way to be vacated; thence South 46 degrees 32 minutes 19 seconds West, a distanceof 7.69 feet; thence South 43 degrees 27 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 68.71 feet; thence Southeasterly a distance of 34.87 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave tothe northeast, having a central angle of 20 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds, a radius of 99.00 feet, and a chord which bears South 53 degrees 31 minutes 55 seconds East, tosaid westerly line of Lot 2 and said line there terminating.Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways.In witness whereof said Lynk 65, LLC has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officers this day of , 20 .LYNK 65, LLCBy By Name, TitleName, TitleSTATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by , and , of Lynk 65, LLC on behalf of the company. (Signature)(Name Printed)Notary Public, County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires I Nathan H. Carlson, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that i am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; thatthis plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plathave been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of thiscertificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.Dated this day of , 20.Nathan H. Carlson, Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 45873STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Nathan H. Carlson, Land Surveyor,Minnesota License No. 45873 (Signature)(Name Printed)Notary Public, County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires R.T. DOC. NO.C.R. DOC. NO. L=93.97R=70.00Δ=76°54'54"N89°29'35"E 108.72Storm Sewer Easement perDoc. No. 3668072, vacated perDoc. No. Easement for Utility Installationand Maintenance per Doc. No. 2395014,vacated per Doc. No. Easement for Utility Installationand Maintenance perDoc. No. 2395014, vacated perDoc. No. V a c a t e d A l l e y a n d s u b j e c t t o p e r p e t u a l e a s em e n t s e x i s t i n g o n a l l e y t o p e rm i t im p r o v em e n t s o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f e x i s t i n g u t i l i t i e s p e r D o c . N o . 5 0 1 5 9 1 6 , v a c a t e d p e r D o c . N o . Vacated Alley and subject to perpetualeasements existing on alley to permitimprovements or maintenance ofexisting utilities per Doc. No. 5015916,vacated perDoc. No. Easement for Utility Installation and Maintenance perDoc. No. 2395014 , vacated perDoc. No. LOT 1BLOCK 137.211ƒ :Not TangentS43°27'40"E 68.717.69S46°32'19"WS43°36'53"E 180.31N46°32'02"E 132.00 42.95N43°28'31"WN86°46'55"W 118.91N00°29'04"W 124.85(meas.) 125.00(plat)5.00N89°35'11"EN00°29'04"W 121.53(meas.) 121.94(plat)N89°32'19"E 194.89(meas.) 194.00(plat)L=20.20(meas.)19.28(plat)R=20.00Δ=57°51'17"L=39.23R=409.27Δ=5°29'31"L=34.87CH=34.69CHB=S 53°31'55" ER=99.00Δ=20°10'45"L=5.48R=34.50© ƒ CH=5.48&+% 6ƒ (L=23.62R=76.00© ƒ CH=23.52&+% 1ƒ :L=11.41R=96.49© ƒ CH=11.41&+% 1ƒ :L=2.02R=99.00© ƒ CH=2.02&+% 1ƒ :28.17166.72Not TangentLYNDALEAVENUESOUTH5.38Most Westerly Corner of Lot 2, Block 2,J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION,Found 3/8 inch RebarWesterly Line of Lot 2, Block 2,J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION6060 64 Found Spike with RibbonFound Pinch Top Iron Pipe MonumentFound Pinch TopIron Pipe MonumentFound Capped Iron Pipeinscribed License No. 41349Found Capped Iron Pipeinscribed License No. 12294Found Capped Iron Pipeinscribed License No. 18425Found Capped Iron Pipeinscribed License No. 19369Southeasterly line of the Northwesterly25.00 feet of Lot 18, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSNorthwesterly line of Lot 18,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS 25.00Most Northwesterly corner of Lot 19,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSNo r t hw e s t e r l y l i n e o f L o t 1 9 , B l o c k 6 , L YND A L E O A K S Northerly line of Lot 5,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSNortheasterly corner of Lot 5,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS 114.46(meas.) 114.29(deed)Southwesterly cornerof Lot 6, Block 6,LYNDALE OAKSCenterline of vacated alley,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSNortheasterly Extension of the Southeasterlyline of the Northwesterly 25.00 feet ofLot 18, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKS Northeasterly lineof Lot 18, Block 6,LYNDALE OAKSMost Easterly corner of Lot 18,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSSoutherly corner of Lot 18,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSSoutheasterly line of Lot 18,Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSEast lineof Lot 3, Block 6,LYNDALE OAKS64 0306090Sheet 2 of 2 SheetsSUBJECT TO CHANGEWITHOUT NOTICEDRAFT COPY LYNDALE OAKS 2ND ADDITIONNot to ScaleVicinity MapSITEThe East line of Lot 3, Block 6, LYNDALE OAKSLVDVVXPHGWREHDU1ƒ :Denotes set 1/2" by 14" Iron Pipe with Cap inscribed License Number 45873Denotes found Monument as noted on surveyScale: 1 Inch = 30 Feet LYNDALE AVE S 65THSTW 6 6 T H ST W 64TH S T W WOODLAKEDRGRAND AVE S64 1/2 ST WHARRIET AVEPLEASANT AVESubject Site ± Site Context 0 200 400100ft I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2021\Lyndale Oaks 2nd Addn Final Plat.mxd Case No: 21-FPT-01 Lyndale Oaks 2nd AdditionFinal Plat (Lynk65)