04-23-1996CITY OF RIMIFIELD
Knnnm OOIT1missIOn
nGEnDn
April 23, 1996
6:00 p.m. -- Special Meeting
I evv : u i11
ITEM #1 Present Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Koegler Group
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made
at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702."
OITY OF RIOFIFIELD
PLRMinG OOtY1missIOR
AGEnnA
April 23, 1996
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
A'PPROVAL..O.F . MINUTES. >' >:' > <'. `;';»
Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 1996 and Study Session April 9, 1996.
PUBLIC HEARING....:: >:::: >:::::::::::: XX
ITEM #1 PC Letter #6 Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
Recommendation
ITEM #2 96 -RZ -1 Lunds - 6228 Penn Avenue - Rezoning of the western
portion of the property from MR to C -2 to allow future
commercial development of the site.
ITEM #3 96 -PUD -2 Northern Hospitality, Inc. - 1200 E. 78th Street -
Planned Unit Development and Rezoning to allow
construction of a 57 unit Americlnn hotel.
ITEM #4 96 -CUP -4 Northern Hospitality, Inca - 1200 E. 78th Street -
96 -FDP -3 Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan to
allow construction of a 57 -unit Americlnn hotel.
N'EW B;USI:NESS:.....
ITEM #5 PC Letter #7 1998 -2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
OLD,:. B. USIN:ESS
ITEM #6 Comprehensive Plan
Review of public comments
Review of draft plan
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made
at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861-9702."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
Regular Meeting
March 26, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela
Dmytrenko (left at 8:30), Timothy Erlander, David Gepner (arrived
at 7:15), Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Kristal Stokes and Paul
Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Postudensek
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Steve Kenny, Planning Staff Assistant Secretary
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Dmytrenko asked staff to change the February 27, 1996 minutes from the
School Board Liaison Report to state that the School Board chose Bob Lindgren to fill the vacant
School Board position and he will serve until July 1997. Commissioner Dmytrenko suggested
that the March 12, 1996 minutes (p.2) should state that she suggested that the group look at
allowing them in all residential districts with separate requirements for each District.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of
February 27. 1996, as corrected.
Motion carried: -0 Commissioner Gepner not present)
M /Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the Study Session on March 12, 1996, as
corrected.
Motion carried: 7 -0 (Commissioner Gepner not present)
March 26, 1996
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
96- APUD -1, 1100 West 78th Street
ITEM #1 PETsMART
Amended Planned Unit Development Plan /final development plan
and conditional use permit to allow veterinary clinic in Phase I of the
Shops at Lyndale
Zoning Administrator Urban introduced Steve Buble of Kennedy & Graven and directed
the Commission to address any legal questions to Mr. Buble.
Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report explaining that on December 12,
1994, the Council approved an amended planned unit development/final development plan
PUD/FDP) and conditional use permit (CUP) for Phase I of the Shops at Lyndale. The amended
PUD plan increased the total building square footage for Phase I from 116,605 square feet to
127,366 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended to the Council that the
amendment be approved with the stipulation that a vet clinic not be a part of the project. The
Council decided to neither allow nor disallow a vet clinic as an allowable use in the development
at that time. Approval of an amended PUD would allow PETsMART to incorporate a veterinary
clinic in the store. The vet clinic would encompass approximately 1,700 square feet in the
southeast portion of the store. Customers would access the clinic through the retail store or
through a separate entrance which is located just east of the main entrance.
Ms. Urban explained the issues related to PETsMART's proposal.
Zoning Administrator Urban stated that staff recommended the City Council approve the
request for an amended planned unit development/final development plan and conditional use
permit on the basis that veterinary clinics are permitted uses in the C -2 district and the existing
shopping center provides adequate parking, parking circulation and landscaping to accommodate
the addition of the vet clinic.
Ms. Urban added that if the Commissioners have concerns similar to those that have been
expressed by the Council, it's appropriate for them to add stipulations to the approval.
In response to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Zoning Administrator Urban stated
that staff had researched the number and extent of animal related incidents in these types of
businesses and found an insignificant number.
March 26, 1996
Page 3
Peter Beck, 150 South 5th Street, (PETsMART representative) stated his disagreement
with the decision to require an amended PUD. He explained the vet clinic proposal. He stated
that the clinic and retail are compatible. He cited the vet clinic in the Woodlake Shopping Center
as an example of an existing clinic in a shopping center. He stated that PETsMART reported
only 30 incidents a year in their 270 stores nationwide.
Commissioner Wasko asked Mr. Beck where the animals will be taken for walks and if
animals stay in the clinic overnight. Dr. Jeff Brandt, Vice President of VetsMart, addressed
Commissioner Wasko's question by stating that the animals will not stay overnight at the clinic.
The animals that are the most sick are transported to an animal hospital. Commissioner Erlander
questioned if the space is adequate for exercising pets. Commissioner Erlander asked Dr. Brandt
if surgeries will be performed. Dr. Brandt addressed both questions by answering yes.
Commissioner Erlander asked about separate entries for cats and dogs. Mr. Beck stated
that he had checked the stores in Richfield and none of these stores had separate entrances.
Commissioner Hadley asked if PETsMART could provide a semi - partition between the
retail store and the clinic. Mr. Beck stated that PETsMART would consider that option if the
Planning Commission had the facts supporting that idea.
Commissioner Hansen asked about dog traffic counts. Dr. Brandt stated that the
maximum number of animals that could be treated at the clinic in a day would be 40 to 50, but
there is no actual data regarding pets in the store.
Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor for discussion to the public.
Doctor Dietl, 6837 Newton, discussed the negatives about pet retail and allowing the pets
to be allowed into these stores. He cited an article from a newspaper stating that 40 percent of
pet owners bring their pets into PETsMART or Pet Food Warehouse. His major concern was the
high numbers of pets that enter the store. He gave examples of incidents involving pets and retail
stores. He doesn't believe that retail and vet clinics should go together.
The group discussed animal diseases and vet clinic /retail relationship.
Dr. Gotto, Maki - Cutler Vet hospital representative (currently Best Friends Vet Clinic),
expressed his concern about the history of the site regarding relocation of his business. He stated
that he is worried that public safety is going to be a big problem. He is worried about traffic
from the surrounding retail stores and its effect on accidents regarding animals and automobiles.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing
Motion carried: 8 -0
Commissioner Stokes thanked PETsMART and the public for coming tonight.
Commissioner Stokes does support the revision of the PUD process. She isn't convinced that a
March 26, 1996
Page 4
veterinary clinic is an appropriate use in a mall. Commissioner Stokes stated that unfortunately
pets are already allowed in stores and that there is not a substantial reason to disallow a
veterinary clinic in this case.
Commissioner Wasko agreed that there is no land use reason not to allow the veterinary
clinic, but he wants the group to carefully look over the stipulations reported by staff. He added
that he would like to see a stipulation regarding the adequacy of parking.
Commissioner Erlander is not comfortable with stipulations due to the fact of
enforcement difficulties. He suggested that the Planning Commission vote to approve or deny
the amended PUD, final development plan and conditional use permit without stipulations. He
would vote against approval because he is not comfortable with a veterinary clinic in the same
building as other retail stores.
Commissioner Hansen stated that he thinks the issue the group should be concerned with
is the health, safety and welfare of the people of Richfield. He stated that the existence of a
veterinary clinic would not significantly increase the animal traffic that will already be in the
parking lot and the store.
Commissioner Hadley stated that Mr. Died's comments about pets near a public parking
area are compelling, but the question is not whether or not to allow animals into the facility. He
stated because of the current existence of the grooming the question was rendered moot. He
stated that the real question is allowing a veterinary clinic into retail and the clinics effect on the
volume of animal traffic.
Commissioner Gepner stated that voting to deny the amendment would be a move to
restrain competition which isn't the role of this Commission.
Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that she agrees that animals don't belong in a shopping
mall of this size but the City has already opened the door to allowing pets in stores.
Commissioner Linnihan stated that he didn't see that there was enough of an added risk
and that the City was already allowing animals in the store. He stated that he would support
stipulations.
Commissioner Stokes offered 3 stipulations: all animals are to be leashed, the Planning
Commission expects that the lot will be free of animal wastes, pets should not be exercised
outside of the building.
Commissioner Wasko added the stipulation that the parking conditions should be
assessed after one year and drop -off parking be provided if needed.
M/Linnihan, S/Hansen to approve an amended PUD. final development plan and conditional use
permit with the stated stipulations.
March 26, 1996
Page 5
96- ACUP -1, 6600 NICOLLET AVENUE
ITEM #2 Academy of the Holy Angels
Amend conditional use permit to allow
construction of a seasonal sports facility.
Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report explaining that Holy Angels is
requesting an amended conditional use permit to allow the construction of a seasonal sports
dome. Holy Angels is proposing to convert their current athletic field to artificial turf. The field
would be covered by an air - supported structure during the winter season. The structure would
have a height of 60 feet. A 10 foot high fence would surround the dome to prevent unauthorized
access. A concessions building will be constructed to the east of the field.
Zoning Administrator Urban stated that there are 3 major issues that affect the proposal.
The first issue is regarding the neighborhood and the impact that the dome would have on the
neighborhood. Second, the dome would be a temporary structure which can only be inflated for
a maximum of 180 days according to building and fire code regulations. The last issue is the
dome's irregular height, which will require a variance.
Zoning Administrator Urban stated that staff recommended the City Council approve the
conditional use permit request with the stipulations outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Urban stated that staff recommended these stipulations on the basis that an athletic
field is a necessary component of an educational institution and that the distance from the
neighboring properties, the existing and added landscaping and the temporary nature of the
structure reduces its impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Stokes asked what the definition of that temporary structure would mean.
Zoning Administrator Urban stated that the dome would be inflated for a maximum 180 days.
Commissioner Hansen asked if a permanent structure was put up on that site what would
be the height limitation. Zoning Administrator answered that the maximum height of an
accessory building is 15 feet.
Commissioner Wasko asked if the current field is lit. Zoning Administrator Urban
answered that the existing field is not lit.
Commissioner Stokes asked how the increase in activities in the dome will affect the
parking plan. Zoning Administrator Urban answered that the parking plan would remain the
same.
March 26, 1996
Page 6
Mike Cunnif, Chair of the Board of the Academy of the Holy Angels, explained how it
will help the school provide needed sports programming and maintain growth and enhance the
community and the neighborhood.
James Vargo, 6630 Pleasant Avenue, stated that he has a hard time believing that the
proposed height of the dome will be the same as the existing and proposed trees. He believes
that the dome will block out the sun that shines in his living room. He wanted to know why the
school couldn't just build an outdoor field.
Gary Tushie, the project architect, explained the deciduous trees have a 15 -16 inch caliper
so were an estimated 50 feet tall and that the evergreens were 6 to 7 feet tall. Mr. Vargo was
concerned with the noise from the dome and the lighting that the dome would reflect towards the
neighborhood.
Lynne Pickart, 6640 Pleasant Avenue, expressed her concerns about the height of the
dome, the school renting the facilities out which would increase parking and traffic counts, the
trees not being a strong enough buffer to cover the appearance of the dome, and that the
neighbors were not better informed about Holy Angel's proposal.
Larry Gokay, 6626 Pleasant Avenue, said that the Vikings Dome in Eden Prairie is no
longer there.
Richard Fleming, 6715 Nicollet Avenue, supports the dome facility and stated that Holy
Angels is a highly academic school. Mr. Fleming believes that good academics are important to
a school and that athletics are equally important in order for a student to get a well rounded
education.
Ann Garland, 500 East 67th Street, supports the dome facility and stated that Holy
Angels and St. Peters shares their gym. She stated that there is a need for additional athletic
facilities.
Larry Woznicka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, stated that Holy Angels proposal does not
affect his property, but he disagrees with Holy Angels putting a dome on that sight. He
expressed concern with drainage on the site. He believes that the dome would act as a devaluing
factor for the neighborhood.
Bill Copage, 6732 Roseberry, is concerned about those students that are not active due to
the lack of athletic or all- purpose facilities. He stated that, at Holy Angels, 52 percent of its
students are active in athletics in the Fall. He explained that all of Holy Angels facilities are used
everyday. Mr. Copage stated that as winter arrives participation drops to below 25 percent. The
dome and its artificial surface would allow for more participation for various activities during the
winter.
M /Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing.,
March 26, 1996
Page 7
1.
Chairperson Linnihan suggested that Holy Angels and the neighborhood groups go
through mediation and see what can be done to open the lines of communication.
Lynne Pickart, 6640 Pleasant Avenue, wanted to know what the process was regarding
mediation and action that the Planning Commission would take to come to a decision about Holy
Angels proposal. She wanted to know the Planning Commissioners' opinions about the
proposal. Commissioner Stokes stated that the Planning Commission cannot make a well
informed decision until both groups open up the lines of communication.
Commissioner Erlander moved to recommend to the Council to approve the conditional
use permit request with stipulations and have the groups mediate the issues. The motion failed
due to the lack of a second.
Commissioner Stokes stated that she wanted to see the groups work out the issues in
mediation and have the item come back to the Commission.
M /Erlander, S /Stokes that the groups try mediation.
U 1
96-CUP-3,6529 PENN AVENUE
ITEM #2 Blarney Motors
Extension of conditional use permit to allow
continued use as a used car sales lot.
Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report explaining that on April 23, 1990,
the City Council approved a conditional use permit for 6529 Penn stipulating that the permit be
considered for renewal in three years. In 1993, the conditional use permit was renewed for an
additional three years. Ms. Urban stated that as of 1994 the operator of the car lot changed and
the owner was found in noncompliance two times. That business moved in the Fall of 1995.
Blarney Motors, the current operator, began operating on the site in January of 1996 under the
existing conditional use permit. That permit expires on April 23, 1996. Blarney Motors is
requesting an extension of the conditional use permit to continue operating the site as a used auto
sales lot. Blarney Motors is requesting that the permit be granted without a time limit
stipulation.
Zoning Administrator Urban explained the issue regarding stormwater- related
improvements.
March 26, 1996
Page 8
Zoning Administrator Urban stated that staff recommends that the City Council approve
the conditional use permit request for an additional three years with stipulations.
Timothy Lynch, Blarney Motors operator, stated that he accepts the conditional use
permit stipulations. Kevin Tharp, Property Manager, gave a history of the property and the
improvements that have been made. In a response to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, he
stated that he is working with George Atkinson in the Engineering Division on the stormwater
improvements.
M/Erlander, S/Hadley to close the public hearing,
Motion carried: 7 -0
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the conditional use permit request for 3 years with the
stipulations as stated in the staff report.
Motion carried: 7 -0
NEW BUSINESS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM /CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET,
ITEM #4 Review of Process Schedule and Projects
Administrative Services Director Devich stated that he would like to see a meeting
consisting of the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission to provide some
input about the CIP /CIB and the language of preliminary draft. Administrative Services Director
Devich discussed the three issues that the CIP /CIB addresses explaining the numerous demands
for funding. He explained the formatting and other changes he is making to the CIF /CIB. The
Planning Commission agreed to hold a meeting with the Community Service Commission on
April 9 at 6:00 PM.
March 26, 1996
Page 9
OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Gepner requested that the acronyms used in the staff reports be spelled out
at the end of the report.
LIAISON REPORTS
The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to skip the liaison reports due to the
length of tonight's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:00 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
H:P &Z:Template:All Files:PCMinute]
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
Study Session
April 9, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela
Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley,
Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, Kristal Stokes and Paul Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Steve Kenny, Planning Staff Assistant Secretary
Bob Robson, Planning Staff Assistant
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #1 LYNDALE AVENUE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fred Hoisington presented the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development report.
Mr. Hoisington stated that a way to fund the Lyndale Strategic Development Plan may be to
apply for a Livable Communities Grant. This application is due on August 1, 1996. He stated
that 2.3 million dollars will be available from the Livable Communities Budget. He advised the
Planning Commission to fill out a preliminary application in order to express Richfield's interest
in receiving such a grant.
Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the names of specific businesses be deleted.
Chairperson Linnihan asked if the money proposed to be taken from the Lyndale Hub
Nicollet (LHN) tax increment district would be taken away from existing or future projects. He
wondered if future LHN projects, for example the VFW Site, would suffer due to lack of money.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he would find the answer to those questions.
April 9, 1996
Page 2
Commissioner Wasko stated that he liked the action steps included in the Plan. He
thought the report switched back and forth between items the city will do versus should do. He
asked that Mr. Hoisington review the report for consistency.
Commissioner Postudensek complimented Mr. Hoisington on the report. She suggested
that the Plan not specifically state whether or not a request for proposals process be used. That
decision should be up to the HRA.
Commissioner Hadley asked, if the LHN money is available, would advocacy be
undertaken to show people that this is a good idea and it's in the best interests of the City. Fred
Hoisington answered that the report doesn't take an advocacy position but that the
Commissioner's point was a good one.
Chairperson Linnihan asked if the Plan could show the impact of using LHN funds on
the schools and the county.
Commissioner Stokes asked if the phasing of the Plan is addressed in the report.
Commissioner Dmytrenko suggested that the Planning Commission can only recommend
items to the HRA and that financial policy decisions would be up to them.
Mr. Hoisington agreed to go over the report in light of the comments that were made by
the Commissioners.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM /CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET,
ITEM #2 Joint meeting with Community Services Commission
Administrative Services Director Devich went over the proposed items in each year of the
Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan asked the Community Services Commission
if there was strong support for building the garage on the New Ford Town site. Administrative
Services Director Devich answered that a site east of Cedar Avenue is being considered.
Administrative Services Director Devich stated that the plans for Veteran's Memorial
Park are currently being re- evaluated and that the CIP will re- invest in the City's existing
infrastructure. Mr. Devich stated that the revenue related to the CIP would be generated from
Special Revenue funding which originates from Liquor Store sales. The proposed CIP is based
on current liquor store volume sales and does not consider the new store on Lyndale Avenue.
Community Services Chairperson Gilhousen stated that at this time the Community
Service Commission decided against funding the additional parking lot to the ice arena. The
April 9, 1996
Page 3
group will take the previously designated money from the new parking and apply it to fixing the
ice arena locker rooms.
Commissioner Wasko asked if the parking lot issue will be addressed again and what is
the timetable for that discussion. Chairperson Gilhousen stated that the plan may be
implemented some time later in the future.
Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan asked if the benefits of fixing the
infrastructure now outweigh the costs later if nothing is done. Administrative Services Director
Devich answered that some of the projects stated in the two reports could have been addressed a
while ago, but many of those facilities are deteriorating and repairs need to be addressed today in
order to save money for tomorrow.
Commissioner Postudensek asked if the CIP revenue is reality or a wish list.
Administrative Services Director Devich answered that the numbers in the CIB represent reality.
City Engineer Eastling stated that some of the CIP includes soft numbers especially in later
years.
Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan asked how the Community Services
Commission determines CIP /CIB priorities. Leisure Services Coordinator Blank stated that
priorities in the CIP and CIB are set in part by infrastructure issues such as the age of buildings
and are also based on the Master Parks Plan.
Community Services Chairperson Gilhousen asked the Planning Commission about the
Comprehensive Plan and its plans for Sheridan Park. The Planning Commissioners explained
that the combined school and park was taken out of the Plan because of concerns expressed by
the School Board.
The group discussed issues regarding the farmers' market, telecommunications and
converting hockey rinks to rollerblade surfaces during the summer.
ADJOURNMENT
The me ing was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:20 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
CITY OF RIOHFIELDvim \ \n \ \\
nflmm oommission
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
PC Letter: #6 Date: April 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
References: "The Lyndale Gateway: A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy"
BACKGROUND
Issues: The Planning Commission was asked by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and the City Council to undertake a study of the Lyndale Avenue
business area from 74th Street to 77th Street. The Planning Commission began
the process of developing a strategy for the area in August of 1995.
The report, "The Lyndale Gateway: A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy,"
describes the process, illustrates the resulting plan for the area, and recommends
an implementation strategy.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend approval of the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
Lyndale Gateway: A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy ")
Basis: 1. The Planning Commission was asked to conduct a study of the area and
make a strategy recommendation to the HRA and City Council.
2. The report reflects the study that was undertaken and was done so with
extensive input from the businesses, property owners and residents.
Alternative: 1. Recommend approval of the report with modifications.
2. Request further study of the area.
THE LYN DALE GATEWAY
City of Richfield, Minnesota
A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy
REPORT DRAFT 3
April 12, 1996
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Table of Contents
1.0 THE LYNDALE GATEWAY 1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
3.0 THE FRAMEWORK 4
Setting
Existing Land Use
Parking
Traffic
Aesthetics
Building Conditions
Opportunities /Constraints
Property Values
4.0 THE MARKET 9
5.0 STAKEHOLDER INPUT/RESULTS I I
Individual Meetings
Public Information Meetings
Corridor Meetings Results (brief)
Problems /Opportunities
Guiding Principles
Criteria
6.0 THE POSSIBILITIES 15
7.0 THE CONCEPT PLAN 16
8.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES 18
9.0 COSTS AND FEASIBILITY 21
10.0 A STRATEGY TO GET IT DONE 23
Development Strategy
Development Guidelines
Interim Recommendations (to correct existing problems)
11.0 APPENDICES 27
0-
Planning Commission
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
Pamela Dmytrenko
Timothy Erlander
David Gepner
Mitchell Hadley
Kevin Hansen
Dawn Postudensek
Kristal Stokes
Paul Wasko
City Council
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
Michael Sandahl
Susan Rosenberg
Russ Susag
Donald Priebe
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Thomas Harms, Chairperson
Joan Helmberger
Vern Luettinger
Russ Susag
Michael Sandahl
Credits
El 1.0
The Lyndale Gateway
When we look at the most beautiful towns and cities of the
past, we are always impressed by a feeling that they are
somehow organic...Each ofthere townsgrewas a whole, under
its own laws of wholeness..and we can feel this wholeness, not
oa/ at the largest scale, but in every detail- in the restaurants,
in the sidewalks, in the houses, shops, markets, roads, parks,
gardens and walls Even in the balconies and ornaments "
Christopher Alexander,
A New Theory of Urban Design
Cities consist of a number of parts each playing a
distinctive role in how the city is perceived and
experienced and how it functions. Together, the
parts comprise something greater than the whole so
if the parts complement the whole they reinforce and
expand people's recognition and memory of the
community. If elements detract from the city's
image, character or well- being, they make the sense
of community more difficult to comprehend.
The problem with most cities, especially suburban
cities, is that they do not have a sense of place from
which meaning can be readily understood. They do
not have a center. They do not have distinct edges.
They simply blend into the suburban fabric that rolls
endlessly across the landscape. They deprive those
who live in them from enjoying a community of
meaning. Perhaps, suburbia represents the grand
quest for anonymity. Anonymity and homogeneity
provide neither richness nor community identity.
Lacking a sense of community identity, it is often
difficult to know what role each of the city's parts
must play if they are to contribute to the experience
of the place.
Is it important to live and do business in a place that
is distinctive, recognizable and memorable? Yes!
Communities that have no recognizable character
and allow unfettered and mindless growth have no
soul. While strip commercial development and other
land use travesties flourish, the community image
suffers. In memorable communities, each element
contributes to the whole and the value of the
community groves. Every aspect of the community
must contribute yet each must have meaning and a
subtle identity in its own right. Each must have a
focus and be distinguishable from its surroundings.
Christopher Alexander tells us that there is a
connection between healing and wholeness, that we
have countless opportunities to take small healing
steps to move the city in the direction of wholeness.
Every increment of construction must be made in
such a way as to heal the city." Further, according to
Alexander, "Every new act of construction has just
one basic obligation: it must create a continuous
structure of wholes around itself."
As a community gateway, Lyndale Avenue is an
important part of the whole City of Richfield. It is
here that at least one opportunity exists to reinforce
the sense of place while creating value for the
surrounding neighborhoods and the community. It is
here that first impressions will be etched on the
minds of City visitors.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 1
The Lyndale Avenue Corridor, beginning at 77th
Street, should be thought of as distinctive and
different from the 1 -494 corridor which harbors the
Shops of Lyndale. 1 -494, and the uses it birthed, are
elements of a regional community, a metropolitan
economy. Though literally within Richfield, the Shops
of Lyndale serve a regional clientele and must offer
copious parking and low prices as an inducement to
travel long distances to shop.
The Lyndale Avenue gateway to Richfield (there are
others) begins at 77th Street and should extend no
farther north than 74th Street. It is distinctive
because it is commercial in use while the area that
surrounds it is residential. It is also deficient in many
respects in fulfilling its gateway potential. It is
substantially deficient in parking and property values
are declining. It is deteriorating aesthetically and is
evidencing blight which contributes to vacancies,
high- turnover and low rents. If left unattended, the
deterioration of the center will adversely effect the
neighborhood and become a serious liability for the
larger Richfield community. It must be made to
contribute to the City's sense of place. Healing it
represents a small step toward community
wholeness.
The objectives of the Lyndale Avenue Strategic
Development Plan are to:
Create a distinctive gateway which contributes to
Richfield's sense of place.
Arrest blight within the Lyndale Avenue
commercial area.
Improve compatibility between the Lyndale
Avenue businesses and the immediately
proximate neighborhoods.
Define a strategy to foster corridor
improvements.
Involve residents and business persons heavily in
the formulation of plans and their
implementation.
This plan was prepared under the direction of the
City Planning Commission with Consulting
assistance from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc
HKGi). It, therefore, represents the Planning
Commissions recommendation to the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to
implement the redevelopment strategy and to the
City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to reflect mixed use development in the Lyndale
Avenue corridor.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 2
The following represents a summary of the significant
findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
Lyndale Avenue Redevelopment Plan and Strategy:
1. Lyndale Avenue is an important gateway to the
City of Richfield. The Planning Commission
recommends that improvements be made to
enhance the Lyndale Gateway.
2. The commercial area extending from 74th to
77th Streets is experiencing a growing level of
stress including eroding property values,
increasing tenant turnover, building vacancies,
insufficient parking and poor appearance. The
area of greatest concern is the 7600 block both
east and west sides.
The immediately adjacent residential areas
remain stable but will be increasingly effected by
the commercial district.
4. The Lyndale Avenue planning process included
individual meetings with most businesspersons
and immediately effected residents. It also
included several public meetings to obtain input
and review plan alternatives.
5. Residents and businesspersons identified parking,
appearance, alley conflicts, traffic, lack of
maintenance, high turnover and uncertainty
about City plans as the problems most needing
to be addressed by the City.
6. There is a market for smaller office buildings and
both neighborhood oriented and destination
retail, some of which could be captured along
Lyndale Avenue.
7. A total of eight alternative plans were considered
ranging from "do nothing" to complete
redevelopment. Two of the alternatives
included the expansion of the district to include
Executive Summary
one row of houses both east and west of the
existing commercial district in the 7600 block and
the east side 7500 block near 76th Street.
8. The recommended hybrid plan balances
economic realities with public input. It includes
the redevelopment of the 7600 block, east and
west sides, including the west side of Garfield
Avenue and the east side of Aldrich Avenue.
9. The Planning Commission recommends an
integrated mixed use development with shared
parking, that consists of commercial, office and
residential development while offering maximum
protection for the adjacent neighborhoods. The
Commission prefers several smaller
developments and, wherever possible, the
inclusion of existing businesses.
10. The recommended strategy is to market and
redevelop the 7600 block east and west sides
by year 2001 and to be prepared to respond
to redevelopment proposals elsewhere in the
corridor.
11. The Planning Commission strongly recommends
the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as the
primary redevelopment funding source. To the
extent possible, funding sources other than TIF
should also be explored by the HRA.
12. The Planning Commission recommends that
several existing neighborhood problems be
resolved whether or not they are dictated by
redevelopment. The Commission recommends
City intervention with the land acquisition
process where and when appropriate to
eliminate hardship and /or keep the project on
track.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 3
El 3.0
The Framework
Richfield is a unique community for a number of
reasons. One reason is that all but one of its edges
is defined by a major highway that separates it from
its municipal neighbors. Yet another, highway
1 -35W) traverses its center exposing the traveling
regional public to the City's most prized natural
resources, Wood Lake and the stands of mature oak
that grace the highway's west flank. Even with these
attributes, do passersby realize that they have arrived
in Richfield? Are there any clues signaling the change
in jurisdiction? No! Such is the state of modern
suburbia where it is impossible to differentiate one
community from the next.
Because Richfield is juxtaposed to several regional
highways, it has relatively few opportunities to
establish gateways to the City. One of the most
important of these is Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street.
Lyndale Avenue, between 74th and 77th Streets is a
commercial strip, a collection of disconnected retail
goods and service businesses many of which were
birthed in the 1940's when Lyndale Avenue was
much narrower and customers shopped much closer
to home. Like centers of its era, it originated
to service the neighborhood and it contained some
very prosperous merchants. It first lost its power
over the marketplace and then lost businesses to
larger regional retail centers. It then lost even more
when the widening of Lyndale Avenue eroded
parking at the same time parking demands were
increasing, all attributable to growing public
dependence on the automobile. The end result is a
center than no longer meets contemporary retailing
standards, is not competitive in the marketplace and
is virtually impossible to revitalize without public
intervention. With a few exceptions, the value of
buildings has eroded creating opportunities for
incubator businesses which are dependent on low
rents while creating a growing liability for the City's
tax base and image.
Until recently, the neighborhoods that surround the
center have been able to sustain themselves in spite
of the conflicts associated with shared alleys,
unwelcome odors and growing unsightliness. As
successful businesses continue to depart the center
and are replaced by less desirable merchants in
search of low rents, will the stability of the
neighborhoods also be threatened?
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 4
Land Use
The Study Area extends from 74th Street to 1 -494
and embraces both sides of Garfield and Aldrich
Avenues. The predominant land use fronting Lyndale
Avenue is commercial with retail, auto and service
uses predominating. Significant uses include the
Metro Dental Clinic, Super America, Amoco and
Dairy Queen. Garfield and Aldrich Avenues are
single- family residential in use and virtually all are
homesteaded properties. The Century Court
Apartments and the Woodlawn Terrace Mobile
home park have frontage directly on Lyndale Avenue
on the east side of the 7400 and 7500 blocks.
The land use pattern varies from block to block with
relatively intense commercial development in the
7600 block where buildings are connected or closely
juxtaposed. Elsewhere in the corridor individual
buildings occupy separate sites. The west side 7600
block contains some two -level space with apartments
and office above retail. This block evidences a great
deal of physical stress including too frequent
merchant turnover and building vacancies. Most of
the rest of the corridor has excellent business
longevity and only infrequent vacancies.
Land use south of 77th Street is remarkably different
in that it is very large in scale, is of recent vintage and
caters to regional traffic. Uses include the Hampton
Inn (east side) and the evolving Shops of Lyndale.
These developments occupy large sites and are being
built to reflect "contemporary" standards including
large buildings with large parking lots in front.
Though located in Richfield, this area relates more to
the regional 1 -494 community than to the City of
Richfield.
r .
a
LEGEND
r—
Residential Commercial
Single — Family -Auto Vacant
Multi— Family - Retail RedevelopingMobileHomeanServiceGreenway
EXISTING LAND USE
NO RT
Lyndale AromasIv7aStrategicDevelopmentPlaa
Mchneld, WW"Sote
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 5
Structural Conditions and Values
The condition and inflexibility of buildings and eroding
values are the most significant problems currently
existing within the corridor.
Building values are declining though land values
continue to increase. In actual dollars, buildings have
decreased in value since 1990 while land has
increased in real dollar value since 1985. The area
where the most significant problem exists is the west
side of the 7600 block.
TABLE I
REAL ESTATE VALUES
YEAR LAND VALUE BUILDING VALUE TOTAL VALUE
1985 $1,378,100 2,644,500 4,022,600
1990 $1,847,800 3,002,600 4,850,400
1995 $2,271,100 2,932,900 5,204,000
Source: Hennepin County Appraisal Office
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 6
PParkiag
The next most significant problem facing the corridor
is the lack of convenient and accessible parking.
Nowhere in the corridor is this problem more
pronounced than in the west side 7600 block where
the parking ratio is approximately two spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area and a substantial
part of that is located behind buildings where it is not
visible to passing motorists. Furthermore, the parking
that does exist on the Lyndale Avenue side occurs
either on the street at the curb line or near the
storefronts on the sidewalk where it conflicts with
pedestrian traffic.
Parking in the east side of the 7600 block is more
favorable having a ratio of approximately 3.7 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. However,
Lyndale Avenue is proposed to be widened to
accommodate the expansion of the 77th Street
intersection, This widening will eliminate parking in
front of the stores on the east side, whose addresses
include 7615 through 7633, creating a situation not
unlike that immediately across the street. Parking
within the remainder of the corridor is generally
more favorable although the Metro Dental Clinic has
a 20 to 25 car deficiency which is met with on -street
parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
This deficiency is primarily attributable to the use of
the building for the Metro Dental administrative
offices, which use occupies a considerable portion of
the building. The deficiency persists in spite of
approximately 24 parking spaces in the lower level of
the building. This problem will not be easily
corrected due to an unusually high demand for
parking and the absence of land to accommodate it.
i u
T
IU
Ir
I•
la
I
LEGEND
gam, Total Parking Spaces Available
Cj Peak Parking Demand
Between 120 - 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 - 7:00
O A r a
PARKING "
Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
Richfield, Minnesota
Lyndale Avenue Corridor e Report Draft 2 • Page 7
Ila&
Traffic in the Study Area is not particularly
problematic attributable to the construction of 77th
Street which has halved the volume of traffic on 76th
Street to approximately 6,000 AADT. Volumes on
Lyndale Avenue approximate 12,000 AADT. Some
traffic is, however, purported to use Aldrich Avenue
to avoid the signal at 76th Street and Lyndale
Avenue.
SummarX
There are major forces at work in the marketplace
and the corridor that will continue to erode the
quality and function of the Lyndale Avenue business
community. In other words, it is not now
experiencing stability nor will it in the future. It is
continuously changing in the direction of decline.
Unfortunately, these forces are irreversible without
public intervention and landowners, themselves, have
virtually no ability to alter this trend. This is
particularly true in the 7600 block west side where
considerable private improvements would produce
too little increase in rents to warrant significant
investment. Should we "hope" that the situation will
correct itself? If we do, things must get a lot worse
before they will get better. The question is not
whether" but "when" public money will be spent to
correct the problems associated with Lyndale
Avenue. And the timing of intervention will correlate
with the public's perception that a problem exists. In
fact, this perception already exists in the minds of
many. It will grow in more minds as the appearance
of the area declines, as marginal or undesirable
businesses replace those that depart, as the
commercial tax base erodes placing an increasing
burden on the City's taxpayers and as the adjacent
neighborhoods begin to take on the blighted
characteristics of the retail district.
LEGEND
Sidewalks
Transportation Corridor
0 Signalized Intersections
TRANSPORTATION
avA
Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
Richfield. Minnesota i
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 8
Reekdential district is
roll defined and etok
Intar !:Lon at 14th F
opportunity to Introdu
L.yldale conmerclal d
Intzr actzons provide
lhk the adjacent neig
Urdale Ave.
UghtN IS utliltorian t
x 16.
Realdentlal district Is
well defned and etat
Alley deflnee an adq
cony —.W.
Pa -kingg Ie dlajolnted
rcnnocted to adjaca
The corridor Iaaka a
throughout the comme
Areas behind 1600 c
eervlce orlentod.
6at4wa9 to Rlchheld
Opportunities and Constraints
Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
Richfield. Minnesota
21e varlee yaa"
k
are Independent
3, thraucjn t the
landtieo confllcte.
efronts Is barren
avtomoblle.
Lyndale plrldee
m:o Richfield.
eiooment
roewayy corrlaor
nity of Rlcnfieid.
N 0 R T
1" = 400'
Hoiaintton %oegler Group Inc.
El 4.0
The Market
Maxfield Research Group, Inc. was hired as a
subconsultant to HK Gi to assess the current market
situation for commercial businesses in the Lyndale
Avenue corridor (Study Area). The firm identified
draw areas appropriate for both neighborhood and
specialty retail goods, analyzed the current strength of
the competitive retail concentrations near the
corridor, analyzed employment growth in the
southwest sector of the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area and assessed the current strength of the market
for office space, particularly small and medium -sized
users. Conclusions focused on the demand for
additional retail and office space in the south metro
area, the strengths and weaknesses of the existing
retail and office space in the corridor, and the
potential for this area to attract new development
given various redevelopment options.
The study included interviews with 20 businesses
within the corridor to determine how long they had
been in business on Lyndale, from what distance they
draw their primary customer base, and the effect of
the Lyndale Shops development on business within
the corridor. The survey found that most businesses
draw customers from either the south metro area
Bloomington, Richfield, Minneapolis and Eden
Prairie) or from the entire Metropolitan Area. In one
case, the retailer draws customers from a five -state
area.
The demographic evaluation found that the
population within a five mile radius of the Lyndale
Avenue corridor declined between 1980 and 1995
attributable to the aging of the population and
shrinkage in household size. The population within
this area is projected to decline even further between
1995 and year 2000. However, the population of
the trade area within a ten mile radius of the corridor
is projected to grow significantly during this
timeframe.
The market study concluded that the 1- 494/Lyndale
Avenue area will continue to be a strong location for
retail goods and services, but the greatest areas of
growth will likely be destination retailers who are able
to draw customers from rather considerable
distances.
The study concluded that there is a market for
smaller office buildings and approximately 60,000 to
80,000 square feet should be able to be captured
within the City. The study recommends smaller
buildings which do not compete with the Meridian
Crossings building located at 1 -35W and 1 -494. The
study also identified potential for medical /professional
office space.
Approximately 80,000 square feet of neighborhood
oriented retail space demand was calculated. Of
that total, the Lyndale Avenue corridor was estimated
to be able to capture between 25,000 and 35,000
square feet. Maxfield Research also identified a
remaining demand for between 75,000 and 135,000
square feet of neighborhood /destination retail in the
market area. Some amount of that could be
captured in the Lyndale Avenue corridor in smaller
buildings. Potential neighborhood retail uses and
destination retail /specialty uses were identified as
shown in TABLE 2.
Maxfield Research Group also reviewed the
preliminary redevelopment options developed by the
lead consultant HKGi for market veracity. They
concluded that Alternatives 2B and 3A with parking
facing Lyndale Avenue offer the best opportunities
from a market perspective. These represent
configurations that are often preferred by developers.
Maxfield Research also concluded that housing above
retail may not be feasible unless it includes multiple
stories.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 9
TABLE 2
I - •I.. V... O
Types
Take -Out Restaurant
Ethnic, Pizza, Fast Food
Sit -down Family Restaurant
Personal Services
Hair Salon
Specialty Health and Beauty
Mailing/Copying
Accounting/Tax
Insurance
Tailoring
Dry Cleaners
Travel Agent
Film Processing
Card /Gift Shop
Deli /Convenience Store
Video Rental
Liquor Store
Drug Store
Coffee Shop and Bakery
Child Care
Potential Destination Retail/Special Uses
Types
Home Furnishings- Interior Decorating/
Upholstery
Electronic Equipment
Automotive Supply
Liquidators
Sporting Goods Equipment/Rental
new or used)
Dance or Fitness Studio
Computer Software, Music, Books
Home Crafts Machines and Instruction
Computers (new and used)
Other Specialty Retail Stores
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 10
The success of any project is dependent upon good
communications between the city and its residents
and the involvement of people who live and work in
the community. The reason for this is because there
needs to be public "buy -in" or support for the project.
Stakeholder involvement was actively encouraged by
the Planning Commission and solicited before plans
were drawn and throughout the process so
stakeholders could play a positive role in shaping
plans for the corridor. All information about the
project was disseminated through a series of
meetings, workshops and three newsletters. (The
newsletters which have informed and encouraged
communication and interaction between the City, its
residents and businesspersons are included in the
appendix.) The process for getting at stakeholder
involvement is described below.
Businesses /Owners
5.0
Stakeholder Input/Results
rare ma. Illi7liC
The Planning Commission and Consultant met with
virutally every neighbor and businessperson within
the corridor (excluding the Century Court apartment
residents) to explain the project scope and listen to
problems and concerns. Efforts were made to
contact all 83 residences and 50 businesses on
September 12, 13, and 14. Approximately 44
businesspersons and 52 residents responded. In
general, businesspersons indicated that location and
low rent were the reasons for locating in the Lyndale
Avenue Corridor. The one problem agreed upon by
almost all respondents involved parking deficiencies.
Suggestions for improvements included facelift,
parking, appearance and small scale businesses.
INDIVIDUAL MEETING RESPONSES
Reasons for
Locating
Visibility
Accessibility
Location
Low Rent
Improvements Alternatives
114mnprovements
Suggested ggested
Parking onvenienceFeighbor- Facelift tores
Uniformity
Problems Cleanup Next Step hood Shops
Parking
Improve Small Scale
Appearance Signage Facelift
No Room for
Smaller Improve
Expansion
Businesses Appea rance
Turnover
Uncertainty
re: City's plans)
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 11
Residents ,
Alley
Traffic
Lack of Maint.
Parking
Crime (Perceived)
The Planning Commission held Public Information
Meetings for the adjacent neighborhoods and
members of the business community to explain the
project purpose and scope, elicit ideas and take initial
input. These meetings were held on September 6th
and 7th. Approximately 40 businesspersons and 60
residents attended these sessions. A series of
questions were asked to get at specific issues.
In general, the meetings were very positive.
Residents, more than businesspersons, think the
area needs to change. Opportunities included
accessibility, high visibility and low rents. Challenges
included parking, conflicting use of the alley,
appearance, signage, backs of buildings, and the lack
of room for expansion. Issues consisted of land use
compatibility, loss of existing businesses, the City's
needs vs the businesses needs and understanding
who decides. Factors identified as important in
evaluating altemative concepts included appearance,
pedestrian accessibility, parking, residential
compatibility, traffic /accessibility, economic feasibility,
who will pay, loss of existing business, convenience
services and public input.
PUBLIC MEETING RESPONSES
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES ISSUES
Accessibility
Economic
Parking
Feasibility
Who Decides
High Visibility
Parking
Conflicting Uses of
Residential
City's Needs VS
Low Rents
Convenience
Alley
Services
Business Needs
Public Input
Appearance Land Use
Buildings/Signs) Compatibility
No Room for Loss of
Expansion Businesses
Don't Trust
City
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES
Appearance Economic
Pedestrian Feasibility
Accessibility Who Will Pay
Parking Loss of Existing
Residential Business
Compatibility Convenience
Traffid Services
Accessibility Public Input
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 12
7•' .-
The input received from both the individual and
public meetings provided the basis for the Guiding
Principles. The guiding principles were principally
derived from empirical observations, the review of
background information and listening to both
businesspersons and residents talk about the Lyndale
Avenue Corridor. They are based on what the
Planning Commission learned by seeing, listening
and reading. These guiding principles were
established early in the process as a way to guide the
development of the plan and focus the project on a
set of commonly accepted themes and ideas.
Ultimately, these guiding principles will serve as
criteria by which future development proposals can
be judged. They are listed below, in no particular
order, as follows:
Open the Gateway to Richfield - This area
introduces residents and visitors to Richfield at one of
the few points of entry from the outside. It should
welcome and invite people, revealing the true
character and spint of the Richfield community.
i Improve the Function of the Area - Business
accessibility is made possible through the relationship
of the transportation corridors, sidewalks, alleys and
parking areas. Safe and effective streets, parking
areas and alleys will reduce congestion and parking
problems will improve safety and access; and will
encourage people to park in one spot and shop at
several stores.
i Invite the Pedestrian - While a business district
may receive most of its "traffic" in the form of the
automobile, the pedestrian mode is the primary form
in which customers directly access businesses. A
corridor should be active, inviting and confusion -free
to the pedestrian, allowing all persons the
opportunity to reach and explore the business area.
i Make Existing Business Persons and Land Owners
a Part of the Solution - There are some business
persons and land owners who will be affected by this
process more than others. No matter the outcome
ofthe planningprocess, some businesses and owners
may not be able to be part of the solution. To the
extent possible, consideration should be given to
having existing business persons and owners play a
role in the redevelopment of the commercial area.
i Keep the 'Smallness "Feel - The Lyndale Avenue
corridor is defined by the small, independent
buildings, distinctly different from the large box
anchor store developments along 1 -494. This
smallness feel should be maintained as a character of
the corridor to make it feel like Pvchfield.
i Serve the Neighborhood - This area is comprised
of a commercial area, embraced almost entirely by
neighborhoods; establishing a closely- -knit district.
Services which meet the local neighborhood needs
should be encouraged to maintain a connection
between these areas.
9 Make Good Neighbors - The Lyndale Avenue
Corridor encompasses a range of uses including a
variety of businesses and dwelling units. An
environment which fosters compatibility and harmony
between uses will result in a healthy, vibrant
community.
AF Involve People - Both residents and businesses
have a stake in the results of this process.
Involvement throughout the process is a key
ingredient for successful outcomes. All parties should
be continuously involved to identify the full range of
perspectives.
Ar Make it Connect - The Lyndale Corridor includes
a wide array ofIndividual businesses. These should
be knit together into a commercial district, creating a
sense ofunity and cohesiveness.
i Make it Happen - Any project needs to
demonstrate the economic feasibility to both business
persons and the City. Any plans for the Lyndale
Avenue corridor should include well planned, feasible
options.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 13
R •
The Planning Commission conducted two Corridor
meetings as part of the public participation process.
Corridor Meeting # I
Over 100 people attended Corridor Meeting # I at
the Oak Grove Lutheran Church on November 9th.
At this meeting, residents and businesspersons were
asked to review criteria and eight alternative plans for
the Lyndale Avenue business area. Both the criteria
and plans were derived from the Public Information
Meetings held on September 6th and 7th. In all,
thirteen criteria were developed. Small groups were
asked to identify the four criteria they felt were the
most important in evaluating plan alternatives. The
most frequently selected criteria were as follows:
Appearance
Parking
Residential Compatibility
Residential Impact
The second portion of the Corridor Meeting asked
residents and businesspersons to identify all of the
plan alternatives they were willing to support. (See
section 4 under options for an explanation of the
alternatives). The following conclusions were reached
from the participants' responses to the plans:
In general, there is a willingness to look at
alternatives which relocate businesses.
There is a strong sense that something physical
needs to change but there is also concern for
impacts on people (residents and
businesspeople).
Based on the total number of responses,
Alternatives I and 2 received the most support.
However, preferences of the groups for their
own block suggested support for alternatives 3,
4 and 5.
There is relatively little support for doing nothing.
Corridor Meeting #2
The City Council, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, and the Planning Commission held
Workshop #2 on November 14th at the City Hall to
discuss the results of Corridor Meeting # I and to
provide direction to the Consultant. Based on this
meeting, the Consultant was instructed to prepare
more detailed drawings which represent a hybrid of
the preferred alternatives. This hybrid includes
elements of alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Alternatives 4, 5
and 6 were not consistent with the criteria
established by the group at Corridor Meeting # 1.
Corridor Meeting #2 provided an opportunity for
people to review and comment on the composite
plan. Corridor Meeting #2 was divided into two
sessions, one for corridor businesspersons and the
other for area residents. The purpose of Corridor
Meeting #2 was to ask residents and
businesspersons to review the Hybrid Plan and
Strategy and identify good and bad points. The
results of Corridor Meeting #2 are included as
Appendix A.
Meeting With Developers
The process included one meeting on January 10,
1996 with several developers to test the alternative
plans. The original intent of this session was to
evaluate two or three story potential with office or
residential over retail. The outcome was much
broader than expected. Developers recommended
that the City's role should be: 1) to educate the
public about the economics of business and
redevelopment, and 2) to set broad guidelines for
redevelopment while leaving substantial flexibility and
creativity to the developer.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 14
0
In all, eight alternative concepts were generated and
evaluated by the Planning Commission ranging from
complete redevelopment to do nothing. The
following provides a brief description of each.
Altematives
Facade, sidewalk and parking
improvements all to be done within the
existing zoning district. Most businesses
will remain, however parking will be
developed at midblock locations where
buildings are vacant or underutilized.
2a & 2b Redevelopment within the existing
commercial district. Buildings could be
located either at the back or front of the
lots. Parking areas are consolidated and
visually accessible.
3a & 3b Redevelopment in an expanded
commercial district. The business area is
expanded in the 7600 block and the east
side of the 7500 block near 76th Street.
Buildings could be located either at the
back or front of the lots. The amount of
development is increased.
Similar to Alternative 1, however, existing
buildings are encouraged to expand, be
rehabilitated or redeveloped with
consistent materials.
Facade and streetscape improvements
only. Fronts of buildings will be improved
and landscaping will be placed along the
streets. No increase in parking.
6 Do nothing. The business area remains
as it is.
6.0
The Possibilities
These alternatives were evaluated using the criteria
that were established by participants during the public
information meetings. The results of the evaluation
are included as Appendix A.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 15
El 7.0
The Concept Plan
In many ways, this district is seen as one of the
important gateways to the Richfield community. As
an introduction to the community, it seems it should
reveal something of the character of the community,
showing Richfield as a place of neighborhoods and
commerce in a "hometown" atmosphere. As the
area redevelops, it makes sense to try to instill some
of the qualities and character of the community into
this district.
The Concept Plan strives to create a gateway district,
building from a framework of design guidelines based
on neighborhood and business community input,
research on development feasibility, and the ability of
the City to shape development. The plan that is
shown in this report can only be a guide for
redevelopment; it provides the framework within
which redevelopment can occur that supports the
community - derived guiding principles and the
opportunities and constraints presented by what
exists. This plan will be used by the City to market
the area, helping potential developers understand the
direction created through the process of working
with the community. And, as development proposals
are brought to the City, the Concept Plan and
associated design guidelines will be used to evaluate
the proposals. While the built result may not match
the plan exactly, its underlying character must be
maintained in order to match the community's vision.
In the plan, the entire redevelopment area is
recognized as the gateway, so a strong identity must
be established. Two factors are critical: boundaries
and continuity. The boundaries have been defined
to signal the point at which you enter the district, and
also set the limits of commercial development. It is
equally important to create continuity through the
district; while buildings will be different in size and
use, there must be elements that they have in
common, and the public space of the district must be
developed in a uniform manner. With boundaries
established and elements defined that establish
continuity, the district gains cohesiveness and a sense
that it is whole.
Development in the district should be oriented to a
mix of retail /commercial and office uses, with
opportunities for some higher density residential uses
in combination with retail or office. The district will
support businesses that serve the neighborhood, as
well as those that orient to the more regional market
with specialty stores and services. Within this mix of
uses, the opportunity for joint use of parking is
created, allowing a customer to move from store to
store without relying on their car.
Residential development is an important element of
the plan. While residents represent a market for
nearby businesses, many people actually prefer to live
in mixed use areas that offer convenient shopping,
working and entertainment opportunities. The
southeast comer of 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue
is intended to satisfy this need. The Audio Perfection
and Woodlawn Terrace sites offer unique
opportunities for a variety of urban housing types.
Whatever the use, it is intended that buildings be the
focus of development, not parking lots. This allows
the built form of the district to help set its identity,
and provides for convenient movement for
pedestrians as they do not have to cross parking lots
to reach sidewalks or storefronts. Buildings that are
close to the street are critical to this concept, which
dictates parking that is located behind or beside
buildings.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 16
The intersection of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
becomes important, as 76th Street provides the most
direct connection to the adjacent neighborhoods.
Buildings surrounding this intersection should be the
two or three stories, reinforcing its place as the heart
of the redevelopment district. Taller buildings should
extend south of 76th Street as a transition to the
larger commercial uses along 77th Street and
Interstate 494. The scale of the buildings decreases
north of development at 76th Street and Lyndale
Avenue, creating a transition to the residential areas
at the edges of the district.
The neighborhoods surrounding the district are
critical to its success. Although they must be strongly
connected to it, they must be sheltered from any
negative influences of commercial activities. In the
plan, physical separation and visual buffering is shown
at the common boundaries between the
redevelopment area and the neighborhood.
To respect the place of the commercial area in the
community, this district should not exist in isolation
from the neighborhoods that support it. Therefore,
the plan shows development of a pedestrian system
that reaches beyond Lyndale Avenue along 76th
Street and 74th Street to link to the neighborhoods.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 17
Character Sketches
Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
City of Richfield
e
r4
LL
m
1
L
1
l
I
k
m
I
d
f
a
w.
uF.
I mny
a
A
V
fill
1R
Q} a
U
ac
L
0
L
ca
a.
of
J
I
i
e
r4
LL
m
1
L
1
l
I
k
m
I
d
f
a
w.
uF.
I mny
a
A
V
fill
1R
Q} a
U
ac
L
0
L
ca
a.
I
ti
cts III
cts
In order to achieve the intent of the Concept Plan
and generate development that supports the guiding
principles the Planning Commission recommends the
following design guidelines. While development may
not exactly follow the patterns shown in the Concept
Plan, plans must be consistent with the design
guidelines. Guidelines have been developed for
public spaces, sites and buildings.
Public Spaces Develop a consistent streetscape
through the redevelopment area to deTne its limits,
to establish a signiDcant sense of district, and to
create a more active street environment for
pedestrians and cars
Use pedestrian scale streetlights at a regular
interval at all streets within the redevelopment
area
Provide pedestrian amenities (benches and trash
receptacles) at logical locations along Lyndale Ave
Require ornamental fences and plantings to
screen parking areas from street views
Plant street trees at a regular interval at all streets
within the redevelopment area
Plant other plantings to create highlights at
pedestrian oriented spaces, building entries and
other focal areas
Establish a method of maintaining streetscape
improvements that is common for all properties
in the district
Mark the entries to the redevelopment area to
reinforre its identity as a district
Establish markers on both sides of Lyndale
Avenue at 76th Street and 74th Street
Establish markers on 76th Street at the southeast
corner of 76th Street and Aldrich Avenue, and at
the northwest comer of 76th Street and Garfield
Avenue
8.0
Design Guidelines
Create spaces that are not buildings or parking
areas to create interest in the patterns of
development and to provide places for pedestrians
away from busy streets
Create small "pocket plazas" between or beside
buildings that could be used for outdoor
restaurants, eating areas or gathering spaces, and
to create links between parking areas and the
street; develop these spaces to make them feel
like an extension of the street (similar paving,
lights, benches)
Encourage the development of a farmers market
that could use portions of larger parking areas at
off -peak parking times
Establish sidewalks continuously through the
district to provide for uninterrupted pedestrian
ciriculation
Provide sidewalks exclusively for pedestrian use
along Lyndale Avenue
Extend walks from Lyndale Avenue along 76th
Street and 74th Street to the limits of the district
Extend walks south of 77th Street to the main
entries of the Shops at Lyndale and the Hampton
Inn
Close 75th Street between Lyndale Avenue and
Aldrich Avenue to eliminate the potential for "short
cuts -through the neighborhood
Reroute the alley to reach Aldrich Avenue
Use the right -of -way to allow for more intense
development or to create additional parking
EtgA Configure and locate parking to insure that
buildings remain as the focus of the district
Discourage parking in front of buildings, except
where that parking might occur on the street
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 18
Place parking behind or beside buildings
Prohibit parking areas at street intersections
Make access to parking areas prominent and
visible from the street
Create a buffer between the redevelopment area
and adjacent homes to mitigate any negative
influences of commercial activities in the district
Provide a 40 foot wide bermed and landscaped
buffer strip with a five foot high fence (colored
chain link) at the area south of 76th Street and at
the northeast corner of 76th Street and Lyndale
Avenue
Require a 15 foot wide landscaped buffer strip
with a similar fence at all other areas
Establish a method of maintaining the integrity of
the buffer that is common for all properties in
the district
Create parking areas to accommodate expected
demand
Encourage the development of uses that
creatively share parking by time of day amongst
a variety of uses in order to reduce the total
amount of land dedicated to parking
Maximize density in the district by discouraging
the development of excess parking
Combine access points from Lyndale Avenue in
order to reduce potential conflicts
Allow a single access at Lyndale Avenue between
77th Street and 76th Street
Require 150 feet between access points at
Lyndale Avenue and all other redevelopment
parcels
Prevent access to parking areas from alleys;
restructure alley access to serve only residential
uses
Develop continuity from site to site which will allow
the buildings tube the focus of the district
Establish a common palette of materials for use
at all sites within the district (planting, lighting,
paving)
Establish standards for site development that
assure consistency through the district
Limit the use of free - standing signs and pylon
signs; encourage signs that are an integral part of
the buildings
Buildings Develop a united character for the built
environment to reinforce the sense of complete
distric4 emphasizing a character of a commercial
village rather than a shopping center
Establish compatibility between buildings through
similar massing, scale, bulk, and detail
Allow for individual expression from building to
building, to reflect a character of a district of
individual shops and businesses rather than a
strip center
Require developers to demonstrate how a
proposed building will be created that considers
neighboring buildings
Establish a character that is more about buildings
and the street than parking area
Place buildings at the street frontage at all
locations within the district
Create buildings that address the street, with
front doors to the public space at the street as
well as access from parking areas
Use elements that are pedestrian in scale, as
opposed to those that are meant to relate to
automobiles and highways
Avoid "formula "architecture in order to achieve a
design that better reflects the community
Prohibit corporate colors, franchise patterns and
buildings that are designed as signs; encourage
creative design that relies on "found" character
rather than introduced character
Require detail that is integral to the building, not
elements that are applied to a standard building
shell (such as clock, towers or "plastic" awnings)
Develop buildings that relate to the district and
people on all sides, not just the public sides;
eliminate a "back door" appearance of other
commercial areas
Avoid large, blank wall surfaces; encourage
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 19
windows, doors or other means of articulating
large facades
Make building entries the highlight of the
structure so it becomes obvious that the
development is related to pedestrians
Integrate mechanical systems into the design of
the building
Provide trash storage areas that are completely
enclosed and incorporated as a part of the
building
Require that signs be incorporated into the
building facade, windows or awnings; do not
allow signs that extend more than 12" beyond
the plane of the building facade or signs that
extend beyond the roof line
Develop taller buildings at some areas within the
district to emphasize its role as a gateway and to
provide focus at the center of the district
Allow two or three story buildings at the
intersection of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
and in areas south of 76th Street
Require the use of high quality building materials
and methods to create a stock of buildings that is
enduring
Utilize materials that are durable, easily
maintained and attractive at close distances (from
the sidewalk, for example); and materials that
have an attractive pattern, texture and quality
detailing
Encourage the use of brick, stone or high quality
precast concrete; metals that are matte finish and
neutral in color, with visible corner trim when
used for exterior walls
Require the use of transparent glass at the
majority of street level windows; prohibit the use
of mirrored glass at street level
Encourage canvas awnings; prohibit awnings of
nylon or other synthetic materials, as well as
those awning structures meant to be illuminated
from within
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 20
Project feasibility is a measure that has several
perspectives, those of the tenant, the property
owner, the developer and his banker and the City.
The following is a statement of economic wisdom
warranting consideration when planning a
redevelopment project for the Lyndale Avenue
Corridor:
A prudent city won't participate financially where
there is insufficient economic return on the
public's economic investment.
Prudent property owners cannot make significant
investments in properties unless they can raise
rents to cover their costs. Rents are their only
source of income.
Prudent tenants cannot accept higher rents
without a commensurate increase in business to
cover increased costs.
Cosmetic improvements alone will not generally
improve function or generate more business.
Where rents are increased appreciably, many
existing businesses will relocate.
Projects involving lesser amounts of
improvement are those most able to
accommodate existing owners and tenants.
In situations where values are declining and there
is no private reinvestment and no public
intervention, values and conditions will virtually
always continue to deteriorate. Small property
owners have a limited ability to reverse the trend
especially in situations like Lyndale Avenue
where maximum cooperation will be necessary.
9.0
Costs And Feasibility
Do nothing" carries a cost. As commercial
property values decline and the demand for
public services continues to increase, the rest of
the city must pick up the costs. This
disinvestment will also adversely affect adjoining
neighborhoods.
The project recommended as having the highest
priority for redevelopment is the 7600 block east and
west sides and the 7500 block east side near 76th
Street. The following budget defines the possible
costs associated with the 7600 block project(s)
should it be redeveloped in accordance with the
recommended alternative.
TABLE 3
PROJECT COSTS - 7600 BLOCK
WEST EAST
Site Assembly Costs $3,641,500 $2,575,500
Site Improvements 87,000 86,000
Subtotal $3,728,500 $2,661,500
En&eering/contingency 745,700 532,300
Administration 447,420 319,380
TOTAL $4,921,620 $3,513,180
PUBLIC COSTS
Streetscape (landscaping, fumishings, signage) $858,700
Design /contingency 172,000
TOTAL
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 21
1,030,700
The Planning Commission has considered several
funding sources, the most imporant of which will be
tax increment financing (TI F). Without TI F, almost no
project which involves lasting structural change will be
possible. The Planning Commission cannot offer a
specific financing mix but recommends consideration
by the HRA of some or all of the following methods
of financing public improvements.
For the redevelopment of Lyndale Avenue, a new
redevelopment tax increment financing district is a
potential funding tool. Assuming 138,000 square feet
of new building space, approximately 1/3 of which is
rental housing and 2/3 commercial property, the
principal available to the project would be $2.1
million and $2.4 million over 25 years if fiscal
disparities is born by the tax increment district.
An option that could increase the available tax
increment to the project would be to have fiscal
disparities contributed from outside of the tax
increment district. Over 20 years, the amount of
increased increment as a result of not contributing
from inside the district would support another $1
million in original principal for a total of $3.1 million.
A rationale for relying upon other properties to make
the fiscal disparities contribution would be that the
LHN District will be decertified for taxes payable in
2002. The LHN captured value will increase the tax
base of the City by almost $2 million in tax capacity at
the time of the decertification and a potential annual
increase of revenues to the City alone of over
500,000. Justification for using at least a portion of
the LHN value for the fiscal disparities contribution of
the Lyndale Avenue project is possible if one
considers that the contribution required would
amount to less than ten percent of the tax capacity of
the LHN District and that future redevelopment will
further increase the long -term viability of the City's
tax base.
However, if $3.1 million is available due to a
contribution to fiscal disparities from outside of the
new district, a portion of the Lyndale Avenue project
still remains to be funded. If an additional ten percent
of the LHN contribution to the City tax base were
assigned to the Lyndale project, another $600,000 of
principal amount would be available to the project for
a total of $3.7 million.
Other resources of revenue may be available
including a grant from the Livable Communities
Program, land proceeds from the sale of property
and Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding. Competition
for the former is expected to be very intense.
TABLE 4 represents a listing of potential funding
sources.
TABLE 4
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Land Sale Proceeds 650,000
Project Tax Increment 2,100,000
Fiscal Disparities Contribution 1,000,000
Livable Communities 500,000
MSA Funds 250,000
Subtotal $4,500,000
This represents approximately 50 percent of the
total project cost. To fund the remaining 50
percent, consideration could be given to
contributing the entire remaining City benefit of the
LHN District ($400,000 per year for 20 years) to
the Lyndale Avenue project to cover the shortfall.
This would not capture the school district or County
tax revenues over the 20 year period.
In addition, there will be a need to fund streetscape
improvements throughout the corridor including
landscaping, sidewalks, furnishings, entry features
and signage. Some or all of this cost may be funded
with special assessments to benefitting properties.
These improvements may need to be phased to
correlate with redevelopment plans.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 22
1:1
There are seven strategies that will be important and
are recommended by the Planning Commission to
implement the Lyndale Avenue Plan. They include a
redevelopment strategy, a corridor enhancement
strategy, a strategy to correct current ills, a
neighborhood protection strategy, a land acquisition
strategy, a financing strategy and a land use control
strategy. Each are described in more detail as
follows:
Recommended Redevelopment Strategx
Because of the severity of blight in the 7600 block
west side and the probable loss of parking in the
7600 block east side, attributable to the proposed
widening of Lyndale Avenue, these blocks should be
given redevelopment priority. The east side of the
7500 block also represents a redevelopment priority
because it, like the 7600 block, takes houses on the
west side of Garfield Avenue and must, therefore, be
linked with the 7600 block regarding the timing of
redevelopment. The primary purpose of these
projects must be to correct or alter the structure of
the commercial area, rather than simply make it
pretty, so that it can be competitive in the
marketplace over the long -term.
Objectve l: Phase development to reflect economic
realities begninning with the 7600 block and the east
side of the 7500 block near 76th Street.
Objective 2: Market and redevelop the 7600 block
east and west sides and the east side 7500 block by
the tum of the century (200 /).
The remainder of the corridor evidences stress but
to a much lesser degree than the primary
redevelopment blocks. Within this area, several of
the existing businesses are expected to remain
suggesting that there will be opportunities for
10.0
A Strategy to Get It Done
relatively small redevelopment projects, perhaps
some by present landowners.
Objective 3: Be prepared to respond to
redevelopment requests at any time a proposal is
made, considering the guidelines that are established
by this plan.
Due to the number of businesses and residences that
may be displaced by the project, it will be especially
important for the City to establish a course of action
and follow it religiously.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Agreement by the City regarding what it can
afford to bring to the project.
Solicitation of developers as partners in the
redevelopment effort. Developers should be
selected based on reputation and experience
with urban mixed use developments.
Establish guidelines for developers including but
not limited to:
I ) Property purchase requirements.
2) Types of uses preferred.
3) Project limits.
4) Public involvement.
5) Performance criteria including the following:
a) Screening of parking lots and service
areas from residential view.
b) No direct vehicle access to local
residential streets.
c) Restricted vehicle access to shared
alleys.
d) Minimal traffic increases on local
residential streets.
e) Provision for public transit.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 23
f) Maintenance of pedestrian connections
to the neighborhood.
g) Shared parking to minimize the total
number of spaces while maximizing
development potential.
h) Retention of existing businesses
wherever possible and feasible.
1) Degree to which the gateway is
achieved.
j) Degree to which potential nuisances are
mitigated (odor, noise, debris).
k) Economic feasibility.
1) Compliance with design guidelines.
6) Timeline /performance.
Continuous monitoring of the development and
reporting to the neighborhood and business
community on project status and any changes
that might, from time -to -time, occur.
Objective 4: Work closely with businesses in the
corridor that are intended to stay and may wish to
make substantial improvements in an effort to insure
that they comply with the design guidelines.
Recommended Corridor Enhancement StrategX
While streetscape improvements (landscaping,
lighting, entries, signage, etc.) gives support to
redevelopment efforts, in and of themselves they
cannot be relied upon to sell goods and services.
That is why such improvements must be considered
supportive of and not an alternative to
redevelopment.
Objective 5, Correlate streetscape improvements
with redevelopment efforts.
On the other hand, some parts of the corridor will
experience relatively little immediate change or
redevelopment in the near -term and a number of
businesses are intended to remain in the corridor.
Objective 6: Use phased streetscape improvements
as an inducement to upgrade those parts of the
corridor where redevelopment is not imminent.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Design of the streetscape by the City.
Development of an equitable cost recovery
mechanism based on benefits received.
Recommended StrategX to Correct Current Ills
There are a number of problems associated with the
corridor that will not be corrected immediately, or
perhaps ever, by redevelopment. These include
businesses where parking occurs on residential
streets (thus precluding snow removal), alley conflicts
and traffic using residential streets. These are
problems that should be addressed now, in as much
as possible, to improve compatibility between
residential and business uses.
While the integrity of the neighborhood may depend
on solving these problems in the near -term, it should
be understood that there are always likely to be
unresolved conflicts in edge locations that do not exist
elsewhere in the neighborhood or community. This
is the nature of edge locations. It is also important to
note that many residents can accept manageable
conflicts associated with mixed use as a trade -off for
convenience.
Objective 7• Minimize land use conflicts, where ever
possible, that could have the effect of reducing
residential property values and causing a trend to
renter occupancy.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Development of a screen buffer behind the
Metro Dental Clinic and implementation in
conjunction with the Clinic provided funding is
available and agreement can be reached
between the parties.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 24
Better enforcement of a ban on residential street
parking during snow emergencies.
Continuous monitoring of the parking situation at
the Metro Dental Clinic and the search for
alternative ways to provide for shared parking.
Traffic counting on Aldrich Avenue in both the
7400 and 7500 blocks to assess current
volumes.
Temporary closing of 75th Street at Lyndale
Avenue to determine how traffic patterns will be
altered.
Continuous experimentation with traffic patterns
based on current counts.
Close monitoring of alley conditions (particularly
odor and debris) and stricter enforcement of
nuisance violations.
Recommended Neighborhood Protection StrategX
The City asked an appraiser to assess the value
impacts of the plan proposal on the remaining
neighborhood. His findings were that the keys to
maintaining value are minimizing business access to
shared alleys and /or streets that interface with
residential properties and minimizing visual access
from homes to parking lots and service areas.
Objective 8: Ensure that each project meets or
exceeds the access and screening requirements of
the plan.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Design, by the City, of buffers. The City should
also stipulate compliance with the City's plans as
a part of the development agreement.
City to mandate buffer area maintenance in
accordance with acceptable standards as a
restrictive covenant or
City to be compensated by developer /owner for
buffer area maintenance.
Objective 9.• Ensure consistency with the design
guidelines established herein.
One of the most difficult problems associated with
redevelopment is land acquisition and trying to
eliminate as much uncertainty for residents and
business persons as possible while the process
evolves. Uncertain timelines may make it somewhat
difficult to lease business properties and sell homes.
The City may have to intervene in either situation to
make sure that the project or projects are able to
move forward and that residents, in particular, are
not locked into situations which depress property
values. On the other hand, developers also need
assurances that a few landowners will not stop the
project.
Objective l0.• Delegate land acquisition to
developers. Employ the power of eminent domain
only as a measure to ensure that the project is not
compromised or severely delayed.
Objective l l: Be sure residents and
businesspersons are treated fairly.
Objective 12: Give residents who demonstrate
hardship the assurance that they will have buyers for
their homes.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Development of a redevelopment schedule that
can be complied with by the developer.
Be prepared to intervene with the acquisition of
residences where they are scheduled for
redevelopment if hardship can be demonstrated
and development is imminent. Eligibility shall be
as prescribed by the Right -of -Way Acquisition
Loan Program Guidelines issued by the
Metropolitan Council.
No matter who purchases the property (City or
developer), the City/HRA should insure that the
intent of mandated federal relocation benefits are
fully complied with,
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 25
1111-1•-! -t
The primary source of funding for improvements to
the Lyndale Avenue corridor will be tax increment
financing (TIF) and special assessments. A special
service or taxing district should also be considered to
insure proper long -term maintenance of the corridor.
Objective 13: Pledge financial support for projects
which reflect the overall public benefit to be realized
from them.
Objective 14: Spread the cost of improvements in
accordance with benefits received.
Objective 15.• Insure feasibility and the long -term
viability of the project.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Seek guarantees from developers or structure a
pay -as- you -go approach to the project using TI F.
Consider taking an equity position in the project
as a means to insure project feasibility.
Require, as a condition of the development
agreement, that developers /owners participate
in a special service district to insure the long -term
maintenance of the project.
Explore funding potential from the Livable
Communities Demonstration Program.
Employ special assessments for streetscape and
other public improvements in accordance with
benefits received.
Consider expanding the TI F District or pooling to
generate the revenue needed to make the
project feasible.
Recommended Land Use Control Strategy - Making
Sure It Gets Done in accordance with the Plan
Literally interpreted, the City's current zoning code
setbacks, etc.) would preclude redevelopment of the
Lyndale Avenue corridor. Considerable flexibility will
be required. Considerable assurances will also have
to be provided by developers to insure that the
neighborhood will be adequately protected.
Objective 16. Allow maximum flexibility by
developers to provide opportunities for creativity and
the development of viable projects.
Recommended Action Steps include:
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect mixed
use development and support the financing of
the project(s).
Establish a special design district exclusively for
the Lyndale Avenue Corridor which provides
for consistent urban design.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 26
F —1 11.0
Dui Appendices
CORRIDOR MEETING AGENDAS
CORRIDOR MEETING RESULTS
NEWSLETTERS
PLANNING PROCESS
TIME AND EVENT SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATIONS
PROS AND CONS
HYBRID PLAN EVALUTATION
BUSINESSPERSONS
RESIDENTS
MARKET STUDY
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Report Draft 2 • Page 27
A
I:?
C
0
wow .:.'.,'. CITY OF RIOFIFIELD
P«nninG oommission
Action Rcqucit
Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96 -RZ -1 Date: Apri123, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Lunds, Inc.
Location: 6228 Penn Avenue South
Type of Request: Rezoning of property from MR (multiple residence) and I (industrial) to C -2
general commercial).
Zoning: MR (multiple residence); I (industrial)
Land Use: Commercial /Vacant
Comp. Plan: Mixed Land Use
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 546.07
ACTION
Proposed Change: A rezoning of the property from MR (multiple residence) and I (industrial)
to C -2 (general commercial) would allow the applicant to commercially
develop the western portion of the property in the future and bring the
property under one zoning district.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the rezoning request.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 23, 1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council first reading date of
May 13, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Background: The eastern portion of the property at 6228 Penn Avenue is currently
occupied by the Lunds grocery store. The existing store was remodeled and
expanded in the Fall of 1995. Improvements were made to the parking lot
and landscaping as part of the remodeling project. In addition, plans for a
stormwater holding pond, to be located in the southeastern portion of the
property, were developed.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the western of the property which is vacant
and currently zoned multiple residence (that portion of the property west of
the center line of the original Queen Avenue) to general commercial. A
rezoning would enable the applicant to construct a future retail development
on that portion of the property. The eastern portion of the property would
be rezoned from industrial to general commercial to bring the entire
property under one zoning district.
Issues: 1. Future development of the property will trigger review of the specific
proposal by staff to ensure compliance with the City's off - street parking
standards. Several of the items that would be required, such as on -site
stormwater management and landscaping, have been addressed by the
applicant.
2. The applicant met several times with the neighborhood to explain the
proposed plans and to seek input. A neighborhood committee worked
with the applicant and the landscape architect on the landscape plan for
the site. In response to the committee's concerns, the applicant has
installed a 20 -foot wide landscaped berm along the western boundary of
the property to provide a buffer between the commercial use and the
adjacent residential area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the request.
Basis: 1. The applicant has made several improvements to the property in
anticipation of future development of the subject property. In addition,
future construction will trigger a review of the off - street parking permit
to ensure that the development is compatible with the adjacent
residential use.
2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Mixed Land Use, which includes retail as a principal
use.
3. The property at 6228 Penn Avenue is one of a few remaining MR-
zoned properties. Staff and the Planning Commission have worked to
eliminate the multiple residence (MR) district in the City.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
546.07. Zoning amendments. Subdivision 1. Initiation of Amendment. An amendment of this code
may be initiated by the Planning Commission, Council, or by petition of the owners of not less than 50
percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by the owners of at least 50 percent of the land within
300 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Properties owned by federal, state, municipal entities, or
other political subdivisions shall be excluded from any computation of the percentage of land necessary
for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners.
Subd. 2. Application. An application for a change in the boundaries of a zoning district made
by the owner of the property shall be submitted to the Director on forms provided by the City.
Subd. 3. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall
be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may
offer whatever public notice of its review that it deems necessary. Following this
consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council regarding
the application.
Subd. 4. City Council consideration. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the Council shall consider the matter at a first reading. The Council may offer
whatever public notice of its first reading review that it deems necessary. If the application is
approved for first reading, the Council shall set a date for a second reading and public hearing.
Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official
newspaper. Notice regarding an amendment which involves a change in the boundaries of a
zoning district shall also be sent by mail to the applicant and all the owners of properties
located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall act upon the amendment within
60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an extension is
provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its
anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the
Council fails to make a timely decision, the amendment shall be deemed to have been
approved. The Council may adopt an amendment to this code only upon an affirmative vote of
at least two -thirds of its full membership.
Subd. 5. Issuance of building permit. No building permit for any building or structure may
be issued while proceedings for rezoning of the land wherein the structure is located or to be
located are pending, unless the permit would be permitted under both the existing zoning
classification and the proposed zoning classification for such area, or unless Council approval
is first obtained.
Subd. 6. Time limitation. Not more than one petition for the rezoning of any particular piece
of land shall be made within any twelve month period.
Subd. 7. Fee. The fee for a petition to rezone land is set by Appendix D of the City Code.
Subd. 8. Effective date. Amendments to this code shall be effective in accordance with
Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter.
Bill No. 1995-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I
OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is
hereby amended in the following respect:
A. Section 1, Paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows:
1) M -9, 10 That area lying between the center lines of Penn and Queen Avenues, and
between the center lines of 62nd 63rd and 65th Streets.
B. Section 3, Paragraph (64) is amended to read as follows:
64) M -9 That area lying between the east line of Leslie Terrace Addition and the
center line of Penn Avenue, between the center lines of 62nd and 63rd Streets.
C. Section 5, Paragraph (4) is amended to read as follows:
4) M -9. 10 a side of Queen, near Mth) That ffea lying between the east lines e
St +s-- SRepealed).
D. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of that portion of the property described in
Paragraph B. lying east of the center line of Queen Avenue extended from I to C -2.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of that portion of the property described in
Paragraph B. lying west of the center line of Queen Avenue extended from MR to C -2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
S
o <:
Sw
y W a r
W
a s
S
I I I I I IbL I I I [T
H1f10$ 3flN3Atl N33lID— 4
N
Q
1
l l
9 Ig
6 I I I I
I W
n
Q o <
WXd
o f
z
t$
I
m a
LU
i
ui
I U W
LL U
NL M 3fiM NN
1
CITY OF R10HRELD
K«nnm commission
Motion Roquoit
Item: #3 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96 -PUD -2 Date: April 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Northern Hospitality, Inc.
Location: 1200 East 78th Street
Type of Request: Planned unit development plan and rezoning to allow construction of an
AmericInn hotel.
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Land Use: vacant
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 536.01
Section 536.17
ACTION
Proposed Change: The planned unit development plan and rezoning would allow the applicant
to construct of an Americlnn hotel.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the planned unit development and rezoning request with
stipulations.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was.
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 23, 1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council first reading of May
13, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Background' The property at 1200 East 78th Street has been vacant for several years.
Former proposals to develop the property have included a vehicle emissions
testing facility and a restaurant with a drive - through service window. Both
proposals were denied by the City Council due in part to traffic issues, the
uncertainty of roadway improvements, and lack of compatibility with the
residential neighborhood. Other restaurant proposals have been approved in
the past but the buildings were not constructed before the approvals expired.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 59 unit Americhm hotel on the site.
Fifty -nine parking spaces will be provided at one space per room.
The limited service hotel will include a pool, meeting room, full lobby and
continental breakfast area for guests. The exterior of the building will be
finished in Cape Cod Gray cedar and brick.
Issues: 1. Access: The main access to the site will be off of 78th Street. An
additional right -in, right -out access will be located off of 77th Street.
2. Future Access: The plans for upgrading I -494 call for eliminating the
12th Avenue entrance to the freeway. At that time, 78th Street (the
frontage road) will be eliminated and the main access to the site will be
moved to 12th Avenue. An agreement will be signed between the City
and the developer to reflect the anticipated change. The developer feels
that the loss of access to the freeway at 12th Avenue will be
compensated by having established their presence in this location. The
current configuration of the intersections along 12th Avenue do not
allow for safe placement of a 12th Avenue access to the site.
3. Comparison to C -2 District: The proposal differs from the
requirements of the C -2 district in building height and setbacks. The
building is four -and -a -half stories where the maximum number of
stories in a C -2 district is three. The setback off of 78th Street varies
from 10 to 40 feet where the requirement is 20 feet. The tallest portion
of the building and the smaller setback are oriented to the freeway.
4. Land Use: Compatibility with adjacent land uses was an issue with
previous proposals. The upgrading of 77th Street and construction of
the sound wall create a barrier between this site and the single family
residential properties to the north. Traffic from the hotel will be
oriented primarily to I-494. The adjacent property to the east is zoned
commercial but the current land use is multiple family residential. The
hotel is more compatible with this use than many commercial uses
would be.
The developer held an open house for the neighborhood on April 16 to
explain the proposal and let people view the plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulations:
1. That an agreement be signed by the developer indicating the
understanding that access to 78th Street will be removed at such time
that 1-494 is upgraded.
Basis: 1. The proposal provides a workable plan given the size of the site, access
issues, and adjacent land uses.
2. The development is in substantial conformance with the original C -2
general commercial) district.
3. 'The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent
of the 77th Street project to encourage more intense development along
I-494 while maintaining a separation from the residential neighborhood.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
536.01. Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 1. This Section 536 applies to planned unit
development zoning districts.
Subd. 2. Planned unit development defined. A planned unit development is a development of
land that is under unified control and is planned and developed as a whole in a single
development operation or in a programmed series of development stages. The development
may include streets, circulation ways, utilities, buildings, open spaces, and other site features
and improvements. A planned unit development is built according to a detailed final
development plan, as approved by the City Council.
Subd. 3. Short name. The term "planned unit development" may be referred to as PUD in
this code.
Subd. 4. Definition: original district. As used in this Section, the term "original district"
means the zoning district from which land is proposed to be rezoned to a PUD.
Subd. 5. Purposes. The purposes of this section are to:
a) provide for the establishment of PUD zoning districts where appropriate;
b) provide a means of flexibility to the strict application of the land use regulations in
this code, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety,
comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City and its
residents;
c) promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at
the same time, encouraging superior design and construction materials;
d) allow greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of environment available to
City residents;
e) preserve and enhance natural features and open space;
f) improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; and
g) provide transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses.
Subd. 6. Departure from original district regulations. The various zoning regulations and
requirements (e.g., use, building setback, height) which apply to the original district should be
considered as guidelines and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD to accomplish
the purposes described in Subd. 5 of this Subsection.
536.17. Review of PUD application. Subdivision 1. Procedure. Upon receipt of a completed PUD
application and the fee set by Appendix D of the City Code, the following review procedure set out in
this subsection shall commence.
Subd. 2. Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public
hearing on the PUD application and serve mailed notice of such hearing to the applicant and all
property owners situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district. The
Planning Commission shall submit its recommendation to the Council. The Planning
Commission may recommend approval with or without modifications, or may recommend
denial of the PUD application.
Subd. 3. Council consideration. Following action by the Planning Commission, the Council
shall hold a public hearing and consider rezoning the area described in the plan. If the PUD
plan is approved, the area shall be rezoned as one of the six types of PUD districts.
Subd. 4. Required findings. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD application shall
be as follows:
a) the proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans;
b) the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries;
c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the
original district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by
the design of the development;
d) the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the
development;
e) the development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties;
and
f) the terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient
to.protect the public interests.
iii
mm mm
mm mm
mm mm
mm mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
iii ii i
Mm MM MM Mm mm
mm mm mm
mm on=
mm smom mm
j
n
II1m :r±ut MIMI OS"S.'`4 i
int
55 PARKING STALLS
4 PC, STALLS
LOT AREA
48,426.2 S.F.
ASSUMED
5EETBAG<
10, -
14C
I
POOL
LOE3E3'1
i ii
ji
S=T5AC;<
ELEV.
II
Al I'F-RIGINN SITE STUD`r-RI GAF IELD,-..,
ORAP40 SCALE
STUD11' "D"
0 20 so 120
TRU1 IAN PONELL ARGk4ITECTS ASSOC 1ATE---S, INC.
I8202 111NNETON<A BLVD, 1 A"rZATA, r- IN. 553ci1
11=I-40NE: 612-44q—q3O3 FAX: 612-44q-0552
01TY OF R10FIFIELD
Knnnm oommission
O. `.` :, ":: 017: Action Roquert
Item: #4 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- CUP -4; 96 -FDP -3 Date: April 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Northern Hospitality, Inc.
Location: 1200 East 78th Street
Type of Request: Conditional use permit and final development to allow construction of a 59-
unit AmericInn hotel.
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Land Use: vacant
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 536.19
ACTION
Proposed Change: The conditional use permit and final development plan would enable the
applicant to construct a 59 -unit AmericInn hotel.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit and fmal development plan request with
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 23, 1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
June 10, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 59 unit AmericInn hotel on the site.
The limited service hotel will include a pool, meeting room, full lobby and
continental breakfast area for guests. The exterior of the building will be
finished in Cape Cod Gray cedar and brick.
Issues: 1. Parking: Fifty -nine parking spaces would be provided at a ratio of one
space per room. City parking guidelines require additional parking for
employees. The applicant anticipates that the hotel will provide service
to a number of customers arriving from the airport via taxi service and
consequently will require fewer than one space per room. There will be
2 to 3 employees on duty during the evening when the number of
customers will be at maximum.
2. Traffic: It is anticipated that traffic will be oriented to I-494 with some
traffic using 77th Street. Traffic on 77th Street is likely to increase in
the future when the third phase, connecting 77th Street to 23rd Avenue
is completed.
3. Landscaping: An approximately 8 foot parking lot setback with
landscaping is provided around the perimeter of the site. Additional
landscaping will be provided around the building and on two landscape
islands within the parking lot.
4. Development Intensity and Site Constraints: The development is
intense for the site with a floor area ratio of approximately .58. In
addition, the site is constrained by its size, shape, and location. The
proposed development attempts to mitigate the intensity of the
development through the landscape plan and by orienting the tallest
portion of the building toward the freeway. The developer may have an
opportunity to add land to the site when I-494 is upgraded to provide
additional green space.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulations:
1. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the
Engineering Division.
2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Engineering
Division.
3. That the applicant apply for an amended planned unit development
plan, final development plan and conditional use permit at such time
that I-494 is upgraded and the main access to the site is changed from
78th Street to 12th Avenue.
4. That the developer obtain a permit from MNDOT for work done in the
78th Street right -of -way.
5. That the final signage plan be approved by the Community
Development Director.
Basis: 1. The proposal provides a workable plan given the size and shape of the
site and access issues.
2. The proposed use is compatible with the adjacent multiple residential
land use, and the 77th Street sound barrier increases compatibility with
the single family residential use to the north.
3. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent
of the 77th Street project to encourage more intense development along
I-494 while maintaining a separation from the residential neighborhood.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
536.19. Final development plan and conditional use permit. Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the
PUD application and rezoning, but prior to. the commencement of any construction or development of
land, an applicant shall submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional
use permit for the development shown in the final development plan, which is consistent with the PUD
application. Approval of such final development plan and conditional use permit requires a two - thirds
vote of the Council.
Subd. 2. A final development plan shall consist of the following:
a) if required, a final plat of the land to be developed;
b) all materials required under Section 536.15, Subd. 6 of this code in "final" form;
and
c) additional information as required by the Director or Council.
Subd. 3. Legal instruments. As part of the final development plan and conditional use permit,
the applicant shall submit "final" declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions, articles
of owners, associations and all other such documents as the City may deem necessary pursuant
to Section 536.15, Subd. 7 of this code.
j
I!
i
I
I
I
I
1-1
55 PARKING STALLS
4 NC STALLS
i
i I
1
I '
I •-
ac I
II
I
uc !
I,
I.
LOT AREA
48,426.2 S.F.
ASSU
SETH
ID'
POOL
LOE-35''
TLE .
I
I
ii
4 i ASSUMED
i!I 55T5ACK
4 I 10,
i
4Ip
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
AVER I G I NN SITE O T UD-r -fig I Gk4F I ELD,
GRAPHIC SCALE
STUD't' "D"
0 20 80 120
T U iAN HOWELL ARGN I TEGTS 4 ASSOG I ATLS, INC.
18202 i" fINNETONKA BLVD, WA`T ZATA, iv1N. 55381
F 4ONE: e 12 -448 -8303 FAX: 612-44q-0552
LOT °A<=-A
48,426.2 5.F.
T,-! =_i TREE—
PROPOSE!:) LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANTING SC:+E1"ULE
i vYC•• •.n tinw.e:
cam..• ^.na
e Iru.e an •r_a • w.
C CKUIMK• T•i YJ'L.l
1.W H OIL.
aVR om• TKT pu.. /J
Leo .+.® eewcao
MK • M•!t. /•1.
OYl. fOf 14..L
YD .. •b OnL:..
IOR O•. Lam, mm00.
NG'L6•
e aawe ,m
ir.w. w •o,.
e- Y.•.l1 MrtV•
tiG OPr
NIIICATu IT--
C. :N:c1-5 =ANTITT
OLlK. auo a n.. Wes• GoSA
1r.lY'• 1R yYfMR! up
1
i
I
i
n
MOTEL
I f NESOTA
t
i
I
I
TRUMAN
HOWELL i
AIt=CrS
k L OC.,Il'C.
to
A,
4
t
N/96
YNf
AS NOTE
or..uc
PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE
SM PLANS
9Q1 NQ
L1
o'
g YiE5T ELEVATION
va, • r4
6 EAST EL--VA—. ICN
w• • rc•
NCRTH E::VATION
PE"IC.i
A
AMERlClNN
MOTEL
RCHFEW
SOTA
IE 5
1
9 b
Y5 9g
7 i
54a
it
a
bl
TRUMAN
HOWELL
AR=M
IJ® 1 1 1 Lb
CITY OF R10HRELD
Pwmm oommission
Letter
Item: #5 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #7 Date: April 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: 1997 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and 1998 -2002 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP).
References: 1997 CIB Summary and Proposed 1998 -2002 CIP (attached)
BACKGROUND
Issues: On March 26, 1996, the Planning Commission met with the Administrative
Services Director to discuss the 1997 CIB and 1998 -2002 CIP. On April 9,
1996, the Planning Commission held a study session with the Community
Services Commission to continue discussion of the CIB and CIP.
Each year, the City Manager makes a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the CIB for the upcoming year. The City has not yet approved the
1997 CIB. The CIP lists the capital improvements in order of priority, together
with the cost estimates and the proposed method of financing.
The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing the CIP and making a
recommendation to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Recommend approval of the 1998 -2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Basis: The Planning Commission is required by City Charter to prepare and
recommend a Capital Improvement Program for inclusion in the Annual Budget
Message of the City Council.
1997
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
r-1-
1998 -2002
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Manager Draft Recommendation
Revised April 2, 1996
OVERVIEW
1997 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB)
RECREATION & OPEN SPACES
Sheridan Park - $400,000 of Special Revenue funding is provided for a major
renovation of Sheridan Park. This park is the last remaining major park to be
redeveloped.
Wood Lake Bridges /Docks - $89,500 of Special Revenue funds will be
necessary to replace the bridges and docks which will be removed as part of the
dredging operations at Wood Lake in 1997.
Ice Arena Locker Rooms (Repayment) - Assuming that the Ice Arena locker
room project takes place in 1996, it will be necessary to repay an internal loan of about
175,000 to pay for the project. For 1997, an interest only payment of $10,500 is
scheduled from Special Revenue.
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS
1494 Integrated Corridor Traffic Management - This is a $1.5 million joint
effort of the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the Cities of Edina, Bloomington
and Richfield. It is a state -of- the -art advanced traffic management system which will
coordinate all ramp meters and traffic signals within the corridor.
76th East & West of 135W - 76th Street would be widened by 3 feet to the south
from 1 -35W to Xerxes by removing the sidewalk. East of 1 -35W, 76th Street would be
downgraded from four travel lanes to two. Reuse of excess right of way would be
studied for possible alterations.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
City Maintenance Facility - The need for a new maintenance facility has
become a more pressing issue. The 1997 CIB projects $4.8 million for a new
maintenance facility. The first critical step is to locate a suitable site and to determine
if a joint maintenance facility (with the State of Minnesota) may be feasible.
1998 - 2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
POLICY DIRECTION
The CIP, as recommended, is based upon a number of fundamental policy
assumptions. First, funding has not been projected for Veterans Memorial Park during
the next 5 year period. Instead, it is staffs intention to reevaluate plans for Veterans
Park with the Community Services Commission in the near future.
Secondly, the primary focus of this proposed CIP is to reinvest in the City's
existing infrastructure, especially those facilities providing park and recreation services
to the public. The age and condition of many of the City's existing facilities necessitate
immediate consideration with respect to significant maintenance and repair issues.
Attention to these facilities now may preclude the need for more costly repairs in the
future while providing a higher quality of service to our residents and customers.
1997 Capital Improvement Budget
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Sheridan Park 400,000 R
Wood Lake Bridges /Docks 89,500 R
Golf Course Picnic /Pay. /1st Tee 71,000 U
Ice Arena Concession Stand 37,000 U
Ice Arena Locker Rooms (Repayment) 10,500 R
Ice Arena Dasher Boards 90,500 U
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 698,500
M
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
1- 4941CTM 194,000 S
1,504,016 45,000 C
C)
30,000 B
E)
15,000 E
D)
1,200,016 D
M)
20,000 M
76th Street East of 1 -35W 843,000 M
76th Street West of 1 -35W 800,000 M
Traffic Signal: 77th & Emerson 120,000 A
Street Lighting Reconstruction 111,670 T
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR. 3,378,686
111,670
PUBLIC FACILITIES
User Fees 1,548,500
City Maintenance Facility 1,000,000 U
4,773,000 412,000 D
1,758,000 O
103,000 M
1,500,000 P
Wood lake Dredging 100,000 U
MN DOT 275,000 S
Grant Program 50,000 U
Slipline Wastewater Pipes 200,000 U
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $5,398,000
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
A) Special Assessment 120,000
B) City of Bloomington 30,000
C) Hennepin County 45,000
E) City of Edina 15,000
D) Federal Demonstration Funds 1,612,016
M) Municipal State Aid 1,766,000
0) Other Source To Be Determined 1,758,000
P) Sale of Property 1,500,000
R) Special Revenue 500,000
S) State Grant 469,000
T) Transfer from General Fund 111,670
U) User Fees 1,548,500
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 9,475,186
1998 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Playfeature Replacement - Fairwood /Monroe
Park Shelter rubber Flooring
Taft (north bldg),Donaldson,Augsburg & Roosevelt
Tennis Court Improvements
Christian /Augsburg /Fairwood /Memorial Parks
Wood Lake Furnace /AC
Community Center Sewer Pumps
Community Center Carpeting
Ice Arena Locker Rooms (Repayment)
Golf Course Forward Tee/Tee Renovation
Ice Arena Pitch Gravel Roof
TOTAL REC. S OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
77th & Lyndale - Left Turn Lane
2,535,000
Street Lighting Reconstruction
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Parking Lots (Community Cntr. /Fire St. II /City Hall)
Retaing Wall Replacement
Augsburg Park Strom Water Project
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
65,000 R
25,000 R
50,000 R
34,000 R
16,000 R
16,000 R
185,500 R
60,000 U
19,000 R
470,500
750,000 F
1,685,000 M
100,000 B
54,000 T
2,589,000
64,000 R
15,000 C
15,000 G
550,000 U
644,000
3,703,500
A) Special Assessment 0
B) City of Bloomington 100,000
C) Hennepin County 15,000
F) Federal Grant 750,000
G) General Fund 15,000
M) Municipal State Aid 1,685,000
R) Special Revenue 474,500
T) Transfer From General Fund 54,000
U) User Fees 610,000
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $3,703,500
1999 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Playfeature Replacement - Adams Hill
Asphalt Park Paths - Taft & Donaldson
Community Center Furnace /AC
Park Shelter Improvements - various parks
Golf Course Forward Tee/Tee Renovation
Golf Course Starter /Par 3 Bldg.
Wood Lake Office /Library Renovation
Ice Arena Ceiling /Beams
Swimming Pool Gutters/Lining
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
77th Street Phase III
Bikeway: Soo Line
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
69th Columbus Storm Sewer
CO2 Storage Tank
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
C) Hennepin County
F) Federal Grant
M) Municipal State Aid
R) Special Revenue
S) State Grant
U) User Fees
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
65,000 R
56,500 R
18,500 S
14,000 R
32,000 R
60,000 U
156,000 U
46,000 R
35,000 R
215,000 R
698,000
832,350 M
2,000,000 F
2,700,000 S
2,000,000 C
300,000 M
7,832,350
400,000 U
65,000 U
465,000
8,995,350
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,132,350
463,500
2,718,500
681,000
8,995,350
2000 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Playfeature Replacement - Memorial
Swimming Pool Bathhouse
Swimming Pool Gutters /Lining
Golf Course Clubhouse /Patio /Parking Lot
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
77th Street Phase III
Reconstruction 70th St. - Columbus to 16th Ave.
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fire Station #2 Boiler
City Hall Boiler
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
F) Federal Grant
M) Municipal State Aid
R) Special Revenue
S) State Grant
U) User Fees
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
50,000 R
149,000 R
245,000 R
612,000 U
1,056,000
4,321,600 F
1,080,400 S
468,000 M
5,870,000
32,000 R
20,000 R
52,000
6,978,000
4,321,600
468,000
496,000
1,080,400
612,000
6,978,000
2001 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Niayteature Kepiacement - Kicnneid Lake/Uttie bOD
Wood Lake Meeting Room Addition
Golf Course Clubhouse Maintenance
Swimming Pool Bathhouse
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Parking Lots (Wood Lake Ntr. Cntr.ITaft Park)
Chlorine Scrubber
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
R) Special Revenue
S) State Grant
U) User Fees
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
65,000 R
291,000 R
25,050 U
160,000 R
541,050
0
66,000 R
125,000 U
191,000
732,050
582,000
0
150,050
732,050
2002 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Playfeature Replacement - Freemont Preschool
Garfield Park
Mini /pocket Park
Community Center Addition /Parking Lot
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
R) Special Revenue
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
20,000 R
40,000 R
50,000 R
250,000 R
360,000
0
0
360,000
360,000
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $360,000
I
r]
rn
s
a
I
4
91
LL
9
in
LL
V
Z
N
F-
C)
w
O
m
Q.
OIZ
yY
Wd
m 0O
L co
U
0I ja' C_
C
M E
O d y`
a
A
y t0 y C
d .
O'Y a a'
Q '
t
a
y
O a; CL
9 M :z 0 o . -0
10 E m "m' a L -...
4) t
m L :'m O a: M:
acn >7UQ. (D:•- Z:aaQ
Ni ri v tli :co r- m of o
N Cl0
O
d N
0
3 ?O tD O:OiUn
O M
an
0'0 ?(O
o yO:of0oEr- 0>. N .
0 U O
C C co
U mC13
r
pj O
o:;o o
cl
C 0i0 C
O Y %tn N
N
to sssi;:
C4
a'
0 O
m O
CL to O:
CA:
m N
N
U-
a.
0 0:o
0oy0
CD 0
4) o to
L N
U
to
m 2a'fn
17 0 0 0
O to to
E a) co r°
E
CC)
OUN
Q! 69
ar
OOO
O
to
O) D
69
n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U otn00000to
M N
J t 0 «tn (V
cl r r
O
F- H9
LL
9
in
LL
V
Z
N
F-
C)
w
O
m
Q.
OIZ
yY
Wd
m 0O
L co
U
0I ja' C_
C
M E
O d y`
a
A
y t0 y C
d .
O'Y a a'
Q '
t
a
y
O a; CL
9 M :z 0 o . -0
10 E m "m' a L -...
4) t
m L :'m O a: M:
acn >7UQ. (D:•- Z:aaQ
Ni ri v tli :co r- m of o
LO
N
ti) i''..
M .
Q£
o:0000.'
tA 0:0 O:O:
Un ;O): O Ul) :a):
N:O:(O M';;
m >:O: 0- E
Lam: Qj(%:
U o o -'
say' ='
E. E
N ::f*l: M M :M_:
Ir
OOU)
U) OD
CD
r
toLn
tri0
r
0
E
OO
a`fYU0J
mCm
Q
U
0 000
0 000
O ' 000
OD (D 0 co
co O O (D
c0 N to M
Ulf v
1
C)
w w
0 0
o o
C',
coM M
40 1'9
O O 0
O ' O ' O
co N
U)
49
o O
a 00
Co o o
v cy c
T
o
r
69 69
O O O O
UOA N09 O ' O
C7 OD CO JOD
I N (0D
Ito
1A O ' to
O c O
Q
00000
O O 1A O to
O to O O t0
CV com0cn
mf — ;0o)
co r Y1 Q
ti -AIM
w 1`9{
w
U
O
U
m
c ?
Wy1
U yzD LL
CL y O J
co co ca <
w D X
Cl0 0
ln' O C C co
r
pj O
cl 4C)
O i 2 Si
to sssi;:
C4
to O:
CA: N
IC) 0 0:o
LO
N
ti) i''..
M .
Q£
o:0000.'
tA 0:0 O:O:
Un ;O): O Ul) :a):
N:O:(O M';;
m >:O: 0- E
L am: Qj(%:
U o o -'
say' ='
E. E
N ::f*l: M M :M_:
Ir
OOU)
U) OD
CD
r
toLn
tri0
r
0
E
OO
a`fYU0J
mCm
Q
U
0 000
0 000
O ' 000
OD (D 0 co
co O O (D
c0 N to M
Ulf v
1
C)
w w
0 0
o o
C',
coM M
40 1'9
O O 0
O ' O ' O
co N
U)
49
o O
a 00
Co o o
v cy c
T
o
r
69 69
O O O O
UOA N09 O ' O
C7 OD CO JOD
I N (0D
Ito
1A O ' to
O c O
Q
00000
O O 1A O to
O to O O t0
CV com0cn
mf — ;0o)
co r Y1 Q
ti -AIM
w 1`9{
w
U
O
U
m
c ?
Wy1
U yzDLL
CL y O J
co co ca <
w D X
N
y O
v O 4) N
O H G -0WUOCO
U y
m
JX
a
pper,,
V N
ON
rOON
LL
0
ui
Z
V
H
O
U
J
H
O
H
F- I
L)
O
CL
OIZ
LL fnU2
O O O O
O O O O
O O O Q
O O O O
O O CC)
O n O M
N N cN
0 O
O
N O
CD t`
64
LL U)
u9
Ll V
OO
OD
r O
O co
aLn
NM
g
r
69
n J
J ..
O
W ip O
LL (D
Ip7
01 N
O M
O
r
Go
cc
fH
C7 M M M V v
to
LL
0
ui
Z
V
H
O
U
J
H
O
H
F- I
L)
O
CL
OIZ
LL fnU2
O O O O
O O O O
O O O Q
O O O O
O O CC)
O n O M
N N cN
0 O
O
N O
CD t`
64
u9
Z
W c
2 h
E
CD
E
aLn w
g 0o c
n J
J ..
O
W ip O
LL (D a O
ti r l ='mm
cc L- co Oi o
C7 M M M V v
u9 es
OOOOV
Oco
rO
N coCD co r
IT co M O co
LA V r ui
dq Kl 69
Co CD
U') O O U LO
M O' O
N O O N O N
O^
w O O c0
r- N N r N P-
fA fA
U- m H
O O OOOOOOOO
O O O O O C ' ' Ct C ' O' O
O O AtOD
n (0 r aOpLn CAD a00V)
r N r N
Cs rsi v), 61%
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O LO 00 U')
O O O M 0 C ' CO M ' V: O M
LO V O r O O LO O
U') (D NLONr
N CD
r
N r M M CO
r
4i n
Q Z
ca W
O H
O c ) LLJ
Ccv O E a LL C LL
U
o 0) c u o
c c
o U- m
Ou ;n 3 UN
c cc o w
c N
o r
c v J VU 0) c j c 0) 0 U m
L O E o E c :° E o o C7c° d y
d O
m
O U c m U) 0 C Z_
1 m C (6 O C 'O
N
Q U cD LCO LL Q
L iL' m e L U U C 0 N 'U N N« Q
J
p O
C ID C
J f9
c
q1
C @ a J N
c
T 7 fC0
O d O N a• 'J
N 7 C— Q1 O Q U Z U LL M Q
N t Cu U F-
mUwO
U- r- 0 V Ov
vvv11v vv
m N
LQir
y O ,
d N
O N C1
uiN O EO O
U U
m
fA fi
J
X
a
r.1
i
LL
Q
V/
W
a
Q
U
NOON
U
DQ'
O
O
H
C
O
65 C
CD
O OO
O
N
o
O co
O O
O
m
D
O O O
N
to —
c
fit
E ti y — o m (aa vi 6
aa))
a
N tT
c o d m c
D N (A
CD CD
fA
Cl
a o y
O
OO M NO
m a2
N
f/9
O
CL
co(
n222
tT
c c W
to
r
coo y d
N
Goa) rn
N Co
OO
F U
m
U
w
O
cr
a
m
OOO
fs
0 00
O O OCD
OM Cl) N
r
m
2
fA
U
D
O u
H
C
O
65 C
CD
O OO
7 N
o
O CD
y
Eo, n E
O O
o m
D
O O O
to —
c
CO to .-
E ti y — o m (aa vi 6
aa))
a
N tT
c o d m c
D N (A
U c m o c 3 d a C CL
fA
V y a o y
69 fA
H - a U CL xm m a~i- cmlr_ m a2 a'
iU
r CL
co(
n222
O
c c W
OO
coo y d
N
i C7ti(
nw
N N
LL
to
c oc9oa o
to to
LM)
fA fA Mi
tT O -: tD (+ CD 6 C
to to to to to to u7 to O 0
D Z)
O O O O O
O OO ( O
o O coOtODcococo
7 IT R
EA fA 649 69
O °O o O °O °oato° O
LO W
69 fA ER
O O O O O O O O 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O' coo
O O t[) to O N to to N O N
Cl) O N CD to 1(') r co v to
V r U') C.) r r C7
fs fs
m
2
U
O u
H
C
65 C
CD
p
a w
7 N
o w
y
Eo, n E
3
a 7
o m
Dcncc c
E ti y — o m (aa vi 6
aa))
a o Y E Q
m-
c o d m c Q
L)
U c m o c 3 d a C CL N V V y a o y
iH - a U CL xm m a~i- cmlr_ m a2 a'
iU
r CL
co(
n222
a
U m
c c W
Qcooyd NQ i C7ti(
nw
LL L) c oc9oa o
LM)
L) Q'O
tT O -: tD (+ CD 6 C
to to to to to to u7 to O 0
V C7
co (D (D
I
OLUNc
X
d
U
i
w
Q
Q
N
ao
O
rn
r
N 0 p
Q) 0 O G
E a
O' O' OpON
cOD
N LL
p U
c ti
W
co p O
C o M M
A (c)
a`) O
u E c
1° °' c cn
1 Q L
Q
coCD N
O co
CA M
O
U p p O O
F- o c v o E d E -
DEoUcmc zQ
1f1 Q O
U y
a. c J 0 a o N v U LL a)
J
m
ti ca
F-
V
6
x w m U w o- - a C7 - -C -GX
69, ow
O O O
O O CD Opp. I I
NOO M
N cn Cl)
CO'')
64 d'f di to
OCpcOA O cLn Ln
O 0 0 O' O' O
O N N O N
O ti r tiN
fA to 69, 69
O O O OOO OO O O
O O O O CD ' O' O V' O' O
OO co V) CO m r- O
N CD CODNDco0) Ch Q IT O CD O)
1 O CD V CD
of to 69 fq
O O O O O O O 0 0 O O
0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
O m O M OOcn O O C7
O CD N O O O O N M CD w
O O cn co m O O c" co — co O)
O) CD m v O) O O •- w h 0 O)
C- as N N N CD
0 0 0 0 00 o 0 0 0 00 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OOOWk oo o00 O at cn
mp) O CA IT cn O in O LO LO Q O M
Q) 1- O 3 O O— O CO t` O
e-- v O ti f` CD CD r`
CV C6 C7
tH fA 69 69
O O O O 00 O O O O O O O 00
O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
CA M O O) O O CD O Cl ' O G O O ' O
J F-
CD
c7 — N CO O Ln O v CD s OO O m
0 m O) LA cn O O O co O CD
00 vNC
U cl) r r N Cl) ti C co Cl) r
U4, 61), to
E a
4
a. U)
UN LL
p U
c ti
W 0 °- A (c)
a`) O
u E c
1° °' c cn
1 Q L
Q a
O ?.
n d Q a r 0 c C7 c z
Z w F- o c v o E d E -
DEoUcmc zQacihaaEiowa'> c- v,
Q o c Wo( mn X d> >
a. c J 0 a o N v U LL a)
J
y
0 7 Q O C z
C •C a) r d m C N> C Qtica
F-
V x w m U w o- - a C7 - -C -GXa'
Apartments - Housing
66th street high density would > congestion
why remove apartments, where would all the people go.
I think developing high density housing (especially with respect to seniors) is a
wonderful idea for the 66th/Penn area. I believe you're on the right track. first
step should be to get the center turn lane in east of Penn.
Keep senior housing affordable and local. Heidi Maghan 6844 Chicago Avenue
South
John Myre, would like to see housing for senior residents who want to stay in the
neighborhood.
John Moon, what will happen to the golf course and the softball fields?
One third of residents live in apartments - is this a correct percentage?
James Vargo - is the plan trying to protect the residential area?
Craig Nelson, what about apartments along 494 & Cedar and poor quality and
crime.
I live in a high density residential area (to be), how would conversions from
low density work?
Airport
Wall along Cedar /18th
Bring together a group of Realtors. The goal is "preservation of Market Value ".
Barriers do not preserve market value and they do not reduce sound. 25 houses
that lose 10 - 15 % of market value comes to about $325,000 lost market. That
would take 4 houses redeveloped to bring it back to Richfield.
If the airport does expand into the golf course what besides high rise business and
multi - dwelling homes will be done to buffer noise west of Cedar?
Dave Vogo, what are the plans for Cedar and 18th Avenue, concerned with
converting single families along 17th from 65th to 67th. What are the plans for
NFT & RE?
What would the construction of a west terminal do to the plans?
Glen Ganglehoff - where would 66th Street be , explain the plan to
provide non - residential use along Cedar Avenue.
Bikeways
We're in favor of bike paths and would like to see us get started with them. We'd
also like to see a system that connects to the Minneapolis system.
Bike corridors for safe movement (not pathways).
I like the idea of increased walk /bike trails (especially some that are visually
appealing) around community. It is difficult to get around on the busy streets
without sidewalks!) Put more accessible when they are surrounded by busy streets.
I think it's important to improve the appearance of the community too. Sandy
Clay.
Commercial
Why wait for someone to come to the City of Richfield to build along Penn Avenue
and 66th Street?
David Singer, concerned about Penn & 66th Street and how it's declining.
Keith Skinner, Nicollet Avenue, why would you seek developers? How will this
happen? What is the proposal for Washington Park, can't put anything high on
Washington Park.
Residential block would be Lyndale and Nicollet from 66th to 67th - concern with
Holy Angels proposal - the chiropractor has been there for years, how can it be said
that the commercial area is expanding?
Pat Harris - owner of Richfield Nursery - real estate value and taxes have been
devalued. Concerned that there's a connection between the plan and the
devaluation.
Richfield Floral representative - concerned about what will happen to them.
People moved to Richfield for single family housing - don't like creeping
commercialism and higher density.
James Vargo - Richfield Bank's expansion didn't protect the neighborhood. If it's
residential it should stay residential.
Pat Harris - how many of the Lyndale Avenue and I -494 businesses stayed in
Richfield, wished there was a greater effort to keep them in Richfield.
Who on the Planning Commission sticks up for the businesses?
Are businesses going to be able to stay if they want to?
George - parking ramps with new commercial development important?
Jerald Brown - current planning for comm. area on Lyndale and 76th Street?
Parking ramps need to be used in new development at 66th and Penn. The parking
area along 494 with the new Best Buy development is an outdated concept that
becomes a huge wasteland. Worse than Southtown.
Set standards for new businesses and business complexes.
Can something be done to help present business /building owners on Lyndale
7600 area to give stores a facelift? How about parallel parking?
Crime
Rising crime rate has to be confronted, or grand plans on housing and commercial
development are limited. John Lundquist, 1701 West 72nd Street, 866 -9922.
Glen Ganglehoff - concerned with safety and the problem with the lighting.
Don S. moved here from Bloomington 2 years ago. Perception of crime in
apartments - implement plan elements as quickly as possible.
General /Misc.
As a new homeowner to the area, I give each of you a tremendous amount of credit
for taking on this huge project. Don't let the nay sayers get you down! Admittedly
I, too, began to panic at the thought of changes near my home. But I realize these
will all be changes for the better. I feel you're on the right track. There is room
for improvement and I like your visions. thanks for your hard work.
Comments by A. Burkhardt, 921 Rae Drive, 861 -2850. Map Volume One
Executive Summary - Planning corridors: Boundaries for LHN area as shown are
incorrect. Are you saying that boundaries are to be changed in new plan? I
couldn't find. See Section 7.2 as referred to on page two (12).
As a long -time resident and backbone of Richfield, I feel as if Richfield is stabbing
us in the back. There was no support of the pan from residents at the meeting.
You can't build a Fire Station at a busy intersection. 2) Building limited access
neighborhoods separates the community and we will lose the small town
atmosphere.
The current post office parking /drive -thru is dangerous. Bloomington P.O. on 96th
Garfield changed their drive -thru to the side, thus not interacting with parking.
Also traffic backs up waiting to drive into the Post Office.
Looks like a good plan! let's work on the Penn - 66th and upgrade it! I am also
concerned about keeping our housing stock up to date and owner occupied. David
Singer, 6628 Oliver Avenue.
Lovonna McAdam, Portland Avenue, planning anything for it? Portland Avenue is
declining.
What are the plans for Holy Angels - this is tax free land?
What are the plans for the Legion and Morris Nielsen?
Re taxes; balance between taxes generated between single family homes and
commercial.
What do you do to promote the plan with developers?
Ruth - Do we have quality standards of a new building?
Fred Moore LSD - What would 3 lots be used for new VFW?
Fred Moore LSD - What would VFW be used for if VFW /Legion were combined
in another facility?
I like the plan, especially the plans for Cedar & 494 area. This plan continues to
protect Richfield's small Community atmosphere and encourages development.
Great program. I hate to see any homes taken out of Richfield because they never
come back. Looks like everything will eventually be businesses, will we finally
leave because there are no homes left?
The pictures showing weeds would look much better with wild flowers. Some
areas of Georgia have done this successfully.
Continue supporting remodeling programs for existing homes. Continue supporting
the purchase of "little" houses and building higher quality houses in place.
Continue attempts to increase the tax base. I would like to retire in Richfield but
the way my property taxes have been going up, I don't know if I will be able to
afford to retire here.
Thank you for providing the citizens an opportunity to see the plans that are in the
works for our future. Thanks for the efforts! * Keep us informed and keep on
track. Keep the integrity of residential -- all types -- but bring on the commercial
development where appropriate ($) money. Tom Madsen 7026 Morgan Avenue.
Educate people to use middle laws. The presentation was splendid. The lady
represented the female citizen.
Thanks for these meetings. We appreciate the time and effort of the Planning
Commission. It would seem any plan needing outside funding has to try to estimate
what effect federal cut backs will have on Richfield, although that is very uncertain
at present. Also, I repeat a concern I voiced during Question and Answer session:
Parks
I am very gad that Richfield wants to maintain and upgrade their parks. I am
especially happy to hear about pathways connecting the parks. Sheridan park,
however, is overdue for an upgrade. It is always overlooked. It needs to be
groomed and * a skating rink added in the winter. The community in the area has
petitioned a couple of different but, it never happens. There are a lot of children in
this neighborhood and a safe, well lit, equipped park is what we need. (Take some
money from Veterans park and channel some over here.)
We value Sheridan Park. However, we lost our ice rink a number of years ago -
and it's greatly missed! Update our park with a new park building, better lighting
and maintenance so we can bring our park programs back to our neighborhood
kids! ,
I live on 74th and 13th and don't feel run -off pond should be expanded into a park -
I like where I live and don't want to move. Linda Sanders 869 -5504.
Parks -- not used that much! Do not expand and remove houses! Highway 77
move East - save Richfield.
It's quite difficult to justify or endorse a plan geared toward enhancing some
peoples expense opportunities in Richfield at the sake of me and my family's!! P.
Koloc 7400 - 18th Avenue, 866 -4768.
Commercial development of Washington Park? A development behind a barricade?
I don't comprehend who would occupy such an area. If it does happen and a park
area is developed in Wilson Pond to preserve park acreage, does the commercial
tax base replace the taxes of the 14 houses eliminated? Bill Larson 869 -3163.
Less hills and trails in our parks and more ball fields, rollerblade rinks, etc... (kids
stuff).
It sounds good and like a lot of hard work put into this. We could be proud of
improvements that could be made. I see it is important to do this. Thank you.
What influence does the City have on these plans - do we have any control over
what they do?
Lee Sveum, would like to thank the Planning Commission and others for working
on the Plan, they've done a good job.
Bill Wasen - Harriet and 64th park - 64th carries much traffic and poor location for
a park.
Sandy Clay - many parks hard to get to, due to heavy traffic on boundary streets.
Process
not enough people surveyed before concepts formulated
I would like a copy of the Penn/66th plan to take home to my wife. Maybe have
copies of all plans available for people at other meetings. I appreciate all the work
you've done and continue do - you're are doing a great job!
There are too many items for discussion to list here or in the time available to fill
this out and I did not see any of the "presenters" taking notes on our verbal
comments. You should have a meeting with just residents of the. various areas (like
the Penn 66th Street are) to discuss and note ideas and objection, etc. Dick Ziema,
6400 Vincent Avenue South, 866 -1932
Townhomes
people forced out of homes by townhouse development
76th street lots of break -ins, crime due to renters, subsidized house, higher density,
townhouses would cause same problems.
Is there any way we can expand Richfield's town houses - get back some of the
land that used to be our? (Mpls, Edina, etc.)
I think Richfield should encourage commercial growth! Look at 50th and France
and Upton area. A bunch of townhomes across from the vets park w /not increase
use of park and tax base. P.S. We do have a townhome on 66th and 35W and 76th
and 35W. We also need restaurants, not more fast food places. Small town is
neighborhood business, not shopping centers. Small businesses are the largest
employer in the United States. Pat Harris, Richfield Floral & Nursery.
Pat Harris, thinks 66th Street is a very busy street - too busy for families with
children to live on.
Would patio /townhomes be public of private?
Thank you for holding these meetings, they are very helpful. My concern is that
we are so close to commercial development now (6324 Aldrich) I wonder if we
should go ahead with major home improvement plans, with the potential of our
neighborhood being turned into a R -SFH wither soon or later - we have no idea
when it could happen. Ann Sewich
Transportation
short cutting traffic a concern
66th Street congested because of Crosstown reconstruction by MnDOT last summer
MnDOT should be forced to seek alternatives to 66th Street town houses may
result in more absenteeism/tenants.
66th Street between Penn and I -35W; temporarily block off streets and allow
ingress /egress at lights only.
traffic counts on 64th, Xerxes to Penn
doesn't stop at sign at Vincent either
Instead of closing 65th street off at Penn Avenue - do it off of Xerxes Avenue.
Also, we need better bus stops providing safety and protection from the weather.
The major change needed is exactly what you have in the plan. Left turn lanes on
66th Street between Penn and 35W. Upgrading 66th Street would take away a lot
of the problems of traffic through neighborhoods. As far as housing development
and commercial development and you are right on track?
It would be most helpful if we could hear the entire conversation rather than
listening to the two committee members who sat behind us having a conversation of
their own. Next time, please have than sit off to the side.
We oppose the plan to make 18th Ave. a collector street., Our quality of life will
diminish to give others a chance - good for Richfield maybe, but not for us. Also,
our house is on Richfield Register as being of Historic value. Paul & Cindy, 7400
18th Avenue, 866 -4768.
What about left turn lights for all directions at 66th & Portland? 3) Love ideas of
bike /hike trails!
Is this similar to what's happening along Excelsior Boulevard? Likes the
alternative routes available in Richfield.
Craig Nelson, transportation - increased size of roads diminished our
neighborhoods, townhouses, condos "small town" flavor.
Girard & LSD Pete( ?) CSD at 66th reduces to fewer lanes as you cross and go
north on to Graham Ave., due, to lane painting.
Portland Avenue, when you get to Park it narrows. What is future?
When will 76th Street and I -35W "interchange" be upgraded?
Mike Johnson - will ramps be closed at 12th Avenue?
Last Monday traffic lights from 76th and Lyndale into Bloomington (4 in a row)
required stopping. Why? Surely this is added pollution and waste of gas.
H: CdAdini n: P &Z:OH -CPl