10-29-1996CITY Of R10HAELD
ROIlR CEU
K«nninG commission
nanDR
October 29, 1996
SPECIAL MEETING
Minute
Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1996, Study Session meeting
of October 8, 1996.
I "uhli H ahin
ITEM #1 American Portable Telecom - Conditional Use Permit
to allow construction of a 134 foot telecommunications
tower at Christian Park (6900 Bloomington Avenue)
ITEM #2 ILN and LHN Tax Increment Financing Plan
Modification
Ci : Uti111 titi
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
AdHoc I35/I494 Traffic Committee
ACI)()UY'lllllellt
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861 - 9702 ".
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- CUP -13 Date: October 29, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: American Portable Telecom
Location: Christian Park -- 6900 Bloomington Avenue
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 134 -foot
telecommunications tower.
Zoning: R (single family residential)
Land Use: Park
Comp. Plan: Parks and Open Space
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.07, Subd. 10 (to be effective November 1, 1996)
City Code: 426 (to be effective November 1, 1996)
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the conditional use permit would allow construction of a 134 -
foot telecommunications tower.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit request with stipulations.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all owners of property adjacent to the park.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on October 29,
1996,
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public bearing date of
November 12, 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
i
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON:
Regular Meeting
September 24, 1996
Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander,
David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, and Kristal Stokes.
Dawn Weitzel, Pamela Dmytrenko, and Paul Wasko
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planning Staff Assistant
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of August 27. 1996.
Motion carried: 6 -0
Commissioner Erlander pointed out that Commissioner Postudensek's name is now
Weitzel.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the special Planning Commission
meeting September 17. 1996 as amended.
Motion carried: 6 -0
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Linnihan informed the public that Item #2 had been withdrawn by the
applicant, and the Planning Commission would not hold a hearing on it that evening.
September 24, 1996
Page 2
ITEM #1 96- APUD -3, Shops at Lyndale, 77th Street/ Lyndale Avenue
CSM Corporation
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that CSM Corporation is
proposing to incorporate up to 2,500 square feet of office use into Phase II of the shopping
center. At this time, a temporary employment office would occupy 1,350 (10 %) square feet of
floor area within the in -line space.
Commissioner Hansen questioned whether this proposed office use would be part of the
remaining 12,000 square feet of in line shops.
Ms. Urban indicated that it will.
Glen McCormick, Western Temporary Services Twin Cities representative, stated that
they have 14 metro area and outstate Minnesota locations and 380 world -wide.
Commissioner Erlander questioned the types of employment this office would serve.
Mr. McCormick stated that they primarily provide administrative and technical positions.
He stated that they have served companies such as West Publishing, Regis, First Bank and 3M.
Chairperson Linnihan questioned if it was a "day labor" operation.
Mr. McCormick stated that it is not and that they offer higher -end pay ($6.50 to
15.00/hour), professional positions.
Commissioner Gepner questioned the location of the bike racks.
Bruce Carland, CSM Corporation, stated that the bike racks are on back order but will be
arriving in the next 4 to 6 weeks.
Commissioner Stokes questioned the leasing in the shop area.
Mr. Carland stated that Video Update, Papa John's and Western Temporary will be
located in the shopping center and they have prospects for the remaining 4,000 square feet.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6 -0.
M/Erlander, S/Hadley to recommend approval of the amendment to the planned unit
development plan—final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase II of the Shops at
Lyndale to allow office /service use in up to 20 percent, or 2.530 square feet of the in -line shops
September 24, 1996
Page 3
Motion carried: 6 -0.
ITEM #2 96- CUP -12, Christian Park
American Portable Telecomm
Item withdrawn
ITEM #3 96- APUD -4, 1200 East 78th Street
Northern Hospitality
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that Northern Hospitality is
proposing to redesign the building. The proposed building would be 3 stories, 30,933 square feet
with 58 rooms. Sixty parking spaces would still be provided on the site. The building
orientation and site coverage would remain essentially the same as the approved plan.
Commissioner Stokes questioned how the applicant could reduce the square footage by a
considerable amount and only reduce the number of rooms by 2.
Ms. Urban stated that the rooms will be smaller and there will be less open space. She
stated that only 1 parking stall is required per room and additional parking is required per
employee.
Perry Platisha, Northern Hospitality, stated that the reduction in the height of the hotel
has led to the construction of rooms over the pool and suites reduced to regular rooms.
Commissioner Hansen questioned whether there would be banquet facilities in the
proposed hotel.
Mr. Platisha indicated that there would be one meeting room.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing-.
Motion carried: 6 -0.
M/Stokes, S/Erlander to recommend approval of the amended planned unit development
plan, final development plan and conditional use permit with the original stipulations.
Motion carried: 6 -0.
September 24, 1996
Page 4
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #4
PC Ltr 14, Visual Imagery Workshop -
Richfield Planning Area
Tom Martinson presented a visual imagery workshop with slides and written materials.
He stated that this workshop was presented to gain knowledge and insight to deal with MN DOT
effectively in the Richfield Lake Planning area. Mr. Martinson stated that this workshop consists
of two parts: one, a presentation of images and design themes and two, the polling packet in
which the Planning Commission and others can vote.
Mr. Martinson presented information on creative expectations. He stated that there are
four categories of cities and their expectations: functional, systematic, innovative and visionary.
He presented visual examples of each type and their approaches to open space. Mr. Martinson
stated that a city should decide what they are and be consistent.
Mr. Martinson presented information on representative vocabulary. These attributes are
color, light, art, humor, signs, roads, etc. He presented each of these attributes in slide form. He
presented the Stardust Casino sign in Las Vegas because of its unique value as a sign.
Mr. Martinson presented city eras, or how cities grow and develop. He stated that
Richfield is on an "even keel" and looks good.
Mr. Martinson requested that everyone involved with Richfield complete the attached
survey.
LIAISON REPORTS
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes reported that the
master parks plan group has been interviewing staff to find out their needs and preferences.
Commissioner Gepner reported on the 76th Street task force (east of 35W) stating that the 76th
Street task force decided to continue meeting despite initial opposition from residents. This task
force is attempting to make the street more attractive and possibly incorporate a bike path.
Commissioner Gepner stated that maintenance issues were discussed and homeowners were
concerned with their financial obligations for any improvements.
City Council: Chairperson Linnihan stated that the Galyan's conditional use permit was
tabled until October 28th to study the effects of "traffic calming." The City Council approved
the modification of the TIF plan for the CABA District. The antenna ordinance was approved
with some minor amendments.
September 24, 1996
Page 5
Chairperson Linnihan announced that there will be a study session on
telecommunications on October 8th. The Minnesota Telephone Association will be present
representing right -of -way issues.
HRA: Zoning Administrator Urban stated that they were considering an expanded
Transformation Housing Program. She also stated that a resident raised the issue of preferences
for New Ford Town residents in the new housing program.
Ms. Doris Rubenstein, 6515 Emerson Avenue South, Officer in the Woodlake Village
Homeowners Association, invited the Planning Commission to their board meeting on November
12th, at 7:00 p.m..
Chairperson Linnihan stated that someone from the Planning Commission will be present
at that meeting. He also stated that residents will be involved in the Richfield Lake Area process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:55 p.m.
7:!5
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
mr.11VIOTM Study Session
October 8, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander,
David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kristal Stokes, Paul Wasko, and
Dawn Weitzel.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pamela Dmytrenko and Kevin Hansen
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planning Staff Assistant
The Planning Commission study session was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at
7:05 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
Item #1
Video on Wireless Communications
Chairperson Linnihan stated that this study session was presented in response to the
request to construct an antenna in Christian Park and as follow -up to the ordinance regarding
commercial wireless telecommunication services towers and antennas. Chairperson Linnihan
presented a video on wireless communications.
Jerry Knickerbocker, Director of Governmental Affairs, Minnesota Telephone
Association, presented an overview of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He stated that:
Congress intended to open competition.
Congress took power away from local governments by forbidding them to halt the
development or construction of telecommunication towers and antennas.
Market service areas were changed in that communication companies can "cherry pick" or
not serve all of one area, but the most lucrative sections like business users.
This Act provided an opportunity for companies to interconnect with other carriers.
October 8, 1996
Page 2
In Minnesota the interconnection agreements are currently in the arbitration process.
Carriers must "unbundle" their services to determine each cost to set the price for resale.
A new entrant could "pick and choose" services and sell them to customers as one package.
The Universal Services Fund, which has historically kept prices low in all parts of the state,
will change the formula and increase prices.
Minnesota may create its own Universal Services Fund to diminish the effects of the Act on
rural users.
A Task Force on Local Competition is determining how localities and the
telecommunications industry will change to comply with the Federal Telecommunications
Act.
The FCC's first order regarding interconnection has been challenged in court by GTE, Bell
and others requesting a stay as they believe that the FCC overstepped their bounds and states
have historically dealt with price issues.
Chairperson Linnihan questioned the effect of the challenge in court on deployment.
Mr. Knickerbocker stated that it will slow deployment and that the legislation may be
reworked to be more beneficial.
Chairperson Linnihan questioned whether localities have the right to restrict "cherry
picking."
Commissioner Wasko asked whether cities can encourage good services at a low cost to
everyone.
Mr. Knickerbocker stated that the price structure favors the aggregate demand and that
basic services will most likely have to be subsidized. He explained Section 704, which states
that local ordinances must be reasonable to accommodate telecommunication towers. He stated
that some communities around the country have established moratoriums halting the
development/construction of telecommunication towers. Mr. Knickerbocker raised issues that
the FCC has been asked to address:
The definition of a "reasonable" period of time on which localities have to act on these
requests;
The "colocation" mandate; and
The license renewals of existing sites.
He explained that in 1997 the 100 major metropolitan statistical areas are required to implement
number portability" or keeping the same number after moving within an area and in 1998 the
remainder of people will have to follow.
Dan Richards, Wireless North Communications, presented a PCS overview. He
explained that there is a difference between PCS the concept and PCS the industry. The concept
is the service offered and the industry is the built digital network. He stated that:
There are eight (8) different wireless carriers with different protocol, which causes pressure
on both carriers and manufacturers.
October 8, 1996
Page 3
The lower powered handset, driven by the consumer, has led to more sites and more local
zoning problems.
A telecommunication company's search area considerations are network design, other
available sites, traffic counts, population density, ground clutter, proximity of airports, local
zoning and the attitude of residents in the area.
The economic feasibility of a potential site is important.
Mr. Richards stated that a community must have a consistent policy for handling requests from
the telecommunications industry and this industry can be a revenue generator for a local
government.
Commissioner Gepner questioned what frequency is better.
Mr. Richards stated that lower frequencies have far reaching signals, but are worse for
voice and penetrating structures. He explained that higher frequencies are good for voice and
penetration of structures.
Commissioner Gepner questioned the difference and benefits of analog and digital.
Mr. Richards stated that digital systems are better for voice clarity and privacy, and make
it more difficult to engage in fraudulent activities. He stated that a consortium of communities
would be beneficial in developing consistent policy and fee structures.
The study session came to a close at 9:25 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
ANALYSIS
Background: In June of 1996, the City Council established a moratorium on the
development of telecommunications towers and antennas and directed staff
to undertake a study of the issues relating to towers and antennas. In
August, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance
amendment and made a recommendation on the ordinance to the City
Council. On September 23, 1996, the Council approved the ordinance.
Before the moratorium was enacted, American Portable Telecom (APT)
submitted an application to construct a 100 -foot telecommunications tower
at 1537 East 66th Street. The proposed location of the tower did not meet
the requirements of the new ordinance. APT withdrew its original
application and resubmitted it for the Christian Park location.
Proposal: APT is proposing to construct a 134 -foot telecommunications tower in
Christian Park adjacent to the existing tennis courts. The tower is of a
monopole design and would replace an existing light pole that services the
tennis courts. The lights would be reinstalled on the monopole. The tower
material would match the rust - colored material of the existing light poles.
The tower would be located approximately 120 feet from the residential
property to the west and approximately 410 feet from the residential
property to the east.
Issues: 1. Location: APT originally proposed to locate the tower adjacent to the
ball fields in the northern half of the park. Several neighbors suggested
relocating the tower to the southern half of the park, adjacent to the
tennis courts, where less park activity takes place. In the original
location, the tower would have replaced an existing 80 foot light pole.
A 40 foot light pole is located in the proposed location.
2. Setback: The City Code requires a setback from residential property
equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower (Section 426.27, Subd. 2). In
this case, the required setback would be 201 feet. However, the
Council, at its discretion, may reduce this requirement if the tower is
being integrated into an existing structure such as a light standard.
Due to its proximity to residential property, the proposed tower would
be limited to 80 feet in height, unless the Council determines that the
replacement of an existing light standard warrants a setback reduction.
3. Search Area /APT Network: There are no existing telecommunications
towers, buildings or other structures within the area that are of
sufficient height to accommodate the antennas. A map that illustrates
APT's network of antennas in this area is attached.
4. Accessory Equipment: The accessory equipment will be located next
to the tower. There will be three containers, each of them 2 feet by 2
feet and 4 feet tall. The containers will be covered with 1/4"
galvanized steel for security purposes. Recreation services staff prefer
that the boxes be reinforced rather than screened by a fence so that they
take up as little park space as possible.
5. Co- location: At the proposed height, the tower will have the capability
of accommodating a second user and potentially a third user.
6. Interference: Neighbors have expressed concern with potential
interference by the tower with their own television and radio
communications. Telecommunication companies are prohibited by the
Federal Communications Commission from interfering with these
transmissions.
Health Issues: The antennas are a source of non - ionizing radiation, a
less powerful form than ionizing radiation (e.g. x- rays). APT has
provided documentation confirming that the FCC requires them to
comply with the human exposure to emission levels established by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The City is prohibited
by federal law from denying an application for a tower based on health
issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a 134 foot
telecommunications tower in Christian Park with the following stipulations:
1. That final placement of the tower equipment be approved by the Leisure
Services Coordinator.
2. That placement of any future equipment related to an additional user be
approved by the Leisure Services Coordinator.
3. That the relocation of the tennis court entrance be approved by the
Leisure Services Coordinator.
Basis: 1. The tower will replace an existing light standard; the light fixture will
be reattached to the tower.
2. The accessory equipment will not be screened with fencing at the
request of park staff to minimize its intrusion on park property.
3. The Leisure Services Coordinator has reviewed the proposed plans and
will negotiate a lease with APT if a conditional use permit is issued.
4. There is not an existing tower or building in the area tall enough to
locate the antennas.
5. The proposed location is removed from the ball field area where the
greatest number of activities take place.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed tower does not meet the required setback and the
replacement of the light fixture does not warrant a reduction by the City
Council.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in
the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of
this code.
Subd. 10. CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of
the City Code and that they are located in the following residentially zoned locations; church, park,
government, schools, utility and institutional sites.
Section 426 - Public Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services Antennas and Towers
426.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the safe installation and usage
of public commercial wireless telecommunication services (CWTS) towers and antennas. The provisions of this
section are intended to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community, while providing for well
designed and efficient telecommunications systems. The provisions are intended to minimize the adverse visual
effects of towers through careful design and siting standards, to avoid potential damage to adjacent properties
from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements, and to maximize the use of existing
towers and buildings to accommodate antennas and reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community.
426.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section and the zoning code of the city, the terms
defined in this subsection have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services" means any licensed telecommunication
services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced
specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the public.
Subd. 3. "CWTS Antenna" means any structure or device which transmits and receives electromagnetic
waves, including but not limited to directional antennas such as panels, microwave dishes, satellite dishes, and
omni- directional antennas.
Subd. 4. "CWTS Tower" means any pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof, including supporting
lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar
apparatus above grade, for the purpose of provide CWTS to the public.
426.05. Location. Subdivision 1. The requirements in this subsection apply to CWTS towers and antennas
erected, constructed, placed, re- erected or replaced in the City.
Subd. 2. CWTS towers and related equipment shall be allowed in the following zoning districts with a
conditional use permit:
a) C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts;
b) R district on church, park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and
c) Planned unit development districts as approved in the final development plan.
Subd. 3. CWTS towers and related equipment in the C -2 C -3, MR -3 and I districts shall be allowed in
the rear yard and in an interior side yard provided that the side yard property line abuts another commercially or
industrially zoned property.
Subd. 4. CWTS towers and related equipment in the R district, as conditionally permitted in Subd. 2
b), shall be allowed only in the rear yards.
Subd. 5. CWTS antennas shall be allowed as an accessory use in the following zoning districts:
a) MR -3, C -1, C -2, C -3 and I districts;
b) R district on church, park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and
c) Planned unit development districts with administrative approval by the Community
Development Director.
426.07. CWTS Tower Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply to any CWTS
tower that is erected, constructed, placed, re- erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city.
Subd. 2. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Towers in the C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts shall meet the setback requirements for an
accessory structure for the underlying district.
b) Towers in the R district shall meet the setback requirements for a non - residential accessory
structure for the underlying district.
c) In addition to the setback requirements in Section 426.07, Subd. 2 (a) and (b), towers in the
C -2, C -3, I and R districts shall have a separation from properties devoted to residential uses
equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower. Measurements shall be taken from the tower to
the nearest lot line.
d) In addition to the setback requirements in Section 426.07, Subd. 2 (a), towers in the MR -3
district shall have a separation from adjacent properties devoted to residential uses, measured
to the property line, equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower. Further, the tower shall have
a separation from any multi - family residential structure that exists on the property in the MR-
3 district on which the tower is located equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower. .
e) The City Council, at its discretion, may reduce the required setback or separation to allow
the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure or feature such as a church
steeple, light standard, power line support device, .sports stadium or similar structure or
feature.
Subd. 3. Height. The maximum height of a tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall
not exceed 150 feet.
Subd. 4. Signage. No signage is permitted on a tower except applicable warning and equipment
information signage required by the manufacture or by federal, state or local authorities.
Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and related antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by
the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. When incorporated into the approved
design of the towers, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to
the tower.
Subd. 6. Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers shall meet the following design
requirements:
a) Towers shall be of a neutral color and designed to minimize visibility and blend into the
surrounding environment except in cases where color is dictated by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other federal or state authority.
b) Towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City Council, at its discretion, approves an
alternative design.
Subd. 7. Co- location. All towers shall comply with the following requirements:
a) If a tower exceeds 75 feet in height, the tower shall be designed to structurally accommodate
the owner's antennas and at least one additional user unless the additional height required for
an additional user is prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. The conditional use
permit application should include technical information demonstrating that the tower can
accommodate a second user;
b) Shared use of existing towers or structures shall be preferred to the construction of a new
tower. A proposal for a new telecommunications tower shall not be approved unless the City
Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot
be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or on a building over 75 feet in height
within a one -half mile search radius. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
antennas cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or structure due to one or more of the
following reasons:
i) the unwillingness of the owner of the existing structure or tower to co- locate an
additional antenna;
ii) the planned antenna would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved
towers and facilities;
iii) the planned antenna would cause radio frequency interference with other existing or
planned equipment, which cannot reasonably be prevented;
iv) other reasons affecting technical performance, system coverage, and system capacity
make it impractical to place the equipment proposed on existing structures or towers;
and /or
v) other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned equipment on an
existing or approved tower or building.
426.09. CWTS Antenna Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply all CWTS
antennas that are erected, constructed, placed, re- erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city.
Subd. 2. Height. The maximum height of an antenna is 15 feet without a conditional use permit.
Subd. 3. Signage. No advertising message shall be on the antenna structure.
Subd. 4. Screening. Such structures shall be screened from adjacent residential uses and street rights -of
way. Screening shall include materials compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof
mounted antenna structures. Screening plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director.
Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the
Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority.
426.11. Accessory Buildings and Equipment. All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be
architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback
requirements of the applicable zoning district. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by
vegetation or other means of screening as approved by the Community Development Director.
426.13. Abandonment. All obsolete or unused towers and related antennas and equipment shall be removed
within twelve months of the cessation of operations, unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. If a
time extension is not approved and the tower is not removed within twelve months, the tower may be deemed a
nuisance pursuant to Section 925 of the City Code. In the event a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the tower
and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property.
426.15. Interference. All new or existing telecommunications service shall comply with all relevant Federal
Communication Commission standards and shall not interfere with public safety and other city
telecommunications. At the discretion of the Director of Public Safety, the owner of a telecommunications
service may be required to submit an inter- modulation study which provides a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed transmissions and indicates all potential interference problems.
426.17. Health - Related Standards. Antennas placed upon a tower shall be subject to state and federal regulations
pertaining to nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If new, more restrictive
standards are adopted, the antennas shall be made to comply or continued operations may be restricted by the City
Council.
Section 426.19. Support of Public Warning Systems. Telecommunications operators that utilize towers that are
erected after the effective date of this ordinance shall participate in the Emergency Alert System (EAS), as defined
by FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 11, by broadcasting warnings of severe weather and other life threatening
emergencies to users of personal communications equipment served by the tower. Telecommunications operators
may be exempt from the requirements of this subdivision under the following circumstances:
a) The telecommunications operator demonstrates that participation in EAS is not technologically
feasible;
b) The telecommunications operator is unable to acquire any FCC waivers or exemption from
licensing or other regulations that would prohibit participation in EAS; or
c) The state or regional EAS planning committees determine that participation in EAS by the
telecommunications operator is not necessary.
426.21. Permits. Subdivision 1. Required. Except as provided in subdivision 3, no person may erect,
construct, place, re- erect, reconstruct or replace an antenna or tower in the city without first making application
for and obtaining a permit therefor from the building official.
Subd. 2. Information. The applicant for the permit shall provide at the time of application sufficient
information to indicate that the erection, construction, placement, re- erection, reconstruction or replacement of an
antenna or tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons.
Subd. 3. Certification. Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to
conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and the Electronics Industry Association.
Subd. 4. Exceptions. Permits are not required for the adjustment, repair or replacement of elements of
the antenna or tower, provided such adjustment repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
426.23. Construction. Subdivision 1. Wind. Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand applicable
wind load requirements as prescribed in the state building code.
Subd. 2. Treatment. Towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material.
Subd. 3. Climbing. A tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the
tower by unauthorized persons.
Subd. 4. Appurtenant structures. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it, in any way,
any catwalk, crow's nest or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
426.25. Non - conforming installations. Subdivision 1. General rule. Antenna and towers in existence on
November 1, 1996 which do not conform to or comply with this section may continue to exist for the purpose
now used but may not be replaced or structurally altered except as provided in subdivision 2 without complying
with this section.
Subd. 2. Replacement. If a non - conforming tower or antenna is damaged or destroyed the tower or
antenna may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a
building permit therefor, but without otherwise complying with these regulations, provided, however, that the
cost of repairing the tower to its former use, size or location does not exceed 50 percent of the cost of a new tower
of like kind or quality.
426.27. Variances. The council may grant variances to the literal provisions of this section, except for Section
426.05, in the same manner and subject to the same requirements that apply to variances granted under section
546 of the zoning code.
N _N
D Mf1m
F-
D
0.
14TH AVE S
16TH AVE S
17TH AVE S
15TH AVE S
C
x2
m
El
z
z
DPROJECT
1' `
TITLE:
517E PLAN
FLUOR DANIEL
mar Daniel Inc.
3333 ul °nebon Drive
Irvine.
97
97730
1 1.) ens —000
Pert:
APT
AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM
w.
p pAl.POnru
C SGNID UY:
SNENRY
OQCeID Ern
NO.
04463230
SITE NAME:
RICHFIELD
CHRISTIAN PARK
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
6410 west Bryn Mowr .avenue
Suite 1100
Chicago. Illinois 60631
312) 399 -4200
Fo. (312) 399 -070
8 lo-ii PER COMMUNITY COMMENTS
SITE NO.:
A 10039
A t9 -96 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL sck:
AS NOt[D IREVGATEDESCRIPTION
ZW
w 0 W I
0
C)
r-? ¢OQ Z -V Owr r
Q oaJ
r
a W a d a
w
dw 00 w r
N° W zQ
z
LJ OzZQ. N ° W
O z ° W O z O wzNCLaw
0 Z Q Q dQ
ui
a wm V
QQ.°
ws
0
N
Z, Z
W
J
1 I
as
N
i N
I
1 1
o
zwZ
1
r
Wr
W W 1
W=
Z 1 0
M -
z
NmO
V °Z
U V U
U
w tJ
V1 1 w V7
z W V)
c.'Z wr = u p G ZZ
Wz as
U® i Wz a wZ
U° w i wL,
UO z~ z °a 1 z° Lna U°
z z °z zz
o ° i a wink-, U1 utZ O OrLn NO
xw x0 1 xcr Q:z xOf
wa w w wa as wa
1
1
i
1
O .
N O
az
oGcr ¢ aL
r r
z
a
0. z z W w zpc °
V
O
z z 0 cx 0 0
c v W m
v) w a a a
4 40 qO Q ® V ¢ ¢
O o' O O
n!R
W W W W
wN w
v, ,n of to C7 O N Ul (n Ul
za 0 0 a 0azCL
as
d Nz0
O O O Oa0aVKza ?C0 w d a da 0.L a¢ a w
0 -,4£ l
11
u
Lj
Q.
F
W
J ¢
W V,,
HIN
a
w
Z
O
a
w
J
W
H
W
0
0N
1
4
v
0
0
N
U -,7L t
0
0N
Z II
O ._
F- w
Q J
U
I.I VI
Z II
O.
w
Q Q
N
i
J
W
2
H
O
0o Z
3W
w
Z
O WL) Q
J0
ti
OW
a' m
J 0
Z0
q
U m WQ
W
O
r
w
O
r
z z
W
z
W
Z W
z W
F,
m a
p
z
Wr r rz O: U a WU O O
U
ra
ar
Q. I MQ a
Q
a
Q O®
aQ aQ aQ
pc0
N
C 3 Q O. O Q J w Q Q Q Q
VI N^ V) a N V) C7 OzCL V) O V) O NO 0o
d z
0 <
d z
O
d
OQ
d z
Q
Q. N z 0 0 O Q-
asa asa azas ate. cra x0w:2 Ira aa aa aa
U -,7L t
0
0N
Z II
O ._
F- w
Q J
U
I.I VI
O
3
W
z
z
W
Z
a
CL
a
M /
ti
J(I
111
Al
1
1
o
h
rn
Vf
0
U
m N
L T
11111
0 ow
D L T
m
N ln 00)N
p T
LL
O +3u
n
Cl I L
N 0
pO U
O da
LCU1
N OyI
D W C M N (!)
3 ifn7
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, R.C.
CONSUL`ING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON. OG
ENGIVTEERING EXHIBIT
HUNL .,v EXPOSURE TO
RADIO- FREQUENCY EIIISSIONS
FROM PERSONAL COMMUMCATIONS SERVICES FACILITIES
A-tiIERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM
NfINTN'E?,.P0LIS, MINNESOTA
ENGINEERING STATEMENT
t
Alan R. Rosner, being first duly sworn, says that he is a senior
engineer with Denny & Associates, P.C., consulting engineers with offices in
Washington, D.C.; that he is a professional engineer registered in the District
of Columbia and other jurisdictions; that he is familiar with the guidelines for
human esvosure to electromagnetic emissions that have been adopted by the
FCC; and that he has performed many power density calculations of the type
presented herein. This statement has been prepared for American Portable
Telecom (hereafter, APT), proponent for the construction of new Personal
Communications Services (PCS) transmitting facilities near Minneapolis,
Minnesota. This statement addresses the concerns of oublic extIosure to radio-
frequency emissions from the new facilities.
TY °ICI, FACILITIES
PCS base station facilities as deployed by APT generally will consist
of a tower or other supporting structure of a height between 100 feet and 150
feet above ground level.' Several antennas, used for transmission and reception
of the PCS signals, will be mounted near the top of the tower. Transmitters
and receivers for the system will be contained within an enclosure at the base
of the tower.
This analysis is based on specifications for a typical PCS facility provided to
APT. the undersigned by
DENNY ac ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON. OC
Engineering Statement Page
American Portable Telecom
Minneapolis, Nlinnesota
Taking into account PCS transmitter power output, transmission line
loss, and antenna gain, the maximum effective radiated power (ERP) on any of
the PCS channels typically will be 562 watts. ERP is a term used to quantify
the amount of energy being transmitted from the antenna. ?>, fully configured
PCS facility wa-mid have a ma -ximum complement of 6 transmitters. If all 6
transmitters were to be in simultaneous operation, the -ombined ERP from
APT's PCS operation would be 3372 wa=.
Base station transrricters for PCS facilities on channel Block B operate
in the 1960 - megahertz to 1966 - megahertz frequency range. The exposure
standard against which the typical operation will be evaluated is slightly more
restrictive at lower frequencies in the PCS band. Therefore, to provide the most
conservative estimate of exposure, all PCS transmitters will be assumed to be
operating at 1950 megahertz.
BACKGROLN'D
The transmitting systems to be used at the site operate in the range
of frequencies subject to FCC regulation. The operating, frequencies are all
within the nonionizing portion of the frequency spectrum. In contrast to
nonionizing radiation which, at high levels of exposure, results in tissue heating,
ionizing radiation is characterized by energy levels that can cause mutation of
cells by altering genetic information. Both X-rays and gamma rays are familiartD
examples of ionizing radiation.
Ionizing, radiation occurs at frequencies exceeding 1,000,000,000
megahertz. The charts of Figures 1 and 2 put the frequencies to be used by
APT into perspective with ocher communications services and types of radiation.
OcNNY tic ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON. DC
Engineering Statement Page 3
American Portable Telecom
Nfinneapolis, Minnesota
Before proceeding with an analysis of a typical PCS installation, some
background information on the physics of radio - frequency emissions may prove
helpful. Emissions from an antenna project radially outward in all directions,
and the power density, which is a measure of the exposure level, diminishes
inversely with th squaxe of the distance between the source and the observer.
For example, at a distance of four feet, the power density is one - quarter of that
at a distance of two feet. At a distance of eight feet, the power density is one-
quarter of that at four feet and one - sixteenth of the power density at two feet.
Power density decreases rapidly as distance from an emitter increases due to
this inverse geometric relationship between power density and distance.
As part of its review process, the FCC examines the impact of
proposals for new transmitting facilities on the environment. Pursuant to
Section 24.52(a) of the FCC's Rules, PCS licensees are required to comply with
the human exposure to emission levels established by the American National
Standards Institute (A. Sl) in AaVSI /IEEE Standard for Safetv Levels with
Respect to Human ExDosure to Radio Frequent-, Electromagnetic Fields. 3 kHz
to 300 GHz) known as ANSIIIEEE C95.1 -1992
A_'NSIIIEEE C95.1 -1992 was prepared by a committee of about 125
participants. The committee included biologists, medical doctors, physiologists,
medical statisticians and engineers from academia, government and industry,
with industry participants being in the minority. In arriving at its conclusions
of maximum permissible exposure (yIPE) to radio frequency fields, the scientific
literature was reviewed and a determination made of the exposure level that
appeared to be the threshold for the appearance of biological effects which might
be harmful if exposure continued over a substantial period of time. An
DE.NtVY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGIN = =RS
WASHINGTON. OC
Engineering Statement Pave 4
American Pomable Telecom
Nfinneapolis, Minnesota
additional safety factor of 50 below the threshold level was applied for
uncontrolled environments.'
Recent federal leg-slation embodied in the Telecommunications Act of
1996 modifies S--ctiori 47 of the United States Code of Federal Regulation to
include Section 332(c)( )(B)(i)(In(iv), which states:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof
may regulate the placement, construction, and modification
of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions.
The subsequent analysis demonstrates that a proposed APT facility
which operates within the constraints of the typical facility specified herein, will
comply with regulations specified in Section 24.32(a) of the FCC Rules.
ANALYSIS
The o aph of Figure 3 demonstrates how predicted power density
decreases rapidly as distance from the antenna increases. The analysis is based
on an assumed PCS base station configured with the maximum complement of
6 PCS channels each operating with an ERP of 562 warts. Theo aph of Figure
3 shows that predicted power density levels fall below the RIPE for uncontrolled
environments at a distance of approximately 32 feet from the antenna. Since
AvSI/IEEE C95.1 -1992 defines uncontrolled environments as those locations where
there is exposure of individuals who have no knowledge or control of their exposure.
Some examples of an uncontrolled environment are a residence, a school, and a nursing
home. Generally, the 1XPEs for uncontrolled environments are one -fifth the -MPEs for
controlled environments. -
DcVNY & A.SS0CIAT =S, F. C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON. OC
Engineering Statement
American Portable Telecom
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Page
nearly all of APT's PCS base station antennas will be isolated on a tower at
least 100 feet above ground level, no risk exists to the public of exposure to
power density levels even mildly approaching, the A-iSI NIPE level for controlled'
or uncontrolled environments.
Aqw-
All calculations of power density were made using conservative
assumptions. The actual exposure at the base of the tower would be
signincantly less than described in the graph of Figure 3. Since the object of
the PCS transmitting antennas is to relay intelligence to a receiving antenna
located horizontally outward at some distance, the antennas are designed to
concentrate energy into a relatively narrow range of angles above and below the
horizontal plane. Typically, less than one -tench of the power is radiated
downward. Additionally, channel usage will be optimized by employing
directional or sector antennas. With a sector antenna, the transmitted signal
is concentrated into one general horizontal direction from the tower. Several
sector antennas allow coverage of the entire area encompassing the tower.
To account for the possibility that exposure might be increased by
ground reflection of the transmitted PCS signals, a factor of 1.o was included
in the calculations as recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.
A_vSIl1EEE C.95.1 -1992 defines controlled environments as those locations where
there is exposure that may be incurred by persons who are aware of the potential for
exposure as a concomitant of employment, by other cognizant persons, or as the
incidental result of transient passage through areas where analysis shows the exposure
levels may be eater than the MPEs for uncontrolled environments, buc less than the
NIPES for controlled environments.
OZNNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
wASMINGTON, OC
Engineering Statement Page 6
American Portable Telecom
Minneapolis, Minnesota
CONCLUSION
Human exposure to radio - frequency emissions from a typical PCS
facility of the type proposed by APT will be well below the MPE for
uncontrolled environments in all areas accessible to the public, and thus will
comply with FCC,.-agulations for human exmosure to radio - frequency emissions.
Based on the current science, exposure to radio - frequency emissions below the
MPE levels set forth in ANSI/IEEE C95.1 -1992 is believed to be safe for all.
Alan R. Rosner, P.E.
Subscribed and sworn to before me t!-.is 14th day of February, 1996.
Alberta L. Loft is
Notary Public, District of Columbia
My commission expires June 14, 1998
Cosmic Rays
Gamma Rays
X Rays u
z_
N_
Mtraviolet z
Visible Light
2QWL Infrared
Personal Communications Services (PCS)
Cellular & SiMR
TV Channels 7 -69
FM Broadcast
TV Channels 2 -6
Citizens Band Radio (CB)
AM Broadcast
Electric Power
Jenny & Assaciates, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
100,000 THz
10,000 THz
1,000 THz
100 THz
10 THz
1,000 GHz = 1 THz
100 GHz
10 GHz
1,000 NlHz = 1 GHz
100 MHz
10 MHz
1,000 kHz = 1 MHz
100 kHz
10 kHz
1,000 Hz = 1 kHz
100 Hz
10 Hz
0
500
Land Mobile
Public Safety
Satellite
Amateur
TV Channels 7 - 13
0,000 MHz
9000
Aviation
Public Safety
Land Mobile
8000
100 MHz
90
Fri i
7000
Microwave Relay
80
70
6000
Broadcast Auxiliaries
Amateur 6000
Satellite
Radar
4000
3000
PCs 2000 MHz
Radar
Microwave Relay
Satellite
Land Mobile
Public Safety
1000 MHz
Cellular 900
800
700
N Channels 14 - 69 ann
500
Land Mobile
Public Safety
Satellite
Amateur
TV Channels 7 - 13 200
Aviation
Public Safety
Land Mobile
Amateur
100 MHz
90
Fri i
80
70TVChannels2 - a
0
Shortwave Broadcasting
40Amateur
Land Mobile
ca
Aviation 30
20
Dean-y- &- Asscdates; -P.C. - --
Car-suiting Engineers LIO MHz
I cu
N
i cu Q
i C
Cn
I a
E >_
Q ,0
I U., CQ
I V _
U
an
O
CL
Q Q
2 V
X 47
W
I Nf i
if O Q
3ca
o U
CV
c4
Q
I
I
LL (
O O O
O O O
O O r-
O
ZUl:O/MW
ana-1 ainsodx3 pale(n'teo
O
e-•
Q -
f=igure 3
0
r
O
Q
O
cn
CN
0
4
F
O
O
r
0
a)
O Q
6L ..
Oti V
C
R
n
O
tn
O
Q
O
O
N
C
r
J
O
O
U
H
R
U
O
N
H
Q
0
I i
O N
C I
t IIiiIrAtoC "' t l • O I I
U;
I III) y •C f
iNa
C t
Vt yC `1 p m ti
X O
y INQt3rllIIIONIofyI( H
X
U N N
d O(I IIII c4
I
Cn U H iii f I c9
ow E ca, tea)
I
Z aa=iif cn
l caa
CaUO;I 11 i I '1 I CjI
it f f I I I I I I
O
LO
I I!
I cQwEoIliEI o
I IIf 7
a O
oca cc
I I
I I i I` •C I I I I ; o
m
m c
fI I
Ifl
I I
j l I
I I I I
11 I I 1 CLI; I i X V 1) U
III I I
W
I
R
I 1 I ' i I I I fD Vj y
i
O O O
O O O
O O r-
O
ZUl:O/MW
ana-1 ainsodx3 pale(n'teo
O
e-•
Q -
f=igure 3
0
r
O
Q
O
cn
CN
0
4
F
O
O
r
0
a)
O Q
6L ..
Oti V
C
R
n
O
tn
O
Q
O
O
N
C
r
J
O
O
U
H
R
U
O
N
H
Q
0
Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #15 Date: October 29, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) requests that the
Planning Commission consider a resolution finding that a proposed modification
to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan
Type of Request: Consideration that the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment
Plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and approval of a resolution
finding the same.
References: Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statute requires the Planning Commission to
review redevelopment plans for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment A -- Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Project Area and Modifications to the LHN Commercial Improvement Program
for the LHN Redevelopment Project Area
BACKGROUND
Purpose: Approval of the attached resolution would allow, subject to Council approval,
modification of a redevelopment plan and project area. The modification would
facilitate the sale of taxable revenue bonds to fund future redevelopment
opportunities.
Public Notice: Not required for a finding of this type.
City Council: A public hearing is scheduled for November 25, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: During the next legislative session, the Legislature may prohibit tax increment
plan modifications that allow the reprogramming of tax increment resources.
Richfield could lose $4 million in present value resources for redevelopment
activities by the•year 2002 if these changes are made.
On July 1, 1996 the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority
directed staff to explore the option of selling taxable revenue bonds. Selling
bonds would obligate future tax increment resources to housing and commercial
development opportunities. On October 21, the HRA approved the Plan
Modification (the sale of taxable revenue bonds) subject to the Planning
Commission's finding of consistency.
Future tax increments from the Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet (ILN) and Lyndale-
HUB-Nicollet (LHN) tax increment districts would be pledged to the bonds.
This modification does not create any new Tax Increment Financing Districts
and does not increase the geographic size of any Tax Increment Financing
District; therefore, there are no additional fiscal implications that affect taxing
jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution which makes a finding that the modification of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis: 1. The Planning Commission is required to review the Plan Modification to
determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The plan modification commits resources to a variety of programs and
activities undertaken to renew Richfield, a goal that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City's financial consultant and Legal Counsel have completed a
thorough analysis of options to preserve these resources and have
determined that taxable revenue bonds issued by the City is a prudent
strategy.
4. The modification does not create any new districts and does not increase the
size of any existing district; therefore, there are no additional fiscal
implications that affect taxing jurisdictions.
5. The City's financial consultant and Legal Counsel have reviewed the related
documents and found them to be in compliance with existing laws.
Alternative: Find that the Plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however, this
finding would appear to require amending the Comprehensive Plan.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE MODIFIED TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE LHN AND ILN TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Richfield has proposed to modify the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and to modify the Tax
Increment Financing Plans for the LHN and ILN Tax Increment Financing Districts
collectively, the "Plans") and has submitted the Plans to the Richfield Planning Commission
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their
consistency with the plans for the development of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the Plans
are consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of
Richfield and the Commission hereby recommends their approval to the City Council.
Adopted this 29th day of October, 1996.
Daniel M. Linnihan, Chair
ATTEST:
Timothy Erlander, Secretary
Draft as of October 23, 1996
Draft for Planning Commission Review
MODIFICATIONS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR,THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND
t MODIFICATIONS TO THE LHN COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FOR THE LHN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
INCLUDING THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
LHN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
AND
MODIFICATIONS TO THE ILN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
INCLUDING THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield
Hennepin County
City of Richfield, Minnesota
HRA Adoption: October 21, 1996
City Council Public Hearing: November 25, 1996
City Council Adoption:
Prepared by:
PUBLICORP, INC.
in association with EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2950 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4100
612) 339 -8291
TABLE OF CONTENTS
provided for references purposes only)
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ............. ............................... Page 1
Introduction ..................... Page 1
Statement of Public Purpose ..................... ............................... Page 1
Statutory Authority ............................. ............................... Pagel
Statement of Goals and Objectives ................ ............................... Page I
Estimated Public Costs ......................... ............................... Page 1
Boundary of the Richfield Project Area, Parcels in Acquisition, and Legal Description ....... Page 1
Modification No.8 to LHN Commercial Improvement Program
for the'LHN Redevelopment Project Area ............. ............................... Page 2
Introduction .................................. ............................... Page 2
Statutory Authority Statement .................... ............................... Page 2
Map of Project Area, List of Parcels, and Legal Description ............................ Page 2
Public Purpose Statement ......... ............................... I ......... I ... Page 2
Statement of Goals and Objectives ................ ............................... Page 2
Public Costs and Financing ...................... ............................... Page 2
Modification No. 5 to Redevelopment Plan for ILN Redevelopment Project Area
and Modification No. 5 to Tax Increment Financing Plan for ILN Tax Increment Financing Distinct Page 3
Introduction .................................. ............................... Page 3
Modification No. 5 - Redevelopment Plan for ILN Redevelopment Project Area ............... Page 3
Statutory Authority Statement .................... ............................... Page 3
Map of Project Area List of Parcels. and Legal Description ............................ Page 3
Public Purpose Statement ....................... ............................... Page 3
Statement of Goals and Objectives ................ ............................... Page 3
Modification No. 5 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for ILN Tax Increment Financing District .... Page 4
Statement of Goals and Objectives ................................................ Page 4
Estimated Project Costs ......................... ............................... Page 4
Properties to be Included in the Tax Increment Financing District ....................... Page 4
APPENDIX A
Map and Description of Richfield Redevelopment Project
APPENDIX B
Maps of ILN and LHN Tax Increment Financing Districts
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
October 21, 1996
Introduction
The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area. The modified Redevelopment Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth
in the original Plan. Generally, the substantive changes include the authority to spend tax increments generated
from the HRA's LHN Tax Increment Financing District and ILN Tax Increment Financing District in the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, specifically towards the sale of bonds. For further information, a
review of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area dated June 14, 1993 is
recommended.
Statement of Public Puraose
See also the Statement of Public Purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Statutory Authority
See also the Statutory Authority found in Section C of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Statement of Goals and Obiec1 tives
Additional goals and objectives can be found in Section D of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Estimated Public Costs
This modification authorizes the HRA to expend tax increment from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
and the LHN Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing District for qualified activities
identified in the budget of any of the Tax Increment Financing Districts and the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area. The HRA is requesting authority to issue bonds at this time, in an amount not to exceed
6,000,000 and for uses including land acquisition, demolition, relocation, public improvements, site
improvements and other qualified costs.
Boundary of the Richfield Project Area, Parcels in Acquisition, and Legal Description
The boundary for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is not being modified. References to the area in
which tax increments may be expended can be found Appendix A and Appendix B of the Redevelopment Plan
for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993, and attached hereto for convenience of
reference.
Page 1
Modification No. 8 to LHN Commercial Improvement Program
for the LHN Redevelopment Project Area
including the LHN Tax Increment Financing District)
October 21, 1996
Introduction
The following text represents a modification to the LHN Commercial Improvement Program for the LHN
Redevelopment Project Area to include references to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
ProjectArea..The modified Commercial Improvement Program represents a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the original Program. Generally, the substantive changes include the authority to spend
tax increments generated from the HRA's LHN Tax Increment Financing District and ILN Tax Increment
Financing District in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, specifically towards the sale of bonds. For
further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area dated
October 21, 1996 and the Commercial Improvement Program for the LHN Redevelopment Project Area
originally dated October 15, 1975 and last modified on October 21, 1996 is recommended.
Statutory Authority Statement
See also the Statutory Authority found in Section C of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Map of Project Area, List of Parcels, and Legal Description
The boundary for LHN Redevelopment Project Area is not being modified. References to the area in which
tax increments may be expended can be found Appendix A and Appendix B of the Redevelopment Plan for
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Public Purpose Statement
See also the Statement of Public Purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Statement of Goals and Objectives
Additional goals and objectives can be found in Section D of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Public Costs and Financing
This modification authorizes the HRA to expend tax increment from the LHN Redevelopment Project Area
and Tax Increment Financing District for qualified activities identified in the budget of any of the Tax
Increment Financing Districts and the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
Page 2
Modification No. 5 to Redevelopment Plan for ILN Redevelopment Project Area
and
Modification No. 5 to Tax Increment Financing Plan for ILN Tax Increment Financing Distinct
June 14, 1993
Introduction
The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN Redevelopment Project
Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District to include references
to the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The modifications to the ILN
Redevelopment Plan and ILN Tax Increment Financing Plan represent a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the original Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. Generally, the
substantive changes include the authority to spend tax increments generated from the HRA's LHN Tax
Increment Financing District and ILN Tax Increment Financing District in the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area, specifically towards the sale of bonds. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment
Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area dated October 21, 1996 and the Redevelopment Plan for the
ILN Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing
District dated October 21, 1985 and September 18, 1989 is recommended.
Modification No. 5
Redevelopment Plan for ILN Redevelopment Protect Area
Statutory Authority Statement
See also the Statutory Authority found in Section C of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Map of Proiect Area List of Parcels. and Legal Description
The boundary for ILN Redevelopment Project Area is not being modified. References to the area in which tax
increments may be expended can be found Appendix A and Appendix B of the Redevelopment Plan for
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Public Purpose Statement
See also the Statement of Public purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Statement of Goals and Objectives
Additional goals and objectives can be found in Section D of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Page 33
Modification No. 5
Tax Increment Financing Plan for ILN Tax Increment Financing District
Statement of Goals and Objectives
See also the Statement of Goals and Objectives found in Section D of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Estimated Projcect Costs
This modification authorizes the HRA to expend tax increment from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
for. qualified activities identified in the budget of any of the Tax Increment Financing Districts and the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
Properties to be Included in the Tax Increment Financing District
The boundary for ILN Tax Increment Financing District is not being modified. References to the area in which
tax increments may be expended can be found Appendix A and Appendix B of the Redevelopment Plan for
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Page 4
APPENDIX A
Map and Description of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
Legal Description of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Boundary
Starting at the intersection of the Richfield west city line and 66th Street, following east on 66th Street to
Queen Avenue, thence north to 65th Street, thence west to the rear lot lines of the properties on the east side
of Russell Avenue, thence north on said rear property lines to the north city line, thence east to Lyndale
Avenue, thence south to 63rd Street, thence east to Harriet Avenue, thence south to 64 '/2 Street, thence
continuing south on the property line between lots 4 and 5, Block 6, Lyndale Oaks Subdivision to the south
line of said subdivision, which is also the north line of Hauser's Second Addition. Thence continuing east on
said line and as extended to Pillsbury Avenue, thence north on Pillsbury Avenue to the south line of Block 6,
Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition, thence east on said line to the rear lot line of the lots in
Block 8 of said addition, between Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenues, thence north on said line to 64th Street to
the rear lot line of the lots in Block 8, Town's Edge Subdivision, thence south to 65th Street, following the east
edge of First Federal Richfield Addition. Thence continuing east on 65th Street to First Avenue, thence south
to 66th Street, thence east to 11th Avenue, thence north to the north city line, thence east to Bloomington
Avenue, thence south to 63rd Street, thence east to 16th Avenue, thence south to the south border of Taft Park,
thence east to 18th Avenue, thence south to the intersection of the northerly lot line of Lot 10, Block 1,
Wexler's Addition and 18th Avenue South, thence in a lone along said northerly lot line as extended to the
west right -of -way line Cedar Avenue, thence west along said line to the west line of said lot, thence north to
the south right -of -way line vacated 67th Street. Thence west to 18th Avenue, thence south to Diagonal
Boulevard, thence east along the centerline of said boulevard, extended to T.H. 77, thence south to the south
city line, thence west to Know Avenue, thence north to the north line of Registered Land Survey #1037, thence
east to Interstate 35W, thence north to 73rd Street, thence west to Penn Avenue, thence south to 74th Street,
thence west to Sheridan Avenue, thence south to 76th Street, thence east to Penn Avenue, thence south to the
north Frontage Road of Interstate I -494, thence west to Thomas Avenue, thence north to 76th Street, thence
west to the west city line, thence north to the point of beginning at 66th Street.
w
LQ
r
U
W
w
Q
F-
Z
W
0
W
W
0
WN
7'L
0
W
LL
z
U
w
i +
MSIOX.li ? -
ru
r•I
on].prn L
ull I
1
M019hIw0IIi -
ICI '
11
I I
u U
r 11 i
1 a
1'
101117 ' e
00.71,7 II V
fnrwn107
O..IY.p I I
OX.1lY0. -- 1.I
I
I
S M]A71i I!
Irl
r_
I
A. 17110]'. ...
1170f1.1p 1111 •' ^:
1Ynrf114
O.—
Irl II I 11
171YY., i 1
0,71. r.O
III
7A.
1M.lYi
T1
ir„03
x.11
MOf Y7M7
y.0'SIIII —
OY.Y19 _'
JolOrwn,
9.IA.1
IC
xlw.r IC L
h.00,
C
9YOw
01.7.
I-
Y7AI10 `
llne
1,)Sfnr
0'x1.9
f.1Xi
II JLLCY01 .n
1w 13.IA
4Ynf.f..
r
4
3
yxo —
u
lu
AAAI
y019XrXOC10
1
1
101,17
09t JIM]
Sn.wnlO7
Y..
7w. OY.1y.OY
1
o1Yla
I
sw]wlys
7A. 1711O3IM
11705. "s
I U
Yn f111.
1..5.71.
1
171Yr.,
0171,:.0
71x0.11
w31Y0,Y
I
1XO.np
YOSbjl -3
10100""
0 -YI
57—r
ipww
y +1111
M.OYOw
IM :
7A. ,.I.
33n0
117sSnY
OIY7MS
fr.lawy
II,I XOl n
1473:1 -
YYn9 Yi..
A. S7i Y3.
Ql
N
Q
Wm
O
F-
V
O
U h
n U
O
c r
0. N
0
W z
aLLJ
W U
W Z
W
x
Q
APPENDIX B
Maps of ILN and LHN Tax Increment Financing Districts
A
1-M AVE [IRKS AVE
S.&U ::: . - -.—
JL— Li It=
VINCE.?
UP
RUSSELL
r "VISE L
i
out[.: WEE.
PC.. AVE.
OLIVE OLIVER
IN'TO: INTO.
ORO.
r LOGA:
7=— L
Z
Z U.BOLO
2
CID 01"ONT ------
r-7 0
0
c— W T
Xt:: DUPONT
COLF--
0 LuU)
ALORIC,
LTNOALK AVE
m CANFIELD
M.CT
XGRAND
X
PLEAS—? PLEASANT
I nLLSeu -Twk."au
WENTWORTk
X.,
SLAISDILL GLAISOELL •
M.COLLrT AVE. NICOLL" AVE
STEVENS VKPIS
Hit
CLI. To. z
I
PORTLAND -Y C. PORTLAND AVE.
CARL.—
CoL,,.&US COL..*Us
ELLIOT LUDT
I
esmrlMGTd
At.
CEO. AVE i CXDA:,Avt
LONG UA-
I T
ca
mm
Mr)
374.015.
0
D
m
0
S
n
m
Tv
M
0
m
m
1171
0
M
Z
M
0
c-
m
0
X
m