06-24-1997CITY Of R10HRELD
ftnmin6 commission
FianDA
June 24, 1997
7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997.
ITEM #1 97 -CUP -8 6244 Cedar Avenue - U.S. West Wireless -
Conditional use permit to construct a 90 foot
telecommunication tower.
ITEM #2 Discussion of Bike Way Network - 76th Street Plan
presented by Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer
continued).
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
INN:
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 Minutes
Regular Meeting
May 27, 1997
0
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Brenda Bjorklund, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell Hadley,
Kevin Hansen and Bill Kilian.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON
Pamela Dmytrenko
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Hadley, S/Hansen to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting
of April 22, 1997.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Bjorklund, S /Gordon to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meetiniz of May 13, 1997.
Motion carried: 8 -0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 97- CUP -5, 7600 Emerson Avenue South
ITEM #1 Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Conditional Use Permit to allow three unit townhome
development at 7600 Emerson Avenue South
May 27, 1997
Page 2
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that 7600 Emerson
Avenue, a remnant parcel of land from the 77th Street Project, is currently zoned R (single
family residential). She further stated that Rockport Homes proposes to construct three
townhome units on the parcel. Townhome units meet the definition of a cluster housing
development which require a conditional use permit in R zoned districts.
Ms. Urban responded to questions from Commissioners Kilian and Linnihan, stating that
the parcel is 20,000 square feet in size and that the units would be marketed as owner - occupied
in the $150,000 to $180,000 range. In response to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Ms.
Urban further stated that in the past, other properties with zero lot lines required variances.
Charles Hess, Rockport Homes, stated that construction would begin in either late July or
early August and would be completed in late October or early November. He further added that
the townhomes would be built when either one or two of the units had been sold. In response to
a question from Commissioner Kilian, he stated that the southernmost unit would occupy 1,980
square feet, the middle unit would occupy 1,600 square feet, and the rambler (northernmost) unit
would occupy 1,530 square feet of living space.
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue South, stated that he was concerned that the
project would be financed using tax increment financing (TIF) funds. He further added that this
property could be developed without the use of these funds. Staff was unable to confirm whether
or not TIF is being used for this development, but pointed out that the use of TIF in this instance
was not a land use issue. Staff promised to find out the answer at a later date for the
Commissioners' information.
M/Hadley, S /Bjorklund to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Bjorklund, S/Kilian to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the
stipulations detailed in the staff report.
Motion carried: 8 -0
CASE 97- CUP -6, 7120 -28 Chicago Avenue South
ITEM #2 Rabby Motilall, Galaxy Grocery and Video
Conditional Use Permit to allow grocery and video
store over 2,500 sq. ft. in a C -1 district
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant proposes
to purchase the shopping center at 7120 -28 Chicago Avenue South to operate a grocery and
video store in approximately half of the center. She further added that the store would occupy
3,500 sq. ft., which requires a conditional use permit in a C -1 district.
May 27, 1997
Page 3
Responding to a question from Commissioner Kilian, Ms. Urban stated that the trash
dumpster would be located on the north side of the building and that the Health Inspector had
recommended that the trash dumpster be either enclosed or inside the building. Staff was
requesting final approval of the enclosure plans.
Rabby Motilall, Galaxy Grocery and Video, responded to a question from Commissioner
Linnihan, stating that the concept of the store is for the grocery to occupy 60 percent of the store
with the video area to occupy the remaining 40 percent. He further stated that the groceries in
the store will be mostly American-style staples in addition to Eastern foods. In response to
Commissioner Linnihan, Mr. Motilall stated that his current hours of operation are from 3:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 12:00 p.m. through 7:00 p.m., Saturday and
Sunday.
Commissioner Ahlstrom inquired as to the nature of the videos for rent. Mr. Motilall
stated that the videos would primarily be Indian, but he would later add American movies if the
demand was there. Mr. Motilall added that his current location occupies 1,500 square feet of
space of which 900 square feet is for display of videos. In response to a question from
Commissioner Gordon, he stated that he had been in business for 9 years.
Ron Fossum, 7344 Oakland, expressed concern about crime in the neighborhood as well
as concern about the nature of the videos that would be rented if the grocery store failed.
After some discussion, Ms. Urban stated that no more than 20 percent of the floor space
would be able to be used for adult- oriented videos.
Sandy Heinsman, 7127 Chicago Avenue South, stated that she was concerned with traffic
and lights, parking, noise and the safety of small children in the area. She further added that she
felt that delivery trucks would operate during non - business hours.
In response to a question from Commissioner Linnihan, Mr. Motilall stated that deliveries
would only occur during business hours due to the fact that there would be no employees to
receive the deliveries at any other time.
Donna Bashusta, 7137 Chicago Avenue South, was concerned with the increased size of
the store, traffic and noise,
Commissioner Ahlstrom asked the applicant if he would be willing to agree to a
stipulation that the store close at 7:00 p.m., to which Mr. Motilall agreed.
M /Hadley, S /Gepner to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Bjorklund, S /Kilian to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the
stipulations detailed in the staff report and the following additional stipulations:
May 27, 1997
Page 4
1. Hours of operations are to be no earlier than 10:00 a.m. and no later than 8:00 p.m.,
2. No video drop box is allowed, and
3. Deliveries must be made during business hours.
Motion carried: 8 -0
CASE 97- CUP -7, 1201 East 66th Street
ITEM #3 Tom Christensen, Exhaust Pros
Conditional Use Permit to allow use of property as
auto repair service
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant proposes
to operate an automotive repair business, Exhaust Pros, on the property at 1201 East 66th Street.
She further stated that the proposed use of the site is more intensive than the previous auto
detailing use. Therefore, a conditional use permit is required. Ms. Urban added that there had
been several problems getting site work done on the property in the past.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Kilian, Ms. Urban stated that inoperable
vehicles would not be allowed to be stored on the site.
The applicant, Tom Christensen, stated that he had already purchased paint, had cut the
weeds and would regrade and resod the boulevard, and had cut down brush behind the building.
He further responded to a question from Commissioner Linnihan, stating that he would be doing
about 95 percent exhaust work at the location.
Delores Armstrong, 6620 12th Avenue South, stated that she was concerned with the
hours of operation. She further added that she feels that the existing building should be torn
down.
Janet Holman, 6524 12th Avenue South, expressed concern with the neon lights that are
in the front windows of the building.
Mr. Christensen stated that the hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. He further stated that
any neon lights would be turned off when the business closed each day.
M/Hansen, S /$jorklund to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Hansen, S /Kilian to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the
stipulations detailed in the staff report and the following additional stipulations:
1. Hours of operation are limited to no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m.,
2. No neon lights will be in operation outside of operable hours, and
May 27, 1997
Page 5
3. No overnight storage of vehicles outside of the parking bays.
Motion carried: 8 -0
NEW BUSINESS
PC LETTER #15
ITEM #4 Finding of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan -
609 East 66th Street /6600 Oakland Avenue South
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report outlining the history of the
property and stated that staff recommended action finding that the acquisition/disposition and use
of 609 East 66th Street as a single family residential is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
She further stated that the address is zoned C -2.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Kilian, Ms. Urban stated that the plan is to
tear down the commercial building and remodel the single family residence into one unit.
M/Gepner, S /Gordon to approve a resolution finding that the acquisition and disposition
of 609 East 66th Street is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carried: 8 -0
ITEM #5 Report to the Planning Commission on the status
of the proposed north /south runway at MSP Airport
Community Development Manager John Melin stated that the City has conducted a
study into the ground -level noise effects of the proposed north/south runway at the
Minneapolis /St. Paul Airport which contradicts the study conducted by MAC.
Don Brauer, the Brauer Group, stated that low frequency noise will be the major problem
for residents along Cedar Avenue if the new runway is built. He further added that the study
conducted by MAC used mathematical scale to determine the impact of the runway on the
neighborhood while Richfield got the results by measuring conditions along the existing
runways.
Mr. Brauer explained that at this point, he just wanted to bring the Commission up to date on
what is happening. The Commission may be asked to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan
based on the results of the mitigation plan study.
May 27, 1997
Page 6
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: No report.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Hansen stated that the
commission was taking a tour of indoor recreational facilities located in other cities.
HRA: No report.
City Council: No meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:03 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
h: \cdadm in \p &z \pc -m ins \052797 mn.doc]
Planning Commission Letter
June 24, 1997
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 1
Case #: 97 -CUP -8
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 90 -foot
telecommunications tower
Applicant /Owner: U.S. West Wireless Communications
Location: 6244 Cedar Avenue
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Proposed Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Mixed land use - District B
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 526.27, subd. 28
City Code: 426
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing
was mailed to all property.owners and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
Hearing Examiner:
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of July 14, 1997.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: U.S. West is proposing to construct a 90 -foot steel monopole tower on their
property located at 6244 Cedar Avenue. The tower would be located in the
parking lot near the northwest corner of the building. An equipment pad
would be located at the base of the pole. The tower would be a blue -gray
color.
The tower will be built to accommodate a second user, assuming that the
available elevation would meet a second user's needs.
History: U.S. West submitted an application for this tower in February of 1997. Staff
requested that U.S. West explore colocating on the Sprint telecommunication
tower that is located within 1/2 mile of the proposed tower location. The
Sprint tower is located on property owned by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission at approximately 61 st Street and 16th Avenue in the City of
Minneapolis. Although the City of Richfield leases this land for Taft Park, the
City had no jurisdication over the construction of the Sprint tower.
U.S. West received a letter from Sprint stating that the available space on the
tower is already leased and that the tower is not structurally capable of
accommodating a third user.
U.S. West hosted an information open house for area property owners and
occupants on Monday, June 9, 1997. One property owner attended the open
house.
Issues: Construction of the tower in the proposed location would eliminate three
parking spaces. There are 78 parking spaces provided on the property for the
11,600 square foot building. City parking standards would require 47 parking
spaces for an office use (part of the facility is currently a warehouse, which
would require fewer parking spaces). The loss of the three parking spaces
would not negatively impact the use of the property.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional
use permit to allow construction of a 90 -foot telecommunications tower
at 6244 Cedar Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That, if an additional user locates on the tower, the plans for the
location and appearance of the equipment be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director.
2. That the handicapped parking space be relocated if impacted by the
construction of the tower.
That a conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the County,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1.
Basis: 1. The proposed tower meets the setback requirement from a residential
district of one - and -one -half times the height of the tower. The
proposed tower location is approximately 450 feet from the nearest
residential property.
2. The proposed tower would be neutral in color.
3. The proposed loss of three parking spaces would have minimal
impact on the provision of parking.
4. Tower will be designed to structurally accommodate at least one
additional user.
5. An existing tower is located within one -half mile of the proposed
location; however, the tower owner informed the applicant that they
had already leased the available space. The tower is not designed to
accommodate three users.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use
permit at 6244 Cedar Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City
as a whole.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional Uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-
2 District and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 28. CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code.
SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any
use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the
City pursuant to this subsection.
Subd. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an
adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the Zoning district for which the permit is sought.
Subd. 3. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on
forms provided by the City.
Subd. 4. 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 it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application.
Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date
shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be
published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located
wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the
application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council 'may impose
conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with
the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision 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 conditional use permit shall. be deemed to have been approved.
Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it
finds that all of the following conditions will be met:
a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban
design guidelines;
c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified
in Section 541 of this code;
d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements;
e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare;
and
f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the
granting of such conditional use permit.
Subd. 7. Recording of CUP. Upon commencement of an approved conditional use, a certified
copy of the conditional use permit shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin County
Recorder or Registrar of Titles. The permit shall contain the legal description of the property.
Subd. 8. Expiration of CUP. A conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been
issued unless:
a) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced within the one year period; or
b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the CUP, the Council extends
the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year.
Subd. 9. Tenn of CUP. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as the
conditions regulating it are observed, unless specifically stated otherwise. A conditional use permit
shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months. Time
shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal
operation and shall run continuously thereafter.
Subd. 10. Amendment to CUP. Holders of a conditional use permit may propose amendments to
the permit by following the procedure set in this subsection for issuance of a new permit.
Significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the use shall require approval of the Council.
Such changes may include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, increase in number of
employees, expansion of structure or premises, or major operational modifications, as determined
by the Director. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may impose,
additional or modified conditions as a result of the amendment.
Subd. 1.1. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit or amendment thereto is set by Appendix D of
the Citv Code.
Subd. 12. Revocation of CUP. The Council may review conditional use permits periodically and
may revoke a permit upon violation of any condition of the permit, any law of the United States or
the State of Minnesota, or any ordinance of the City.
The procedure for revocation set out in Subd. 13 of this Subsection shall be followed. If it is
discovered after approval of the conditional use permit that the City's decision was based at least
in part on fraudulent information, the Council may revoke the permit, modify the conditions, or
impose.additional conditions.
Subd. 13. Procedure for revocation. The procedure for revocation of a conditional use permit
shall be as follows:
a) Complaint. The Director shall review any complaints received by the City or any other
party involving property which is subject to a conditional use permit, and shall
determine whether, in the Director's judgment a violation of the terms or conditions of
am, conditional use permit appears to have occurred.
b) Notice of apparent violation. If the Director determines that an apparent violation of
such terms and conditions exists, the Director shall cause a notice of violation to be
mailed to the owner of the property or owner's agent and to any other person known to
the City to be conducting the use for which the conditional use permit was granted.
The notice shall:
i) be in writing;
ii) state the violation or violations found to apparently exist and state the
remedial actions which must be taken to achieve compliance with the terms
and conditions of the conditional use permit;
iii) provide a reasonable time, but not less than ten days, for the recipient to
remedy the violation or violations stated in the notice; and
iv) inform the recipient that if the stated violations are not remedied within the
stated time period, the Director will request the Council to consider
revocation of the conditional use permit.
c) Failure to comply. When notice has been given in accordance with "item b)" above and
the recipient has failed to correct the violations stated in the notice within the time
allowed, the Director shall refer the matter to the City Manager with a recommendation
that a hearing be held by the Council to consider the revocation of the conditional use
permit. A copy of the Director's recommendation shall be mailed to the same persons
who previously were mailed the notice of violation.
d) Scheduling of hearing. If the City Manager concurs in the recommendation of the
Director, the City Manager shall schedule a hearing before the Council to consider
revocation of the conditional use permit. The date of the hearing shall be as soon as is
reasonably convenient.
e) Notice of hearing. Upon the scheduling of the hearing, the Director shall furnish mailed
notice of such to the same persons who were mailed notice of the violation. The notice
shall:
i) state the time, date and location of the hearing;
ii) describe all violations which will form the basis of the Director's
recommendation to the Council;
iii) describe the recommendation which the Director intends to make to the
Council with respect to revocation; and
iv) inform the recipient of its opportunity to be present at the hearing, to be
represented by legal counsel during the hearing, and to present testimony and
evidence.
f) Public notice. The Director shall also provide a mailed notice containing the
information described in subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of "paragraph e" above to all
other persons who would have been entitled to notice had the hearing been to consider
the granting of the conditional use permit.
g) Determination. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably
possible, the Council shall render its written decision. The decision shall state the
terms and conditions of the conditional use permit found to have been violated; and
shall state the determination of the Council with regard to revocation of the conditional
use permit. The Council may, in lieu of revocation, permit the conditional use permit
to continue subject to such further or additional terms and conditions as in its judgment
are necessary to insure compliance with the conditional use permit. The Council's
written findings and detennination shall be mailed to the persons who were mailed the
Director's notice of violation. If a conditional use permit is revoked, all uses and
activities which are permitted only by such conditional use permit shall immediately
cease. In addition, all other licenses and permits issued by the City which require, as a
condition of their issuance, the existence of the conditional use permit, shall be subject
to termination in the manner set forth in the City Code or other applicable law.
Subd. 14. Other remedies for violation of CUP. In addition to the procedure set forth in Subd. 13
above, the City may exercise, with or separately from such procedure, all and any other remedies
and actions available to the City including, but not limited to those contained in Sections 115 and
320 of the City Code.
Richfield City Code
Section 426 - 1ic commei
ervices an
Added, BJ
426.01 (Rev. 1996)
cial wireless telecommunication
and towe
1996 -21)
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.
Richfield City Code 426.05, Subd. 5
Rev. 1996)
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,
subdivision 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 a0pticable
warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer 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:
Richfield City Code 426.07, Subd. 7
Rev. 1996)
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 addtional 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 unforseen 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.
Richfield City Code 426.09, Subd. 4
Rev. 1996)
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.
426.13. Abandonment. All obsolete or unused towers and related antennas and
equipment shall be removed within 12 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 12 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.
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.
Richfield City Code 426.21 (Rev. 1996)
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.
462.25. 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 phyiscal 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
50x 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 requirments that apply to variances granted under Section 546 of the zoning
code.
USWEST Communications
Richfield Site -MIN 115
Monopole Height = 90ft Building Height = Approx. 17ft
y
a
r
a ` IKI
Richfield Site -MIN 115
Monopole Height = 90ft Building Height = Approx. 17ft
A, . mm .o
Ai A 0
NoudnB'13 I-unOS
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
BARRIER CURB
r
OWNER AND ADDRESS:
LEGAL: DESCRIPTION:
USE:
COUNCIL ACTION:
NO. PARKING SPACES:
417.7'
C .; - '/
243' 7+
63 rd STREET _
OFF - STREET PARKING NO. 71 -7
Mr. Bud Teien, 814 Fulton Street S. E., Minneapolis, Minnesota
See attached legal description for 6244 Cedar Avenue
Public Utility Test Center and Garage
June 28, 1971
84
M. S.
4 /) * I'r,
w Cy
Y
W z
F—W
w W125
ZC9 it s
zoo
CL 0
417.7'
C .; - '/
243' 7+
63 rd STREET _
OFF - STREET PARKING NO. 71 -7
Mr. Bud Teien, 814 Fulton Street S. E., Minneapolis, Minnesota
See attached legal description for 6244 Cedar Avenue
Public Utility Test Center and Garage
June 28, 1971
84
M. S.
4 /) * I'r,
I
I
I
I
I
1
PROPERTY UNE
COOsTo,c
PNEWIG— )
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I I I I I
1 1
1 1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
PROPOSED WNW= i
z
W
R' d
g
1
BRICK BUILDING I
NO. 6244
IW
PROPERTY UNE
I
I
I
I
w
SfTE PLAN
rtET
W
ZW
Q
Ix
Q
OW
C)
1 -STORY BRICK
BRICK BUILDING I
NO. 6244
IW
PROPERTY UNE
I
I
I
I
w
SfTE PLAN
rtET
W
ZW
Q
Ix
Q
OW
C)
I
S EMAL mAs a 5' -0' . 25'-e
Y
Y •
PROPOSED WOMOPOLE
AND EOLFOWENT
TY-6' MGM BOLLAPM M.
ENLARGED_PLAN
SCALE FEET
Planning Commission Letter
June 24, 1997
Agenda Section: Old Business
Item #: 2
Letter #: 16
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Discuss and comment on direction of the City's Capital Improvement
Plan and relationship of the 76th Street downsizing project to the CIP
ANALYSIS
See attached memorandum from Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer, to
the Planning Commission.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: No formal action is being requested at this time. The Planning
Commission is being asked to provide feedback on future Capital
Improvement Programs.
City of Richfield
Memorandum
DATE: June 18, 1997
TO: Planning Commission . j
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineers; /
SUBJECT: 76th Street East of 1 -35W Study
The City Council directed staff to review the financial demands of the proposed 76th
Street East of 1 -35W downsizing project in the context of other competing demands for
the City's Municipal State Aid Street funds.
The following report addresses this issue. However, I have also attempted to share staff
thoughts on the future direction for preparing the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The
report only contains the transportation component of the Capital Improvement Plan as
an example of what can be done in other functional areas.
I have placed various capital projects in the year the project has been scheduled based
on either the current adopted CIP or as proposed by staff. This was done to assess the
demand for the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds. If state or federal funds are
obtained for some of the projects, the demand for City MSA funds will diminish..
You are encouraged to provide your comments on:
the process staff is proposing to use;
the list of candidate projects to be considered for developing future Capital
Improvement Programs;
other possible candidate projects not identified in the report; and,
the affordability of the 76th Street Downsizing Project relative to other capital
improvement needs.
The draft report also will be shared with the Community Services Commission at its
next meeting in August.
TFF:ttf
Com serv/engineer /cipsugg2]
Draft Transportation Component
of the Richfield Capital Improvement Plan
Introduction
This report describes the process the City of Richfield uses to arrive at decisions
about maintaining and improving the City's investment in its transportation
facilities
The report documents the strategies used to enhance the City's goal to make it
a great place to live, work and do business" by investing in the physical plant in
support of that goal.
Decisions on capital improvements are based on long range planning decisions,
especially concerning land use, outlined in the City's recently updated
Comprehensive Plan. This report differs from the Comprehensive Plan in that it
addresses specific capital improvements needed to further the goals adopted in
the Comprehensive Plan.
The report is intended to be used at least annually in the preparation of the City's
Capital Improvement Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Its
purpose is to maximize the benefits of capital investments in furtherance of the
long range planning goals contained in the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Also,
financing public improvements should taken into account future capital needs
recognizing that funds for needed capital improvements are limited.
The outline of the report is as follows:
1. Investment Needs Analysis
2. Setting Investment Priorities
Preserve
Manage
Replace or Improve
Expand
3. Financial Considerations
Municipal State Aid
Local Funds
State or Federal Funds
4. Candidate Capital Needs Projects
Previously Approved Projects
New Proposals
Other Proposals
E
5. Project sheets(Not Available at this time)
6. Project maps -
City and County MSA Routes
Approved Projects
New Proposals
7. MSA budget showing income and year end balances
8. Long range forecast (Not Done Yet)
less than 100 words
forecast changes in condition or in funding levels
likely citizen participation process
Section 1. Investment Needs Analysis
A set of investment principles is presented that identifies factors to consider
when evaluating individual capital improvement needs. Projects that meet all or
most of these principals should be considered as candidates for funding under
this plan.
Cost Effectiveness
Meets Multiple Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan
Consistent Land Use Relationship
Public Support
Promotes Financial Stability of City Tax Base
Completes Existing Project
Enhances City's Attractiveness to Residents and Businesses
Section 2. Setting Investment Priorities
Once candidate projects have been identified, they are ranked by the City's
Planning Commission according to the following criteria:
Preserve existing facilities as a way of protecting the City's existing
investment in its infrastructure. This approach avoids or postpones costly
replacement of expensive capital assets.
3
Manage the existing facilities through enhancements and upgrades that
either prolong the life of the facility, improve its usefulness or lower its
operating costs.
Replace or Improve existing facilities to maintain existing services. This
approach is appropriate when essential facilities exhaust their useful life.
Expand facilities that enhance the level of service or make the City
increasingly attractive for residents and businesses. These facilities must be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and.capitalize on other
redevelopment opportunities.
Section 3. Financial Considerations
In the first year of this process financial analysis will consist of a comparison of
current financial resources and current estimates of project costs for all
candidate projects.
In future years an analysis of life cycle costs for all capital needs will be gradually
introduced that will assist the City in forecasting its financial burden to meet all
anticipated capital needs as they come due. This process is already being
applied in the City of Shoreview, Minnesota. Its greatest advantage is to reduce
the peaks and valleys in city finance that occur as major public investments need
to be replaced all in a short time. This is common for cities that grew rapidly in a
short period of time as Richfield has experienced.
Streets Financing
Street improvements are financed generally in three different ways:
Municipal State Aid
Arterial and collector streets carry the heaviest traffic and receive state gas tax
revenues known as Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds. The City currently has
approximately a $3.0 million balance in its MSA account. Also, the City receives
an additional $640,000 annually in this account to finance capital improvements
to streets on the MSA street network. Similarly, Hennepin County owns certain
heavily traveled roads in Richfield and the County also receives state gas tax
revenue known as the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) program to upgrade its
roads. See Attached map on Municipal State Aid System.
Local Funds
The remaining streets are low traffic volume, residential streets. Funding to
maintain these streets comes from the City's general fund capital account which
4
is financed mostly by the City's property tax or special assessments. These
residential streets were paved in the early 1970's and are nearing the end of
their economic life of 30 years. Wear and tear on low traffic volume streets
comes primarily from the harmful effects of weather. A pavement management
system was initiated several years ago to closely monitor the condition of these
streets in an attempt to prolong their useful life. If done correctly, pavement
management will lower the cost of street maintenance and delay the time when
these streets need to be totally reconstructed at a much higher cost to taxpayers.
State or Federal Funds
Occasionally a third type of financing becomes available. State and federal
highway funds are obtained for major street projects having regional or statewide
significance. An example of this is the 77th Street reconstruction project that
attracted $32 million in state and federal highway funds to complete the work to
date. Improvements proposed for 1 -35W offer Richfield an opportunity to correct
deficiencies in the existing road network using state and federal highway funds.
Section 4. Candidate Capital Needs Projects
A brief description of candidate projects for possible inclusion in the Capital
Improvement Program is given below. The projects are divided into three groups:
projects previously approved but not completed; new proposals; and, candidate
projects that are excluded for various reasons.
Projects Previously Approved But Not Yet Completed
The following projects have already been approved but are being built in stages
or not yet completed.
1. Penn Avenue /76th Street- The City is responsible for a share of the
remaining costs of widening the intersection of 76th Street and Penn Avenue.
The project was completed in 1995.
2. Conoco /77th Street Right Turn Lane- A right turn lane was added to
eastbound 77th Street at Lyndale Avenue and extended south to the 1-494
westbound entrance ramp. Work will be completed in 1997.
3. ICTM Signals- The final phase of a demonstration project to integrate traffic
signals, ramp meters and motorist information signs. Work will be completed
in the spring of 1998.
4. Washington Park Right of Way- A project to reimburse the City for the value
of recreation equipment that was demolished to widen 77th Street. The work
was done in 1994.
5
5. Lyndale Avenue Overlay- Resurfacing of Lyndale Avenue from 74th Street
to Lake Shore Drive was done in 1997.
6. 65th Street West of Penn Overlay- A project to mill and overlay 65th Street
west of Penn Avenue that will be done in 1997.
7. 76th Street West- A project to resurface 76th Street west of Sheridan
Avenue and to install a traffic signal at Upton Avenue. Work will be done in
1997.
8. Meridian Crossings Intersection- A new intersection is needed to provide
access to the main entrance to Meridian Crossings on 77th Street. The work
will be done in 1997.
9. 12th Avenue /77th Street Signal- A revision to the traffic signal at 12th
Avenue/77th Street to provide a left turn arrow for northbound traffic on 12th
Avenue and left turn lanes on the north and south legs of the intersection.
The work will be completed in June, 1997.
10. Wood Lake Dredging- A project begun in 1997 to create a storm water
sedimentation pond for 77th Street runoff and to restore waterfowl habitat.
The project will be completed in 1998.
11. 77th Street Clean Up- A raised median will be installed on Lyndale Avenue
south of 77th Street in 1997 and other miscellaneous work will be done as
needed in 1998.
New Proposals
12. Move Signal to Nicollet Avenue /67th Street- A project to consolidate
access between the Academy of the Holy Angels and St. Peter's Church and
move pedestrian traffic signal to 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
13. New Signal at Portland Avenue /64th Street- A new traffic signal at Portland
Avenue /64th Street to provide access to the new City maintenance facility
proposed to be opened in late 1998.
14.12th Avenue Overlay- A project to mill and overlay 12th Avenue for its entire
length.
15. Bloomington Avenue- A proposal to reconstruct the street from 66th Street
to 76th Street and possibly widen it to retain parking on both sides.
6
16.76th Street East- A proposal to downsize 76th Street east of 1 -35W from four
traffic lanes to two, and to add a bikeway, parking bays and landscaping. The
project will cost $2,255,000 but can be built in stages.
17.76th Street Ped /Bike Bridge- A proposal to build a pedestrian /bikeway
bridge over 1 -35W at 76th Street. A Preliminary cost estimate for the work is
500,000.
18. Traffic Calming- A project designed to slow or restrict through traffic in
residential neighborhoods. If successful, this may become an on -going
program. Limited use of MSA funds is available because most of the work will
occur on residential streets, not on collectors or arterials.
19.70th Street Reconstruction- A proposal that will correct a failure in the
subgrade on 70th Street between Elliot Avenue and 16th Avenue.
20. Second Left Turn Lane at 77th Street/Lyndale Avenue & Widen the
Lyndale Avenue Bridge - A proposal to add a second left turn lane for
northbound traffic on Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street. The project includes
widening the Lyndale Avenue bridge over 1-494. The project will acquire right
of way from businesses located on the east side of the 7600 block of Lyndale
Avenue. The project will cost $3,000,000 and federal funding for the project
will be sought.
21.77th Street Phase III- A proposal to connect 77th Street between 17th
Avenue and 24th Avenue via an underpass of Trunk Highway 77. The project
involves right of way acquisition. The project will cost $17,552,000 and will
require federal funds.
22.66th Street At 35W Interchange- A proposal to widen 66th Street on both
sides of 1 -35W to extend protected left turn lanes, sidewalks and adequate
room for bicyclists. The project is estimated to cost $3,000,000.
23. Soo Line Railroad Crossings at 65th Street and 76th Street- A proposal to
install a railroad crossing signal where the Soo Line Railroad tracks intersect
65th Street and 76th Street.
24.Opticom at Traffic Signals- A proposal to add emergency vehicle
preemption at thirteen traffic signals not currently equipped in Richfield.
Other Candidate Projects
Certain candidate projects are excluded from being considered for the Capital
Improvement Program for reasons given below.
7
24. Portland Avenue /66th. Street- A project to widen the intersection of 66th
Street and Portland Avenue to add protected left turn lanes on all four legs of
the intersection. The project involves right of way acquisition. A decision
awaits completion of 1- 35W/62 Crosstown improvements or a redevelopment
plan.
25. Soo Line Trail- A proposal to acquire the Soo Line Railroad tracks from
south Minneapolis through Richfield to 94th Street in Bloomington. The land
will be used for a pedestrian /bike trail. An appraisal will be prepared to
estimate the cost of land acquisition. It is uncertain at this time if MSA funds
will be eligible for this project.
26. Resurface Bituminous Streets- A citywide program to resurface all
residential streets will be needed beyond the time frame of the Capital
Improvement Program.
co
A d o
d 59
O cn
Y
Gd q 0 0 ca
o
0: Z H a
oC/I E m w
C-) v a
w
W
Tr,
CL 9 9 9
n n
HAV HvaHO i 'HAV tiVQm
nOC t C
N0Z910[00IH
J!.1 —lliLJL _l L l_JLJ r NQLONMO( o
J JCCnI n C °
CC1C 0 0 rte, CCCu —I ° METwt °
IIl
HAV CLNV LHOd ^ — !O 8AV aNYLIZOd
aAv jxno0 x j i, -
r
r
i • "=
l ° 8AV Z TIOOLH
ED
aCED ® °
I •HAV ruaN7nvawaNSi
n i °ED
F: 7C Q
i'
OCC CC OC =dlj °
HAY wad
a•
a
U
4
a
0
so
U
e
am
a
iiiL *.ii
ii iii ' - - . .iii t i
ELM
OEM i
i_i_ JI
iiii
M a
iii,®
iiiii'"'iiiii
I
iINEW
Milli
MENION.00
SE
Iriii
iiii ii
iiii ii
iiii iiii
iiii.
iiiA
a
i iii i iii,
Sheett (2)
MSA BUDGET
1996 -2001
19- Jun-97
Page 1
SA FUND BALANCE- .. ; $3;000;000'; $1; 809, 900: - $'1;605;100: ($2.005;100)',: ($Z690,100): $2,050,100) ,'. : : 1
BEYOND
TOTAL 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001
SOURCE PROJECT COST TO PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT
CANDIDATE PROJECTS OF FUNDS COST MSA FUND COST COST COST COST COST COST COST
PREVIOUSLY'APPROVED'PROJECTS
1 PENN AV176TH (ROW) MSA 193,000 193,000
2 CONOCO RT LANE MSA 1,000,000 750,000 750,000
3 ICTM SIGNALS MSA 1,395,000 81,000 62,000 19,000
WASHINGTON PARK
4 ROW) M$A 186,000 186,000 186,000
LYNDALE OVERLAY -
74TH TO LAKE SHORE
5 BLVD. MSA 122,000 122,000 122,000
65TH ST WEST OF
6 PENN - OVERLAY MSA 50,000 50,000 50,000
7 76TH ST WEST MSA 450,000 450,000 450,000
MERIDIAN CROSSINGS
8INTERSECTION MSA 110,000 110,000 110,000
9 12TH777TH SIGNAL MSA 20,000 20,000 20,000
WOOD LAKE
10 DREDGING MSA 400.000 400,000 200,000 200,000
11 77TH ST. CLEAN UP IMSA 1 $200.0001 200,000 200,000
NEW PROPOSALS - a
MOVE SIGNAL
12 @67THINICOLLET AV. MSA 130,000 130,000 130,000
NEW SIGNAL
13 @64THIPORTLAND AV. MSA 130,000 130,000 130,000
14 12TH AV. OVERLAY MSA 300,000 300,000 300,000
BLOOMINGTON AV.
66TH TO 76TH
15 RECONSTRUCTION MSA 665,000 665,000 F 665,000
16 76TH ST EAST MSA 2,255,000 2,255,000 55,000 400,000 200,000 400.0001 1,200,000
76TH ST PED /BIKE
17 BRIDGE MSA 500,000 500,000 500,000
18 TRAFFIC CALMING MSA 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
70TH ST
19 RECONSTRUCTION MSA 600,000 600,000 600,000
2LT LANE AT
77 /LYNDALE & WIDEN
20 BRIDGE MSA 2,835,000 1,785,000 1,785,000
PHASE III 77TH ST
21 ROW) MSA 17,552,000 270,100 270,100
66TH ST. @35W
22 RECONSTRUCTION MSA 3,000,000 750,000 750,000
SOO LINE RR
CROSSINGS @76TH ST
23 8 65TH ST. MSA 240,000 240,000 175,000 175,000
OPTICOM ON TRAFFIC
24 SIGNALS MSA 240,000 240,000 240,000
OTHER:CANDIDATE PROJEC' CT
66TH ST/PORTLAND
25 RECONSTRUCTION MSA 3,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
26 SOO LINE TRAIL OTHER 0 0 3,000,000
RESURFACE
27 BITUMINOUS STREETS MSA 16,000,000 3,200,000 3,200,000
28 MSA
1291 IMSA
TOTALS $51,400,000 $14,647,100 $867,000 $1,830.100 $4,055,000 $1,040,000 $1,325,000 $0 $1,440;000
v ANNUAL MSA FUNDS $640,000 $640,000 $640,000 $640,000 $640,000
w 3 ANNUALTOTALS $3,000,000 $1,809,900 ($1,605,100) ($2,005,100) ($2,690,100) ($2,050,100) ($3,490,100)
Page 1