Loading...
10-24-2000W M PLANNING CONIlMISSION AGENDA October 24, 2000 7:00 p.m. Introductory Proceedings Roll Call Approval of Minutes: Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2000 Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 00 -PUD -2 City Bella, 6600 Lyndale Avenue, rezoning to a planned unit development plan to a develop mixed use development of rental housing, cooperative ownership housing, retail and office space. ITEM #2 00 -FDP -2 City Bella, 6600 Lyndale Avenue, final development plan and 00- CUP -14 conditional use permit to allow a mixed use development of rental housing, cooperative housing, retail and office space. New Business ITEM #3 PC Letter #30 Approval of modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; modifications to Tax Increment Financing Plans for Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Old Business Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council Human Services Planning Council Adjournment Auxiliary aid 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 September 26, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Mark Tolvstad, John Bjostad, Donna Drummond, Gordon Hanson and Jeffery Walz. MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL LIAISON: None Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Stark, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Mark Andrle, Community Development Technician The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bjorklund at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/ Kilian, S/ Hanson to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 25, 2000 and the study session of August 8, 2000. Motion carried: 9 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 00- CUP -10 Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive -up window ITEM #1 at 6613 Penn Avenue Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the proposal for a drive -up teller window, the proposed improvements to the property and the history of the property. She stated that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a drive -up teller window at 6613 Penn Avenue with stipulations. September 26, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Gepner asked if the CUP would be required if the drive -up window was currently in use. Ms. Urban stated that it would not. She added that the improvements to the property may not happen if not required in the CUP. Commissioner Drummond asked how tall is the fence on the east side of the property. Ms. Urban stated that it's 5 -6 feet high with landscaping on the west side. Commissioner Ahlstrom asked if the fence is an extension of the Amoco fence. Ms. Urban stated that it was not but a new design could be made consistent with the fence. Rich Sheridan representing First National Bank of the Lakes, stated that they agree with the staff report and with the stipulations. Commissioner Kilian asked if a cash machine will be located at the drive -up window. Mr. Sheridan stated it would be at another location or inside the lobby. Commissioner Kilian stated that he is concerned with traffic after 6 p.m. using the cash machine. He also had a concern about lighting being too bright. Mr. Sheridan stated that they will look into lights that only shine downward. Commissioner Hanson stated that he is concerned with limited queuing space with only one service window. Ms. Urban stated that there is queuing space for about seven cars. M/Kilian, S /Walz to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 9 -0 M /Kilian, S /Hanson to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow a drive - up teller window at 6613 Penn Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That a final landscaping plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That the fence along the east side of the property be repaired or replaced and that the design of any new fence be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 5. That plans for fagade improvements be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 6. That the adequacy of the parking lot lighting be reviewed, and if the existing lights remain, they be painted and repaired. 7. That final plans for reconstruction of the parking lot be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. Motion carried: 9 -0 September 26, 2000 Page 3 00 -PUD -1 ITEM #2 Planned unit development plan for the Best Buy Campus Project and rezoning of property, southeast corner of Penn Avenue and 70 Street 00 -FDP -2 00- CUP -13 ITEM #3 Final development plan and conditional use permit for the Best Buy Campus project, southeast corner of Penn Avenue and 76th Street The Commission agreed to combine the staff reports for items two and three, but they will take separate votes for each item. Commissioner Ahlstrom excused himself from this item because he lives in the affected area. Community Development Manager Stark reviewed the staff report, reviewing the features and design of the proposed campus. He stated that staff recommends approval of the PUD, FDP and CUP with stipulations. Mr. Stark reviewed the open houses and some of the concerns brought up at the open houses. Chairperson Bjorklund asked how do the Directors approve landscape plans, stormwater plans, etc. Mr. Stark stated that staff discusses the plans and there are standards that approvals are based on. Chairperson Bjorklund asked about the proposal for 9000 employees, how many property owners have yet to sign an agreement and if there will be any takings north of 76"' Street. Mr. Stark stated that the EIS addressed several alternatives and the 9000 employees was found not to be feasible. He stated that there is one car dealership and three commercial property owners that have yet to come to an agreement and there will only be takings south of 76th Street. Commissioner Kilian asked if the takings south of 76th Street will include Fountainhead garages. Mr. Stark stated that a row of garages may need to be taken. If they are, they will be rebuilt. Commissioner Walz asked if 76th Street from Penn to Xerxes Avenue would be widened. Mr. Stark stated that there are no plans to widen 76th Street in that area. He stated that neighbors were not in support of the widening several years ago. Tim Murnane, Vice President of OPUS, stated that 10 commercial owners and 68 residential owners have come to an agreement and stated that they have held several neighborhood meetings and plan more in the future. John Albers, Senior Architect for OPUS, reviewed the specific building, landscape, parking and topography of the proposed Best Buy Campus. September 26, 2000 Page 4 Commissioner Kilian asked how high is the parking ramp. Mr. Albers stated that it is 33 feet above the grade at 76`h Street, Commissioner Hanson asked if there is parking at the daycare. Mr. Albers stated that it will have a drop off /pick up area and employees will park in the ramp. Commissioner Drummond asked if the parking ramp will be constructed in an attractive manner. Mr. Albers stated that the ramp will be constructed with the same materials as the office buildings. Rick Nau, Traffic Consultant for BRW, reviewed the traffic analysis. Mr. Nau then responded to some citizen concerns regarding traffic that have been brought up. Mr. Nau stated that the Best Buy campus would increase traffic on 494 about 3 percent, the weaving distance between I -494 and 35W will be decreased but will still meet federal and state standards, traffic counts at meters will decrease after improvements are completed and he is looking into the traffic count discrepancies on 76`h Street. Commissioner Hanson stated that he is concerned with having only one access for the Fountainhead complex. Mr. Nau stated that the accesses are still under design. Chairperson Bjorklund asked what happens to the width of 76 °i Street as it approaches 35W. Mr. Nau stated that it tapers down and will not have a median. Commissioner Kilian asked if off peak traffic has been studied. He stated that there may be less traffic in the area during off peak hours after Best Buy is complete then there is now. Mr. Nau stated that off peak traffic has not been studied. Kim Otness, representing Colony Apartments, stated that she is concerned with access in and out of their driveway on 76` Street. She said that it is currently very difficult for the tenants to make a left turn in and out with the traffic on 76`h Street. The proposed 76`h Street improvements will leave them with a right -in, right -out only access on 76`h Street. She suggested that their driveway be aligned with Knox Avenue and have a stop light for better access. Dewayne Siesema, 6214 5` h Avenue, stated that he is concerned with traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. He stated that an accident on 76`h Street will only make congestion worse. Terry Ahlstrom, 7600 Morgan Avenue, stated that the current traffic problems will be corrected by the proposed road improvements and feels by having Best Buy, traffic will decrease on the weekends. Deb Nordmarken, 6633 Sheridan Avenue, stated that traffic calming measures should be looked at for additional streets. She felt that the town meetings were inconvenient for many of the neighbors and she is concerned with congestion on 76`h Street and 494. Jim Bergin, 7627 Oliver Avenue, stated that the car dealerships are too big for the neighborhood and the neighbors support redevelopment of the area. He stated that the Best Buy project will improve traffic and will increase the tax base. September 26, 2000 Page 5 John Enger, 7328 Bloomington Avenue, stated that he is concerned with takings and the lack of screening around the parking ramp. He stated that the rezoning of the property should be postponed until the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is complete. Barbara Jerich of Walser, stated the rezoning should take place after the EIS is complete and that the entire process needs to slow down. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, stated that Best Buy should increase internal traffic movement to reduce congestion on 76`" Street and pedestrian ramps should be considered to increase pedestrian safety. Robert Hall, 7309 Oliver Avenue, stated that developments should follow current zoning and that he his concerned with additional takings. He stated that the zoning change should be tabled until the EIS is complete. Walter Rockenstein, attorney at Faegre and Benson, stated that approving a rezoning be fore the EIS is complete is the correct process. He stated that making changes in zoning are appropiate if the changes are made to better the community. Bruce Wetternach, 7614 Morgan Avenue, stated that he approves of the rezoning and the plan for the Best Buy campus. M/Gepner, S /Kilian to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 (Ahlstrom abstained) Commissioner Kilian reviewed the planning history of the Interchange West area and stated that the CDP building on the east side of Richfield has calmed traffic on weekends and evenings. Commissioner Drummond- stated that she is concerned with the accesses for the Fountainhead and Colony Apartments. The Commission agreed to add a stipulation to item three that addresses the accesses. M /Gepner, S/Kilian to recommend approval of a planned unit development plan for the Best Buy Campus project and rezoning of property from C -2, R MR -1 and MR -2 to PC -2 with the following stipulations: I. That the rezoning ordinance shall become effective on such a date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by Best Buy Co., Inc. or 30 days following publication or when the environmental assessment process has been favorably completed, whichever is later. 2. That the City Council adopts the Comprehensive Plan amendment designating the north 10 acres as regional commercial /office. 3. That the City Council makes a finding of adequacy regarding the Environmental Impact Statement. September 26, 2000 Page 6 Motion carried: 8 -0 (Ahlstrom abstained) M/Kilian, S /Gepner to recommend approval of a final development plan and conditi and Knox Avenues with the following stipulations: 1. That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a final lighting _plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Safety_ Directors. 6. That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That the final Travel Demand Management Plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 8. That, at such time that the south portion of the property is taken for roadway purposes, that a revised design for the south edge be submitted to and approved by the City Manager. 9. That the City Council makes a finding of adequacy regarding the Environmental Impact Statement. 10. That the property be replatted. 11. That a plan for maintaining adequate access to the Colony and Fountainhead Apartments be developed, subject to approval by the Public Works Director. 12. That additional methods for preventing access to the north at Newton Avenue be explored. Motion carried: 8 -0 (Ahlstrom abstained) NEW BUSINESS Discussion of cable cast of meeting. ITEM #4 Ms. Urban stated that the Mayor has suggested that the Planning Commission meetings be on cable. September 26, 2000 Page 7 Mayor Kirsch stated that the HRA has agreed to the cable cast and he feels it's a way to inform citizens about issues in Richfield. The Commission agreed that the meetings should be on cable. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Drummond reported that 40 -50 more students have enrolled than projected. Community Services Advisory Commission: None. HRA: Commissioner Gepner reported that the HRA discussed eminent domain for some Interchange West properties. City Council: Mayor Kirsch reported that the Water Department's brochure won an award, six liquor retailers were caught selling alcohol to under age people and they accepted the low frequency noise report. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:00 p.m. Mark Tolvstad Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 00 -PUD -2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a planned unit development (PUD) plan for the City Bella project and rezoning of the property to planned general commercial (PC-2). F. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of a planned unit development plan for the City Bella project and rezoning of the property to PC -2, southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lvndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND The southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue has been part of the HRA's LHN (Lynda le /Hub /Nicollet) redevelopment strategy since 1975. The acquisition and clearance of property in 1981 led to the construction of the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums. Similar actions in 1998 led to the development of Gramercy Park Cooperative on Lake Shore Drive. The remaining part of the quadrant (Lyndale Hardware, Trestman Music, Checker Auto Parts, and residential parcels fronting on Lake Shore Drive) represent the boundary for the area yet to be redeveloped. In January 2000, the HRA entered into an exclusive rights agreement with Gramercy Corporation to study the feasibility of redeveloping the remaining area, and in July, 2000, the HRA approved a contract for private redevelopment with Gramercy. Gramercy is proposing to construct a mixed -use development in the southwest quadrant. The area would be rezoned to a planned unit development. The City Bella development includes the following components: 19 -story building with 250 apartment units over 33,250 square feet of office- retail- restaurant space at the corner of 66th and Lyndale Five -story, 80,000 square foot office building on Lyndale Avenue A two -level underground parking structure with 673 parking spaces and an additional four surface parking stalls to service the apartment, retail, and office needs Three -story building with 34 units of cooperative housing on Lake Shore Drive with 60 parking spaces, primarily below ground A 1.4 acre urban plaza Skyway connection to Woodlake Centre and a pedestrian connection to Woodlake Nature Center III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The proposal is consistent with the 1999 Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES Issues such as traffic, building height, parking, landscaping, pedestrian connections, and land uses are addressed in the final development plan. In order to achieve the goals of creating a pedestrian friendly environment, minimize the appearance of parking, create connections between uses, and increase housing opportunities within the downtown area, the development departs from the setback requirements of the C -2 and R zoning districts as follows: Setback R District City Bella PUD coop) C -2 District City Bella PUD Front 30 feet 20 35 North — 2 to 25 Rear 25 feet 20 20 South — 176 Streetside N/A N/A 25 East — 9 to 41 Side interior 5 feet 6 to 30 20 West — 50 to 122 C. FINANCIAL The HRA will consider providing public assistance to the development through the use of tax increment financing at their November meeting. D. LEGAL Zoning: R and C -2 Land Use: commercial and single family residential Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial and High Density Multiple Family Residence Notification: Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the development area Other Actions: Council: First reading of the rezoning would be on November 13, 2000. Second reading and the public hearing scheduled for December 11, 2000. The findings necessary to approve a planned unit development plan 536.17, subd. 4) are as follows: a) the proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans: This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Community Commercial and High Density Multiple Family Residential. The Community Commercial designation encourages mixed -use development. The design is also consistent with the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale plan. a b) the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The project components are tied together through the 1.4 acre urban plaza and through pedestrian access among the components and to other developments in the downtown area and the Woodlake Nature Center. c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: The design is intended to be consistent with the design guidelines of the Lakes at Lyndale Plan which encourages pedestrian friendly development, connections between uses, increase housing choices in the downtown area, and minimizing the appearance of parking. Achieving these goals results in a departure from traditional C -2 zoning district regulations with respect to setbacks and building height. d) the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development: There are sufficient City services and infrastructure to serve the development. e) the development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties: The development will be separated from the Lake Shore Drive condominiums by a fence and a controlled access gate. Connections will be made to other adjacent properties such ' as Woodlake Centre and the Gramercy Park Cooperative. f) the terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: Conditions are attached to approval of the final development plan to ensure that proposed improvements are completed. Gramercy and the HRA have signed a development agreement that requires Gramercy to address certain conditions such as landscaping, traffic, building design, housing affordability and other items in order to obtain financing for the project. Stipulations of Approval 1. That the rezoning ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by Gramercy Corporation or 30 days following publication or when the environmental assessment process has been favorably completed, whichever is later. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend that the City Council deny the PUD plan and rezoning with a finding that the development would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS Code References: Zoning Ordinance Section 536.17 Attachment A: Existing and Proposed Zoning Attachment B: Site Plan 3 Attachment C: The Vision for Lakes at Lyndale VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Applicant/Owner: Mike Conlan, Gramercy Corporation CODE CITATIONS I ^q SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 536.17. Review of NUD application. Subdivision 1. Procedure. Upon receipt of a completed PUD application and the fee set by Appendix D of the City Code, the following review procedure set out in this subsection shall commence. Subd. 2. Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the PUD application and serve mailed notice of such hearing to the applicant and all property owners situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission may recommend approval with or without modifications, or may recommend denial of the PUD application. .(Amended, Bill No.. 1995 -19, Sec. 2) Subd. 3. Council consideration. Following action by the Planning Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing and consider rezoning the area described in the plan. If the PUD plan is approved, the area shall be rezoned as one of the six types of PUD districts. Subd. 4. Required findings. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD application shall be as follows: a) the proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans; b) the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries; c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development; d) the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development; e) the development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties; and f) the terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests. I Y'O Ire- 4r, fir'l RICHFIELD a i Y F Z,ak4 ar ChwcAr Dear Community Members, During a 23-month study in 1997 and 1998, hundreds of Richfield residents and business people worked together on a new vision for the Richfield Lake area, now known as "Lakes at Lyndale. " This area is located from 62nd Street to 67th Street, and Pleasant Avenue to I -35W. Community members attended workshops, reviewed concepts and talked about the features that were important to them in the Lakes at Lyndale area. The resulting master plan for Lakes at Lyndale is an exciting one not just for the neighborhood, but for the entire community. It creates new housing and greater housing choices; new retail, restaurants, office space and entertainment; and a new postal facility at a better location. It makes Lakes at Lyndale the urban heart of our community where people will come to live, to work, to shop and to enjoy the lakes. We believe this is an exciting plan and think you will too. Share the Lakes at Lyndale vision! Mayor Mar ' J. Kirsch F J-4 trK The Lakes at Lyndale Mission To make the Lakes at Lyndale area Richfield's thriving urban center, providing more housing oppor- tunities, upgrading business properties and providing fuller enjoyment of both Wood Lake and Richfield Lake. Achieving this mission will help ensure Richfield remains the best place to live, work, learn and do business in the metropolitan area. Lakes at Lyndale Themes Nature -- The Lakes are a natural centerpiece to an urban downtown. Housing -- More choices and new locations for living. People -- A place for walking with nature pathways and urban skyways. Transit -- Bringing efficient transit service closer to you. awe Identity -- Distinctive look, visual appeal and connection I Gateways -- Attractive front doors to the community. Business -- Opportunities for investment and creating value. t` ' ;"• tte4- fit ) '" -i ` n• 3 V Q LYNDALE AVENUE GATEWAY 65TH STREET ISkyway 0 Transit Station/Stop 80 New Parking Areas Prepared by Hoisinloon Kmglet Group Inc City of Richfield Zwka ar the Phan Awo' Nature -- The Lakes are a natural centerpiece to an urban downtown. Richfield Lake and Wood Lake remain wild and natural. Richfield Lake water quality is improved through stormwater ponding and a water treat- ment system for rainwater run -off from roads. Through landscaping and design, the character of the lakes radiates along the streets, walkways and parks. a Housing -- More choices and new locations for living. Approximately 1,400 new housing units are envi- sioned at Lakes at Lyndale including townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and senior cooperative and assisted housing. In addition to expanding the variety of housing in Richfield, Lakes at Lyndale will offer a location that is near the lakes, shopping and entertainment. swv People -- A place for walking with nature pathways and urban skyways. Existing nature pathways are enhanced by a park- like connection established between the two lakes. A system of pedestrian ways and public spaces includes skyways and street -level walkways to provide safe crossings at Lyndale Avenue and West 66th Street. Pedestrian ways extend along the major streets and into development sites. wmW Transit -- Bringing efficient transit service closer to you. Transit enhancements include 1) a transit shelter at West 66th Street, just east of Lyndale Avenue; ' b •• 0 t !.jj Fi r { 4 2) Mn/DOT express bus pullouts at the 66th Street and I -35W bridge; and 3) circulator bus service in the 65th and 66th Street corridors in Lakes at Lyndale. New circulator service is integrated with existing express and cross -town services. mW Identity -- Distinctive look, visual appeal and connection The area has a connected visual identity. The lakes are its theme. Nature is carried from the lakes throughout the urban district through the use of flowers, trees, plants, garden -like paths, benches, cast stone columns, plantings and small gathering spots. I Gateways -- Attractive front doors to the community. Upon entering Lakes at Lyndale from Lyndale Avenue or 66th Street, the first impression is that of a thriving community and an attractive and distinctive neighborhood. That impression is created through new investment and reinvestment, and through landscaping, lights, and other amenities. Business -- Opportunities for investment and creating value. New shopping, office space, restaurants and I entertainment abound at Lakes at Lyndale, creating new investment for the community. Richfield's new cinema is featured on the,-K -mart site at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.. Restaurants, shops and housing are next to; -the natural cha.rni of "' a Wood Lake.and Richfield Lake d Lakes • 1 1 1 1 comp / Estnivated De velopment Dates igh mpro ears (N1NI)`U r :,s is99soo 4 - a 2005 - : X05- fi 2010 2010 tom;, 2010: After 2010 Perimeter Treatment System of Runoff Water p After 2010 1999.2000 49G . Lake Environmental Quality Maintenance Program \` T - REE7 Ongoing Regional 6 ® Recreational 2005- ® Trail k r'' 0, 2002 -20 ® 2001 -2005 p> "5 M i -66TH STREET _ _ 66TH STRE ® GATEVI AY MaBRIOG.. 3 2 ® In KEY 9 -YOOS c?, Qf 199 2D01 I o9 9iGF 1 EI O COMPONENTS BLOCK DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAIL RICHFIELD LAKE TREATMENT SYSTEM aaiia Sooner -1999 Pill 2001.2005 1999 -2000 concurrent with o MNOOT Highway improvements MNDOT HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1999 -2003 i.. Later -after 2010 on Prepared by Holsingion Koegler Group Inc NOTE: Dates are best estimates only for planning purposes and do not represent actual construction periods. 5 Zaakcljl aL 4oda e- Bec nug# R Lakes at Lyndale Objectives 1) Housing 2) New retail, restaurants, office and entertainment 3) New, better located postal facility Target Areas The master plan has been divided into target areas for phased redevelopment (refer to map on page 5). Each area is being explored for its poten- tial to meet the Lakes at Lyndale objectives and a determination made whether existing land uses must stay or go. What follows is a brief summary of some of those areas where development is sched- uled to occur through 2005. 1Q Gramercy Park Co -op -- The Gramercy Park Co -op at 67th Street and Lyndale Avenue is a 160 -unit housing development with underground parking on the site of the Richfield VFW. The 12 -story building cooperative for senior citizens is attached to an 8,000 - square -foot VFW facility. 1998 -2001 THE LAKES AT LYNDALE VISION — creating new entertainment and leisure opportunities in Ric>leld. A new cinema, housing and office space in the Northwest corner of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street is the proposed alternative to the K -mart site. Q Urban Village -- Urban Village is a commercial- residential "mixed use" development bordered by Lyndale Avenue, 66th Street, Pleasant Avenue and 67th Street. Urban Village adds 90,000 square feet of retail and office space and 214 new housing units to the community. It relocates McDonalds to the corner of 67th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 1999 -2001 3 The VFW /Gramercy Block -- Retail and expanded office space would be located at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue adjacent to the new co -op. 1999 -2002 Lyndale Garden Center Area -- Multi -unit housing and retail are in the plan for this portion of Lakes at Lyndale. 2000.2003 5 ) Post Office Area -- Improved access in the area would be coupled with a post office that better serves the community. 2000 -2005 K -mart Area -- The plan calls for a future cinema, housing and office space: 2002 -2005 N ;. 6 n AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 2 00- FDP -2; 00- CUP -14 gdo PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 249 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING, COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a final development plan and conditional use permit for the City Bella project, located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. F. RECOMMENDED ACTION: II Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a final development plan and conditional use permit for the City Bella project, located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. III. BACKGROUND I The City Bella development is a mixed use project with housing, office and retail uses surrounding a central plaza. The development includes the following components: 19 -story building with 250 apartment units over 33,250 square feet of office- retail- restaurant, and private health club at the corner of 66th and Lyndale Five -story, 80,000 square foot office building on Lyndale Avenue A two -level underground parking structure with 673 parking spaces and an additional four surface parking stalls to service the apartment, retail, and office needs Three -story building with 34 units of cooperative housing on Lake Shore Drive with 60 parking spaces, primarily below ground A 1.4 acre urban plaza Skyway connection to Woodlake Centre and a pedestrian connection to Woodlake Nature Center Access: Access to the development will be off of 66th Street, Lyndale and Lake Shore Drive. Right -in, right -out only access points will be provided on 66th Street and on Lyndale Avenue, between the two buildings. A full, signalized access will be provided on Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street. Access on Lake Shore Drive will be to the cooperative housing units only. Traffic: An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the project on a voluntary basis. A traffic study is a part of that document. Overall operation of the intersections in the vicinity will continue to operate at Level of Service D and above (the standard for urban intersections). The summary results of the traffic analysis from the EAW are provided as Attachment G. 1 Parking: 677 total parking stalls will be provided for the office, apartments and retail component. Parking assumptions for the uses are as follows: Office: 4 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 80,000 s.f. = 320 stalls Retail: 4.5 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 4,000 s.f. = 18 stalls Restaurant: 20 stalls per 1,000 s.f. @ 8,000 s.f. = 160 stalls Housing: 1.75 stalls per unit @ 250 units = 437 stalls Because the office and housing uses have opposite peak demand times, shared parking can be utilized. During the day, the office and restaurant will have peak demand for the parking of approximately 448 stalls [320 + 128 (lunch is typically 80% of peak)]. This leaves 229 stalls for the housing and retail. During the evening, the office stalls will be available.to. accommodate ..the.additional.demand of.597 stalls from the housing and restaurant (437 + 160). There will also be opportunities for shared parking with Woodlake Centre accessed through the skyway connection. Sixty parking spaces will also be provided for the senior cooperative building, also at a ratio of 1.75 stalls per unit. Building Height: The proposed building height of the apartment/office /retail building at the corner of 66th and Lyndale is 19 stories, There will be two "wings" of the building at the ground level that will be two stories in height. The 19 -story portion of the building will step back from these "wings." This height is several stories taller than the other condominium and apartment buildings in the area. A review of the building height issue written at a time when the proposed height was 21 stories) by the Hoisington Koegler Group (HGKi), authors of the Lakes at Lyndale plan, is included as Attachment I. The key points HKGi makes is that this intersection is the best place within the downtown area to have such a building and that the first two levels need to be at a pedestrian scale. The proposed tower plan accomplishes the second point with the office, retail and health club space being proposed on the first two levels. The height of the three -story cooperative housing has also been a concern for the Lake Shore Drive condominium residents and the design of the building's roof has been modified to further reduce the building's height. The cooperative will be approximately 11 feet higher than the residential house that currently sits on the property (see Attachment H). Plaza, Landscaping and Streetscape: A primary focus of the development is the central plaza area. The plaza provides open space for all components of the development as well as the 160 -unit Gramercy Park Cooperative. Because a parking structure covers much of the site, large shade trees are not possible throughout much of the site. Ornamental trees and other landscaping will be provided throughout the plaza area. A wrought iron fence will be provided between the development and the Lake Shore Drive condominiums, at the request of the condominium residents. Access to the plaza for condominium residents will be controlled through a gate. The streetscape design (e.g. sidewalk, pedestrian lighting, boulevard landscaping) along Lyndale and 66th Street will complement the streetscape at Woodlake Centre. Pedestrian Connections: Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the development among the various uses. A connection to the Woodlake Centre development will be provided through a skyway at the second level of the corner building and on the street level at 66th and 67th Streets. A street level connection will c2—o? also be provided to Woodlake Nature Center. Changes to the street, such as a center median, are proposed to create an easier, more pedestrian friendly crossing to the Nature Center. Pedestrian access to the plaza from the Gramercy Park Cooperative and the Lake Shore Drive condominiums will also be provided. Adjacent Land Uses: Gramercy has worked extensively with representatives from the Lake Shore Drive condominiums to address concerns raised by the condominium residents. Attachment H details the adjustments that have been made to the plan and responses to the concerns of the adjacent residents. An open house was held on October 18 for the neighborhood. Approximately 75 people attended. The feedback received is included in Attachment H. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the 1999 Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES Gramercy has worked extensively with representatives of the Lake. Shore Drive Condominiums on items of mutual concern. C. FINANCIAL The HRA will consider providing public assistance to the development through the use of tax increment financing at their November meeting. D. LEGAL Notice of the public hearing was mailed to owners and occupants of property within 350 feet of the development area. All uses are conditional uses in the PC -2 district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Community Commercial and High Density Multiple Family Residential. The Community Commercial designation encourages mixed -use development. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The design is also consistent with the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale plan. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Adequate provision has been made for lighting, traffic, parking, landscaping, utilities, exterior treatment of buildings, screening mechanical equipment, dumpster enclosures and stormwater management. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: There are adequate facilities, utilities and services to support the development. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. t) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit: Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a final landscape'plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the. Public Works Director. 3. That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 6. That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 7. That a plan for an odor control system for any restaurant be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 8. That a final plan for trash storage and removal be approved by the - Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 9. That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 10. That the City Council makes a finding of adequacy regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 11. That the property be replatted. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend denial of the final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding that the development would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. I V. ATTACHMENTS I Code References: Zoning Ordinance Section 546.05 Attachment A: Current and proposed land uses Attachment B: Existing conditions Attachment C: Proposed site plan Attachment D: Building elevations Attachment E: Landscape concept plan Attachment F: Underground parking layout Attachment G: Traffic analysis Attachment H: Response to Lake Shore Drive condominium issues and feedback from October 18 open house Attachment I: Letter from HKGi re: building height VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I Applicant/Owner: Mike Conlan, Gramercy Corporation I?- y 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. (Amended, Bill No. 1995 -19, Sec. 4) 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. 2'-5 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. Term 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. 11. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit or amendment thereto is set by Appendix D of the City Code. qg AJ., tij AJ., tij coo U FZta] 6 F 6 w MR cl m w Q w Q z. a+wr: i x.19 . W : vt. Y \!„, r 1 _ ice! 1; IM .`:'' Gj ,,rte .9. ,r '.•;- fun rF, i 'ice fi fr riT Y;, 1 4f I .JY .111i: i ` Jy ves'i'[. st' 1,-.''iar , i'„ sRr ,EIht171,;; % , r ,! t1 fir,; -- =1 L • ` , 6 . i r 1 ems .e ill s•. 1,P,liy y N (C I v, jam.. INS Ila, o i!AA Ry innuu luu111 I l t• IB iIG111 o- 44,4 lll l IIA Z4.. I?.,I two MalIIIIIIII r, t W i N. 13 e il1 11 4SE 1114,- 1 ee;:;ees=;=9e ie:.:: 1, 4 t i1. l1I 1 411t iinum•ac poll 4, ej 9t;:1111P j i I11llihi! Ul/ f I J: M l iii1I1,W'!I!1, noun i IIIIIII, C J 4_5 lam; 371 14 1 rc'4, v I. Nw. J 10 gamma-, tft.- Mani 7 gal M X2...,1 '::V h'. `., I 11 1 I I I r Z X10'7 I. 1 I r I. I rti •' J 0I.a m 4 I W_ ut Jl y L w Hz U6H o r O o 4 C W 1 a d C7 ' o R,' g W CL Z Me CL a 4 6p( y j dl F4Fiiii% Ml91 A 2NI-I 2-idHlS 9NI1.L35 Ned :]>I>I 9Hl 9Nisn iON v no. 9NINd*a40 Ad00 4?J`dH d NO SIHI (TVD1 NHO nOA .1I 1.. J NO V J P, z m 6E C 8 I al IIIIIIIII i 3N1-I S ldV1S 9N111 i5 Nad 3>> 3H1 9NISfl lON 2"NV (lO,l 9NIMVaQ 1d00 Q'cJVH V NO SIH1 OV2J Nd9 f10J. -jI O w BBW wCL s`EAS V OQ Y s P, z m 6E C 8 I al IIIIIIIII i 3N1-I S ldV1S 9N111 i5 Nad 3>> 3H1 9NISfl lON 2"NV (lO,l 9NIMVaQ 1d00 Q'cJVH V NO SIH1 OV2J Nd9 f10J. -jI O a —I ATTACHMENT G r• soil prevented infiltration from leaching contaminants. When this area is excavated, the soil will be removed and treated. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. There are currently an 8,000 gallon fuel oil UST and a 260 gallon waste oil AST at the Lyndale Hardware parcel. Other tanks may be present at the Trestman, Triple S and Lynch parcels, but an inspection of these parcels has not yet been conducted pending negotiations with the owners. These tanks will be removed during redevelopment. No new tanks are planned. 21. Traffic. Parking spaces added. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion). Estimated total average daily traffic generated. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Parking spaces added Estimated number of parking spaces is 820. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) Estimated number of existing parking spaces is 177. Project involves redevelopment and estimated net number of new spaces is 643. Estimated Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 40 The proposed development is estimated to generate 4,133 trip ends over the course of an average weekday. Estimate maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing Durin_ the weekday p.m. peak hour. approximately 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.. 461 trip ends are expected to be enerated. For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary. The purpose of the transportation analysis is to assess the traffic implications of the proposed development located in Richfield. The development will be located in the southwest quadrant of the Lyndale Avenue.'66 "' Street intersection. The construction of the proposed development will involve removal of existine uses. The land uses and sizes currently planned for the development are shown in Table 1. 16 Table 1 New Uses to be Added Land Use Size Apartments 250 units Quality restaurant 8,000 square feet General retail 6,500 square feet Single family housing 1 dwelling unit General office 99,000 square feet Condominiums 34 units The existing land uses and sizes currently planned to be removed for the development are shown below in Table 2. Table 2 Existing Uses to be Removed Land Use Size Hardware store 25.500 square feet Music store 7.447 square feet Auto parts 9,292 square feet Single family housing 1 dwelling unit In addition to the land uses listed above. traffic generated by the Woodlake Centre,, which is currently under construction, was also included in the forecasts and analyses. The development is proposed to be complete by the end of 2002. The EAW transportation analyses were conducted for one year atier completion. or 2003. Assessment of the transportation implications was focused on the p.m peak hour (approximately 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.), which corresponds to the peak time frame for the roadway system. This was confirmed by comparing the a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the Lyndale Avenue.166th Street intersection. which showed the p.m. peak hour is higher. The p.m. peak hour was also chosen because the proposed development. especially, the retail uses. will enerate more traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Access for the development will be provided in three locations. Full access will be provided at the sisnalized intersection of Lyndale Avenue /67th Street. A right turn in and out access will be provided on 66th Street west of Lyndale Avenue. An enter only access will be provided on Lyndale Avenue between 66th and 67th Streets. The critical intersections analyzed are as follows: W. 66`' Street/Lakeshore Drive Lynciale Avenue S.AW. 66th Street Lyndale Avenue SAV. 64th Street Lyndale Avenue S. /W. 65`h Street Lyndale Avenue S. /Lakeshore Drive Lyndale Avenue S. /W. 67`" Street' Lyndale Avenue S. -W. 68`h Street 17 b Existing Conditions Roadwav Characteristics Lyndale Avenue is a four lane, urban section roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. The intersections with 650', 66t' and 67`" Streets are currently controlled by traffic signals. The intersections with 641" Street, Lakeshore Drive and 681" Street are controlled with stop signs on the side street approach. Lyndale Avenue is classified as a Reliever roadway by the Metropolitan Council. 66`' Street is a four lane, urban section roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. The intersections with Lakeshore Drive and 66`" Street are currently controlled by traffic signals. 66`" Street is also classified as a Reliever roadway by the Metropolitan Council. Existing- Traffic Volumes Weekday p.m. peak hour turning movement data was obtained from City staff for the analysis intersections. Existing daily traffic volumes were obtained from information published in 1999 by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Traffic Forecasts Trio Generation Trip generation for the proposed development was based upon generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 3 shows the weekday p.m. peak hour and daily trip generation added by the proposed development, the number of existing trips removed through redevelopment and the net number of trips added to the roadway system as a result of the development. 18 Table 3 Trip Generation Estimates for the Proposed Development New Uses to be Added by City Bella Project Land Use Size P.M. Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out 25,500 square feet Apartments 250 units 103 51 1633 Quality restaurant 8000 square feet 40 27 720 General retail 6500 square feet 18 14 264 1 0 10 General office 99,000 square feet 32 158 1317 91 99 2196 Condominiums 34 units 12 6 199 Totals 205 256 4133 Existing Uses Removed by City Bella Project Land Use Size P.M. Peak Hour Daily In Out Hardware store 25,500 square feet 54 59 1308 Music store 7,447 square feet 9 11 303 Auto parts 9.292 square feet 27 29 575 Sin_le family housing I dwelling unit 1 0 10 Totals 91 99 2196 Net Trips Added to the Roadway System Totals 114 .157 1937 Trip Distribution For the net trips added to the roadway system. an estimation of directional distribution was based upon the expected amount and type of traffic from surrounding areas. information from the Woodlake Centre EAW, information from an initial study for this area completed by the City's traffic consultant. and the location of major regional roadways. such as 1 -35W. relative to the proposed development site. We have estimated that : percent of the trips \\ ill be to and from the west on 66th Street. 20 percent to and from the east on 66th Street. 20 percent to and from the north on Lyndale Avenue. 10 percent to and from the south on Lyndale Avenue. and 5 percent to and from the east on 68th Street. This information is also shown in Fig =ure 14. These percentages were. applied to the trips generated by the proposed development. For traffic exiting the site destined to go to the west on 66th Street, we assumed that 75 percent would travel north on Lyndale Avenue from 67th Street and then turn left onto 66th Street. The remaining 25 percent would turn right on Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street and turn right again at Lakeshore Drive to access 66th Street. With the majority of the westbound 66th Street traffic using the already congested i Lyndale Avenue /66th Street intersection, this method modeled a "worst case" scenario for the roadway system. Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the eight analysis intersections were developed for two scenarios: 1) 2003 without the development (2003 no build) and 2) 2003 with the development (2003 build). All of the forecasted volumes are based on the existing counts recorded at the intersection. A orowth , factor of one percent per year was applied -to the existing -volumes to arrive at the baseline volumes. In order to be conservatively high in our traffic forecasts, we did not account for the 10 percent reduction anticipated on 66th Street west o7 Lyndale due to the future T.H. 62 improvements. The expected development traffic was then added to the baseline, resulting 2003 build volumes. The resultant p.m. peak hour volumes are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Turn Movement Volumes 66 St. /Lakeshore Dr. nblt nbth nbrt sblt Sbth sbrt eblt ebth ebrt whit wbth wbrt 2003 no build 256 71 8 18 36 257 _ 247 1280 265 28 767 44 2003.build 273 71 8 18 36 257 247 1331 265 28 821 44 Lyndale Ave /66 St. 2003 no build 266 632 150 213 445 91 206 1164 104 125 740 147 2003 build 320 648 165 213 468 91 221 1180 104 148 740 147 Lvndale Ave. /64 ' St. 2003 no build 30 785 12 14 811 17 18 1 25 11 0 8 2003 build 30 816 12 14 834 17 18 1 25 11 0 8 Lvndale Ave./65111 St. 2003 no build 39 633 70 181 70S 139 132 150 65 75 175 120 2003 build 39 664 70 181 1 731 139 132 150 65 75 175 120 Lyndale Ave. /67 ' St. 2003 no build 13 624 1 42 1 495 18 36 1 30 192 4 326 2003 build 27 62" 42 1 1 495 41 121 1 71 192 4 326 L•ndale Ave./ Lakeshore Dr. 2003 no build 192 674 0 0 608 98 13 0 291 0 0 0 003 build 192 691 0 0 632 115 13 0 291 0 0 0 Lyndale Aye. /68 St. 2003 no build 0 931 8 78 853 0 0 0 I 0 5 0 42 3001 build 0 942 8 86 ' 1 869 0 0 0 0 5 0 48 Note: nblt = northbound left turn. nbth = northbound through, nbrt = northbound right turn, sblt = southbound left turn, sbth = southbound through. sbrt = southbound right turn. eblt = eastbound left turn. ebth = eastbound through. ebrt = eastbound right turn. wblt = westbound left turn. wbth = westbound through, and wbrt = westbound right turn 20 Daily Traffic Volumes Daily traffic volumes were also developed for the surrounding roadways for the two scenarios described above. Existing daily volumes on Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street were increased by one percent per year to estimate 2003 no build volumes without the proposed development. The expected traffic volumes added by the development were then added to the 2003 no build volumes, resulting in 2003 build volumes. Once again, in order to be conservatively high. the forecasts did not account for the 10 percent reduction of volumes on 66th Street west of Lyndale Avenue due to the future T.H. 62 improvements. The resultant volumes are shown in Table 5. Table S Weekday Daily Volumes Location 2003 no build 2003 build 66... Street west of Lakeshore 29,200 30,500 Drive 66"' Street east of Lyndale 21,400 22,000 Avenue Lyndale Ave. between 64 ' and 19,200 19,900 65 "' Streets Lyndale Ave. between Lakeshore 13,800 14,000 Pk. and 681h St. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service The critical intersections were analyzed to determine the impact of the proposed development on traffic operations. In order to better understand how the intersection operates from an overall traffic capacity standpoint. capacity analyses were performed using the methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. A capacity- analysis is a way to.determine how well or poorly an intersection is operating. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service, which ran_es from A to F. . Levels of service D or higher are considered acceptable for intersection operations. 21 a -33 A brief description of each level of service is provided in the following bullet points: Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for- an_unsignalized intersection at.this level. Level of service D corresponds to high- density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Thou_h traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. For most agencies in the Twin Cities area, level of service D represents the minimal acceptable level of service for regular daily operations. Y Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include: long queues, stop- and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. Capacity analyses were performed for both the 2003 no build and the 2003 build scenarios. Existing roadway geometries and traffic control were used in the analyses at all intersections. The resultant levels of service for the 2003 no build and 2003 build scenarios are shown in Table 6 and on Figure 15A. Figure 15A also shows the individual levels of service for all of the movements. Table 6 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results with Existing Intersection Control and Roadway Geometries 1 ntersection Scenario 2003 no build 2003 build 66"' St. /Lakeshore Drive D D Lvndale Ave. /66 St. D D Lvndale Ave. /64 St. A A Lvndale Ave. /65 St. C C Lvndale Ave. /67 St. C C Lvndale Ave./ Lakeshore Drive. A A- Lvndale Ave. /68 ' St. A A 22 d— q The operations of each intersection are described in the following paragraphs: 66th St. /Lakeshore Drive At this intersection, all movements, except the northbound left turn, operate at level of service D or better under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions using existing signal timing and roadway geometrics. The northbound left turn movement operates at level of service F under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions. The overall intersection' operates at level of service D under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions. Since none of the levels of service change between the 2003 no build and 2003 build scenarios, the traffic added by the proposed development does not significantly impact the intersection operations. The addition of a northbound left turn lead phase and restriping the northbound approach to include an exclusive left turn lane would improve the northbound left turn movement to level of service D while maintaining all other movements at level of service D or better. This is•illustrated in Figure 15B. Lyndale Ave. /66th Street Under the 2003 no build condition using existing signal timing and lane eontetrics, the eastbound left turn, northbound left turn, northbound through /right turn, westbound left turn, and westbound through /right turn movements operate at level of service D. The eastbound through /right turn, southbound left turn, and southbound through /right turn movements operate at level of service E. The overall intersection operates at level of service D. Under the 2003 build conditions using existing signal timing and roadway geometrics, the eastbound left turn, eastbound through /right turn, northbound left turn, and westbound through /right turn movements operate at level of service D. The northbound through /right turn, westbound left turn, southbound left turn, and southbound through /right turn movements operate at level of service E. The overall intersection continues to operate at level of service D. The levels of service shown for this intersection indicate that many of the movements are at or near capacity. The addition of even small amounts of traffic will cause some of the movements to fall to level of service E. Since this signal is part of a large coordinated system that exists along 66th Street, 40 major changes to the signal timing are not easily accomplished. City staff have also indicated that adding traffic lanes is not desirable due to the pedestrian nature of the area. One possible option for improving levels of service would be to convert the existing bus pull out lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches into full right turn lanes. This would allow eastbound and westbound right turn movements to turn from an exclusive lane. which helps improve the levels of service for many movements. If this improvement is implemented, the only movement that remains at level of service E is the southbound left turn movement. as illustrated in Figure 156. Lvndale Ave.!64th Street At this intersection, all movements, except the eastbound left turn. operate at level of service D or better under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build -conditions using existing intersection control and roadway geometrics. The eastbound left turn movement operates at level of service E under the 2003 no build condition and level of service F under the 3003 build conditions. The overall intersection operates at level of service A under both the 2003-n6 build and 2003 build conditions. The eastbound left turn movement consists of only 18 vehicles during weekday p.m. peak hoar and therefore has little impact on the overall intersection operations. Lvndale Ave. /6th Street At this intersection. all movements operate at level of service D or better under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions using existing signal timing and roadway geometrics. The overall intersection operates at level of service C under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions. Since none of the levels of service change between the 2003 no build and 2003 build scenarios. the traffic added b% the proposed development does not significantly impact the intersection operations. Lvndale Ave. /67th Street At this intersection. all movements operate at level of service C or better under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions using existing signal timing and roadway geometrics. The overall intersection operates at level of service C under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions. Since none of the levels of service 'drop below C between the 2003 no build 23 a_, .5 and 2003 build scenarios, the traffic added by the proposed development does not significantly impact the intersection operations. Lyndale Ave./ Lakeshore Drive At this intersection, all movements, except the eastbound left turn, operate at level of service C or better under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions using existing intersection control and roadway geometrics. The eastbound left turn movement operates at level of service E under the 2003 no build and level of service F under the 2003 build conditions. The overall intersection operates at level of service A under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions. The eastbound left turn movement consists of only 13 vehicles during weekday p.m. peak hour and therefore has little impact on the overall intersection operations. Lyndale Ave. /68th Street At this intersection, all movements operate at level of service C or better under both -the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions using existing .intersection. control and roadway geometrics. The overall intersection operates at level of service A under both the 2003 no build and 2003 build conditions. Since none of the levels of service change between the 2003 no build and 2003 build scenarios, the traffic added by the proposed development does not significantly impact the intersection operations. To summarize, the modifications listed above are: L The addition of a northbound lead left turn phase and restriping of the northbound approach to include a left turn lane at 66'" Street/Lakeshore Drive Convert-the existing bus pull out lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches into full right turn lanes at Lyndale Avenue/660' Street Fieure 15B shows the predicted. 2003 level of service of the significant traffic movements where level of service is predicted to decline as a result of the project without the modifications, first without the project and second when the project is coupled with the above suggested modifications. It indicates that the level of service will not change as a result of the project if the suggested modifications are implemented with the project. 22. Vehicle- related air emissions.' Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or-ottier mitigation measures on air quality" impacts. (Vote: If the project involves 500 or more parking' spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether—YaWetailed air quality analysis is needed. Congestion at intersections can cause levels of carbon monoxide to increase near the intersection. If an intersection is operating at Level of Service (LOS) of D or better, it is unlikely that air quality problems will develop. The traffic study for this project was prepared by Benshoof and Associates. The study evaluated eight area intersections and found that all intersections %\i11. operate. at LOS D or" better using 2003 traffic projections. The intersection experiencing the greatest increase in traffic of these eight intersections is the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 66'" Street. Build and no -build alternatives for this intersection both show an LOS of D. The impacts of vehicle carbon monoxide (CO) emissions near this intersection have been evaluated using MPCA procedures. The procedure requires use of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency models to evaluate the impact of traffic on ambient CO levels to compare with the Minnesota CO standards. which are: I -hour average: 30 pans per million (ppm): and 8 -hour average: 9 ppm. Receptors .-were placed.irt..each quad ranL.ofthe.intersection. in a parking area for the new development .... _ .. and 100 feet from the centerline of each road in the other quadrants. The following table presents the predicted 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations at the modeled receptor locations. 24 20% W. 64th Street W. 65th Street 45% H W. 66th Street H 20% PROJECT LOCATION W. 67th Street m o„ W. 68th Street m N m a 5% 10% NOT TO SCALE r;i7s—ENSHOOF OF RICHFIELD FIGURE 14 EAW FOR CITY BELLA TRIP DISTRIBUTION 8 ASSOCIATES, iNC. PERCENTAGES PORTATION ENOINEERSANDPLANNERS A f° Qa A4 1 E Fr ND C//C -4 1 overall intersection LOS Qm ma am C/C - movement LOS 1 t A/A D/D -- C/C - movement LOS A C/C W. 68th Street io- ' 1w t U. 0 N Q 2003 NO BUILD m 200 BUILD xx= NOT TO SCALE mow FIGURE 15A CITY OF RICHFIELD EAW FOR 2003 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK CITY BELLA HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. RESULTS WITH EXISTING TRANSPORTATIONENDINEERSANDPLANNERS INTERSECTION CONTROL AND GEOMETRICS QQ vA D W. 64th Street Fr) BB U mV C/C C W. 65th Street C/C C om U U10 C/C W D//EE W. 66th Street LL LL PROJECT w LOCATION CiCIW. 67th treat m Qa A4 1 E Fr ND C//C -4 1 overall intersection LOS Qm ma am C/C - movement LOS 1 t A/A D/D -- C/C - movement LOS A C/C W. 68th Street io- ' 1w t U. 0 N Q 2003 NO BUILD m 200 BUILD xx= NOT TO SCALE mow FIGURE 15A CITY OF RICHFIELD EAW FOR 2003 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK CITY BELLA HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. RESULTS WITH EXISTING TRANSPORTATIONENDINEERSANDPLANNERS INTERSECTION CONTROL AND GEOMETRICS Modifications at 66th St/Lakeshore Dr. add northbound left tum lead phase restripe northbound approach to include an exclusive left tum lane 64th Street W. 65th Street Modifications at Lyndale Ave /66th o° ow convert bus pullouts on eastbour 1 D/D - C /C- movement LOS 1 ` B/B and westbound approaches to rig D/ t D m tum lanes m N D p 2003 NO BUILD m 2003 BUILD CD / /CDC I III XX= D/D W. 66th Streel D /D— B/8 GU 00 PROJECT LOCATION k m LED= overall intersection LOS C/C - movement LOS D/D - C /C- movement LOS W. 68th Street D/ t m LL m N 2003 NO BUILD m 2003 BUILD cis I III XX= c J NOT TO SCALE F;j7BENSIHOOF OF RICHFIELD EAW FOR CITY BELLA ]jjjj) .M. PEAK SERVICE 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. ISTED PORTATIONENOINEERSANDPLANNERS any Attachment H Summary of Lake Shore Drive (LSD) and other Concerns with Responses by the Developer and Staff October 19, 2000 Lake Shore Drive Concern: Open space; loss of existing open space and changes to existing open space The Condominium owns Lot 17 as unimproved open space approximately one;-third- acre). -The- developer includes-the designated open space for additional low profile multi unit housing when combined with Lot 16 and 18. Gramercy has offered to purchase Lot 17. Gramercy has negotiated the purchase of Lot 16. The HRA owns Lot 18. It is proposed that: The loss of open space at Lot 17 be compensated for by the improved plaza with approximately 1.4 acres of open space. The three story low profile cooperative include a heavily landscaped area adjacent to Lake Shore Drive property to retain some of the "green" lost by the construction of the housing and removal of trees. In July 1982, the HRA conveyed Lot 17 to the condominium developer, not as open space, but to eliminate potentially incompatible land. uses. at Lot 17 should the then owners of Lots 16, 17 and 18 pursue unsatisfactory development. Lake Shore Drive Condominium Concern: Design Feedback from the Task Force has already resulted in : Removing planned interior roads adjacent to the condominium. Moving primary access to Lyndale Avenue away from the condominium. Restricting public pedestrian access to the Condominium side of the development by fence, landscape, and controlled gate that is acceptable to the condominium; yet ensuring access to the proposed plaza, bridges and skyways by condominium residents. Ensuring there will be no encroachment of the new development on established open space, walkways, and gardens located on the primary condominium property. The developer needs the right -of- way areas for the development. Apartment, office, and retail spaces being moved north and east; further away from condominium property. It is proposed that: A low profile three story cooperative with a pitched residential style roof. Even with this design and the removal of six to ten feet of the hill at Lot 17, the estimated ridgeline of the new building will be approximately 11 feet higher than the existing house. The cost effective redevelopment of Lots 16, 17, 18 will require a building of at least the proposed height. The Comprehensive Plan would allow a much taller building. Because of the housing style there is no roof top mechanical equipment; a condominium concern. Lake Shore Drive Concern: A detailed site inventory and analysis of condominium property The developer will provide this. Lake Shore Drive Concern: Road and alley vacation The developer needs to use both halves of vacated right -of -way to provide the proposed development; building setbacks, and underground parking. The LSD position is to retain their half of the right -of -way as additional open space adjacent to the developer improvements although the open space for the condominium has been approved based on present lot lines since 1983. The absence of these splinter parcels to the developer may reduce the size of the plaza, underground parking space and prevent the construction of the low profile cooperative. The inclusion of these parcels in the development will require the following for LSD: Landscaped buffer. Fair compensation for splinter parcels. 51 Lake Shore Drive Concern: Views A diagram has been prepared to represent existing and proposed buildings and trees that influence view. Views to the west and west southwest remain unchanged; Condominium trees and green space are predominant. First through Fifth floor views will be different. Instead of dominant trees, a hill and single family homes blocking south and south west views there will be new'trees and a-residential style-three story buHding-that,blocks, views. Because of the removal of part of the hill and the related removal of trees on the hill, the 6th and 7th floor views become clearer and above the ridge of the new cooperative pitched roof. The 5th floor will also have partially clearer views. Based on survey data thus far, the 28 mature trees are in the proposed cooperative building zone and would be removed. The landscape plan calls for replacement trees and foundation plantings. Lake Shore Drive Concern: Parking and Privacy The two -year construction period for Gramercy Park and the proposed two - year period for City Bella will continue to leave visitors and construction vehicle parking in short supply over a long period of time. Gramercy, in exchange for using open parking spaces at the Nature Center, is contributing to the upgrade of trails and bridges within the Center. The developer's design provides sufficient parking and ingress /egress away from the condominium. This should minimize any accidental use of condominium property. However, the Condominium may need to continue to use present signage "Private Property No Trespassing" and "Private Drive No Through Street ". The perimeter fence will control pedestrian access. Lake Shore Drive Concern: Traffic Through the environmental assessment (EAW) process, increased traffic, and traffic circulation has been studied and the increased traffic can be managed within the present roadways with minor modifications. Lake Shore Drive Concern: Construction and Environmental Impacts The EAW..will show .where parking. ram p...venti lation.-wi I Loccu r and how. it will minimize noise and odors. The developer will work closely with the Condominium to ensure that the construction process does not harm the Condominium parking ramp. . A storm water management plan is being developed based on the EAW. General Concern: Building Height In mid to late August, Gramercy proposed that the City Bella apartments be located in a 21 story building. Hoisington Koegler, the planning consultant responsible for facilitating the "Lakes at Lyndale" master plan, was asked to evaluate the height, location, and design priorities for a 21 story building. Attached is Hoisington Koegler's analysis. The 19 story proposal still fits their observations. To summarize: This is the best place in the downtown to have such a building. It makes the "center ". The tower works if stepped back from the corner to allow a 2 to 3 story connection the street and a pedestrian scale. This is what Gramercy is proposing. In creating the tower, Gramercy has tried to optimally place the building to maximize views from other buildings. Feedback from October 18 Public Open House Approximately 75 persons stopped at Woodlake Nature Center to see the model and plans for City Bella. A feedback form asked "what was liked" and "what should be done differently ". Ten persons returned feedback forms: Things liked: Green space and walking paths. The plan is OK at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 4 C` j -4 Nice looking plans. Park like plaza. Richfield must continue with development like this or "die on the vine ". Great plans for downtown Minneapolis, not Richfield. Things to be done differently: 12 stories high should be the limit for our urban hometown. 19 stories does not contribute anything. Need more ,surface parking and apartments are too.close.to.lot line. Lot 16, 17, 18 should not be developed. More distance between Villa and Lake Shore Drive Condominium. Tower no higher than ten stories. Improve pedestrian access across 66th Street. Free parking, more open space, less crowding. A 19 story building is way too high and skeptical about the plaza. Have a public hearing about the project before advancing — change 19 story tower to three stories maximum. Whoa on redevelopment, give Richfield a chance to breath and appreciate the present. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I September 2000 Mr. Bruce Nordquist City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Review of City.Bella Concept k u 66°i Street and Lyndale Avenue Dear Bruce, ATTACHMENT I As requested, we have summarized our insights about the proposed City Bella development for your records in this letter. Our comments are based on the review of the project on 17 August 2000. Our understanding of the project is as follows: The proposed development will eliminate all existing development north of Grdmmercy and east of Lake Shore Drive condominiums The previous development proposal for this site '(by the same developer) demonstrated an 18 story building; the current proposal shows three additional stories that accommodate co -op apartments that have been very successful at Grammercy Ile proposed development includes a 21 -story tower at the comer of 66ie Street and Lyndale Avenue, with lower "wings" (approximately 5 stories) generally along 66`" Street and Lyndale Avenue; a separate 6 -story building is proposed south of the larger .building along Lyndale Avenue Parking for the project.is accommodated in an underground garage that basically extends across the entire site The tower will be largely residential, with commercial uses at street level; the "wings" may include office and residential uses and a health club The separated 6 -story building.will include retail and office uses Our review of the proposal will deal with three broad areas: Development context and conformance with Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan Site and building design Context within the City of Richfield References and examples Development Context and Conformance with Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan The critical issue in terms of the city review of the concept proposed by the developer is the height of the building and a determination if it is out of context with other development in the area or in conformance with the master plan for Lakes at Lyndale. Nearby development in generally in the range of 12 stories west of Lyndale Avenue; the Richfield Bank Building on the east side of Lyndale Avenue is 6 stories. Woodlake Center (adjacent to the Richfield Bank Building and the Woodlake Clinic) is three stories. At 21 stories, the proposed development is considerably taller than any o "Ier buildings in the area. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mirvteapolis, MN 55401 -1659 Ph (612) 336 -080 Fr (612) 338 -6838 Mr. Basco No dquist Review of City Bella Concept 1 September 2000 Page 2 The master plan suggests that taller buildings be located within the "core" of the master plan area (an area bounded by Lake Shore Drive on the west, 67ib Street on the south, the railroad on the east and 65th Street on the north). While .taller buildings are suggested, the plan does not indicate how tall these buildings might be, and the guidelines do not specifically restrict a building of this size. The master plan indicates the K -Mart site will be redeveloped with office, housing and entertainment uses. It should be considered likely that any development on that site will be quite tall (for certain, it will be taller than most surrounding development). Having another tall building at the intersection of 66' Street and Lyndale Avenue will balance the height of the City Bella proposal. Site and Building Design The proposed development seems appropriately sited, with buildings that address the public sidewalk and a significant open space element at the center of the block. The exact setback from the rights -of -way at 66'" Street and Lyndale Avenue could not be determined from the concept sketches. It would seem appropriate that setbacks similar to Woodlake Center be used (approximately 15 to 20 feet). A similar setback might be used at other developments in the area to maintain a more consistent pedestrian experience along 66h Street and Lyndale Avenue. Wherever possible, the design of the site should invite people on the public sidewalks into the open spaces at the center of the site. Where this occurs following entry drives or parking areas, the experience should be separated to the greatest degree possible so that the focus remains on the site features and not on parking. The ways in which the building "breaks down" is important. The lower scaled "wings" and the separated building form reasonable transitions to nearby development (especially relative to the Richfield Bank Building, which is 6 stories). The tower elements appeared to have a "base" of about 3 stories, which complements Woodlake Center. The tower element was set back from the base, but the amount of setback could not be determined from the drawings. Separation of the tower from the base is critical; further design should demonstxa e how this relationship can be achieved so that the tower does not overwhelm the street. The design of the building seemed to show an articulation of the fagade with banding, balconies and other elements that will help provide scale to the building. Real balconies should be encouraged (balconies that people will actually use). Context within the City of Richfield While this would be a tall building in any part of Richfield, or in any other suburban city for that matter, there is probably not a better location for it in Richfield than at this corner. The Lakes at Lyndale master plan suggests that this part of the city will ultimately become "downtown" (especially when the area that includes the Hub is considered). Tall buildings in a downtown might be expected; if the development were proposed in any of the other commercial redevelopment nodes in Richfield it would seem to be sorely out of place.. Here, the addition of a tall building makes sense, and we believe it will fit more directly into the fabric of the city. Ultimately, the difference between a 21 -story building and the previously proposed 18 -story building is probably not significant. In terms of the area, the aesthetics of the intersection and the pedestrian Mr. Bruce Nordquist Review of City Bdla Concept 1 September 2000 Page 3 experience advocated by the master plan may be more important considerations. A lower scale base - one that mimics the height of Woodlake Center- and a taller tower element can certainly be achieved without diminishing the pedestrian experience and without overwhelming the street. Further design explorations by the developer should be oriented to proving that the project satisfies those considerations. And-as- the -eity looks to the future, the ability to introduce large buildings at the K -Marl site and, if possible, to replace the parking lot at Champs with a building as well, will create an identifiable center for the community's "downtown." References and Examples There do not seem to be a lot of reference points for a project like this. Tall buildings in suburbs tend to be isolated or surrounded by parking lots. Laurel Village in Minneapolis might be a reasonable example. There are two towers of approximately the same height as the City Bella proposal, and the design employs a 3 story base that forms a strong relationship with the street. The design of the buildings is quite different than that shown on the City Bella sketches, but it does use some of the basic architectural concepts (the notion of a base, a set back tower, and lower scaled "wings "). We have included a few photographs of Laurel Village as an attachment to this letter. Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1H- ooissin gto,,n Koegler Group Inc. vfteacme w4E__ R. Mark Koegler. Michael Schroeder Mr. Bruce Nordquist Review of City Bella Concept 1 September 2000 Page 4 Laurel Village: three and four story base of residential and street level retail (with tower set back from street edge in the background) Laurel Village: three and four story base of residential residential and street level retail base (with tower set at street edge in the background) Laurel Village: residential tower set back Laurel Village: three and four story base at street level from street behind four story base of parking and street level retail Laurel Village: three and four story base Laurel Village: residential tower set back from of residential and street level retail street behind four story base of parking and street level retail AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 3 REPORT # 30 wd9A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 249 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution finding that the modifications to the, Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifications to the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District, Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, A -5 Tax Increment Financing District, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: II By motion: Approve a resolution finding that the modifications to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifications to the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District, Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, A -5 Tax Increment Financing District, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing District are consistent.with the Comprehensive Plan. II. BACKGROUND Since 1990, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program has provided for the purchase and clearance of small, substandard houses and the availability of vacant lots for the construction of larger, single family homes. The demand for this new housing continues. Over time, the dynamics of the program have changed such that a new approach to funding was required in order to sustain the program. To that end, in 1999 the City of Richfield sold General Obligation Bonds to provide funding for the 2000 Richfield Rediscovered Program. These bonds are paid for utilizing the 15 percent trust fund revenue source from the Gramercy and Urban Village tax increment projects. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and City Council have recently completed actions to expand the property to be acquired and to provide funding for the next several years. These modifications account for those payments from the Gramercy and Urban Village tax increment projects and add an additional 11 parcels that will be available for acquisition. In summary, the modifications do the following: 1. Incorporate the bond funding that was approved last year for Richfield Rediscovered into the appropriate plans. 2. Add properties which may be purchased to the appropriate plans. 3. Accommodate City Bella in the appropriate plan document. A more detailed summary of the specific modifications to each District are listed in Attachment A. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed modifications are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. See Pages Three -12 and Three -13 for the housing goals and policies. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program continues to be a successful program clearing small, substandard houses and providing vacant lots for the construction of larger single family homes in the community. Richfield Rediscovered is a proven redevelopment program yet requires the modification of its plans from time to time in order to provide updated lists of qualifying properties to comply with tax increment budgetary considerations and to maintain funding opportunities. C. FINANCIAL The HRH's development consultant, Ehlers and Associates, Inc., has prepared the modifications in conjunction with legal counsel's review and found them to be in compliance with existing law. D. LEGAL Other Actions: Council: The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the modifications on November 13, 2000. HRA: The HRA approved the modifications on October 16, 2000 The HRH's development consultant, Ehlers and Associates, Inc., has prepared the modifications in conjunction with legal counsel's review and found them to be in compliance with existing law. Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever the City adopts or modifies a tax increment financing plan, the Planning Commission must review the plan for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Reject the resolution, finding that the plan does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Attachment A: Summary list of modifications to each plan Attachment B: Sections from the housing goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan 3 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, AND B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District, the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, the A -5 Tax Increment Financing District, and the B -5 Tax Increment Financing District (the Modifications ") and has submitted the Modifications to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modifications to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modifications conform with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Adopted this 24'h day of October, 2000 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. ATTEST; Secretary CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Chairperson Summary of Modifications - Attachment A Modification of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan: Modification to the parcels to be acquired in the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing TIF) District, Urban Village TIF District and Richfield Rediscovered TIF District; Modification to the Sources of Funds to include interfund loans in the Gramercy TIF District and Urban Village TIF District; Modification to the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; Modification to the Uses of Funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; Modification to the Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness to increase the total to 63,000,000 in the Gramercy TIF District; Modification to the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A -5 and B -5 TIF Districts. Modification to the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan: Modification to incorporate the list of 28 acquisition parcels from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan; Modification to incorporate the new list of 11 additional acquisition parcels currently under the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 1015 East 69 Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7515 Humboldt Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 6919 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0094 6539 Oliver Avenue 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 Modification to allow the use of Gramercy TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels and new acquisition parcels; Modification to include the current Impact on the Tax Base, Impact on the Tax Rates, and Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion; Modification to recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered acquisition parcels; Modification to allow for interfund loans to cover project expenses and to include language stating the City's intention to pay back the interfund loans with tax increment funds; Modification of the Sources and Uses of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness and the Uses of Funds to include an increase to a total of $63,000,000 due to the addition and identification of the construction of a mixed use commercial /housing component referred to as City Bella. Modification to the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan: Modification to incorporate the list of 28 acquisition parcels from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan; Modification to incorporate the new list of 11 additional acquisition parcels currently under the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 1015 East 69 Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7515 Humboldt Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 6919 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0094 6539 Oliver Avenue 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 Modification to allow the use of Urban Village TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels and new acquisition parcels; Modification to allow for interfund loans to cover project expenses and to include language stating the City's intention to pay back the interfund loans with tax increment funds; Modification to recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered acquisition parcels. Modification to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan: Modification to incorporate the new list of 11 additional acquisition parcels currently under the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0103 1015 East 69 Street 26- 028 -24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6309 Bryant Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 7515 Humboldt Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0077 6919 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0094 6539 Oliver Avenue 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 Modification to allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels and new acquisition parcels; Modification to recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered acquisition parcels. Modification to the A -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan: Modification to remove two parcels from the A -5 TIF District and include them in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District Modification to the B -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan: Modification to remove one parcel from the B -5 TIF District and include it in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District l9 PART FOUR 4.1 Overview Attachment B Housing Housing goals, policies and plans are intended to enable Richfield to be a "life cycle housing" city within the requirements of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The components of the City's life cycle housing include providing sufficient affordable housing, encouraging a diverse stock of housing types, and supporting residential and commercial land use and development planning that provides affordable housing that is accessible to employment, recreation, and services. Because Richfield is a fully developed first ring suburb, changes in housing characteristics can only be accomplished through redevelopment. 4.4 Policies The policies used to guide housing decisions are: D. Upgrade the existing housing stock by continuing the "Richfield Rediscovered" program, scattered site clearance, new construction and remodeling programs. These programs encourage and support the rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing housing stock of all types and values. F. Support attractive, stable neighborhoods through strong housing code enforcement, good public facilities and services, rehabilitation and replacement construction incentives and active neighborhood resident organizations. d Draft as of October 12, 2000 for fiscal implications MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN _ FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: November 13, 2000 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 01 E H L E R S 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 a A S S O C I A T E S I N C (651) 697 -8500 fax: (651) 697 -8555 www.ehlers- inc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS for reference purposes only) MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ................ ............................... 1 Introduction.................................... ..............................1 MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ............................. 2 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT ............. 3 Introduction................................... ............................... 3 Property to be Acquired ......................... ............................... 4 Sources of Funds ............................... ............................... 5 Duration of the District .......................... ............................... 6 Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate .............................................. 6 Estimated Captures Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ............................... 7 Uses of Funds ................................. ............................... 8 Sources of RevenueBondedIndebtedness ........... ............................... 9 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ...... ............................... 9 MAP OF THE GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT .............. ............................... I 1 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT ....... 12 Introduction.......... ...................... ............................... 12 Property to be Acquired ........................ ............................... 12 Sources of Funds .............................. ............................... 14 MAP OF THE URBAN VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT ......... ............................... 15 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TIF DISTRICT ................................................. I................... 16 Introduction.................................. ............................... 16 Property to be Acquired_ ........................ ............................... 16 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE A -5 TIF DISTRICT ..................... 19 Statement of Objectives ...................... ............................... 19 Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A -5 ................. 19 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE B-5 TIF DISTRICT ..................... 20 Statement of Objectives .............. . Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B -5 .................. 20 MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Introduction The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area originally adopted by the Richfield City Council on June 14, 1993, and revised subsequently thereafter. Generally, the substantive changes in this plan modification include the following modifications, all in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area: a. Modifying the parcels to be acquired in the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, Urban Village TIF District and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District; b. Modifying the sources of funds to include interfund loans in the Gramercy TIF District and Urban Village TIF District; C. Modifying the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; d. Modifying the Uses of Funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; Modifying the Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness to include an increase to $63,000,000 in the Gramercy TIF District; and f. Clarify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District; g. Modifying the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A -5 TIF District and B -5 TIF District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, adopted July 16, 1990, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department of the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. J-// MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ME= Bill21ru _= 21 - m mm. 3-%3 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District (the Gramercy TIF Plan" and "Gramercy TIF District "). The Gramercy TIF District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Gramercy TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels ") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan"), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ( "the Council ") on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revised by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 10 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels ") to the Gramercy, Urban Vilage and RR 1999 TIF Districts; allow the use of Gramercy TIF District increment (the "Gramercy Increment ") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; d. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels; and e. allow interf ind loans to pay eligible project costs for Gramercy TIF District activities prior to the receipt of Gramercy Increment. f. modify the Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate, the Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment, and the Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions of the Gramercy TIF District to include current values; g. modify the Uses of Funds to include City Bella in the Gramercy TIF District; modify the Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness to include an increase to $63,000,000 in the Gramercy TIF District; and clarify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District; Property to be Acquired The Acquisition Parcels listed in the RR 1999 TIF Plan and New Acquisition Parcels, including all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels, are listed for reference purposes and made part of the Gramercy TIF District's list of parcels proposed for acquisition in order that Gramercy Increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels: Acquisition Parcels: 4 Address Parcel Numbers 6220 Clinton Avenue 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 6608 Stevens Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6625 3'd Avenue 27- 028 -24-41 -0084 6637 51 Avenue 27- 028 -24-41 -0105 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 6833 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6833 Grand Avenue 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 7036 11 Avenue 34- 028 -24 -12 -0015 72412' Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34- 028 -24-14 -0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 7544 tad Avenue 34- 028 -24 -42 -0104 7333 Emerson Avenue 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 6928 141 Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28- 028 -24 -22 -0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 6306 Irving Avenue 28- 028 - 24-21 -0126 6320 Girard Avenue 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 6645 Knox Avenue 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 6800 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -33 -0001 6912 Penn Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0161 6933 Queen Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 4 3/s 6833 Penn Avenue 28- 028 -24 -33 -0045 6929 Queen Avenue 29- 028 -24 -44 -0171 6901 12' Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27- 028 -24 -44 -0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34- 028 -24 -34 -0045 New Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24-33 -0103 1015 East 691 Street 26 -028- 24 -34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 - 2442 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24-13 -0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24-41 -0028 6309 Bryant 28- 028 -24-11 -0049 6440 Humboldt 28- 028 - 24-24 -0009 7517 Humboldt 33- 028 -24-42 -0077 6919 Logan 28- 028 -24-34 -0064 6600 Stevens 27- 028 -24-42 -0070 6539 Oliver Ave. S. 28- 028 -24-23 -0092 It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the Gramercy TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Sources of Funds Due to the build -out schedule for the entire Gramercy TIF-District, an interf ind loan of $275,000 will be made from the.General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1996 (the "Bonds of 1996 ") to cover project expenses of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District. The Bonds of 1996 are part of the revenue sources of the Interstate- Lyndale- Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District (the "ILN TIF District "). M.S. Section 469.1763, Subd. 2 allows tax increment revenue to be pooled between tax increment districts for eligible project costs. A second interfund loan up to $500,000 from the Development Account will be used to purchase certain properties within the Gramercy TIF District. Additional interfund loans from the City, HRA or other districts may be used to cover project expenses of the Gramercy TIF District. It is the City's intention to pay back these interfund loans with tax increment from the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District. 5 S 7V Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the Gramercy District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of the Gramercy District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Richfield of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that the Gramercy District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify the Gramercy District prior to the legally required date. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the Gramercy TIF District is based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 1998 for taxes payable 1999. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. I and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year beginning in the payment year 1999) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4, change in the use of the property and classification; 5. change in state law governing class rates; or 6. change in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of the Gramercy TIF District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA. Listed in the table below is a comparison of the Original Tax Capacity and Original Local Tax Rate for the Gramercy TIF District as originally approved by the City Council on June 22, 1998, and as currently proposed: Based on taxes payable 1998 Based on taxes payable 2000 The values for the current proposal reflect redevelopment of Phase II of the Gramercy TIF District, namely the "City Bella" project, a mixed -use commercial, retail and housing project. As Approved on June 22, 1998* As Modified 11/13/00 ** Original Tax Capacity Value 84,482 62,805 Percent Retained by City 100% 100% Estimated Original Local Tax Rate 138.585 Certified Original Local Tax Rate 151.7290 Current Local Tax Rate 132.6410 Based on taxes payable 1998 Based on taxes payable 2000 The values for the current proposal reflect redevelopment of Phase II of the Gramercy TIF District, namely the "City Bella" project, a mixed -use commercial, retail and housing project. 3-o Estimated Captured Net Tax Caaaci!y Value/Increment Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the Gramercy District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 1999. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Uses of Funds The Gramercy TIF District is a phased redevelopment project consisting of (a.) a senior cooperative housing project and VFW facility; and (b.) a mixed use commercial/housing component known as city Bella. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the projects for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the Gramercy TIF District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Gramercy TIF District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Gramercy District is outlined in the following table. As Approved on As Modified October 11. 1999 June 22.,,1998* 11/13/00 ** Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion 1,045,848 1,698,599 of Project (PTC) 10,426,057 5,000,000 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 84.482 62.805 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 961,366 1,635,794 Estimated Annual Tax Increment 1,332,309 CTC X Local Tax Rate) Estimated Annual Tax Increment 2,169,733 CTC X Current Local Tax Rate) Uses of Funds The Gramercy TIF District is a phased redevelopment project consisting of (a.) a senior cooperative housing project and VFW facility; and (b.) a mixed use commercial/housing component known as city Bella. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the projects for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the Gramercy TIF District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Gramercy TIF District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Gramercy District is outlined in the following table. As Modified As Modified 11/13/00October11. 1999 Uses of Funds Gramercy City Bella Total Land Acquisition 10,426,057 5,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 Demo./Relocation 1,920,000 100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 i 0 Rehabilitation 1,120,000 As Modified 11/13/00 Site Work 1,383,093 700,000 500,000 1,200,000 Utilities /Roads /Walks 1,648,850 100,000 500,000 600,000 Permits 1,972,000 34,500,000 Interest 15,500,000 600,000 Admin.costs (up to 10 %) 3,357,568 TOTAL 37,327,568 5,900,000- 1, 22,000,000 63,000,000 Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay -as- you -go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed 63,000,000, as modified without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay -as- you -go" basis for eligible activities paid for . by the developer. The estimated sources of funds for the Gramercy District are contained in the table below. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions As Approved on June 22, 1998 As Modified 11/13/00 Sources of Funds All Phases Total All Phases Total Tax Increment 30,875,000 60,000,000 Local Contribution 1,625,000 3,000,000 TOTAL 32,500,000 63,000,000 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 3-M The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of the Gramercy District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated total impact of the Gramercy District, as modified, would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2000/2001 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,387,128,179 1,635,794 0.1179% I.S.D. No. 280 24,057,761 1,635,794 6.7994% City of Richfield 26,732,297 1,635,794 6.1192% The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate as certified. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 2000 figures. 9 IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1997/1998 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.383860 27.70% 1,635,794 627,916 I.S.D. No. 280 0.643340 46.42% 1,635,794 1,052,372 City of Richfield 0.271250 19.57% 1,635,794 443,709 Other 0.087400 6.31% 1,635,794 142,968 Total 1.385850 100.00% 2,266,965 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate as certified. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 2000 figures. 9 MAP OF THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 10 5, 4 u I_ J MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District the "Urban Village TIF Plan" and "Urban Village TIF District "). The Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Urban Village TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels ") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan "), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ( "the Council") on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revises by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 10 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels ") to the Gramercy, Urban Village and RR 1999 TIF Districts; C. allow the use of Urban Village TIF District increment (the "Urban Village Increment ") for-eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; and d. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Property to be Acquired The parcels to be acquired in the Urban Village District are being modified to include the parcels to be acquired listed below, including all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels. Please see the map on page 12 for further information on the location of the Urban Village District. Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6220 Clinton Avenue 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 6608 Stevens Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6625 3'd Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0084 6637 5' Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0105 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 M OC 3 a3 6833 Park Avenue 6833 Grand Avenue 7036 1" Avenue 7241 2nd Avenue 7316 Clinton Avenue 7301 Garfield Avenue 7544 2 "d Avenue 7333 Emerson Avenue 6928 14'' Avenue 6315 Newton Avenue 6310 Irving Avenue 6306 Irving Avenue 6320 Girard Avenue 6645 Knox Avenue 6800 Logan Avenue 6912 Penn Avenue 6933 Queen Avenue 6833 Penn Avenue 6929 Queen Avenue 6901 121 Avenue 6945 Clinton Avenue 7615 Pillsbury Avenue New Acquisition Parcels: 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 34- 028-24 -12 -0015 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 34- 028 -24 -42 -0104 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 28- 028 -24 -22 -0097 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 28- 028 -24 -33 -0001 29- 028 -24 -44 -0161 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 28- 028 -24 -33 -0045 29- 028 -24 -44 -0171 26- 028 -24 -43 -0082 27- 028 -24-44 -0108 34- 028 -24 -34 -0045 Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26- 028 -24-33 -0103 1015 East 69th Street 26- 028 -24-34 -0050 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24-42 -0064 7232 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24-13 -0121 12 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 6539 Oliver Ave. S. 27- 028 -24-41 -0028 28- 028 -24-11 -0049 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 33- 028 -24-42 -0077 28- 028 -24 -34 -0064 27- 028 -24-42 -0070 28- 028 -24-23 -0092 It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the Urban Village TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Sources of Funds . Interfund loans from the City, HRA or other districts may be used to cover project expenses of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. It is the City's intention to pay back these interfund loans with tax increment from the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. 13 3-ds MAP OF THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 14 L7 11 L7 r rrrr INS lm 3—d e7 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of. Richfield (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan" and "RR 1999 TIF District "). The RR 1999 Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district lo_ ca_ted within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels ") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan "), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ( "the Council ") on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revises by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 10 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels ") to the Gramercy, Urban Village and RR 1999 TIF Districts; allow the use of RR 1999 TIF District increment (the "RR 1999 Increment ") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; and d. recognize the possibilityof future modificationsto the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list ofacquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the RR 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of RR 1999 Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Property to be Acquired The following RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels, including all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels, are listed for reference purposes and made part of the RR 1999 TIF District's list of parcels proposed for acquisition in order that RR 1999 Increment maybe used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels: Acquisition Parcels: Address 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue 6625 31 Avenue 6637 51 Avenue 6800 Pillsbury Avenue Parcel Numbers 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 27- 028 -24 -41 -0084 27- 028 -24 -41 -0105 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 15 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 6833 Park Avenue 6833 Grand Avenue 7036 1" Avenue 7241 2nd Avenue 7316 Clinton Avenue 7301 Garfield Avenue 7544 21 Avenue 7333 Emerson Avenue 6928 14' Avenue 6315 Newton Avenue 6310 Irving Avenue 6306 Irving Avenue 6320 Girard Avenue 6645 Knox Avenue 6800 Logan Avenue 6912 Penn Avenue 6933 Queen Avenue 6833 Penn Avenue 6929 Queen Avenue 6901 12' Avenue 6945 Clinton Avenue 7615 Pillsbury Avenue New Acquisition Parcels: Address 6856 Park Avenue 1015 East 691" Street 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 34- 028 -24 -12 -0015 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 34- 028 -24 -23 =0129 34- 028 -24 -42 -0104 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 28- 028 -24 -22 -0097 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 28- 028 -24 -33 -0001 29- 028 -24 -44 -0161 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 28- 028 -24 -33 -0045 29- 028 -24 -44 -0171 26- 028 -24 -43 -0082 27- 028 -24 -44 -0108 34- 628 -24 -34 -0045 Parcel Numbers 26- 028 -24-33 -0103 26- 028 -24-34 -0050 27- 028 -24-42 -0064 16 3--,2 y 7232 Second Avenue 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 6539 Oliver Ave. S. 34- 028 -24-13 -0121 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 28- 028 -24 -11 -0049 28- 028 -24-24 -0009 33- 028 -24-42 -0077 28- 028 - 24-34 -0064 27- 028 -24-42 -0070 28 -028- 24-23 -0092 It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Boundaries The following parcels are located in previous Richfield Rediscovered TIF Districts, but were not certified. As noted in the Modification to the TIF Plan for the A -5 TIF District and in the Modification to the TIF Plan for the B -5 TIF District, the Plans are being modified to clarify that these parcels are no longer in the A -5 TIF Plan and B -5 TIF Plan, and they are included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan; as modified. Address 6616 Second Avenue 6620 Fifth Avenue 6440 Humboldt Parcel Number 27- 028 -24-42 -0064 27- 028 -24-41 -0028 28- 028 - 24-24 -0009 17 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives District A -5 currently consists of 53 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. District A -5 was created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District A -5 consists of 53 lots with the potential for a total of 55 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District A -5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District A -5 does assume that 55 new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District A -5 and Redevelopment Project Area A. Generally, the Modification includes removing 2 parcels, that were not certified, from the District. Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A -5 The following property and all adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below are included in District A -5 but are not certified in the District. These parcels are being removed from District A -5 and included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address Parcel Number 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24-42 -0064 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24-41 -0028 18 3-31 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN 40- FOR THE B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives District B -5 currently consists of 29 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. District B -5 is created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District B -5 consists of 29 lots with the potential for a total of 30 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District B -5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District B -5 does assume that 30 new homes-are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan-and-the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District B -5 and Redevelopment Project Area B. Generally, the Modifications include removing one parcel, which was not certified, from the District. Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B-5 The.following property and all adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below are included in District B -5 but are not certified in the District. These parcels are being removed from District B -5 and included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address Parcel Number 6440 Humboldt 28- 028 -24-24 -0009 19