Loading...
071211completeagenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2011 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW CONFERENCE ROOM 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding update from The Cornerstone Group (Council Memo No. 74) Notes: 2. Discussion regarding sidewalk snowplowing (Council Memo No. 75) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of June 27,2011, (2) Special Concurrent HRA and City Council Worksession of June 28, 2011, (3) Special City Council Worksession of June 28, 2011 and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of June 28, 2011 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of"2011 XCEL Energy Case Study for Motor Efficiency Program" participation plaque to Robert Hintgen (Video) 2. Presentation of Hennepin County 2011 Wellness by Design Award (Video)(Council Memo No. 76) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Cancel August 23 Council Meeting • Potential Dates for Budget Discussion — September 6 or 7 • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of a resolution supporting the efforts of the City of Richfield becoming a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Community S.R. No. 140 B. Consideration to accept the change order report for the Richfield Municipal Project for an aggregate net effect of$20,578 in items included in the project budget S.R. No. 141 C. Consideration of resolutions pertaining to the annual Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment process and schedule a public hearing for August 9, 2011 S.R. No. 142 D. Consideration of resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment process and schedule a public hearing for August 9, 2011 S.R. No. 143 E. Consideration of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2010 S.R. No. 144 F. Consideration of approval of submission of the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project for Federal Surface Transportation Program Grant consideration S.R. No. 145 G. Consideration of approval of first reading of an ordinance amending Section 547 (Administration) of the Zoning Code; specifically the application process, requirements and terms of Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Site Plan Approval and Interim Use Permits and amending regulations related to the requirement for driveway permits S.R. No. 146 H. Consideration of approval of an Encroachment Agreement with Richfield Hotel and maintain two signs in the City's existing Limited Partnership to place a g y g Utility Easement S.R. No. 147 I. Consideration of the continuation of the contract with the City of Bloomington for provision of inspection services for the City of Richfield for the year 2011 S.R. No. 148 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 7. Presentation and acceptance of 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan Staff Report No. 149 Notes: 8. Consideration of an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development plan at 6401 Lyndale Avenue, 515 64th Street West and 521 64th Street West (Lyndale Commons) to allow the construction of a 94-unit apartment building Staff Report No. 150 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 9. City Manager's report Notes: 10.Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 11.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. richfield: July 2011 Page 1 of 1 City of Richfield Calendar Calendars Net Navigate: 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May_ Jun Jul Aug. Sep Oct Nov. Dec. 2012 July 2011 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 27 Jun 28 29 30 1 I Jul 5:30p Human Services 5:30 PM Special Planning Council Concurrent City 7:OOp Planning Counci/HRA Commission Worksession 6 PM Special City Immediately following Council/HRA/Planning Concurrent Worksession Commission -Special City Council Worksession regarding Worksession Lyndale Garden Center site @ Oak Grove 7 PM Regular City Lutheran Church, 7045 Council Meeting Lyndale Avenue 4 5 6 7 8 City Administrative 11:30a Richfield Tourism 7:OOp Transportation 7:OOp Arts Commission offices closed--Fourth Promotion Board @ Commission @ 6335 Portland Ave of July holiday 6601 Lyndale Ave, Suite CANCELED 106 7:OOp Human Rights Commission CANCELED 11 12 13 14 15 7 PM Planning 5:30 PM Special City Commission Study Council Worksession Session 7 PM Regular City Council Meeting 18 19 20 21 22 6:OOp Special City 7:OOp Community 7:OOp Friendship City Council/HRA/Planning Services Commission @ Commission Commission 7000 Nicollet Ave Worksession regarding Lyndale Garden Center site @ Oak Grove Lutheran Church, 7045 Lyndale Avenue 7:OOp Housing and Redevelopment Authority(HRA) 25 26 27 28 29 5:30p Human Services 6 PM Special City SATURDAY,JULY 30 Planning Council Council Worksession 9:30 a.m.- 10:30 a.m. 7:OOp Planning Mayor's Hour @ Commission 7 PM Regular City Farmers'Market Council Meeting Display: Year Month Week Day Block List Condensed Abs Slide Calendars: Search Add Events: Daily Duration Periodic Administer: This Calendar All meetings held at City Hall (6700 Portland Avenue) unless indicated otherwise Calendars Net free online interactive web calendars http://www.my.calendars.net/richfield 7/7/2011 = d1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting June 27, 2011 Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; and Fred Wroge. Not Present: Tom Fitzhenry. The City Council attended the Cornerstone Group Workshop II: Development Scenarios —The Block Exercise regarding the proposed redevelopment options for the Lyndale Garden Center site. Date Approved: July 12, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Recording Secretary City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Authority Worksession June 28, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Fred Wroge; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; and Present: Tom Fitzhenry. HRA Members Sue Sandahl, Chair; Debbie Goettel; Doris Rubenstein; Joan Helmberger. Present: HRA Members Steve Quam (excused). Absent: Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Karen Barton, Community Development Manager; Corrine Heine, City Attorney (arrived at 5:55 p.m.); and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF FORMER KMART AT 66TH STREET AND LYNDALE AVENUE Steve Wellington, representative from Wellington Management, discussed their proposed redevelopment of the former Kmart site. The corner public green space should be incorporated into the plan but no commitments have been made by City staff. Discussion included potential higher density; financing, parking requirements structured parking, pedestrian access, traffic flow and proposed tenants; including LA Fitness, Frattalone Hardware and a restaurant. Mr. Wellington said they are attempting to do the proposed project without public subsidy. Council Member/HRA Chair Sandahl stated she was open to incorporating the green space if it allowed an outside eating area and another green space could be located within the project. Special Worksession Minutes -2- June 28, 2011 Mayor/HRA Commissioner Goettel read a written statement from HRA Commissioner Quam expressing his concerns related to the proposed development. Council Member Wroge commended the developer for attempting the project with no financial assistance. Mayor/HRA Commissioner Goettel expressed support for the reorientation of the layout from the original concept. She also suggested higher density and structured parking. Council Member Fitzhenry stated he liked the proposed concept including incorporating the public space with a restaurant. HRA Commissioner Rubenstein also said she liked higher density and structured parking. Community Development Director Stark clarified that the public space is not considered a park but is an HRA-owned parcel used for public space. Mr. Wellington explained the parking requirements are close to being met. Community Development Manager Barton stated there is more parking than what is required. Mr. Wellington explained the financing for more density. Tim Carter, Richfield Chamber of Commerce, discussed the Chamber of Commerce's support of the proposed project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:05 p.m. Date Approved: July 12, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Recording Secretary City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Special Worksession June 28, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Fred Wroge; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; and Present: Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item # I DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL COMMUNITY BAND SHELL Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the Community Services Commission recruited several members and Richfield resident David Butler to begin planning for a potential community band shell. Discussion included the community benefits, potential uses, potential locations (Veterans Park—southeast of Arena or the Lyndale Garden Center site), stage size, seating capacity, funding and visual examples of current bandshells in the metro area. Council Member Sandahl spoke in support of a bandshell but expressed concern with the Lyndale Garden Center because of parking. Council Member Wroge spoke in support of the Veterans Park location with the orientation changed so water or trees, not the Arena, are in the background. He expressed concern regarding parking at Lyndale Garden Center if housing is included in The Cornerstone Group redevelopment project. Doris Rubenstein, 6515 Emerson Avenue, suggested Augsburg Park be considered as another location because it's a natural, rustic amphitheater. She stated the bandshell acoustics need to be considered for the noise impact on the neighborhood. The City Council consensus was to proceed with the bandshell plan and review pros and cons of the three locations. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer stated funding will change for each site. Special Worksession Minutes -2- June 28, 2011 Item # 2 DISCUSSION REGARDING ORGANIZED GARBAGE COLLECTION IN RICHFIELD Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer discussed the Community Services Commission's process and consensus in recommending that the City Council continue studying the possibility of organized garbage collection. Greg Mangold, Community Services Commission Member, 6233 Washburn Avenue, reviewed his analysis of waste collection services, including lower prices for consumers, reduced truck traffic and community control over decisions on waste management. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer reviewed the State Statute requirements regarding the process establishing organized collection. Mayor Goettel discussed organized collection as being a sustainability issue. She also said the push-to-the-curb day should be included. Council Member Sandahl stated the idea should be reviewed. Council Member Wroge said he supported organized collection at first but now he believes it limits the homeowner's ability of choice. It could create a monopoly of one hauler which no longer provides for the fair market of prices. Council Member Elliott said an organized collection could be a cornering of the market. Due to a lack of time, the City Council continued discussion to the July 12 City Council Worksession. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: June 28, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Recording Secretary City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting June 28, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Brad Sveum, Fire Chief; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director/Chief; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM None. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the minutes of(1) Special City Council Worksession of June 14, 2011 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of June 14, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- June 28,2011 Item #1 PRESENTATION BY RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST#435 OF DECOMISSIONED UNITED STATES FLAG FROM OLD CITY HALL SITE Jerry Martin, American Legion Vice Commander, presented the flag. Item #2 PRESENTATION OF GENE AND MARY JACOBSEN OUTSTANDING CITIZEN OF YEAR AWARD TO DIANE AHLQUIST Mayor Goettel and Council Member Elliott presented the award. State Representative Slocum presented an Award of Commendation from Governor Dayton to Ms. Ahlquist. Item #3 PRESENTATION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING $1,000 GRANT DONATION FROM CENTERPOINT ENERGY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM TO RICHFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PURCHASE GAS MONITORING EQUIPMENT IN 2011 M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10521 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10521. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 PRESENTATION AND RECEIPT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 Bill Lauer, MMKR auditing firm, presented the audit results. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2010. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -3- June 28,2011 Item #5 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Fitzhenry reported on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program. Council Member Wroge discussed the inspection contract with Bloomington and the potential significant fee increases. He suggested other communities be contacted to perform these services to determine the best alternatives. City Manager Devich explained several options are under consideration but staff is waiting for an update from Bloomington. Council Member Wroge discussed several of his concerns regarding the foreclosure proceedings underway for the commercial properties at the Kensington Park development and the timeliness of notifying the City Council. He also expressed concern regarding the same developer, The Cornerstone Group, redeveloping the Lyndale Garden Center site in light of the financial issues at Kensington. City Manager Devich stated staff was aware of Colleen Carey, The Cornerstone Group, seeking an investor in Kensington but was not aware of a Sheriff's sale until this past Thursday. Council Member Elliott questioned the transparency of notification to the City Council, especially when that developer was trying to develop other sites in the City. The City Council requested The Cornerstone Group be scheduled to attend a City Council meeting in July to discuss this situation. Item #6 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Goettel, S/Sandhal to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #7 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of contract for demolition with Frattalone Companies for demolition of 7600 Portland Avenue in amount of$19,740 and authorizing staff to contract for any uncovered abatement costs S.R. No. 127 B. Consideration of approval of transferring funds to close out certain capital project and enterprise funds S.R. No. 128 C. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting six miscellaneous grant donations in total amount of$600 received from Richfield residents through Residential Mortgage Group "Refer a Friend. Build Your Community" program to be used to defray costs of Fire and Life Safety educational programs conducted by Richfield Fire Department S.R. No. 129 RESOLUTION NO. 10522 Council Meeting Minutes -4- June 28,2011 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF SIX MISCELLANEOUS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10522. D. Consideration of approval of letters of support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail; west segment and east segment S.R. No. 130 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing joint powers agreement with State of Minnesota to receive $5000 toward striping and signing modifications at 66th Street and Portland Avenue roundabout S.R. No. 131 RESOLUTION NO. 10523 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF CONTRACT NO. 99072 BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MN/DOT) AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO PROVIDE INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS AT 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE AND ACCEPT A LUMP SUM PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5000.00. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10523. F. Consideration of approval of amendment to Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) I, II and III supplemental funding grant from Centers for Disease Control through MN Department of Health for use in contract with City of Bloomington for supporting and enhancing infrastructure critical to public health preparedness and response S.R. No. 132 G. Consideration of approval of rejecting proposals received on December 10, 2010 for construction of tier-one skate park in Augsburg Park and authorizing staff to advertise revised Request for Proposal for design and construction of tier-one skate park in Augsburg Park S.R. No. 133 H. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue, activities on July 4, 2011 S.R. No. 134 I. Consideration of approval of community celebration event and temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses with fee waiver for Fourth of July Committee for events at Veterans Memorial Park, July 1 through July 5, 2011 S.R. No. 135 J. Consideration of approval of temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor license for The Church of the Assumption Kermes event on July 10, 2011 S.R. No. 136 M/Goettel, S/Wroge to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. The City Council requested accident data on the roundabout. (Item E) Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Council Meeting Minutes -5- June 28,2011 Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AMENDMENT TO CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 1, SUBSECTION 100.07 ADOPTING REFERENCES TO MINNESOTA STATUTES AND RULES (STAFF REPORT NO. 137) Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 137. M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that this constitute second reading of Bill No. 2011-15 an amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules. Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 925.02, RELATING TO VACANT BUILDING REGULATIONS AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (STAFF REPORT NO. 138) Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 138. M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that this constitute second reading of Bill No. 2011-16 amending Richfield City Code Subsection 925.02, relating to vacant building regulations and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance amendment: RESOLUTION NO. 10524 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2011-16 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10524. Item #10A CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STORAGE OF GARBAGE, REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES CONTAINERS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 601.25 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE AND SCHEDULE SECOND READING FOR JULY 26, 2011 (STAFF REPORT NO. 138A) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 138A. Public Safety Director/Chief Fritz suggested adding "or front of garage whichever is closer to the street" to the last sentence of Section 1 of the ordinance. Council Member Sandahl suggested the second reading be held on July 26 not July 12 to allow time to communicate this proposed change to the public. She also suggested visual examples of screening be provided. Council Member Wroge suggested the enforcement date be January 1, 2012. City Attorney Heine stated the ordinance would reflect the changes. Council Member Elliott stated the enforcement of opacity should have some latitude. Council Meeting Minutes -6- June 28,2011 M/Wroge, S/Goettel that this constitutes the first reading of an ordinance relating to storage of garbage, refuse and recyclables containers; amending Subsection 601.25 of the Richfield City Code and schedule second reading for July 26, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. Item #11 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX D OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATED TO FEES FOR VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION (STAFF REPORT NO. 139) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 139. Community Development Director Stark and City Clerk Gibbs explained the process for determining the registration fee. City Attorney Heine explained the ordinance includes a process for non-compliance, including abatement. Community Development Director Stark suggested the point-of-sale program include that the inspection would not be conducted until all past due fees are paid. He added the registration for publicly owned vacant property is a policy decision to be consistent with non-public sites. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10525 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2011 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 10486 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10525. Item #12 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT • July 4 City Council parade banner logistics • Notices of potential public meetings to City Council i.e. Lyndale Garden Center Workshops City Manager Devich reported on the parade banner logistics on July 4. City Attorney Heine explained the open meeting law requirements as they pertain to meetings where a quorum of the City Council may be present. City Manager Devich discussed the impacts of a State government shutdown, especially related to the Motor Vehicle Deputy Registrar. Council Meeting Minutes -7- June 28,2011 Item #13 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 6/28/2011 A/P Checks: 204535-204970 $ 1,560,095.06 Payroll: 76041-76411 41859-41860 $ 558,495.97 TOTAL $ 2,118,591.03 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT unanimous consent at 9:08 p.m. The City Council meeting was adjourned by u p Date Approved: July 12, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Recording Secretary City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager July 7, 2011 Council Memorandum No. 76 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Hennepin County 2011 Wellness by Design Award Council Members: The City of Richfield was one of 81 worksites honored at an awards ceremony on June 23rd as a recipient of Hennepin County's 2011 Wellness by Design Worksite Award. The Wellness by Design Award is presented to organizations that have met specific criteria by creating policies, programs and environments that support and encourage employee health. In her opening remarks, Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman noted that the City of Richfield has received the award in each of the six years of its existence. Bronze, silver, gold and platinum awards are given. This year, Richfield's "Live Healthy * Live Happy" Employee Wellness Program attained the silver level award. The City's Wellness Program encourages employees to focus on nutrition, lifestyle and physical activity. Healthy employees not only feel better but also are more productive and less costly to insure. A video presentation will be shown at the July 12 City Council meeting. R= .•-i ully sub r'tted, di( en . City Manager SLD:ds E-mail: Department Directors Assistant City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5A REPORT# 140 m•adill STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER 0 ss NAME,TITLE / REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r . ! _A I A& ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution supporting the efforts of the City of Richfield becoming a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Community. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution supporting the efforts of the City of Richfield becoming a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Community. II. BACKGROUND A Yellow Ribbon Community unites all areas within a community to create a comprehensive network that connects and coordinates agencies, organizations, resources and employers for the purpose of proactively supporting Service Members and military families. For the past several months, the City of Richfield has been developing a Yellow Ribbon Community action plan. As part of the process, the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon organization requested a resolution from the City to show its support. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Beyond the Yellow Ribbon organization has requested a resolution from the City to show its support. • Resolutions are presented to and approved by the City Council. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES 0712YetlowRibbon 1 • Richfield is proceeding with the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon process and the Governor could declare Richfield as a Yellow Ribbon City in August. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council could decide to not approve the resolution. • The City Council could defer action to a future meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. SA- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BECOMING A BEYOND THE YELLOW RIBBON COMMUNITY WHEREAS, many families support their military service members who are serving in the United States and overseas to protect the values and freedom enjoyed by the citizens of the United States of America; and WHEREAS, a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Community Partnership is an effort to assist connecting local military family members with a community network of support that is understood and trusted by military families, where military residents and their families are recognized and can access information and services to assist them during the deployment cycle and is sustainable for future military families as deployment becomes necessary; and WHEREAS, a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Community Partnership will build on the existing strength of our community and organizations by continuing to support awareness and addressing the needs of spouses and children throughout the deployment, deployment-reintegration process and through extended periods after homecoming in ways to lessen their burden while a family members is deployed or is impacted by their service to community and country; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield believes the effects of deployment do not end when the soldier returns home and the family is reunited; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield encourages key groups of the community service members and their families to be proactive and work in harmony to develop a program which empowers community synchronization of effort and build an enduring and sustainable network of support. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield is proud to recognize, appreciate and say Thank You to our military members and their families for their service sacrifices and in all they do. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the residents and the City Council of the City of Richfield do fully support the efforts of the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Partnership to support our military members and their families while defending the democratic values of the United States of America. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5B REPORT# 141 MAIM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 PAM DMYTRENKO, REPORT PREPARED BY: - CITY MANAGER NAME,TITLE Aiff REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Accept the change order report for the Richfield Municipal Project for an aggregate net effect of$20,578 in items included in the project budget. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Richfield Municipal Center change order report for an aggregate net effect of $10,317 in items included within the project budget and for $10,261 in non-budgeted items. II. BACKGROUND Resolution No. 10309 provides the City Manager the authority to approve change orders for all contracts awarded by the City Council for the construction of the new Richfield Municipal Center subject to the following limitations: • Up to an aggregate of$25,000 for non-budgeted items • Up to an aggregate of$100,000 for items within the project budget Following the approval of such change orders, the City Manager must report this information to the City Council. Attached is the list of the approved project change orders since the June 14, 2011 City Council meeting. Some change orders represent an increase to the originally awarded contract and some represent a decrease. The largest change order is in the amount of$5,069 for floor opening infills for smoke access. This is a code requirement that involved filling in duct penetrations from the floors in the mechanical rooms with additional fire proofing. Because this type of work is difficult to bid, it was agreed to base the pricing on time and materials once the entire building was completed. 0510change orders The non-budgeted item, in the amount of$10,261, is for the construction of a larger, temporary parking lot in front of the building's main entrance. Because of the decision to keep the Deputy Registrar's office operational during the project, it was critical to provide additional customer parking spaces, including two handicapped stalls. The aggregate net effect of the change orders before the Council on July 12, 2011 is $10,317 in budgeted items and $10,261 in non-budgeted items. Total net project change orders to-date is $300,760. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In order to maintain the construction schedule of the Richfield Municipal Center project and respond to change order requests in a timely manner, the City Council has authorized (Resolution No. 10309) the City Manager to approve change orders up to an aggregate value of$100,000 for budgeted items and up to an aggregate value of$25,000 for non-budgeted items. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City Manager must report approved change orders for the Richfield Municipal Center to the City Council at the next Council meeting. • These change orders have already been approved and, in most cases, implemented. C. FINANCIAL • The change orders before the Council for review on July 12, 2011 represent a net effect of$10,317 for budgeted items and $10,261 for non-budgeted items. • Total net project change orders to-date is $300,760. D. LEGAL • NA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Richfield Municipal Center Change Order Log VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 1 6g -1 L. 0 0 4 0 m $ a 2 7 CO 0 C ,_ o > oom o c $ o « � Ls 7 ® ± $ >, Co c k m £ E ig = = m < _ # / \ W # Etn - \ I E I o = I I Z b 2 q g a = 7 - H E > c o O J o L. E o o a . o o \ 4 CC w > 5 2 0 s 2 o Y co co 2 > Z m R \ o S o G G o o o C o G CG S S S S o ° 0510 / ® % % 01 \ $ . - k / E ¢ G / %\ o ¥ CO CO r CV CO 0) w r CO \ CV r 6 « a— aaa & � 64- � .— � 05 / co :0 \ 0 m C g E / > \ = 2 E = o LT/ •$§ f E Q• ) \ 3 f 3 a) o § c , E Ufa � o > % � � E • / E % o o R RS J '0. \ ) § t _J \ \ / �/ \ a) 0k % gymI- Cl) @0 % £ k00 � � O \ 1 $ o� e \ � � m4 m \ A3u / 2 I = E m ƒ \ $ 2 « a) .0 ƒ \ $ \ \ / &� � - M > 1 ' o / % 2 05 $ $ \ ® � E , o- E q © # » 2 2 8 C 0 ƒ .o / _ $ _ = 7 2 ° # ' k 05 k . E $ c c .® 0 7 7 ca ° w w b c E / $ 2 c — 5 c a) • @ = c m c . o :ƒ j / / ± _ ) § / 2 = . ° P. 0 § E c ° § k 2 4 G § O Q 7 § » m = ° • \ k \ • » / 2 \ oc E R $ \ \ g c co E ° 2 G CL 2 0 2 \ § g / O / 11 a ° 3 7 § 5 - ' ° 7 [ 720 / § 2R% § \ a oEc4I Eoe < mI = < a ,- e < Z ' 0 / ' . . I . . . Co . O. N o " ' - — o w ¥ co — m # o ¥ c o — & CO ¥ co b / o mcq \ ggq gCV CV gCV CV (N Q sd- P- I :O n ( . v a Cl) J I y As U ti T Fs >s (0 w N U . I r L Z J us r=N > d i 'O H _ o 0 o O c a p U c p N L .c 0 m c U w e 5 > Z E C ~ U J c (7 it a) f6 F- c CO Y °- 2 ° CL o rn is 0 as C7 o d O 2 U n Z''' W = N W o E Q 2 °� U °� 2 0 c U c� 2 U n p = 0Oi) Z ' E in to -0 as c m 2 a d ,� o U it ° H (_ o n > Q m > Q 'ca� C7 c ° w �' m o , 8Z` 00O _ Y• O W Y I_ C c 5 - 0 al 0 U co Y N _C C U c C Z C U ,-° a 0 Y Y �° U > a CeS 2202 a� m 0 > toui US� U oc 2 U U d - O O _ O __ a O ..c _ a) = Q 6 J Z O Q .n O c U O -co Q m c •c •a c m c a) c Q c Q U w v0, C c C 2 CCO N c oa U '5 o Z (7) = = 0_a) E a) c c Q c w OU N (06 N 2 ) (c0 4' 0 m N = o N N N U J O O - 0 0) a) J C a 06 2 _c 0 0 c .- O a) 2 L a) o c L a) O) 0_ = O) .0 O m L U) c 0 0 Ycns W SQY W Y > > E 2 2YI- UU EOQIYm1- Y U > 1- Q W W E HQ W in ZO W I- JC7I2 I 0 c o 0 0 O O O O O 8 o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o I 0 00 000 • o 0000000000000000000 000 o oo0o oo O O r U) ' ' r CO aO N- U) M O O �V•• O N O U) 6 O V• N O I� CO U) U) CO (D U) O U) N ' N O U) I,: U) U) r o O) V• CO 0 CO 0) N N Cl) 0 co N N CO I- CO 0 CO 0 CO Cl) r l() CO r 0 V' O O) N O > r- Q) as N V. r 0 Q V' as V• M N r -Cl) 0 o CO V' N N U) CO CO CO CO CO N V• M N- CO CO V" U) 0 V• 1- O O CO N CO O) Ni"-CO r_.M`- N t r V' 1- CO r N V'o N- CO '-N r r M v U) U) r ...r C) co N O o E T • O '� O U c = a0 L c6 c Or U O O a p � co N n 2 co co O co - a) c a a' •C a) E CO °tf c - p e N o C .� ',g� .0 O O N a) c U 0 •'- 0 C .0 r����` O r• � > N 0 H C Cl)U 3 U (6 m U as V 0 O N c7i '. .0 O U CO Y a u= 0 > Q N 2 O a) O �.L 0 2 •> O U C O O O C c a O Q = O 0 U p 3 d U ° co —� c O •c O > o p 8 m CO o a0i 3 o a) c c a) -o c- o c .N Z 0 0 .c C7 J rn c° N Ui r E a o v (0 -,- c C c 0 m aa) c C Q a) 0 0 N c E No a) i � iaN � 2U � O � = ac EitscO .BmU2 u) o a 0 � � O � cmc0 c o0 d � .N 00 •5 f a)) Do 0 0 � � • -8 c m � o O C N W a� � .c � w a) m •°—� v, o a (n >. co os a) `o aw >, a� 005 :4. N w .° o `O c O E C Ctrn >,< aa N •> ;= 0 .5 N E O v O -0 2 Or rn a U E N O) N 0 2 .0 p >WM 4-a) O c 0 O " H O ° 3 > :° W ca •c .—> U o D as c V' •0Lr V) N C L.L Q N td LL p C •> •U �• '� •O 0 Oc C0 0 JC? C QC (n a) 0 m (j L c W flUH O 3 oS U > Y 2 o 0 o 0 .S C O O C ._ O c N C2 p 2' c a 'B c a) > p 0 W N Q () a � t n. Uh arna °c NO cn0m ; 2 � 0_LUO. . a2a77:500 ) mia E � OmiiJ0Et O - - > 0 O C O O O ACS w .0 0 0 i a) .0 O O U ` -0 0- -' w U a) C C C O W V- N .c ((. 0 O O 2 `Cy V a0 O '- N U U U a) p U U U Q CZ N 2 0_ (D N C p C p 7 0 p ` 3 •(p 'O O D 4: i 0 E ,_ 0 W 0 ° O CO Q o > o .-0 0 0 U 0) CO, o O a) •� o E 0 '0 2 U_ = 001- 00 0 w? co 3 O 0 O o• ') • U) '5 0 ,_ N to co 0 •C7 U c Cj).2 E w 1 O a- C 1O - a) .0)F. a)us BO O 0 C U Cl) U6> C a ,_ O 0 'N L a) a) a) a) a) N O L t a) O O Z. a) O O U a) O Y"O 7 0 0 0 N N a) X •0 O 0 Z. < W' UCLM � CL 01 oW OW 1- 1 W mm0m2S wmo < 021iIL W1— (OU (/) HU0 WQU) OQ r , E) N N O * Q. N CO V• N- O) N r N M V• U) CO I� O O) O) ° r N r r M r V" U) (O r I- a0 r O) r N Cl) V• U) CO I- CO O) o N M V' r CO Q. r r r ' r ' ' r r r r r N N N N N N N N N M M M M M CO U CO U) (0 0) U 0 O r N Cl) U) I� 0 U) C— O) r M V' U) I- CO r N M CO (- CO 0) r M V' CO CO O) 0 r N U) CO r Cl) V• U) CO r r r r r r N r N N CO N CO CO CO M CO CO Cl) V• d• V• U) V' V• V V' U) U) CO U) U) U) CO CO CO CO CO I- N- N N- N Ca 6 O o 0 0 0 0 0 N O N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 (h 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 Q U r r r r r r r � r r r r r r r r r r . . . . . - .- .---,--c- N--- .- .-- r r r r r . . . . . . . . s$ -3 N o co 2 co 2 13 w m I U in us f/) co a) u L ✓ '0 a) N < Q N _ J m (a > O N ¢ cc 0 s.. (1) 0 - co d C N 2 O c li O O O 7 > > > > >> 1 Y =U ; a • O ' - c N Rg ¢ U 7 W m a o J C d W C Y C Y U co 6 H W _ c(f) <7 0• w 0 W O U a' v ) .n C o N'C 2 c02 O ( 2 (n c d a) D r N 0 Q J O > U Q N w 0 o m c _ ors ors U w 'c co 5 Z p p _ o U 0 S U a > aU > 'o = C Y Q z Y a) U m p C In a) w Q o N Y to -E O ° 2 m U v N _- 0 .L 0 03 5 m E Z ° w c • a m � o CI- L9 o . Q c ow ai � cQ 6j ~ o o > >> a) u)No, c (I) E. 0- O C > 00 g (7, 2 'D O O cp N 2 C p U 'O U O C p o O C O L aC C C C y L ,> C ' 2 2 JN C C 2 O 2 O m H gN H m -_ mU H N H p Om_ c m j LU aW H w Q 6 - w Q Q Q Q > H Q Q o o w 5- j Q w H m H ccw co h W c ee > w c » w O > m = O +� o 0 00 000 I o o O o 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o • O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 • o • O o • 0 . 000 • 0 0 C• O LO r; 1.0 • • CO 0) 0) • • v • a0 O_ (0 N o r - M O) - V' 00 N 00 V• W (O C) V• V" 0 O) U) 00 1- 0 M O V 0 V' - CO '1' U O U) V' p) CO M N - - r. 6) O E N N - (fl M V' 1' 0 V' O V' U) M O - - O 0 M O 0 CO 00 O V' N W Lo O I) - M o CO N O) V O M - N - (p L0 U) U) < V -00 .1- NN - 001--- 0 CO (0 V' 10 U) 10 0 10 - c0 - (fl (O 0) 0) 00 � (fl - 0) CO N CO 0) .- h- V' 0505 - v N- U) V' v.N- H M M W O •- N N N (O - 1- V" Lo O M - M V' N U5 In M x-CV 0) C L Y N ca (2 a) 2 I a) N 0)C L f6 a) ca (31 C 'a) O N p C -- O '> (� c a) 1- N a) m (6 Q a) w a) C7 O E Q 0 N O N - > N CL c ms � N Q U 000 0 f •- 2 E ° N U Q a) 6 o c >. >. r Z m- _ '(3 c mw N a) m p /nom NWa Oga coo ,_ C N Y O 7 N p N wow 'y .0 N U W U • O. O U O .5 --r a) (� �� O .� (`1 U 7 o2S M - c MRS O H (6 J ai o endow U a04-- 'tW c Ua) m /nN- rnu) � o � N Zr)as L 0 0 c a i c m •-•E Z 2„ o 'vp-) N Q o U .` U > o * c a� o �' •- 5 E .N O Y Y - .� c E a) " C O j p b fl. 0) CO c a) 0 ` a) O Q U U N _ cN u0i 'u) O N .E j a) N Y c U m Z , 'a 0 o L o W•0 ,' .` Q N N N U 0)) NN >0 U 2 U o_ O a p) c � -'O'' O o O 'E N 0) •- (-') ."" 5.,•_ rn tl c c w CD O .0 L o C ,T X N "- O . - sl 3 . Z N O N E Y m o o - .- co a -o L6 •C In O +`' .0) CO N • .O D U '.-. 'O /n T7 rn O O C C > Y W 7 O C a 0 5� o .� m o . c ° 0 U a 'U .Q C o a>) o L a ac) > .� c °-) 3 > •0 2 a>) c m o •� o c 2 - p ii o m o • OC U 0 a) 6 '(6 m '0 -1- IA - W CC .� C In Q a) o >..,r O N In fY 'I6 * N .> m (L N ()) U '- E U - a) oo v ;7) _°_I `o ii cn- , `o 0- m o aa)) c In = > O) O o o U o o O E 0 E c N Q U C 'a o cn o O LL C N N ° LL 4) O O O U O C U 1X O O O cc •C N- 0 O_ U •� O Y - J rn 0 c6 O E c '6 C .0 o .� p w (a N (6 LL C it - i a) a) m > i N O C m 03 m C V = 8 w E ' o J E w a •p- N 5 0 0 E w 0 m.q m o > -c m o w w •$ 0 ,_ 0 E U o` o ~ m >, 0 �- O 0 m C rn c > p (6 f6 p" O N m C C ?i .) p p 0 a) a) i >. O 0 0 �n v) a) (0 E Z a13 ,- 0-'"- - - 0) 0 o m coo .cc - c - -. .uo) in .w > _ a) o o O -e a) E � m m n > Q ° m ,(2 O o 3 E o c a m N m - C C N c c 5).O-' to 'p N m > r .0 > m (6 0 0 0 0 . .� m > - 7 O E CO y (6 .:.6 O $2. 20m O �O U '6 0 a) >. o -O E (.7 (..) 1- Ww 'C2 ¢ w2W :ico Wcco .2 (6n1� m Wm WU G . HUcoco ) o) co < U (0QQc. co (n ¢ LU (0 1- 0O 0) O N M LU ) N 00 0) 0 - N CO CO M V• to M 0 r 0) 00 - 00 N M V ) N- U) 0) 0 W M M M M M ' ' ' ' V' V' V' V' V V V' V' Ln Lt) U) ' ' LIB (n (/) U) O IU In U) ' W O (O U) (O (O W W U) WO N- a. N * 1- 00 O - V' U) U W M 0) O - N V' c0 1- M O) 0 - M V' II) N- 0) O - N M LU (O 1- 00 0) 0 M rX U) (0 1 0) Q M V' Ln W 1- 1,- O ) MaO W W W W0) 0) 0) W' 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0000000 - - - - - - - - - MNN V" NNNWN - MMM O O o ^O O O O o O MO O O O O o M O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - N - - - N - M - - - U - - - - - - - - ,-- - - - - - �O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - sg - u ca 0 o o O C U ) -o 'c N O N o i Y y O = o 0 = o O O U .Q cc o -0 m L j Q C J C N F- c C m a Y 0_ K U L o 0 .c c O ui - E LLI O 0 m 0 c a 0 C C C ,� Y 2 N (n 41 +O+ - o w 0 J 0 0 o U U U 0 C CO hi n o ¢ ° 2 c a3 o LL in a aUi _ � mQ � � ui c.0 Z 2 w U a) 2 N.0 J '6 �: J t _ Y 0 U C Q) _ ~ L6 Y U 0 a) O - c 0 - O O )) ( J O _ ° F- in pC J N N - J= 0 0 °U = c O 0 C H U L C N 0 .0 C O �- 2 t a) c c c 0 F- .0 In - 0 -I as F- O O .c F- -1 c c = .c o ¢ U o u) cu _c > O 5 p .c > 2 U c: o .c O w 0 O aci > > H F- Yc[ > J 20 o: QQ00E- � 5 > > F- > 0 H2 Ott) Q > QLLCn0 > Qm20I > ZY _ USZOY +' O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O o o O o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O O c O O o 0 0 8 0 0 0 0' 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 o o o O o 0 0 0 o o 0 o o g o O g o o 0 000 000000 O O O O N co N CO O • (O M N- • N • 0 0 1- O CO CO M N- r 0) O O Ln O CO 1� N O N • O O) C() O W ' i O CO r O co• I- 00 co N. CO V• co CO co o N- co N. N- d• •. co N- O co CO co co N CD CO _ N M N 00 N 0) (O CAN N- O CO d• M M 00 M N O ,- N U) N 00 M M M M ,- c0 M LOO O) Or CO M 0) Q U) (`7 ,- ,zr O CO CV N M •- N - r v N O O ■ r r L a) J 3 Q > N 0 o m o c O 2 I r r m n O c 0) r o o >-.0 Tk CL) (6 C T U .2° N N V E a) 0 C 2 3 () a a (T)a M M N N O M E s a) p) o .� U .c6 at `p N 0 E > CV U g a) c Uo ~`o co Q CL 0 '2 c 0 O 0 W c6U > .O c- a) LLO (OOp CO •Q U NU No 0 a) N > C m p v) r *k N co Y o' E g 0 �- C) m U Q O a) a) 0 -0 F- ▪ cc H a) L C 5¢ ° m m O a) o Q L 0 •r•+ '0 c a`) -0 a C Z' C) vs (..) E m O! l c a) 2 Q' N N > 0) a) -c ,a CD•Q• Q .O ryj f� O N v 0 , h- il ca °ZS U 0 w Y •C O c •c* 2 0) A 05 O 'm T a) J 3 vs c n '" �aO om 2 - Qw L L O a) > w ` wCt oM 2 � m a) a) M O cc co o0 3U f 00 (7)-r0 EF- aiU N .,_ o .0 't 961 .2 -z :(7) ,- 0) E oC p o a) 0 r -0 O `-• O ( 3 y 0 CD'a 0 c°)) � a m o °) 5m -I E `m o N oN o . EgF- ..@ ° Y 4 Uw op,„ (1) .,.., -- >,1 a) — cc ¢ Ua •L �p o cy o c a�i c ° L U N u) M m U o f U CO .� c ` c E 0 E �`-o a a`) co O "r Q .� • = a) O E V w U C c -0 N O 0 as V 2 > o a ' a) v m Q p) '5 C C m Q O 2 O a) 'k w W •m a) L' ,. < O 0 F* .(--) N 7) U 3 > E m L N M m ' _ • N D) C V a) , C r ..Y O 0 O O ~ -c a) w ,_ w .� aK - o m (0 e- ' ca w = •- O a) C O 5, F- c O c N cU O .2 W mU4:k 5 '> U W p c .... 2U as 0 _ Z Q' 2 � V Om 2 p 0 cm O 2 O OU O m Q 0 (� 0 J a) (0 72, ., E a a) W Ct 'F2 an d a) C O LL ca 0 ,c O al p O co.5 C >, co LC O C > N _ > C c v C Y - C g as U E `) U •0 o c6 o m += m m as o m to 0 o in a) '0 D y =p •2 K o 3 = O N °'S Ur (n 0 • N - C Z a 0 c Y 0 Q Q- a N m m (n 0! c 2 fl D a U ° a o ° m Z - - E f6 ° -0 3 c 0 o 0 Q ° s •s N U ° c :=12 m F- 2 a) O a c o c Li c`') o -0 O U Q N 0)X 0 0 0 0 ° U U �as Q O 0 CO 2 M o co a o o h o c D U LL •� Y o 0t a) nom " o � <•'j 6 - g N O Z •E 7 S Q O a) c cc) > o •0 0 -0 o E > "0 "O o .m O -0 f6 a O° O N 'O 7 L O N N E ° a) a) ( " •Q. o O 0 0 o o >,,EEL o a) co Q -0 73 -O 48 . 0 -0 -0 o co 0 a -0 _ m cCDw5. o0v) LLCncn00071= i= QcnS WU > cnQ ¢ Q cnmCC QQ Ta- C� < > < Lc- 0 I0co > F= 0 F- Qa k r o o co (o r - N i Ln CO N- N- CO CO O CO CO 0 r i M V' CO , CO 0) ■ ■ O N ■ ■ i i O 1 1 (:) c) i 1 1 o 1 d N- r W M 0000 W CO M O O r r r CO N- 0) O r N CO NI- CO f 0) I O r f U) M N- co W O r CO co N- CC CK r N CO co N- co N d• co V• CO N- co 0) 0 r N V CO N C4 co co co d• .4• V• d• M d• O U) 10 r co Ln U) U) O CO CO CO CO CO M O N- N- N- N- N- N- co co Co 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or r r . . . . . r r r r r r r r U r r r r O N- N N N N N N U r . . . . . . . r r r r r r r r . . . . . r r 56—S C a) N C a) N N m c a) N N o H r v c co +i--- ate+ O C U L o o u cu .0 o 7 O C _1 •] ° N H 2E N = O W U c a O O 0 0 y H N >J C O 22 >, g — C .c ,- 0 0 �O C O zoo -� N • c CD y`- Cn C W Q O co - _ -.c C --� U) H Y N O5 N ocs HV -5 - 1.7-1 � H � W Y o ,DU n N a) o • ww° ° O L C . O > C 0 p O 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 a9 O o 0 ,. ., U U 0 0 0 — U U U J U U = U U U y O o V) c o 0 Q U c o- _c O c p c c c H O c c ° c C c 2 ° g ww _15- Z (OHH EO H 05 = 555055i » > mOQ r c 0 0 0 O O O O M O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0000 O O O M M m O 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 00 000000 . 0 O O 000 O 0 - - 0 M 0 to (O O O m 6) cr O CO 6 .- m V ,- O cM th 0 N- 66 CD O (O ,- co CO 661' s- O NCO 00 c- M V' NM N 00 (n V' In V' M °) V' N O M 'V' V' M O E r O V' N (nN N (O N- N NO COON- M O V' N- N Mn r N N (000 Q (V M O L() N- N N N N(() (O0) N N M N M Co 00A- 0) 0 V' N '- co (`) V• M c1' V• Cr U O u) otf 'a C W N U •Q LL U C O O) > ° a) J ° 6 �_ C ,C m r C . 5 V) c o LL `p X U as CO o E a) W O° ° p U N C a) U o m O 0 U 2 O Y O o m a) E '88 (°i Z C > E a m m E _ C C 0o c 0 .- Ca c -'-' co c o W Np m w o _10 R O o Mt o 0 w a) 8 a C � �o Em o .N a, o o cc E Op C m O L N w '05 -0 O N • L aN) °o 0 0 a o E a) aa)) U o 5. C (u -a 0 C cp 0 dmi E M o a , > > > a) w c6 i. w- • U 0 Q c 3 otS o C >. ai 'c Et U ° W ° c a' w 3 ) - a) L o a) Q-0 E•co U ° m o)C Z 0 o_) rn.c a) o Q • Q u°-) �a 3 0M ,° _ = •N C) L a) ° (L6 C N D ° > O m co T) ` ED m U m+-� M1 v,C 0 . 0 m U d J > OS m (n •O O f0 .0 7 = d — a -c Q) c U Q a) o p a) O 1 ,_ L "O ° a) O w � C `oO � a>ia°i ° °) � O � U � = .N 'a � ° C � iaa) n CU •� M - -, 0 U �° °) CO c t o c ° ii ,- --,54) . a.) (n C ° I° O wi ° 0 a>i -cd o E 'U 0 ND' s - m � - °) ZO° U c ° C a) 0 a -o a) c $ a U m �o °o " W `= 801,5E02 m c O ° a) > °) m .-/ 7"1"- (1) = W C s Ma u, o C CO d ° ° o o ,o Q s o L w ct o , a) o f W > m F- O U o ail- o . o � o � rnmaEi � � � o m a)-o .— C 2 0OU .�' aEi � m �2 ,9, 6 -00°-) off' 0 0 0 -H U) wm < J .- H < .E < Z COQ (n2 > CW = Q .JWMW QM < w oIU . H H HO N W i i O i i i i ' M M M C) i 1 O n O I I I I I a CO CO D* N 0) O — NO N- W N D 5, V' d 0 O O •- N M MM Co M V' 0)CO 00_ O O _O ON N N N N N N- N- W Co 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) N N N N N AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5C REPORT# 142 MAIM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, OPERATIONS MANAGER—PARKS/FLEET NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Er REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY / MANAGER: _"14,11 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolutions pertaining to the annual Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment process. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2010 Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) Maintenance and schedule a public hearing for August 9, 2011. 2. Adopt the attached resolution proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2012 and schedule a public hearing for August 9, 2011. II. BACKGROUND The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment was established to recover extraordinary maintenance expenses in the LHN area in 1981. The extraordinary services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of landscaped areas. The LHN Redevelopment Area is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue. City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2010 maintenance of this area to be $32,459.40 and estimated $50,000 costs for the 2012 maintenance. 071211Ihn0911assess Staff is recommending the City Council: 1. Approve resolution declaring the 2010 assessment costs and order the preparation of the proposed assessment for 2010. 2. Schedule public hearing for August 9, 2011 for proposed assessments. 3. Approve resolution proposing a similar assessment process for 2012. 4. Schedule public hearing for August 9, 2011 for similar assessment process. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following: (a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; (b) weed elimination from streets or private property; (c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding and structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statues, sections 463.15 to 463.26; (d) installation or repair of water service lines; (e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; (f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; (g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; (h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys; (i) the operation of a street lighting system; (j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and (k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. • Council ordered the work, and the work is done for 2010. • Council needs to order the work for 2012. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. C. FINANCIAL • Estimated and actual costs for the LHN maintenance services from 1998-2010 were/are: Year Estimated Actual 1998 $49,165 $39,127.73 1999 $50,640 $47,470.80 2000 $45,000 $31,273.61 2001 $50,000 $52,556.06 2002 $50,000 $35,136.62 2003 $52,000 $37,785.67 2004 $50,000 $44,031.39 2005 $50,000 $45,385.31 2006 $50,000 $45,648.56 2007 $50,000 $51,605.29 2008 $50,000 $49,999.99 2009 $50,000 $49,747.02 2010 $50,000 $32,459.40 2011 $50,000 Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of LHN are caused by a number of factors. Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs; street light knockdowns are never foreseeable and very expensive; and the need to paint streetlights and repair concrete varies from year to year. D. LEGAL • Section 825, Subd. 2 states that "the City Clerk, under the Council's direction, shall publish notice that the Council will meet to consider the undertaking of current services and levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof." E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2010 LHN Maintenance. • Resolution proposing to specially assess the costs of current services for 2012. • Graphic VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None SG— I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $32,459.40 for the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $32,459.40. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. 4. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of August, 2011, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SC- - RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the district, with the costs of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: • Snow, ice or rubbish removal; • Weed elimination; • Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; • Installation or repair of water service lines; • Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; • Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; • Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways; • Operation of the street lighting system; • Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; • Maintenance of Civic Plaza; • Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; • Painting and repair of wood furniture; • General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common area. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall be all single family, two-family, multiple family residential property within the LHN redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The City Clerk shall also give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, commencing at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The estimated cost of providing all the aforementioned current services during that period is $50,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2011 Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk I Sc "3 , c I Hi I_____, N ' FMF-SC'N AVE S fV iyi \ , , n N - ,1qpI,t ,. D UPDI r".. ,ir--,i Co i` 0 �� t� — C O — b @ -b lEir h •1 tTI .,..., K _ I BRY N y Ilts7 tit > ALD 40410 \ Z o N a1 0 W 2 ss�y LYNE m - A m rn �� � C N� 1 � 1 W �� ikii - HARRIET 4 _ ,,ot : .6,.. . z ::---tc:::-31--p,42,) I N. I- GRAND" S I m I PLEASANT 0 CD 4 H S PILLSBURY AVE S:.. , e_ t... 1.. I- I _ 11111 _0 ,,, IH WENTWORTH AVE S c) � O H > CD o H Z ( BLAISDELL AVE S —Z Q. o C) m w CP O L'rimiri D NICOLLET AVE S 7) H 7o H 1ST AVE S I CI) A c� Cm) ,kr.',- III I r *''- AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5D REPORT# 143 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, OPERATIONS MANAGER—PARKS/FLEET NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR '" REVIEW: u a ,ais SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 'At /�� , • ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment process. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution proposing to assess commercial properties in the 77th Street assessment district for costs incurred to maintain the area for 2010 and schedule a public hearing for August 9, 2011. 2. Adopt the attached resolution proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2012 and schedule a public hearing for August 9, 2011. II. BACKGROUND Since the 1988 construction of the short section of 77th Street around the Hampton Inn, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along 77th Street redevelopment area between I-35W and Cedar Avenue. The special maintenance services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of the landscaping on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current services, are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses. 071210-77th091 I assess City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2010 maintenance of this area to be $64,124.81 and estimated $80,000.00 costs for the 2012 maintenance. Staff is recommending the City Council: 1. Approve resolution declaring the 2010 assessment costs and order the preparation of the proposed assessment for 2010. 2. Schedule public hearing for August 9, 2011 for proposed assessments. 3. Approve resolution proposing a similar assessment process for 2012. 4. Schedule public hearing for August 9, 2011 for similar assessment process. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following: (a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; (b) weed elimination from streets or private property; (c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding and structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statues, sections 463.15 to 463.26; (d) installation or repair of water service lines; (e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; (f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; (g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; (h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys; (i) the operation of a street lighting system; (j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and (k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. • Council ordered the work, and the work is done. • Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. • Commercial property owners will be assessed on a per-square-foot basis. However, all single family and multi-family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. C. FINANCIAL • Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services from 1998 - 2010 are: Year Estimate Actual 1998 $74,765 $54,629.54 1999 $80,000 $76,674.70 2000 $80,000 $70,594.20 2001 $85,000 $78,884.49 2002 $80,000 $75,490.39 2003 $80,000 $59,831.07 2004 $80,000 $63,842.79 2005 $80,000 $64,841.54 2006 $80,000 $69,606.52 2007 $80,000 $77,441.46 2008 $80,000 $77,000.01 2009 $80,000 $62,894.55 2010 $80,000 $64,124.81 2011 $80,000 D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. • Section 825, Subd. 2 states that "the City Clerk, under the Council's direction, shall publish notice that the Council will meet to consider the undertaking of current services and levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof." E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 2010 - 77th Street Maintenance. • Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services for 2012. • Graphic VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Sp— 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Area the boundaries of which are approximately east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $64,124.81 for the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $64,124.81. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. 4. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of August, 2011, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk S p- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the District; • The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of any unsound trees from any street; • The repair of sidewalks; • The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street rights-of-way; • Trash and litter removal. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of each and every commercial lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that the special assessments on the commercial property be made on the basis of area. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. The City Clerk shall also give mailed notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held Monday, August 9, 2011, commencing at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned services during that period is $80,000. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 9) 3 , � VY,...4 z -3 � I� - ■ te — — 1111 - �I U _ Ililil w ■ Z W U Q (Q E, co Q 111 Z W , _ (....) ... -W w,,. p _.., Z - -,,,,. ,, Z _ ,,,, Wo _ 0 I- _r — —1 ar = w w Z w — S 3AV aNVaJ : _, - _ 2 . S 3AV 191a235N Q MEIN / \ S AAV 51515555 r — c„.„-- I— 1 ,_ w , � _ CO I I N - - �/ - - III N CO -- x - MEk CD z a N Lo w �— O I x NEW c F N i s IIIII _ ■ w w ■ o , –l } _ : 2: z _ J _ . CD AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5E REPORT# 144 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS LINK, OPERATIONS MANAGER STREETS/FORESTRY NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 07 REVIEW: Ad REVIEWED BY CITY M 5741 / / ANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2010. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1 . Adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll for the removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2010. 2. Set the public hearing date for August 9, 2011. II. BACKGROUND Property owners of diseased trees have four options available for private tree removal: 1. Remove the tree themselves. 2. Hire and pay for their own contractor. 3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal. 4. Request the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. In the period from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, twenty-seven (27) property owners chose the fourth option. The total amount to be assessed is $44,249.94. 071211treeassess Staff is recommending the Council: 1. Approve the resolution declaring costs to be assessed for diseased tree removal and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for 2010. 2. Set August 9, 2011 as the public hearing. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The work has been done with prior approval from the affected residents. • Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments. • A notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment (see attached) will be mailed at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • On or before September 1st of each year, the unpaid charges for the removal of the diseased trees must be special assessed for certification to the county director of property taxation and collection along with current taxes as stated in City Code 825.05 Subd. 3. C. FINANCIAL • The costs to be assessed for the removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees on private property for work ordered during the period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 have been determined to be $44,249.94. • The property owner's have a 30 day prepayment period whereby no interest will be charged on the prepaid portion of the special assessment. Partial prepayments are not allowed after the 30-day period. The unpaid balance will be spread over 5 years with a six percent interest rate. No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 15, 2011. • The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Notice of Assessment Hearing to be mailed to residents VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2010 TO DECEMBER 31, 2010. WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such work ordered during the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 amount to $44,249.94. Address PID # Amount 1001 E. 69th St 26-028-24-34-0053 $2,413.69 1409 E. 69th St I 26-028-24-43-0003 $1,728.00 1536 E. 66th St 26-028-24-14-0107 $1,392.00 1537 E. 66th St 26-028-24-41-0003 $1,255.78 6314 17th Ave. S. 26-028-24-11-0045 $1,000.00 6408 3rd Ave. S. 27-028-24-13-0018 $700.00 6501 Lyndale Ave. S. 27-028-24-23-0079 $363.00 6515 James Ave. S. 28-028-24-24-0126 $2,700.00 6619 Irving Ave. S. 28-028-24-31-0090 $2,105.32 6638 Columbus Ave. S. 26-028-24-32-0009 $1,687.50 6639 Oakland Ave. S. 26-028-24-32-0026 $818.72 6812 14th Ave. S. 26-028-24-43-0044 $928.00 6826 2nd Ave. S. 27-028-24-43-0095 $5,025.00 6908 Upton Ave. S. 29-028-24-43-0144 $587.81 6914 Nicollet Ave. S. 27-028-24-34-0067 $961.87 7005 Columbus Ave. S. 35-028-24-22-0086 $2,996.25 7011 Columbus Ave. S. 35-028-24-22-0087 $700.00 7101 17th Ave. S. 35-028-24-11-0043 $2,450.00 7033 Newton Ave. S. 33-028-24-22-0031 $1,692.00 7120 Newton Ave. S. 33-028-24-22-0100 $928.00 7315 Knox Ave. S. 33-028-24-24-0052 $1.708.00 7427 13th Ave. S. 35-028-24-42-0008 $3,050.00 7428 Bryant Ave. S. 33-028-24-41-0047 $650.00 7429 Bryant Ave. S. 33-028-24-41-0034 $2,450.00 7544 Aldrich Ave. S. 33-028-24-41-0139 $775.00 7538 11th Ave. S. 35-028-24-31-0039 $2,130.00 7601 Grand Ave. S. 34-028-24-33-0017 $1,054.00 5 -oZ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $44,249.94. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. 4. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of August, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 5E. -3 PIN Name Address City/State/Zip Date NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY (JANUARY 1, 2010 - DECEMBER 31, 2010) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold an assessment hearing on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: August 9, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: Costs incurred for removal of diseased trees from private property with the consent and approval of the property owners for work ordered from the City of Richfield, January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. The City proposes to assess the costs for this work, which totaled $44,249.94. THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY IS: Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 15, 2011 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments accrue interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per year. The amount of interest payable depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply: Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: If the original principal amount of the assessment is $300 or more, you may make a partial prepayment of $100 or more within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for August 12, 2011. No interest will be charged on the prepaid portion. Partial prepayments are not allowed after the 30-day period. The unpaid balance will be spread over the life of the adopted assessment. Six percent (6%) interest will not be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 15th Payment on or after November 15, 2011: Tree assessments are spread over 5 years. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) will be charged, calculated from the date of adoption of the assessment until the date of payment. Interest is calculated for 17 months on the first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $1.50 surcharge per year over the 5 year life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for deferral of this special assessment. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on August 9, 2011 or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on August 9. Questions? Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations Manager Streets/Forestry @ 612-861-9174. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5F REPORT# 145 =MAI STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR / REVIEW: 1 / GNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY g( MANAGER: A AIIP ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of submission of the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project for Federal Surface Transportation Program Grant consideration. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the submission of the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project grant application for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. II. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council and the Transportation Advisory Board have released the 2011 Solicitation Package for federal funds. The regional solicitation process selects projects or programs to be funded by the: • Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) • Bridge Improvement or Replacement Program (BIR) Applications may be for construction projects for all programs, transit operations and vehicle purchases from CMAQ as well as various types of projects or programs that fall within criteria for Transportation Enhancements. Applications are due Monday, July 18, 2011. 07122011 PortlandSTP Staff is asking the Council to consider the submittal of the Portland Avenue Reconstruction. The proposed project would include the reconstruction of Portland Avenue from 67th Street to 77th Street. The roadway condition of Portland Avenue has deteriorated and is in need of reconstruction. The new roadway cross-section would implement the approved four-to-three lane design concept and would implement improvements consistent with feedback received during the pilot restripe project in place today. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed project meets multiple goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Transportation). B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The deadline for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds is July 18, 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The reconstruction of Portland Avenue is estimated to be $4,900,000. If selected for STP funds, up to $3,920,000 (80%) would be funded with Federal dollars and the matching 20% and design would be funded with County funds and Street Reconstruction Bond proceeds. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may choose not to adopt the resolution and therefore not submit an application for the federal funds. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving the submission of the Portland Avenue Reconstruction project. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. $F - I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PORTLAND AVENUE FOR FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield believes that Portland Avenue (CSAH 35) is deficient in both condition and functionality and is in need of reconstruction; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield proposes to "right size" arterial roads to fit the forecasted travel modes in corridors at the time reconstruction occurs to meet mobility and safety goals consistent with Hennepin County's transportation policies; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is committed to promote walking and biking as alternative travel modes to the automobile; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield supports the conversion of four-lane to three-lane sections (center left turn lane) with multi-purpose paved shoulders along portions of arterials that can safely and effectively move traffic of all modes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield approves the submission of the Portland Avenue Reconstruction 2011 Application for Federal Surface Transportation Program funds. The application includes the reconstruction of Portland Avenue between 67th Street and 77th Street to improve safety for all travel modes and improve facilities for walking, biking, and transit use along this corridor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5G REPORT# 146 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ,Fir ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amending Section 547 (Administration) of the Zoning Code; specifically the application process, requirements and terms of Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Site Plan Approval and Interim Use Permits. The ordinance will also amend regulations related to the requirement for driveway permits. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a first reading of the attached ordinance amending Subsections 507.07, Subdivision 129; 547.07, Subdivision 3; 547.09, Subdivisions 4, 9 and 11; 547.11, Subdivisions 1, 3, 4, 9 and 12; 547.13, Subdivisions 1 through 4 and 11 ; and 547.15, Subdivisions 2, 3 and 5 related to the administration of zoning permits; and Subsections 514.05, Subdivision 6; 518.05, Subdivision 6; and 522.05, Subdivision 6 related to driveway permits. II. BACKGROUND City staff continually monitors and note areas of the Zoning Code that may require review. This review may be the result of changes in State Law or its interpretation, changes in social norms, new technology or direct experience with a particular regulation. The changes proposed in the attached ordinance are related to new State Statute language regarding variances, the general processing of land use applications and a minor correction to clarify when driveway permits are required. 071211 1st Reading Ord Amend - Admin & Driveway Permits Variances Last summer the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision related to the interpretation of the statutory language lan ua a g overning the issuance of variances. The Court interpreted the "undue hardship" test of the Statute to mean that no reasonable use of a property is possible in the absence of a variance. This very significantly limited a city's ability to grant variances. On May 5th, the Governor signed into law revised language related to variances. The new law eliminates the term "undue hardship" in favor of"practical difficulties;" however the test to determine "practical difficulties" remains the familiar three- pronged test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness to the property and (3) protection of the essential character of the area. The new law also adds a requirement that any variance granted must be "in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance" and "consistent with the comprehensive plan." Finally, cities are allowed to impose conditions upon the granting of a variance so long as they are directly related to and roughly proportionate to the impact created. In summary, when considering variances based on the new law, policy-makers must make all of the following findings: • The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance; • The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; • The proposal is reasonable; • There are unique circumstances related to the property that were not created by the landowner; • The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty; and • The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Conditional Use Permits The proposed change prevents conditional use permits from expiring if permits have been issued and substantial work performed. Site Plan Approval A number of changes to the site plan approval process are proposed; however none of the proposed changes reflect a significant policy change. The changes clarify existing policy and remove contradictory language. Interim Use Permits The proposed changes remove the unnecessary requirement for a consent agreement, in favor of a signed statement of agreement to the terms of the interim use permit. Even this requirement is not legally necessary; however, given the fact that an interim use is by definition temporary, staff feels that it's important to be especially diligent in ensuring that the applicant understands the limitations of the approval. The change also clarifies that the proposed use be similar to the existing area, as opposed to the zoning district. If the use were similar to the zoning district, it would likely be permitted by right rather than require an interim use permit. Finally, the change alters the conditions for termination related to nonconforming uses. In most cases, the proposed use will be nonconforming to begin with. Driveway Permits The City has required permits for driveway replacement since 1994. This helps the City to ensure that driveways remain in compliance with requirements. The proposed change will explicitly list "replacement" in the text, making this clause consistent with others in the Code. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Clear and concise ordinances that describe the process for land use approvals are essential to good customer service and consistent application of the zoning ordinance. • Ongoing review and periodic updating of the Code is necessary to ensure that regulations are serving their intended purposes. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Simple error and/or contradictory language can lead to misunderstandings and potentially unintended consequences if not corrected. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 27, 2011. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance with State and Local requirements. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments (7-0). • A second reading is scheduled for July 26, 2011 E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Driveway regulations are in place for a number of reasons including the control of runoff. The permit process allows staff to ensure that maximum impervious surface regulations are not being exceeded. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve a first reading of the proposed ordinance with additional changes. • Deny a first reading of the proposed ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATED TO ZONING AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 507.07, SUBDIVISION 129; 547.07, SUBDIVISION 3; 547.09, SUBDIVISIONS 4, 9 AND 11; 547.11, SUBDIVISIONS 1, 3, 4, 9, AND 12; 547.13, SUBDIVISIONS 1 THROUGH 4 AND 11; AND 547.15, SUBDIVISIONS 2, 3 AND 5 RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ZONING PERMITS; AND SUBSECTION 514.05, SUBDIVISION 6; SUBSECTION 518.05, SUBDIVISION 6; AND SUBSECTION 522.05, SUBDIVISION 6 RELATED TO DRIVEWAY PERMITS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 129 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 129. "Variance"—A relaxationPermission to deviate from certain the literal requirements of this Code. Sec. 2 Subsection 547.07, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Public Hearing and Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, 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. If the application involves a change in district boundaries of 5 acres or less, notice must also be sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the subject property = - -- - - - - - - - - - . The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council regarding the application. Sec. 3 Subsection 547.09, Subdivisions 4, 9 and 11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. Public Hearing and Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, 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 of the subject property. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council regarding the application. Subd. 9. Expiration of CUP. A conditional use permit shall expire one year after is has been issued unless: a) The use for which the permit was granted has commenced with one-year-per-led; or b) Building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or cl Upon written request of the person or corporation holding the 6-U-Ppermit, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Subd. 11. 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. Amendments to a conditional use permit shall be administered in the same manner as site plan amendments, as described in Subsection 547.13, Subd. 410 of this Code. Sec. 4 Subsection 547.11, Subdivisions 1, 3, 4, 9 and 12 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply to variances: a) A variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this Code only when - - - - - - - - -- - - - - "- purposc and intent of this Code and all of the following criteria are found to exist: "Unduc hardship" as uscd in conncction with the granting of a Economic considcrations alonc shall not constitutc an unduc - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; ii. Unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having an interest in the property; 556 -3 iii. The variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; and iv. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the undue hardshippractical difficulty. v. The variance requested will not alter the essential character of the locality. vi. The variance requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. b) Use variances Variances shall may not be granted for uses that are not allowed in the zoning district where the subject property is located.. c) Conditions may be imposed in the granting of variances. Such conditions must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variances. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Applications shall not be considered complete until an Administrative Review Committee (ARC) meeting is held between the applicant and staff. This requirement may be waived for residential variances or if or the Director determines that such a meeting is not necessary. Application s must be submitted for the ARC meeting at least 28 days before the scheduled hearing to be considered for the agenda. Applications must be complete at least 14 days before the scheduled variance hearing to be placed on the agenda. Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall assign the application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. If the variance requires some other approval by the City Council in conjunction with another planning and zoning application, the Director shall assign the application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for consideration in conjunction with the other requestsrequest(s) and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Board. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper SCE -4 and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the subject property. Subd. 9. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal and the fee set by Appendix D of the City Code is submitted to the Director within terv10 days of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, care of the Director. A decision of the Board is subject to judicial review as provided by law. Subd. 12. Expiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless: a) The project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period: or b) Building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or c) Upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. Sec. 5 Subsection 547.13, Subdivisions 1 through 4 and 11 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: 547.13. Site plan approval. Subdivision 1. All commercial, industrial, multiple-family housing (over fetthree units) or institutional development applications shall be reviewed under the site plan approval process as set forth in this subsection. Site plan review will be coordinated with the review of applications for preliminary plats, rezoning, conditional use permits and variances. Provisions for the review of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) shall be dictated by Section 542 of this Code Subd. 2. Approval required. It shall be unlawful to do any of the following without first obtaining site plan approval: a) Construct a building; b) Move a building to any lot within the City; c) Expand or change the use of a building or lot or modify a building, accessory structure, or site or land feature in any -- - - - - - - - - an increasing intensity of usc, including the requirement for additional pafking(See Subd. 11 for amendments to previously approved plans); and s6 - 5- d) Take actions to prepare a lot for development, including grading or removing or adding soils to a site, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan which complies with the City's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. (Amended, Bill No. 1998- 2) Subd. 3. - - - - - -- . ._ . - - - - - -- - building, provided no variances are required and the modifications do not documentation of such be placed in the property files maintained by the nonconforming site improvements to be brought into conformance according to Subsection 509.25 of this Code.Repealed. Subd. 4. Application. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Applications shall not be considered complete until an Administrative Review Committee (ARC) meeting is held between the applicant and staff, or the Director determines that such a meeting is not necessary. Applications must be submitted for the ARC meeting at least 28 days before the scheduled Planning Commission meeting to be considered for the agenda. An application must be complete at least 14 days before the Planning Commission meeting to be placed on the agenda. Submitted applications and--shall be accompanied by the following: a) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; b) Evidence that there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, penalties, interest and/or municipal utility fees due on the property; c) Accurate and current certificate of survey; d) Accurate legal description; e) Eight full-size legible plans regarding the following aspects of the project (All submitted plans shall be signed by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other appropriate design professional): i. Boundary survey with existing; ii. Site plan with proposed improvements; 5G— to iii. Site plan with proposed parking and parking lot improvements, in compliance with Section 544, General Building and Performance Standards, of this Code; iv. Building elevations; v. Landscape plan, in compliance with Section 544, General Building and Performance Standards, of this Code; vi. Tree protection plan; vii. Grading plan; viii. Drainage plan; ix. Storm water management plan; x. Utility plan; xi. Sediment and erosion control plan; xii. Lighting plan; xiii. Screening plans for mechanical equipment and dumpsters; xiv. Signage plan; and xv. Solar access plan. f) The fee specified in Appendix D of the City Code; g) All plans must meet the following requirements: i. A title block stating the name, address telephone number and e- mail address of the applicant; ii. A north arrow and graphic scale; iii. Plans for preliminary review can be 11" x 17" and to-scale; and iv. One set of 8-1/2" x 11" legible reductions is required for City Council and Planning Commission packets. h) All applications must contain the following information: i. Property lines, setbacks and lot dimensions; ii. Building dimensions, height; iii. Building coverage; iv. Impervious surface coverage (buildings + hard surface/lot size); v. Access to parcel, location of medians; vi. Street locations, right-of-way, driveway and drive aisle widths; vii. Existing & proposed topography with spot grades & slopes in excess of 3:1; viii. Parking lot layout including location of curbing and striping; ix. Location of fire lanes and related signage; x. Location of hydrants; xi. Location of underground storage tanks and major utilities; xii. Sidewalk/trail alignment plan; xiii. Easement documents; and xiv. Significant trees lost and preserved. S6 -? j) The type of plans and number of copies required may be adjusted by staff based on the particular project. The City reserves the right to request additional plans or information as necessary. Subd. 11. Amendments to an approved site plan. Amendments to an approved site plan shall be administered as follows. a) Minor Amendments. Minor amendments to a site plan arc:include the following, provided that no variances are required and the modifications do not significantly intensify use of the site: in signage do not require an amendment. All changes to signagc require a sign permit.) iii. Landscape changes. • Parking lot configuration changes (not change in number of spaces). +viii. Less than 25 percent change in the floor area in any one structure. viv. Less than 25 percent change in the approved separation of buildings. viv. Less than 20 percent change in the ground area covered by the project. • Less than 20 percent change in the number of residential units. • Less than 20 percent change in the number of parking spaces (provided or required). b) Major Amendments. Major amendments to a site plans are: i. More than 25 percent change in floor area in any one structure,- ii. More than 25 percent change in the approved separation of buildings. iii. Any ohangereduction in the original approved setbacks from property lines if adjacent to single or two-family residential property. iv. More than 20 percent change in the ground area covered by the project. v. More than 20 percent change in the number of residential units. vi. More than 20 percent change in the number of parking spaces (provided or required). c) Review of minor amendments. Proposed minor amendments (as specified in "clause a" above) to a site plan shall be reviewed and decided by the Director. Review criteria remain the same and the City may require nonconforming site improvements to be brought into conformance according to Subsection 509.25 of this Code. Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the City Council. The Director may determine that a proposed minor amendment is in fact a major amendment and may refer such proposed amendments to the Planning Commission and Council according to the procedure established in "clause d," below. Application fees for a minor amendment to a site plan are set forth in Appendix D of this Code. d) Review of major amendments. Any major amendment to a site plan shall be considercd by the Planning Commission at a public h aring. The Planning Commission shall makc a recommendation to the City Council. Council. Major amendments to a site plan shall follow the application procedure set forth in this subsection for issuance of a new permit (beginning at 547.13, Subd. 4). Sec. 6 Subsection 547.15, Subdivision 2, clause "a" of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: a) A signed - -- -- - - - • , statement agreeing: g• i. That the applicant, owner, operator, tenant and/or user has no entitlement to future reapproval of the interim use permit; ii. That the interim use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to fully or partially take the property in the future; and iii. That the applicant, owner, operator, tenant and/or user will abide by conditions of approval that the City Council attaches to the interim use permit. Sec. 7 Subsection 547.15, Subdivision 3, clause "d" of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: d) The use is similar to existing uses defined in the zoning district in which the property is located the area; Sec. 8 Subsection 547.15, Subdivision 5 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Termination. An interim use permit shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events; whichever first occurs: a) The date stated in the permit; or b) Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued;--of sZ — q_ c) A changc in thc City's zoning rcgulations that rcndcr thc use Sec. 9 Subsection 514.05, Subdivision 6, clause "f" is amended to read as follows: f) Any expansion,er installation or replacement of a driveway, parking or turnaround area on a lot shall be subject to a city permit; Sec. 10 Subsection 518.05, Subdivision 6, clause "f" is amended to read as follows: f) Any expansion,OF installation or replacement of a driveway, parking or turnaround area on a lot shall be subject to a city permit; Sec. 11 Subsection 522.05, Subdivision 6, clause "f" is amended to read as follows: f) Any expansion,Of installation or replacement of a driveway, parking or turnaround area on a lot shall be subject to a city permit; Sec. 12 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5H REPORT# 147 =Al STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Er PI/ REVIEW: / SIGNATURE , REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of an Encroachment Agreement with Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership to place and maintain two signs in the City's existing Utility Easement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Encroachment Agreement between the City of Richfield and Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership allowing them to place two signs within the City's Utility Easement. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership property at 7745 Lyndale (Four Point by Sheraton) is requesting an encroachment for the following: • Installation of a new pedestal sign at the entrance off Lyndale Avenue • An existing pedestal sign at the entrance off 77th Street The signs will remain on private property, but fall within an existing drainage and utility easement in favor of the City. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 071211 Encroachment Agreement • The City will not allow any structure to be built in an easement area without an encroachment agreement. The owner agrees to relocate the structure at their own cost if requested by the City. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The new sign can not be installed until the agreement is approved. C. FINANCIAL • No cost to the City. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has drafted this agreement and will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Council could choose not to approve this encroachment agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Encroachment Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. .514-1 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Encroachment Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of the day of , 2011, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Owner"). RECITALS A. Owner is the owner of property located at: 7745 Lyndale Avenue South, City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in the attached Exhibit A ("Property"); and B. The Property is subject to a drainage and utility easement in favor of the City, which was dedicated to the City in the plat of Hampton Richfield, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B ("Easement"); and C. Owner would like to install and maintain two signs ("Signs") that will encroach upon portions of the Easement (the "Encroachment Areas"); the Encroachment Areas are depicted on the attached Exhibit C; and D. The City has agreed that Owner may construct, repair and maintain the Signs within the Encroachment Areas on the conditions set forth in this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Owner may construct, repair and maintain the Signs within the Encroachment Areas according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. The permission granted by the City by this Agreement is limited exclusively to the proposed Signs within the Encroachment Areas. 385033v6 JNS RC160-4 3. The proposed Signs must be installed and maintained at least five feet away from existing fiber optic lines that are owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A sketch showing the location of the lines, relative to the proposed Sign location, is attached as Exhibit D. 4. This Agreement shall not prevent or impair the use of the Encroachment Areas for the drainage and utility purposes by the City or any other entity entitled by law to so use the Encroachment Areas. 5. In the event the City needs to maintain, operate, repair, access, install or remove public facilities improvements located within the Encroachment Areas and the Signs interfere with such maintenance, operation, repair, access, installation or removal, the City shall provide notice to Owner pursuant to Paragraph 8 of this Agreement. The City's costs of removing the Signs in order for the City to exercise its easement rights shall be paid by Owner. Owner shall be responsible for the costs of restoring or reinstalling the Signs that were removed. Any damages to the Signs resulting from the City's activities shall be borne and assumed by Owner, provided, however, that the City shall be responsible for any damages caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officials, employees, contractors and agents. 6. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns. 7. Owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officials, employees, contractors and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), arising from or in connection with or caused by any act, omission or negligence of Owner, its contractors, licensees, invitees, agents, servants or employees in connection with the construction, repair or maintenance of the Signs. 8. Owners agree not to suffer or allow any liens, claims and processes to be placed against the City's rights to or interest in the Encroachment Area as a result of the use of the Encroachment Area, including, without limitation, any liens for labor or materials provided for the construction, repair or maintenance of the Signs. 9. Required notices to the parties to this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall either be hand delivered or mailed to the following addresses: a) As to the City: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield,MN 55423-2560 Attn: City Administrator b) As to Owners: Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership 2001 Killebrew Drive#308 Bloomington, MN 55425 385033v6 JNS RC160-4 2 Std-3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Debbie Goettel Its: Mayor By: Steven L.Devich Its: City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2011, by Debbie Goettel and Steven Devich, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public 385033v6 JNS RC160-4 3 54 -4 RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2011, by , the general partner of Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership, on behalf of the limited partnership. Notary Seal This document was drafted by: Kennedy& Graven, Chartered(CAH) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 470 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 385033v6 JNS RC160-4 4 51k-S EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lot 1, Block 1, Hampton Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. 385033v6 JNS RC 160-4 A-1 sIA -c) EXHIBIT B Easement Dedicated in Plat a EXCEPTION o °^ / Ah /r'of SwI of sw,i s{sw *f'.sic St 7:z_,R rf wv ,--.-- E I C. E 'N. P 77THT / 0 At 11--- T o MP/PR tai r E.a t 4 . - . ars-sa.j. . • •it..4.7?TH ST. '• i LI I a. 'et IN �j .h a n1 17 i 0 dt !. . . `► I$ Q i s 4 [J� tit ; 1 �)� t 3 ! > �s s' rao•w L Q T - t • IN w 4,Li • 1 b Ili st ti - .3 \% BLOCK I • i � .• • `� ° ,f, .,Ny I �- -P t �A 1 ;► M ,� o- C yr 159«0 ,► v •'r Ito.OUT LO T A _ A,'' . 3 s i' sI 41- r .p rt{ � 36 ‘Z';‘). • v r © sr 4 , f ,; tJ�4 Va3l w -� 1 tl >+- t '0 I ! x 1 tJH WAY - NC. 494 •i. i "`t o i H: 1 Vlitc 78 T:-: ST. 1 f S vi/Gar, at 1h. scar' - c.-fhAim of SW# .7.Sw •` 1'sw 0,144'.34, 7:44t4 -". If 385033v6 JNS RC160-4 B-1 51.4 -7 EXHIBIT C Sketch Depicting the Encroachment Areas L. w AW b kit y Swj of Swat •/*sw' q ,:. St TYI,ig?t "°• �E c r W P t r:H r of o T — ST ° se.me ii tows st. te `�a ' : .____.. __ f' h 1 i,. ‘,. a 41'"i a 1� 70 4 !,--' r;- V t nRC/t 5 6. u ` .4 4. 1 0 4 1 4 , _o Sr i It 0 ♦ 141..... {' _1 5r °; A t ° e 4 a l� � Lot I I g ! 4 J ,i� � BLOCK I . . I Q .ate i ` 1 ! 3 . 4 i a � l" \ 4`s1I 1 c` w ate` t� t s p� !� ..,N $ °�e� *+1 t. �o' ----41",g> QUTLOT A Moo I ...... „. .. ,,, ...,„,,,,t,,, al, .,J -."-W4 41,..,..,1 -......... . , -t. 1 - . : .� ' ....4\04 .• • �� I - 1 "s 1 H:GI•IWAY NC. S► r ` o, • i HIGHWAY . 5) i Wile Swear. oi Ms a{ sea. ir u,�ZS ;(,s1as�.tr. "A'�__._.� �.. Skirlfh 4x a/ SI 4 •f 4W41 4/Str ef'.Slw 34 T.s;it t4-. 385033v6 JNS RC160-4 C-1 EXHIBIT D Sketch of Fiber Optic Line Locations t 4*- 1(4 akkrk. s, \ I ... ' 1 , : ' , L c ktiliScjilt".V:414; -.''• I 1 e -..41 .1...-.1 ;;.0 0,4 11""thitrike 6 a r C) z I Vkil45 VaAtS. i(3 •40 1-.4 5.0ut-ttvc ,, •...-- V' _,4,6 ,. . .„...... vt-tel 1 . _.."" 385033v6 INS RC160-4 C-1 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5I REPORT# 148 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL 0 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ///�1 IraTN REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: [/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the continuation of the contract with the City of Bloomington for provision of inspection services for the City of Richfield for the year 2011. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the contractual agreement with the City of Bloomington to provide plumbing and mechanical inspections and plan review for the City of Richfield for the year 2011. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning for many years. The proposed contract for 2011 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning inspection services will be $105,900, the same amount as the 2010 contract. The terms of the contract provide for the contract to be terminated upon the expiration of 30 days after the service of written notice upon the other party, if there should be a need to terminate the contract before it expires December 31, 2011. Staff is still in the process of negotiating a 2012 contract for plumbing and mechanical inspections. 071211 Bloomington Contract 2011 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning for many years. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of this contract will be recovered by permit fee revenue. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own plumbing, heating and air conditioning services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be approximately same as the current contract amount. There would be a significant increase in staff time to schedule inspections and more difficult to provide back-up on days when the new inspector is not working. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate, which would require designated reduction in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2011 City of Bloomington Inspection Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Ss- 1 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 2011, by and between the City of Richfield(hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington(hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington"). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of building inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below,the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, subject to termination as provided in paragraph 7. 2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections and code enforcement as necessary. b. Plumbing plan review for permits with a job cost less than $50,000. c. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections, and code enforcement for new and existing residential structures and commercial/industrial applications. d. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning plan review for permits with a job cost less than$50,000. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 400 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 51 - a 5. In 2011, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($105,900) for services provided pursuant to paragraph two of this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2011, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2011. 6. In addition to the services and compenstation in Paragraph 2 and 5 above, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with plumbing plan review and heating, ventilation and air conditioning plan review for permits with a job cost of$50,000 or more. Richfield will pay Bloomington a plan review fee of 10% of the total permit fee on plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning permits with a job cost of$50,000 or greater. The plan review fee will be paid to Bloomington within 30 days after the permit is issued by Richfield. Such plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning plan review fees shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this agreement. All other provisions of this agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the plumbing plan review and inspection services being provided. In January 2011, Richfield will provide Bloomington a report listing plumbing and heating, ventilation and air conditioning permits issued, the job cost of each permit, and plan review fees paid to Bloomington. 7. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a.Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b.At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or c.In any event on December 31, 2011. 8. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2011, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 9. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 2 10. Richfield agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Richfield's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Richfield. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 11. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and$1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of$100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to the Richfield. 12. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 13. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Electrical inspection and code enforcement services; b. Building inspection and code enforcement services. 14. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of$62.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning inspection services being provided. 15. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide building plan checking services for and on behalf of Richfield. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at a rate of$67.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All 3 other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the building plan checking services being provided. 16. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contract. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this contract. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, and shall not be considered employees of Richfield , and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents contracts or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 17. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5. 18. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 19. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of 4 5T - S employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs, and activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone: 952/563-8700; TDD: 563-8740. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 20. The City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 21. Both parties agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands on the day and year first written above. Upon proper execution, this CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Agreement shall be a legal By: and binding obligation upon Its Mayor the City of Bloomington By: Its City Manager City Attorney 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager II 6 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 7 REPORT# 149 modal STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING wimil JULY 12, 2011 KAREN BARTON, COMMUNITY REPORT PREPARED BY: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY •► MANAGER: i � • , ITEM FOR Corridor COUNCIL Revitalization Pl CONSIDERATION: Acceptance of the 66th Street an I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan II. BACKGROUND In July 2010 the City of Richfield, in conjunction with Hennepin County, contracted with the firm of Damon Farber Associates to conduct a planning and revitalization study for the 66th Street Corridor between Cedar Avenue and Portland Avenue. 66th Street is a significant corridor within the City of Richfield, spanning between Cedar Avenue to the east and the City of Edina to the west. The 66th Street Planning process was conducted to develop a plan for the eventual revitalization and/or redevelopment of this segment of 66th Street. This area was established in the 1950's and 1960's and is characterized by traffic congestion, a lack of parking, an unfriendly pedestrian environment, and aging buildings. It is also home to a number of iconic businesses frequented by residents of Richfield and the surrounding communities. A series of public meetings and workshops were held to gather input from residents, businesses, property owners and other stakeholders. These meetings included a walking tour of the corridor in July of 2010, a planning workshop held in September, 07122011 66th St Revitalization Plan Acceptance and a public meeting in November to present the preliminary plan, and an open house in January to present the final Revitalization Plan. Staff and Damon Farber have also held meetings with the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), City Department Directors, Richfield Public Works, and Hennepin County in an effort to incorporate ideas, comments, and concerns from all potentially impacted parties. Based upon all of the information, input, and feedback gathered, Damon Farber has created a final draft Revitalization Plan ("Plan") for the 66th Street Corridor. The purpose of the Plan is to guide the revitalization and redevelopment of the 66th Street Corridor as it occurs to create a cohesive, inviting, and pedestrian-friendly environment. A summary of all of the workshops and a copy of the final 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan are available on the City's website. A representative from Damon Farber Associates will present the final 66th Street Revitalization Plan to the City Council at the July 12, 2011 meeting. Staff is recommending the City Council accept the 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Without a plan to guide the revitalization and redevelopment of the 66th Street Corridor, the area is likely to remain a disjointed and disconnected commercial area that will continue to decline. • The HRA accepted the 66th Street Corridor Plan at their June 20, 2011 meeting. • The Planning Commission accepted the 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan, and recommended the City Council accept the Plan at their meeting on June 27, 2011. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • As the area declines, property values will also decline. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • When revitalization and/or redevelopment occur, green and sustainable building practices will be used as practicable. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not accept the 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS • 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative from Damon Farber Associates e` g tt ( :::::': ' _r 7 ` : 1 [ :, ''''; ; ) i ., 1 .- , 404, . -41 m L$ Li frp 1 M 4t ` I 21, L f LJ.n -.4 .a,-_ 7-.'‘NIP'-'11.1 X -U 1,41,4 -1 •\\. Land Use Planning Services Prepared For Damon Farber Associates, Inc. in conjunction with Marquette Advisors Wenck Associates Mav 24".2011 A i 66 © oa Andrew Gillett- Principal Planning Analyst Kaye Lockrem - Housing, Community Works&Transit Karen Barton -Community Development Manager Jeff Pearson-Transportation Engineer Kristin Asher-City Engineer John Stark-Community Development Director Tom Whitlock,ASLA- Principal in Charge- Damon Farber Associates Lance Schuer, LEED AP- Damon Farber Associates Brent Wittenberg- Marquette Advisors Ed Terhaar-Wenck Associates We would like to thank the many concerned citizens, business owners, City and County staff and local politicians who contributed their time and ideas to the Master Plan. It is the dedication and hard work of such individuals that make Richfield a thriving community today and will provide vision for it's future. I *� —ca jr - 1 1111111111III' 1111 I -;i 66th Street Corridor. • d° .. Gi i ."' - '„ss� .:%' - ' a ` " a.. ..item '9Fs�c- �._6. nil l�w.��...�.<' ss.S, � = _ �... r.<,.. - --_. Executive Summary The Plan Location and Context 1 Purpose of Master Plan 2 Goals and Objectives 4 Transportation 7 Land Use and Zoning 7 Parks and Open Space 9 Architecture and Visual Aesthetics 9 Purpose 11 Public outreach and participation 12 Exploration of Alternatives 15 Factors Influencing Future Street Reconstruction 15 Land Use Strategy 21 Connecting Community 24 Conclusion 27 Next Steps 27 Appendix A- Market Assessment Appendix B-Walking Tour Minutes Appendix C- Open House 1 Minutes Appendix D-Open House 2 Minutes Appendix E-Open House 3 Minutes 1 a 1 y+r ■ y� i' YYwo ,i, 111111 ___. _ '1 , -5 - .6t'h STREET d ® N __.. , 4aesfS.: vv. — •,-:, - •k, i k + K .. a5 "iip Corner of 66th Street and Portland Ave 66th S:r n.,aUr',eierans Part, 66: ..-.ti ._ s Q y Master Plan Study Area M f - i-r Fog gt . ., ik .G .t,-•' T _� -5 +c 66th Street s i`.f ti 1 lac J•y'•.k ♦�t -.uP i TJRaiC4 C2! _- as-'442. es -x-...mt..s -_., ; s -`ti - - _ .- ; I y. ,. L ,. a i _ - . - — .d i - h 5 - The study area is located along 66th Street(County Road 53)in Richfield rretween 5th Ave and Cedar Ave,_ending roughly a Y a. side +r� r - aunty d The 66th Street Master Plan seeks to improve the economic viability and market position of existing and future uses on the 66th Street Corridor, while enhancing the pedestrian character and enhancing the multimodal opportunities of the corridor. The plan addresses land use, transportation and open space aspects of the corridor and provides recommendations for future improvement. 66th Street between Cedar and Portland Avenues has seen significant change with the addition of Cedar Point Commons, upgrades to the Crosstown Highway, expansion of the airport and the changing demographics of the community. The proposed reconstruction of 66th street circa 2015 by Hennepin County provides an important opportunity to begin planning for the improvements. The timing is right to be ahead of the change and create a long term vision for land use, transportation and open space on the corridor that maintains 66th Street as a gateway to the community and a vital neighborhood and regional amenity. Planning is vital to the economic health and safety of the corridor. The 66th Street Corridor Master Plan outlines land use,transportation, and open space goals. The Plan explores roadway configuration alternatives that strive to make 66th Street a more pedestrian friendly street with an improved visual character. It identifies new market driven land uses and patterns that seek to strengthen the unique districts within the corridor by encouraging growth of existing uses and introduction of new and complimentary ones. It seeks to strengthen Veterans Memorial Park as a community destination and enhance connections to it and other open spaces north and south of the corridor. This study is intended to be a resource for decision makers, City and County staff and potential private investors on the corridor. The Plan does not propose the specific redevelopment of any site along the corridor but seeks to guide future market driven redevelopment over a twenty year period. The Plan does not immediately change the road alignment or close any access drives for businesses/residents. Hennepin County and the City of Richfield will use the Plan to guide economic development, transportation and land use decisions along 66th Street. Potential next steps include preparing a right-of-way strategy and roadway plans for the reconstruction of 66th Street, determining the City's financial role in redevelopment, and reviewing strategies for the redevelopment of City owned and vacant parcels. Hennepin County and the City of Richfield have partnered together to lead the Master Plan study with the Damon Farber Associates team. Business owners, land owners, and residents were involved in a walking tour of the corridor to assess existing conditions. Three open houses were held to provide input on plan direction and outcomes. The Richfield Planning and Transportation Commissions provided input and various City Council members also attended open houses. The following recommendations were developed in conjunction with community input. This 66th Street Corridor planning study comes at a period following a serious economic recession and contraction within the local and regional economies. Land-use and economic factors are current impediments to redevelopment along the Corridor. However, with sustained economic improvement and through creative public-private partnerships,there is potential for small scale infill and redevelopment projects which will enhance 66th Street as a commercial corridor, providing an increased mix of goods and services and housing for the East Richfield community. As well,the planned reconstruction of 66th Street may also function as a catalyst for new property investment in this area. The Corridor currently contains several market rate apartment buildings, particularly in the western portion of the study area around ,s" Veterans Memorial Park. These properties appear to be generally well CARLBERG r maintained. Our assessment of rental market data indicates that - RADIATOR these and similar "workforce" affordable rental units throughout the area maintain high occupancy levels. The preservation and upgrade Y'a of existing workforce housing units will be important elements of p planning along the Corridor. Meanwhile, due to a short supply of developable land, limited parcel depth, and market factors new housing development along 66th Existing automotive service business. Street will be challenged. Rather,the City has established a TIF district just north of 66th Street and west of Cedar Point Commons and is evaluating proposals for the construction of varied senior housing products in this area. Our analysis suggests that there is in fact � . demand for additional senior housing in East Richfield. Next steps include the refinement of the product mix and market positioning (prices/rents, and service level). Cedar Point Commons, with Target and Home Depot, have greatly l.rus;. .., � :- changed the complexion of the eastern portion of the Corridor, The vacant lot at 12th&66th street provides an expand ingthe trade area by d rawingcustomers from South Minneapolis opportunity for redevelopment. � ., ienn ounfy .. �ieid and East Bloomington. Some businesses in the immediate area have experienced significant synergistic benefits, such as the Richfield Liquor Store and others in the area of 66th Street and Cedar. The Corridor is also home to several well-established retail and service businesses, many of which have served the immediate neighborhoods and the Richfield community for many years. Although many businesses continue to maintain and invest in their properties, several buildings are in a state of disrepair, as owners struggle to sustain their operations. Commercial rental rates are low, which is a factor in some businesses choosing to locate here. New retail and restaurant concepts in the short-term (2-3 years) will likely be focused within or near Cedar Point Commons, although new retail and restaurant concepts eventually may consider other locations along the Corridor. Target shoppers, however, must have a reason to travel westward along 66th Street. Through this Corridor Planning effort, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield can help to "set the stage"for new and existing businesses to better cultivate an expanded trade area related to Target customers. This will include market-related,transportation and land use elements as described in • this report and the Corridor Plan. The lack of developable land, paired with traffic, access and parking issues will likely preclude large-scale corporate or multi-tenant office development along the Corridor. Small-scale infill office development and mixed-use developments with a small office component may become viable over the long-term (3-5+ years out). However, public- private partnerships will be required. , 4. .3 - Ji : lihr 41■■•%.k,., •� t c N t' II i J . ,r,.... - ' il .:a.a� , I r 40,4v:',#:_ , r Development at Lake Screw,,,I., aest Piker Parkway in Iblinneapolis,provides a quasi public Providing enhanced sidewalks.and quas!,e,,,c plaza diverse mix of uses,on street and building rear parking parks and open space improves the walkabi '.'a`rr„ corridor. Demand for medical office space/clinics may increase if new senior housing is constructed in the area as is being contemplated near 66th Street & Cedar. A development which clusters existing health care providers in close proximity to senior housing would be appropriate and complementary to both land use categories. 66th Street serves the needs of local residents by providing access to local businesses, open space and Cedar Avenue. It also plays an important role in the regional transportation network. High traffic volumes, difficult access, and narrow sidewalks all contribute to visibility and convenience challenges facing business owners and residents. These challenges will only mount as volumes increase over time, threatening the economic viability of the corridor in the future. A comprehensive solution that addresses these issues and creates a vision for the corridor will make 66th Street a good place to do business an amenity for the neighborhood and a destination for visitors. One of the key aspects that emerged during the Master Plan study was the importance of maintaining and enhancing Veterans Memorial park as a vital community asset but also as an important anchor on the west side of the corridor to compliment the Cedar Point Commons development at the east end. The plan also strives to improve connections to Taft and Christian Park, and expand quasi public open space on the corridor to reinforce a pedestrian character that does not exist today. Recommendations to enhance the open space along the corridor include the following: • Reinforce Veterans Park as a regional draw on the corridor. Enhance facilities and programmed activities to draw people to the park and corridor throughout the year. • Consider public private partnerships to provide community recreation facilities, amphitheater and other park amenity additions. •Strengthen connections from 66th Streetto nearby neighborhood parks by adding sidewalks/trails as necessary. •Support regional storm water management strategies to compliment the Taft Park storm water management study. Reconstruction plans for 66th Street should incorporate the 4.N. City of Richfield's desire to protect existing City wells. Infiltration . I I should be reviewed with City of Richfield staff prior to implementation. ! , • Encourage developers and existing business owners to provide quasi-public spaces or outdoor dining areas along 66th Street to reinforce the pedestrian character of the corridor. • Explore grant programs which provide business owners with financial support for improving the exterior of their buildings and 1,1t Calvary Lutheran Church also the exterior parking lot edges and outdoor spaces of their properties. •f"7,-...-2 Y', The land uses along 66th Street are an eclectic mix of uses that provide 1 ---- fa 1 a wide range of services to the community, a range of housing, and a .- `7i diverse base of jobs. The 66th Street Corridor Plan seeks to create a / ;- flexible framework that provides opportunities for existing businesses fT`; to grow and identifies strategies for new private investment to be / improved on the corridor. The intent is to capitalize on the unique ,," attributes of the varied areas of the corridor. The 66th Street Corridor can be broken down into three distinct land use districts: - This area is the eastern portion of the +;7.,�4r ; j('1�1I I, illy' district closest to Cedar Avenue and consists of land uses that draw hill i' li IL a broader market area The plan recommends to continue to work ' on the successful build out of the Cedar Point Commons project and actively pursue other development opportunities to the south of 66th it ' Street that are synergistic with existing uses and with the adjacent - - neighborhood. - This area is the central portion w ,:.•;, of the corridor that primarily serves neighborhood and local service needs. The plan suggests that existing businesses expand on the corridor and reinforce this six block stretch as a neighborhood service district within a mix of compatible uses. Consider the introduction ,. of higher density residential on the corridor as a catalyst for future fS �.� �. commercial/office redevelopment and reinforce the corridor as a good s, place to live, work and shop. The scale and character should reflect 74" . ~ ' t4,• sensitivity to the adjacent neighborhood. i 111111 - Continue to have - •• I- c - , f - •. .,, V.:t.i:,.. <.t. -:. .s�.:--:-4k,..-2.-.--k1;.—v. a::z- x. sjfti< '3+,-1�fsa`-.•.x..�t:: .-_. 66 --'= f strong residential presence on corridor and better define opportunities for higher density housing on the south side of 66th Street overlooking Veterans Memorial Park. Reinforce the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection as in important mixed-use community node. •Address challenges of parking, future expansion of existing businesses and redevelopment with small parcel sizes. •Work with property owners adjacent to existing City owned parcels to maximize future development opportunities. •Consider potential future right-of-way expansion when reviewing new redevelopment proposals. • Define building setbacks to provide for consistent right-of-way in the future. There are 53 structures on the corridor today with over half of them constructed before World War II. A number of the businesses on the corridor have become cherished community destinations but this loyalty is due to the services provided within and not the architectural character of the buildings in which they are provided. Each district along the corridor possesses a distinct character, made of buildings, streets and open spaces that structure the patterns of activity and influence our impressions of the place and the quality of goods and services sold within. Development should be sensitive to the community context: • Buildings should respond sympathetically to the scale, massing, materials and height of nearby buildings. •To local development patterns. * #` •There should be visual and functional continuity of street frontages to help define the street and provide improved visibility to all businesses. _ t" .. . .4j _ +i*r 1, The areas around Veterans Memorial Park will continue to be desirable spaces for a mix of uses but also provide new opportunities for residential uses that will further support the central neighborhood service district and reduce the overall quantity of retail uses,improving Existing commercial properties between 15th& the market position of others on the corridor. Bloomington Avenue. A comprehensive streetscape that builds on elements for 66th Street ;' is also envisioned to create a quality first impression as you enter the 0 city as well as improve the identity for all land uses along the corridor. Studies show that streetscape improvements are not just about aesthetics but have shown the ability to increase a businesses bottom line by making a corridor more friendly for pedestrians and customers. The 66th Street Corridor Plan provides a long term vision of a vibrant Existing business at 15th Avenue if � `rx community 'Main street' that reflects community input, is based on a thorough market analysis, and provides a flexible framework for future decision making. The plan provides for the continued growth of existing business and the information that will help sustain this corridor and community well into the future. �`_ . ,fir - r.'. Ili '__y _mil ._,i, 1t� '� `. _` !..5 ._:-.-,. .. '�"` >„.4.:4.1.; 3� i• `AE a I L -.. i �i�. ~ < �I iii , \ �/ ,,,C-1 h F t 't 1 ` tr i L.a - An enhanced visual character can improve a business bottom line. The Canal Park street improvements in Duluth improved local business sales by 32%over a 3-year period. Residential around 66th- -ET CORRIDOR ' PLAN _ M1,pat.. { Qansn•ens stop t i t•A moo:rele,er y street•B mnorartera i ' 83rd STREET - -. bus route number i ' -P' t'- -- _ - 4. % + { r VETERANS " f - i" ,}r. 1!"., i h MEMORIAL PARK — a sw. Y • - l 1 •7 f; T�'111 t e 84tth STREET t ROUTE 553 Express 16 MINUTES +. - S • TO DOWNTOWN • MINNEAPOLIS Y/ ' •• �,• 65th STREET - f r _ 1 r v 4 1 I # ' i''' .'ti. 1' rF '.✓ - -li. y,•ta. � PDT 11200 ,r,s•�0�. G . •�• 1 . '"r k Es ...p _ •.-$ :{fe gg i[.. ' "'' 1 r 6]M STREET x i Y r..Mr .,9 c f a? • 6� Ian P :i I '„ate - 1 ■ e `. i Jg .. r i x” Yaw .. -. i Ii'. q +Ire �i#,'1 1} t I >✓ I a A r a Beth STREET r .. i S55 P i. . 1 i .. 'Y_ f i:r i ■ ,- a w T j - . visa - -. Transportaboo Content emsting ntansit bus stops and Average Daily Tt.,I<■<rs in 2009 or rtic,coo 60,x - y PROPOSED PARKWAY i ,1'.;-[!1:i. - r Ovo related aestnatons —vacant property ; 63M STREET ' • _ety owned propertes - o ^- r pedestnan connection f' .• e pedesh do crossing $ 3TAB ISNEA 1 R610ENT00 - ! - N - d NENitIDORIpOD. r ,. P: sit 64rhSiREE1 K K .. al - 11:111:14 1 .P F$_ 5,h fithr II ' `S_ s `mss - • / 1} .-: Y .:-.1 4 ...R i 4. le y HMEDIA PARK OBth STREET - r .c c # # - .ESTABLISHED E r _ xncxBORxooD t i .. _ 1 s ra ` 1 a a. - 9 .•1 { . i ... y., Existing Conditions-the corridor provides an eclectic mix of uses that reinforces 66th street as an important community destination. • The study area is located along 66th Street (County Road 53) in Richfield, Minnesota, between 5th Avenue and Cedar Avenue For the purpose of this study, the parcels located along the corridor were reviewed to one half block north and south of 66th Street. The corridor carries 12,400 vehicles at the east end, and 11,200 on the west end per 2009 traffic counts. The 2030 forecast from Hennepin County Transportation Plan predicts 11,300, while the Richfield Comprehensive Plan forecasts 15,900 daily travelers. The traffic volume is likely to increase slowly over the next 20 years. The volume increase will likely vary depending on intensity and type of development/redevelopment that occurs in Richfield. The 66th Street corridor is comprised of a diverse mix of uses, from multi-family and single family homes to offices, neighborhood commercial businesses and regional commercial. The corridor is also home to a few unique amenities like Veterans Memorial Park, the Richfield Ice Arena and a public pool and recreation center. If you live in the northern half of Richfield it is likely you travel on 66th Street a number of times a day. It is one of the primary vehicular corridors within the city and its future success is important to residents and business owners alike. Most anytime of the day it is a vibrant street with high volumes of vehicles and patrons accessing local businesses to purchase goods and services. If you are looking for anything from a bouquet of flowers or an exotic fish or to fix your car or see your dentist,your needs can be met on 66th Street. It is a long and diverse corridor to say the least. One of the most recently completed projects on the corridor is the Cedar Point Commons retail center, located just off Cedar Avenue on the east end of the corridor. There are also a number of vacant or undeveloped properties that exist along the corridor. The two roundabouts, located at Portland Avenue and 17th Avenue have also been recently completed, and have changed the face and function of both intersections. The BP Gas station and Mr. Tire auto service centers have been removed at the Portland Avenue interchange, and the Sinclair station on that corner is currently not in use. The corridor has been separated into three distinct districts for this study. The districts are: • Residential Park District(from 5th Ave to 11th Ave). • Mixed-Use Neighborhood (11th Ave to Bloomington Ave). • Regional Commercial/Office (Bloomington Ave to Cedar Ave). The Residential Park District begins at 5th Avenue and extends east to 11th Avenue. This district has a mix of mostly residential (single introduc°ion 66th- TT EORRI ' • • PLAN and multi-family), public facilities, Veterans Memorial Park, and a few business on the south side of 66th Street. Most homes along the corridor were built in the nineteen forties,continuing into the nineteen fifties further south. Following the nineteen forties the corridor has seen a steady transformation into a diverse mix of uses. Some of the homes have disappeared and been replaced with commercial businesses or office space. The fifties and sixties development tended to build buildings closer to the street when 66th Street carried far less volumes of traffic and parking was on the street. The seventies and eighties saw a suburban model of development with buildings set back from the street with off-street parking located in front of buildings. More recent development has continued the suburban model of development with a number of exceptions. The neighborhood mixed-use district is a unique section of the corridor with many diverse uses from restaurants and single family homes to Montessori schools, auto repair shops, and dental offices. A residential neighborhood borders the corridor on both the north and • south sides, and to the east is the Regional Commercial District with • the MSP International Airport beyond Cedar Avenue. Similar to the Residential Park District, residential development began in the late s thirties and forties,and continued into the nineteen fifties. Commercial redevelopment has followed in the more recent decades. The lot depths in this district tend to be narrow and make redevelopment a challenge without acquiring additional properties to provide the necessary parking for today's development. • The most recent and only multi-block redevelopment project has been the installation of Cedar Point Commons. Cedar Point ' y Commons occupies over six blocks extending north of 66th street, and serves as the gateway to those entering the corridor from Cedar I Avenue. This area draws from a significantly wider market area than . s••. the neighborhood mixed-use district, bringing people from south • Minneapolis to the corridor. Unfortunately, these visitors typically do not frequent other businesses on the corridor. The area to the south of 66th Street consists of the City's liquor store, the largest office building in the study area and the largest City owned land providing a C significant opportunity for continued growth in this area. A Corridor Master Plan is a document that outlines a long-range vision of typically 15 to 20 years for transportation improvements, land coda, Point Ce >eo,s ,cant new aadition to use and development strategies this City could use to help generate the 66th Street Col that attracts shoppers from positive momentum. The plan examines the current conditions of South Minneapolis and East Bloomington. 2 • ,feyy • the area, develops a future vision based on input from residents and business owners of the area and then formulates specific goals, objectives and policies that will help implement that vision. This plan is intended to identify and develop a long-range plan ensuring that the 66th Street Corridor continues to grow and change while addressing the needs and desires of the community. This master plan provides City decision makers and the community with a policy manual to guide future public improvements and private development in the corridor and provides a set of standards for developers, builders, architects and planners. • As the City of Richfield spread southward and 66th Street became a heavily traveled county road, the corridor filled with an eclectic mix of uses. Adjacent to the corridor, single family neighborhoods emerged 'T with ample park space, making the area appealing to families. The `' /i; • neighborhoods have matured into attractive and desirable places to f• live. Richfield, with it's proximity to Minneapolis, the airport and the Highway 494 commercial strip, make it a great place to live and do business. The residents and businesses owners know that the area possesses the qualities and attributes of community life that so many r -- — new communities across the region are trying to create. Today, however, 66th street is surrounded by diverse neighborhoods with varied needs and the corridor that was designed for nineteen sixties traffic is now carrying traffic far greater than it was designed for, making access to businesses, homes and offices a challenge. Traffic r volumes will continue to increase and there are concerns it will further impact public safety, economic development and deteriorate the ' �,� overall visual character of the corridor. Some of the concern focuses ith on the lack of pedestrian space on the corridor and speed of traffic, ` while other concerns stem from the lack of positive impact on local business from recent redevelopment in the Regional Commercial/ Office District. 66th Street requires new investment and an updated . vision for the future. Etisting o6V,S ices These concerns have raised important questions regarding the mix • �.r of uses, building location, architectural character and functional aspects of the corridor. Others acknowledge that change is inevitable, • particularly for an area of the city laced with inherent assets and amenities such as Veterans Memorial Park, Swimming Pool, Ice Arena, proximity to neighboring parks such as Taft and Christian, and .` the appeal of established neighborhoods with public transportation to downtown Minneapolis and the greater metro area. The 66th Street Corridor has experienced its share of change over the Pocket olaza t` r` s years. Sometimes it is the sale of an established property for private st.LGUr introduc'ion 3 66 .STREET D ` development(such as the Cedar Point Commons development), other times it is exterior changes to a business, such as the remodel of Richfield Floral&Garden. No matter what the change,there will always be people who are concerned about the overall direction the corridor is headed. Change will occur, and it is usually a sign of a strong, healthy community. It means that residents and business owners want to live and invest there. It also means that property values will likely grow - an important asset to most families and land owners. In response to these concerns, The City of Richfield and Hennepin County commissioned the assembly of the 66th Street Corridor Master Plan. The 66th Street Corridor Master Plan provides more • detailed recommendations than are provided in the comprehensive • plan. The master plan does not function to replace the comprehensive plan but rather to augment it. It builds on the goals, policies and ` �• - implementation steps in the comprehensive plan to provide a finer • t - r.../.. , ' -tiw....,... level of detail. 6664 As a result of discussions with the community and the Richfield.. . !s a Transportation and Planning Commissions during the planning A :_. . s ' ' t - ma process,a set of goals and objectives for the master planning process and recommendations were developed. These include the following: `- •Supports a compatible mix of commercial, cultural, office, y 1i! institutional and residential uses. �' • Enhances the economic viability of businesses. t - • Enhances the integrity of adjacent residential neighborhoods. *-` • Maximizes opportunities to contribute to a high quality of r z —. ., community life. .. . _ •Supports the physical connection to local trails, open space and __ f other community institutions. i _q tea.,. • Provides the 'first step' in collaborative discussions with _+ i7 . �s` _j ;` Hennepin County regarding the future reconstruction of 66th ', ...ii.— ` _i ^, s 1,,, Street by exploring adequate vehicular circulation as well as ; :=-- - pedestrian and bicyclist movements for a "Complete Street". ■Acts asa north/south linkageconnectingadjacentneighborhoods and parks, including safe crossings for pedestrians. • Provides adequate access and parking for businesses and residents. - • Performs a high-capacity/moderate speed road function for cars and trucks. Medians such as those shoum.:bu.e improve • Provides convenient access to mass transit. corridor safety.business image and provide safe access to businesses. 4 ,' 'r t • Provides a safe environment for pedestrians. •Creates strategically located human-scaled spaces which are engaging to the eye. ■ Includes an attractive streetscape that is good for business, good for pedestrians and can be maintained for the long run. • Celebrates the historic role of 66th Street as a gateway and one of the main arteries within the City of Richfield. /. , , It i140'411 a t / i t i ---. . , :- ii,•,.. -• - . i .i.,, v ■ :: ' 0 1 ra pp i.�„ 1 I, ! is t i' =` II a I The Kensington Rack development at 76th Street&Lyndate.uses a great palette o`,—, that has created a quality aesthetic image. ire roouc:.on. t/, 71 r 1 . k :w P 1 ; : R 1/ t ar. Y i • • ".It • ) • t 66'R.O.W.Existing _ ' �`'"" 83'R.O.W.Existing ., ^ 100'R.O.W.Existing VETERANS - -• R.0.1N.Varies MEMORIAI_PARV( c tr Q w Y:.n.. Q " '.+Q Q Q ',-5- } Q . Q J t a .In . T 4,.._ p ar a r r _ _ f-i"" - s a $ r .+ i ti .-1 s ti Is • •V • ` o o o �v e I'u V i3 The segment of 66th Street through the City of Richfield is designated as County Road 53 and is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. The study segment of this roadway extends for a distance of about 1.2 miles, and roughly a half a block deep north and south. Throughout this entire length, 66th Street provides two lanes of traffic in each direction, with no center medians, or turn lanes, and a speed limit of 30 mph. Full access is provided at all public street intersections and private driveways. Vehicles making right turns are required to slow down quickly and enter small parking lots, which force trailing drivers to move into the left lane to pass the turning drivers. The same is true for drivers making left turns. Trailing drivers are required to move into the right lane to pass. Many communities with historic four lane configurations have determined that a three lane configuration provides the same level of service but safer turning movements for left turns. __ One of the most unique and challenging aspects of the corridor is the varied right-of-way widths. There are three main right-of-way widths __ that exist on the corridor; 66 feet wide, 83 feet wide and 100 feet , _ N ht __ `—" wide. The 83 and 100 wide right-of-way widths provide a wide range ` ••- ' 11-1:,11,11!,-‘5‘,--._ of opportunity. - - ' -* * ) A variety of commercial uses exist within the study area consisting of neighborhood service retail and destination retail serving the larger Richfield and south Minneapolis community. The neighborhood mixed- use district in the center portion of the corridor has mostly small-scale shops and services typical of a neighborhood shopping district. The ,;, rr,„ , h variety of businesses include:specialty grocery, dentist,auto oriented . °O°"5 services, a laundromat, Montessori schools and miscellaneous office °.• "`' [1Eti _ ` � M F M _ !rlti-unit retail facility at 14th.4 �_ p M = � r. r.�.Si r�i i its ar n-1 1... a _ -; . -Lid t.-+- .r s� �i• £' [ 7I .y - _--°.....0 El MI MrA E T-3 BE 2.2 IS 'a MI i 66th-STREET T 1 DC space round out the commercial mix in this district Anchoring the retail area east of the neighborhood mixed-use district is Cedar Point Commons. The Cedar Point Commons retail development was completed in 2008 with roughly 350,000 square feet of leasable area, sitting on 30 acres that was previously neighborhood retail and single-family residential. The Home Depot and Target stores within Cedar Point commons development are a regional draw, pulling in visitors from south Minneapolis and the neighboring suburbs. Other retail services here include a bank, shoe store, chain restaurants, coffee shop, and a vacant lot owned by Ryan Companies awaiting development. The area to the south of 66th Street consists of the largest office building within the study area, the Richfield Liquor store and a large area of City owned property that is awaiting redevelopment. Located west of the neighborhood mixed-use district is the residential park district. This portion of the corridor has the least amount of commercial retailers. The construction of the roundabout at Portland 4, s Avenue removed two of the four auto service/gas stations on that corner, leaving one abandoned and one still in operation. A floral and Q El._...111 HI I I l convenience store is located between Chicago & Elliott Avenues, on the south side of 66th Street. To the north are Veterans Memorial �I - • IN I I r Park, Ice Arena, and swimming pool. The study area is surrounded by well-established single family Existing multi-family housing unit at 10th Avenue neighborhoods that offer convenient access to nearby shops and services. Multi-family apartment structures are located primarily on the western section of the corridor closest to Veterans Memorial Park, and single family homes are in good condition and streets are lined with trees and sidewalks. Waft, The neighborhoods on the north side of the corridor are bound by 1 �° Highway 62 to the north, Cedar Avenue to the east,and Veterans Park - _- 1 I L ® r 4. i : 8 " Single family residence at enue r ., rFr[ _ rr, I L�� _ f - .f‘ � wii 1. fry � ;ma ice. aia P.M Num • rme..4 77T f w�1 w,r 1 cc, MIMI Os 111, 11.M MINS MI I MI=Ws=IS►� i _^ LLW1• annis as= MI alo Wr n M I v2 Sr. V.irr 2= ce !VI r EME Existing T&T gas/set vice station at Portland Avenue 8 to the West. 66th Street is the southern border to that neighborhood, and is busy enough to isolate that pocket from the larger neighborhood %fJ south of 66th Street. Safe, well marked intersections are critical to the connection of these neighborhoods to the corridor and across it. A number of residential properties still exist directly on the corridor _._.__ _ providing opportunity for commercial reuse. Single family residential �� is even more scarce east of Columbus Ave, making redevelopment on that end more likely with the availability of either abandoned or -� public owned lots, and the additional traffic visiting the Cedar Point Commons development. Located within the study area are Richfield Ice Arena, Outdoor Pool, Mt.Calvary Lutheran Church and School,and two different Montessori schools. Also located close to the corridor is the new Richfield Municipal Center at the corner of Portland Avenue and 67th Street. One of the biggest assets of the corridor is Veterans Memorial Park veterans,1.;emo a ?ark located between Portland Avenue and 11th Avenue South. Home to numerous trails, a picnic shelter, playground, and mini-golf course, Veterans Memorial Park serves as a destination to visitors and residents alike. Located three blocks north of the corridor is Taft Park, and two blocks south is Christian Park on the east end of the corridor. A connection to these two parks could be enhanced through the corridor at Bloomington Avenue which could tie into the plan being created by the Richfield Bicycle Task Force. Building architecture in the corridor includes an eclectic mix of styles, --, materials, heights and massing, representing many decades of I A ,t„ construction without a coherent vision or standard. Buildings range F I from 1-2 stories and are randomly set back throughout the corridor making visibility to some businesses a challenge and contributing to the lack of a consistent district identity. The largest massing of new buildings is located at Cedar Point Commons on the east end of -,r the corridor. Cedar Point Commons has a cohesive building material palette in comparison to the rest of the corridor. Many of the older ./.. buildings have few windows or entrances facing the street or are F.. - 3 set back too far from the sidewalk, perhaps separated by parking or _ r, service areas. Many service areas are not properly screened from adjacent residential uses. Most of the older buildings are stick frame -=�wi,�■� with wood siding or made of masonry block. Cosmetic improvements _ like new paint, new windows, doors or awnings would contribute to an .-10,0"` • improved pedestrian and visitor experience. existing conditions 9 •" -1.7 ,Y.7.--___ - .ter , - rr .. z �" .° 1 1, '3 r ! s . , "i,:. L., .._._...,::_.. ., , .,..., ., _,... ,. _,,, . . _ ^a■ • ht 1 At I ,, . _ .„,,,._,. ,,.. .,,,, ,.. .. .. ._ .... .....„ . ,.......,. .. .‘ .,. . ...... _._:., , , 3"14 i _ _ ____ ...,. _ _,.... .._:.„7---.vi,.-: --'1 - i- 7 ''' *77.-;"-- ~\ \ ' , Participants at the final open house. 10 The planning process for the 66th Street Corridor Master Plan had the oversight of Hennepin County, Richfield City Staff, and was organized around a public consensus building process. The combination of these three perspectives provided the consulting team with wealth of both strategic insights and community aspirations that could be incorporated into the plan. The project team members who live, work, shop and recreate in the 66th Street Corridor provided direction on the planning process, participated in community open houses, and a corridor walking tour. They reviewed the design solutions as they were refined between meetings and offered insights about the feasibility of plan components and recommendations. The consultant team met with the community four times total offering input and guidance between August of 2010 and February 2011. The Master Plan for the 66th Street Corridor seeks to establish a vision for the future based upon the wishes and desires of the community and the realities of a market driven approach. At times, various community members expressed concerns over specific elements of the Master Plan, but the vision seeks to define a broad set of ideas for the future of the corridor. In fact, as people shared their views about the future of the corridor, it became evident that they all share a great desire to improve a corridor that is highly treasured and critical to the future health of the community. Issues regarding access, multi-family housing, location of commercial infill, future maintenance of street improvements and overall visual character are often contentious, but people recognize their positions are often highly charged because they truly care about the future of the corridor and the long term economic viability of their business. It is the goal of this Master Plan to reflect the common vision shared by the community and provide positive direction for the future of the 66th Street Corridor. While community members may continue the debate after completion of the Master Plan, it should be done in the context of a commonly held vision. In this way,a statement of purpose should provide the way for shared values and a basis for cooperation as the community addresses future development changes. • IP • 1 1 66th STREET C• ; P ANu�� A corridor walking tour, three public meetings and a meeting with the Transportation and Planning Commission were held and attended by members of the consultant team and the surrounding community. Information regarding these events was publicized on the City's website, and by postcards mailed to citizens. The first chance for business owners and neighborhood residents to comment on the study was at a walking tour of the corridor held on August 12th, 2010. Twenty people were in attendance for the tour, including business owners,residents along the corridor,and interested land owners. The purpose of this tour included the following: ■An opportunity to meet business owners and residents on their turf and discuss issues where they occur. •An opportunity for business owners and residents to provide input to the process at the very beginning prior to any concepts being developed. • Present the planning process. ADORIAN\ • Discuss the purpose of the Master Plan. • ES ;' ' • Inform participants how they could stay involved in the process. 4 Or $15 BARBER „ Participants were asked to make general observations regarding each — ii block. The information gathered at the walking tour provided planning �• insights and direction for the preparation of concepts that followed I and influenced recommendations made in the following open house. 4 - Please see Appendix B for Walking Tour Minutes and participant recommendations. ® r , we a t The first community open house was held at Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church on September 15th, 2010. The purpose of this open house was an introduction and visioning session which included the following: • Introduce purpose of the plan. • Present study process&Schedule. • Provide a project background. -• •Answer Questions. •Visioning session. Members of the community were asked to review findings to-date and provide insight and comment on the direction of the concept. The visioning session asked attendees to identify corridor assets, liabilities, and what their vision was for the future of the corridor. The input gained from this effort moved the direction of the plan _t, _ ._ � ) closer to a preferred master plan which was presented at the second community open house. See appendix C for open house one minutes '_,., r and participant recommendations. Participants in the August 12th corridor walking ou. 12 = Ina' The second community open house was held November 30th, 2010 at Mt.Calvary Lutheran Church. The purpose of this meeting included the following: • Present preliminary Right-of-Way sections. • Present preliminary Land-Use diagrams. • Present preliminary District concepts. • Discuss refinements and next steps. • Gain additional input regarding Plan recommendations. This open house allowed community members the opportunity to review roadway sections, land use diagrams, and district concepts. The attendees were encouraged to ask questions regarding plan components or process issues, express concerns, and discuss likes and dislikes of the exhibits. Those comments were reviewed by Project Team members and influenced the recommendations made in the revised diagrams. See appendix D for open house two minutes and participant recommendations. The third community open house was held January 31st, 2011 at Mt. i a L Calvary Lutheran Church. The purpose of this meeting included the r� following: • Present revised Right-of-Way sections. ECM/ • Present revised Land-Use diagrams. • Present revised District concepts. • Discuss refinements and final steps. •Gain additional input regarding Plan recommendations. This open house allowed community members the opportunity to review roadway sections, land use diagrams, and district concepts. The attendees were encouraged to ask questions regarding plan 1" components or process issues, express concerns, and discuss likes and dislikes of the exhibits. Those comments were reviewed by Project '` Team members and influenced the recommendations made in the , : summary document. See appendix E for open house three minutes and participant recommendations. i. PIM I/ p s uroccss 1;, ou,„</q :buc:- t S =11 neighborhood ._c r.__ 63.r15TREEt yy .,Park EM regonal commercial/office - 1,.. 3• O -ran_ts[PPrntb crosswalks Y .-<,_t:g bike mute - •. :~_ a - ' ate.cat re bike routs ty R'.rL PARn ~ enhanced P tl .,.-. r ! 6415 STREET 4 ..- 65th STREET r 1 .p 1 fw ra.i, Al __ _ .� 67th STREET 3 u c. W 8 ° R L W w! f q t.a W 4 _ c I •r s a oar - •a h z - t /. r- E . 4, tit r a ■ s , 68M STREET r _ S '�j •r .F .t 3 _ 4 tf L t _ ,.TM t• _ 6 t r. . t Proposed land use diagram with bike route and pedestrian connections. 14 - 0111 - Hennepin County I City of Richfield The 66th Street Master Plan is intended to act as a framework for future decision making regarding public and private investment in the corridor. The community driven planning process began with an exploration of a wide range of alternatives regarding transportation, land use and open space. The plans were then refined based upon community and staff input to arrive at a Master Plan that provides a more clear understanding of the street configuration trade-offs related to future reconstruction of the roadway, new land use alternatives that provide a synergy of uses to support new and old business development on the corridor and improved community linkages that support neighborhood desires for a safer and more connected corn mu nity. This study explores the trade-offs between the desire to make 66th Street a multi-modal street with provisions for on-street bike lanes, on-street parking and an enhanced and walkable pedestrian realm within the varied right-of-way configurations of the corridor. The study does not recommend a specific solution but, rather provides the information necessary to continue the discussion with Hennepin County as they begin to formulate a plan for the reconstruction. 66th Street is currently made up of three different right-of-ways (R.O.W.), 66', 83' and 100'. Part of this Master Plan study was to explore different road alignments for the corridor and allow the community to comment on the different ways 66th Street could be reconfigured. Six different sections were presented at the second open house in November, two sections illustrating a 66' right-of-way configuration, and four more showing an 83' right-of-way option. The 100' right-of-way portions along the corridor would use the 83' right- of-way street configurations. Two additional 66' right-of-way sections were created in response to the feedback gathered. One of the primary decisions moving forward as the County begins to formulate a right-of-way strategy is to determine an approach to the areas of the corridor that have a 66 foot wide right-of-way today. This width is too narrow to accommodate all of the alternatives related to bike lanes, parking and a quality pedestrian environment. Acquiring additional right-of-way to expand to 83 feet is also problematic because it will impact existing businesses parking and buildings in certain locations. One strategy communities have implemented in the past is to implement setbacks in these areas that require new development to be set back to the desired right-of-way width and wait until the future when all parcels in an area are compliant and then expand the improvements. This is the primary challenge for redevelopment occurring prior to the roadway design effort by County. 66th-STREET RDPLAN >.: Shade Trees , Street Light ..-r---- -- , .„...,„ . . . -..- y....-. . .: .... _ ,, ..... .., „.....,„ a ii-Lii i 1 Sidewalk Boulevard Drive Lane 1 Median with Left Turn Lane Drive Lane Boulevar0 Sidewalk f--__ -_-_--.- __. __._... _ -__---- __ - __-__., This street section would accommodate a 6' wide sidewalk on both sides, 4' boulevards, 15' drive lanes, and a center turn median with extensive planting. This section does not accommodate bike traffic. Shade Trees irl .- - Street Light A ,x . 1 s rier1 11 —74 . Sidewalk Bike Lane Drive Lane Median with Left Turn Lane Drive Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk y i This section would lose the 4'wide boulevards on both sides, but gain 6' bike lanes on the street. The sidewalks are also extended to 9' wide. ;.E.,_kit....f.., .AL ; .S.i .._. ' .-.+c 1r • .r a i { mac@ firr VETERANS ' p .� . 66'R.O.W. xisting r 83'R.O.W.Existing_ MEMORIAL PARK r �- t 0 am _ 100'R O W.Existing r '. :..r_ +",`'f: -':w '' -•�R_O;',�Var�s ^� �^ _ Residential Park District � � , �r � �� ' Neighborhood Mixed Use � ■ 7 1 ! 17, _ I�„y .., r z 4 Z• R 0• a�G 4 6 A .-Q Q Q Q - Q O Q .' Q .- I. a, a oy _ z 4 r a_ U •'.ms's i. .ti 0 . A -6 a s a u Existing Right-of Way Locations 16 Hennepin County 1 City of Richfield Street Light 1 0� i il' us illli' ►:'Tilii1111I'1llll i 1 ';`.IPS-11-- ; 41 igli .4 ,..No.- 1 Sidewalk Parking Drive Lane LeftTurn Lane Drive Lane i Parking Sidewalk This street section in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use District would accommodate an 8' wide sidewalk on both sides, 8' wide on-street parking, 11' drive lanes, and a 12' center left turn lane. sue' ,, Shade Trees - ..a + Street Light ais�- a s7i f ' ffill1111111hill 1 , f let Sidewalk Blvd. Bike Lane Drive Lane Left Turn Lane Drive Lane Bike Lane Blvd. Sidewalk a a . / ` i i Similar to the previous section, this section would provide an 8' sidewalk, it would also accommodate a 4'wide planted boulevard,and a 6' wide bike lane. On-street parking would be lost in this scenario. .. VETERANS . r ETERANS . .. e 4., t., MEMORIAL PARK - r s ) I. _ 66 R.O W.Existing I 14 - ,s 83 R.O.W.Existing - .,'< r r ` i g 00'R.O W.Existing a _... r « f -^, � a- -- ....... Residential Park District - ' Neighborhood Mixed-Use - 4- i.e. > w Q •-..Q '_' w OF to-11- w W S S - W I.. .' J z t S a - l'_ k. . a as ‘.5 P a_ 'o - - 1 Existing Right-of-Way Locations n os'er 1 , '' .- r' Shade Trees ?' Street Light /� 1 j 4,s 1 t Multi-Use Trail Boulevard Drive Lane Median with Left Turn Lane Dr lee Lane Boulevard Sidewalk The 83' right-of-way accommodates more uses and generous proportions compared to the 66' right-of-way This section has a multi- use trail off the street on the park side, 11' wide boulevard on both sides, 15' drive lanes, a center turn median, and a 6' wide sidewalk on the south side. .>., Shade Trees `- 'k` Street Light I_I -} n `s y .T f � (..„ ,y ,r r `? y y % ` ems - V Y ,yJY ' t f . . } t r r MINIM . Sidewalk Boulevard Bike Lane Drive Lane Median with Left Turn Lane Drive Lane Bike Lane Boulevard Sidewalk -- r Similar to the previous section, this section would not offer the multi- use trail, but rather an 8' wide bike lane in both directions on street. Both sides of the street would have a 6' sidewalk, 8' boulevards with shade trees and pedestrian scale lighting, and the drive lanes would be reduced to 12' wide. F VETERANS t ` -f- - - - MEMORIAL PARK '” - F s r� 66'R.0 W.Existing .., -a w: J 4, r { -J 83'R.OW.Existing i„- '' •-.. .. ® 100'R.0 W.Existing 17i - - t r=11.-R O_W V W;, ,., „- Residential Park District `- — I — - •r — — - iveighborhood Mixed-Use .. — — — 7 � ,'• c ` r T, 2 .r C a-, �• a i • o ; X4 •:t r ':,:tit, I I. t t r • O v� / U - tt � A a -�L 'tr .� Existing Right-of-Way Locations 18 '' , Hennepin County I City of Richfield .d. . d a. Shade Trees ' Street Light 1' sa+c,� 1 'x'0:4 : s r .':"`�. ¢ ate_ `, + •Ii\ • f —.....—....i ZIW. MG •AO . 1111141,11/6", ' . ilr■i t 1 Sidewalk Boulevard Bike Lane Drive Lane Left Turn Lane Drive Lane Bike Lane Boulevard Sidewalk This 83' right-of-way section in the neighborhood mixed-use district section has 8' sidewalks, 6' planted boulevards, 6' bike lanes, 12' wide drive lanes and a 13' center left turn lane. Shade Trees r ,. . Street Light l a- 4.`- Ars 14 a , � . • . : iz:1 .. .__ . 74.6iiitw. F._ . — Sidewalk Parking Drive Lane Left Torn Lane Drive Lane Parking Sidewalk Similar to the previous section, this section would not offer the on- street bike lanes, but would have a 10'wide lane for on-street parking. 14' sidewalks would extend from the curb to the buildings. The drive lanes would be reduced to 11', and left turn lane would be 13' wide. _ If . ,; - VETERANS )1-';;; r 4 -.-• ,bj s ..+ 0'-, 4 ' t 0+-<- 4 c ar _ MEMORIAL PARK ? '�" ;y � tl'j,Ar p' 66-R.O W.Existing j - y -P,4-.... y3'x 83'RO.W.Existing M if y - - � # ' J" - - _ loo'R O W.Existing Fe. e.�� r_. '.' , '4 '(/�IM - 2e' `ai - -^ u Residential Park District - '- — — k Nei•hborhood Mixed Use w I - - - s..-=. - - ... .. .. ..- .. .cicrr ry r i .tea: `W"" •. ."s°w - w w u-,F ,ems �.'" :'_'° 1 4 .a a'. Q •F� r1'°_ _ o �' - to V � � ! a ° v w s Existing Right-of-Way Locations . - ' , master plan 1 c; 66th STREET CORRIDOR PLAN Alternative#1 .._ ,- -. ,. - This alternative emphasizes the continued growth '�„ ' , ® # of neighborhood mixed use along the corridor and .. specifically at the roundabout at Portland Avenue and 66th Street. An expanded civic draw at Veterans 'm -Ai Memorial Park is intended to create a complimentary . . e:' ' destination to the Cedar Point Commons property on - i • the eastern edge of the corridor . 'r, c a = Preferred land use diagram-3 distinct districts Alternative #2 ----- — — .- This aftern iti e expi,ies the idea of reducing fetal) + uses on the corridor by expanding multi-family ". , . - 1. housing and creating a more pedestrian friendly ," .--- neighborhood mixed use district. It also enhances - housing opportunities around Veterans Memorial • Park. . . . , ',?;j•'f. ...Al ,'. v _- _ 10- ® ,>r Proposed land use diagram-expanded crd new fro -;ng Alternative#3 This alternative builds on the success of the regional mix of uses at the Cedar Point Commons development -r., „ `. . and proposes the western expansion of this mix of - a . uses. It also explores a visible civic presence on the northeast corner of the Portland Avenue and 66th Street intersection. - -r ' Eyr MN IN MI IIII J rm,. ; I 4. • a s f - • Proposed land use diagram-expanded regional commercial 20 ' _ Hennepin County I City of Richfield . The existing land uses on the corridor subdivide into three unique districts previously identified. The land use alternatives explored below reflect a variety of approaches to how these districts can grow and where the borders between districts should extend or retract. The intent is to explore opportunities for existing business to grow on the corridor and opportunities for new private infill development. One of the primary challenges facing the corridor currently is the low rental rates that existing businesses operate under. The price of new construction may price existing businesses out and new businesses find it difficult to compete with adjacent low rates. One of the strategies explored introduces new office and residential uses to reduce the overall amount of retail, reinforce this area as a good place to work and live and continue to provide an eclectic mix of uses within the corridor. The 66th Street Corridor Master Plan does not propose the specific redevelopment of any site along the corridor but seeks to guide future market driven redevelopment. However, a number of case studies were developed to test what redevelopment in the corridor might look like and to further study the potential challenges and opportunities. Sites within each of the three districts were chosen to test the feasibility of the master plan recommendations and to illustrate how the recommendations could be implemented within the corridor. Sites one and four were chosen because they anchor the corridor, Cedar Point Commons on the east, and the Richfield Pool, Ice Arena, and gateway to Veterans Memorial Park to the west. Site two was chosen because of it's proximity to the park, multi-family residential units, and beginning of the neighborhood mixed use district. Site three was chosen because it represents the most diverse mix of uses within the corridor. -:— it ; .t : llllllll • • ,. • v ,3 r� • _ 1 g • E.. .1 1-•+ i,. i s1, 8` .§' s i- :_: a.. :ila. �` Opportunity site locations. 2', 66th-STREET R11Dc1 PIAN The 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection is the western border of the study area and will continue to serve as an important node on 66th Street. This case study explores the potential of adding a community health and fitness center to the existing recreation center, further supporting the western edge as a community and regional draw. The intersection itself will continue to be a mix of residential and commercial uses. One of the primary challenges of development on a roundabout is providing safe and convenient access for users. The plan also illustrates the opportunity to provide quasi-public spaces to promote pedestrian use of the corridor. The introduction of small plaza spaces for outdoor dining and gathering can go a long way in creating a unique sense of place. ,, :.litiaiii IF, T _ t'' f -, _ 0 ,17,\.] . , Nor r. , "a _ 66th Street — "'' v l._, , _ _ i ,, -.`� ,a •,'4 - i. _ —__ 1.' ;'-7.1I a .V. T - �bR, 1 ..a,f 1 _. - medium high density residential public/quasi-public quasi-public plaza neighborhood mixed use =I regional commercial Destinations should be connected to each other and buffered from parking This study explores the edge between the Park District and the -£,c,.., ,- Neighborhood Commercial/Office District. The mixed use building to 4� 5 :-.. ' the north of 66th Street incorporates the existing Montessori school at ground level and introduces new residential uses above that take } 'N -' ._r _ • advantage of this close proximity to retail and Veterans Memorial Park - *' this site offers. The building is brought up to the street to reinforce � •• iI� il; t4'' the architectural edge of the corridor and provides parking behind the !■ ct +� building. The residential buildings shown to the south of the corridor ,;i ... ' - - expand the Park District to the east to capitalize on it's proximity _'� !• ''f -'116 , ,�� _ to Veterans Memorial Park and reduce the amount of retail on the "ilt; _ :4,1 IS corridor further enhancing the core of the neighborhood service ■ district. Buildings are set back from side streets to reflect the single — family residential setbacks further south and maintain important view Open spaces should be designed for a range of sheds to the park. activities. 22 I i 111111 • E Mr & _ r .-.-.. _ ' y, '.'^VC.$Ier-wmss'} s.a-s b t". Tr, ,, J J J. i J . I r j•J 1. r. • .._.-.__.�_,.._ 66th Street . - �' J-a 1.r.f J_i ar.r to ,...laitatia6, ....,. ,, _ This study explores the opportunity to enhance a portion of the Neighborhood Mixed-Use District as a pedestrian oriented neighborhood gathering location. Many comments were made during the open houses and meetings with the planning commission to create a destination similar to more urban destinations like the area around 48th and Chicago Avenue or the neighborhood destinations at 43rd and Upton in Linden Hills. This study introduces mixed use buildings facing the street that provide access points to parking behind. This concept also explores the idea of providing on-street parking and limited access. The western edge of the concept explores the possibility of providing apartments of higher density residential on the corridor. The narrow lot widths make redevelopment in this area a ti..,.. .A�" ; ' ti' challenge but, developing a new pattern that emphasizes this area as 4 'ley+, a community destination should be a factor with any redevelopment ,,,,, proposal. ., - ., . ..- , . Jul t ' , ( d -- M x 1. The tillage at Penoctn .d I6nts t_a ?re a Dears a t` �. .n. — :+ 'ac _ c r — .- — `r — F t ashington Street in Vxausau P'sconsin provides on street pa.hing.and enhanced s,ctewalks master plan 23 » a 66th -' '' 16 --N.: ''-'— This study focuses on the City owned property to the south of 66th Street in the regional commercial/office district. The plan extends Richfield Parkway to the south and expands the regionally focused uses along the southern edge of 66th Street. It also introduces new higher density housing to the south as a transitional use back towards the existing neighborhood to the south. Similar to the Portland Avenue and 66th Street roundabout,this plan seeks to mark this intersection as an important community node and gateway into the City of Richfield. , . . c to _ .. d 1 _ y i sy h, _ 'Si r- 1J ' i - -i ,\. ■ �_ One of the primary aspects of the plan is to link existing and proposed uses on and around the corridor with surrounding amenities and into a regional system of trails. There is a Bike Study running parallel to the `'`, development of this plan that will provide more detailed information - ,'r but, the diagram below illustrates potential pedestrian and bike = - "Me .?` ' , connections to the north and south of the corridor. The community � recognized that on-street bike lanes, although desired, did not serve I/ ..,, the needs of families and nearby residents. The desire was to have safer off-street connections away from the traffic and cars of 66th Street. There was also a desire to improve pedestrian connections 1. i across 66th Street and in direct connection with Metro Transit bus-11(, - w, _., : stops. This would concentrate crossings at important connections and provide a consistent rhythm of crossings on the corridor. . aspects of the plan is to enhance colineCtions. 24 T - Hennepin County I City of-Richfield The other aspect of community connection that lacks today is the opportunity for public space on the corridor that reinforce this area as a community destination and a place for pedestrians. The plan suggests new development on the corridor consider contributing these spaces as the opportunities arise. fog ..pr. i _ re ghbothocd mmed use , e bard STREET r I, .11 • ' yy i mg anal commercaVoffice * �" - '-' , NM - 0 baKS I stop with crosswalks stngbfie roues c YETERM4S a I a tematwe See route ?MEMORIAL PA% • - ''•. E> ` ,� enhanced pedesan connection ■, -. _ .• ]F /n "l L. .A. 69th5TREET . t >' • ` v - J 65th STREET a - !q Na� M a "-- Ora. • _ p�4 A d• • " 6e"'STREW( 131 -c...J ✓�i. 3x3. 4 •. { ,.}• • .x+11• ,'. i di.. e ,� R ' ne �. ,. _ .1- - - v • eTh:TREET t,Q..�.. .' - . a.r # a a T 9 !a W -:W V, , w r. w Y ~ i S}, F NEREDIA PARK . - E ...1 '1 as w l.. v '!r a ' i .. .4 m«,_ 68ff�6TREET r „ } - I`,l'." ■ .a. CHR6TIAN V '- 1 '6 `. t .. 1 _ .e ..:+ . . _$ - - " k` - , - PARK i f - t e.- d' S. a: 5 It Proposed land use diagram with bike route and pedestrian connections. master plan 25 66th STREET CORRIDOR PLAN ii _ I 1 < ' 1 #fir •,� ; I A reconfigured roadway with center 1,erians could improve safety,simplify access,and improve aesthetic image of the corn;;:;, 26 Hennepin County j City of Richfield The 66th Street Corridor master plan proposes to improve the economic viability and market position of existing and future uses on the corridor by providing strategic guidance related to transportation improvements, land use and community access to open space. Specifically,the plan provides: •A resource for decision makers as they begin to strategize the approach to reconstruction of 66th Street. It provides a greater level of understanding related to the trade-offs between the desire to provide 'Complete Street' solutions, minimize right-of- way acquisition and minimize impact to existing land owners. •A more focused approach to growth of existing businesses and opportunities for new investment that provide synergy with the neighborhood and with adjacent uses. • Improved community linkages that will inform the Bicycle Planning Study and the 66th Street reconstruction. •The further investment in Veterans Memorial Park as a regional draw on the west end of the study area. •The continued growth of residential uses and the reduction of under utilized retail uses in an effort to provide a more focused neighborhood destination. The plan is a reflection of the input received from stakeholders, residents, public officials and County and City staff members. It is a living document that should be used as a tool and resource for staff, public officials and potential developers to better understand the desires of the community and the potential that exists on this historic stretch of 66th Street. Urban corridors are in a constant state of change and 66th Street is no different. There exists a number of immediate opportunities to revitalize the corridor. The planned reconstruction of the corridor will provide improved traffic flow, improved aesthetics and a new focus on multi-modal opportunities. The vacant and City owned parcels on the corridor that have already been cleared are 'shovel ready' sites that developers are exploring. The recommendations coming from the Bicycle planning study also offer an opportunity to reinforce the concepts developed in this plan. Potential steps moving forward include: •The City of Richfield, Hennepin County and affected property owners should work corroboratively to create a strategic vision for improvements on 66th Street that will produce a 50 year vision for the Street and further reinforce 66th Street as a good place to do business, live and work. • Explore with local providers the potential of a public private 27 6 6th.STR N �, 'p . . _. ._..._. _ .. partnership to provide increased health and fitness opportunities within the Veterans Memorial Park area for residents and strengthen the western anchor of the corridor as a community and regional destination. •Continue to actively partner with developers on City owned parcels on the corridor that further the goal of providing a safe, dynamic and eclectic mix of uses on the corridor that coincide with existing uses. • Provide an interim strategy for potential redevelopment occurring on parcels adjacent to areas with 66 feet of right-of- way to minimize potential issues prior to the final determination of the right-of-way strategy with Hennepin County. • Explore opportunities for grant support of existing uses to invest in the exterior of their buildings and sites. 28 _:. eta . -aw. -A` <r,. - r .. `c } ms.; ! ii �f, '. r. ' 1.;. I ,:• _..• . M • j.. _ ' ',i ,- , - i . asy,sa e and c,on. iiiunt spaces that connect parking areas th,ri tic plazas l e t as a ey on Lake Street.provide critical connections while increasing the amount of retail frontage and visibility for building tenants. f VI i ,r► • •utc oor spaces like this c ruing area at'ensington •ar at the corner o Lyn ale Avenue. 76th Street provide important public spaces that can contribute to making 66th Street vibrant and active. _ .J ■ ti �t Y 1 ,,' 4F'.11 . y.i L ri l� + erg_`-� 11 t : I f ■ • f An improved pedestrian experience similar to Lyndale Ave S can help to make 66th Street a good place to do business,and reinforces it as an important community destination. summary 29 Hennepin County I City of Richfield Appendices 6 Appendix A - Market Assessment • REAL ESTATE MARKET ASSESSMENT, EAST 66TH STREET CORRIDOR PLAN RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • September 2010 GVA File#10017 PREPARED FOR: Mr. Tom Whitlock Damon.Farber Associates 929 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,MN 55402 PREPARED BY: Marquette Advisors IZeu! Estuti Consxltuuts Marquette Advisors Offices: Minneapolis Office:50 South Sixth Street.Suite 1370,Minneapolis,MN 55402 Phone:612-335-8888:Fax:612-334-3022 Seattle Office:2723 California Avenue SW.Seattle,WA 98116 Phone:425-392-7482;Fax:425-392-7330 Mar q uette Advisors Real Estate Consultants September 30,2010 Mr. Tom Whitlock Damon Farber Associates 929 Nicol let Mall Minneapolis,MN 55402 R.E.: Richfield—E.66th Street Corridor Plan Real Estate Market Assessment Dear Tom: We are pleased to present this summary of our analysis and findings pertaining to the real estate market along the E. 66th Street Corridor in Richfield, MN and the surrounding area. Included in the report is a summary of real estate market conditions along the corridor and the broader market area, together with a review of relevant demography and economic conditions. Additionally, we have provided a summary of the potential for new commercial and residential development and/or redevelopment along the corridor, as well as key issues and suggestions derived from our analysis that have relevance to the 66th Street Corridor Plan now in process by the consulting team led by Damon Farber Associates. Thank you again for inviting us to assist you with this important planning effort. We remain available to answer any questions you may have regarding our analysis, and look forward to working with you again in the near future. Sincerely, MARQUETTE ADVISORS iSd-4fi3 Brent E. Wittenberg Vice President Marquette Advisors Offices: Minneapolis Office:50 South Sixth Street,Suite 1370,Minneapolis,MN 55402 Phone:612-335-8888;Fax:612-334-3022 Seattle Office:2723 California Avenue SW,Seattle,WA 98116 Phone:425-392-7482;Fax:425-392-7330 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 West(Portland to 11`h Avenue South) 3 East(Cedar to 16th Avenue) 6 Central (Bloomington to 11`h Avenue South) 8 RETAIL MARKET UPDATE 10 Retail Trade Area 10 An Expanded(Secondary)Trade Area 12 Trade Area Demographics 13 Retail Market Trends 15 Retail Demand Analysis 24 The"Target Impact" 28 Key Conclusions: Retail Analysis 29 OFFICE MARKET UPDATE 30 Regional Office Market Trends 30 East Richfield Office Buildings 34 Key Conclusions: Office Analysis 36 HOUSING ANALYSIS 37 Senior Housing Market Area 38 Senior Housing Product Types 39 Demographics 40 Home Values 44 Existing Senior Housing Supply 46 Senior Housing Demand Estimates 50 KEY ISSUES RELEVANT TO E. 66TH CORRIDOR PLAN 55 ADDENDA Profile of Marquette Advisors Marquette Advisors Page ii E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment INTRODUCTION 66th Street is a significant corridor within the City of Richfield, spanning from Cedar Avenue on the east to the City of Edina on the west. The East 66th Street Corridor Planning effort is a process to develop a plan for the eventual revitalization/redevelopment of the segment of 66th Street between Cedar Avenue and Portland Avenue. In July of 2010, the City of Richfield, in conjunction with Hennepin County, contracted with the planning firm, Damon Farber Associates ("DFA")to lead this planning effort. Marquette Advisors ("Marquette") was retained by DFA to provide a summary analysis of real estate market conditions and key issues impacting the E. 66th Street Corridor. The work by Marquette will be utilized by DFA and other members of the project team to guide land use planning (the "Corridor Plan") on behalf of Hennepin County and the City of Richfield. The "Corridor," as defined by Hennepin County and the City of Richfield, spans from Cedar Avenue on the east to 5th Avenue on the west. Specifically, Marquette Advisors was retained to provide the following services related to the Corridor Plan: 1. Marquette Advisors has reviewed all relevant planning documents as previously completed by or on behalf of the City of Richfield, together with current planning and property information related to the corridor planning area and the surrounding relevant market area. 2. Marquette has and continues to attend regular planning sessions with DFA and other members of the project team, as well as community meetings and workshops. 3. Marquette has reviewed of all relevant demographic and economic data, as well as residential and commercial real estate market information such as market pricing, rent levels, recent and historical supply and demand trends. Marquette Advisors Page 1 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment 4. This document summarizes the market assessment and conclusions derived from this analysis. Specifically, the report identifies key issues related to the real estate market and current land use patterns which impact the current and /or future viability of residential and commercial development, redevelopment and/or revitalization along the Corridor. 5. It is important to note that this is NOT a market or financial feasibility study related to any specific development project(s) along the Corridor. Rather, this is a market assessment used to inform and guide the Corridor Plan by Damon Farber Associates. The Corridor Plan is being positioned as a long-term (20+ years) planning document. Thus, the market assessment is intended to provide a snapshot of current real estate market conditions, identify trends and the potential for future complimentary infill and/or redevelopment along the corridor over the long-term. This research was completed during August and September of 2010. Next Steps Further input and consulting such as development financial feasibility modeling will be provided separately to DFA by Marquette. Marquette will work with DFA, the City of Richfield and Hennepin County to identify opportunity sites (a/k/a "opportunity" sites or nodes) to be evaluated for future development/redevelopment. Opportunity sites will be identified based on the outcome of the market study, land use and transportation planning, and City/County goals and objectives related to the long-term development of the Corridor. As well, Marquette will provide pro forma analyses as appropriate to assess financial feasibility of development/redevelopment of the opportunity sites. From here, the project team can assess the potential need for gap financing and suggest mechanisms (public/private partnerships) to support development which is in line with City/County goals and is appropriate within the context of the Corridor Plan. Marquette Advisors Page 2 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment E. 66 T" ST. CORRIDOR— EXISTING CONDITIONS The E. 66th Street Corridor spanning from Cedar Ave. on the east to 5th Avenue on the west contains a mix of both commercial and residential uses. An aerial view of the corridor and existing land use is provided on the following page. There are a total of 55 parcels which front 66th Street within the defined Corridor. These parcels contain a total of 892,000 square feet (sf). Note that this excludes the 108-acre Veterans Memorial Park in the western portion of the Corridor and the Target & Home Depot parcels totaling 30 acres at the east end of the corridor (Cedar Point Commons). Total valuation of the corridor's 55 parcels was $19,006,000 in 2009 according to Hennepin County Assessor's records. Total land value as assessed was approximately $8,600,000 ($9.64 per sf), with total building and related improvements valued at $10,400,000 according to County Assessor's records. The following paragraphs discuss land use patterns within each segment of the Corridor. West (Portland to 11th Ave. S.) The western portion of the corridor contains a significant community and regional attraction, that being Veterans Memorial Park, along with the Richfield Ice Arena, a number of well-maintained single family homes, and medium-density multifamily housing. The majority of structures in this area were constructed during the 1950s and 1960s. Commercial development in this area includes Richfield Floral and Cinco de Mayo, a small Mexican grocery and c-store operation at 66th & Elliott. These improvements, too, are well maintained and have seen considerable investment/upgrade in recent years. Additional commercial development includes gas station/c- store operations on the south side of 66th at Portland Avenue. One of the stations (SW corner) was recently closed and vacated. A funeral home exists at the NE corner of 66th & Portland, immediately north of the transit stop. Marquette Advisors Page 3 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment 66th Street Corridor Plan r.i, r.:,01-'.:::3 'C'...,S •' r ` "` 11office/rornnereial 1_its z4- �,1 „ .: (41P-• multi-family housing MI ` ' ���....:�� t .,- L: `-, 1 . single-family housing l i n 1"1T . 1 v, 1 di " city parks ' � 't 3.;�.I.k� f.* %" r civic structures _ t transit/bus stop ® s ane y�d a •-, . i.. m aP t • 'f transit/bus route fad ;' ti ^ t enhanced pedestrian ••► r ''�q i,.1- -- , . ,'I.- .....13 . connection Fs°Ab ,9 - — ' • �"� r°Y L , 1" ' 1 V/ETERANS x]. • i l MEMORIAL PAR r, r t. 7�` : .ate Y. t r ii Y Ut'1 fcf eT. y,,r ' .4 1l[ K,-,1•1 AS aiV 471t # ` '• 1 '' r rn 44. 3 L r. •1 i._. r444���i an I— '-'--v.''f/ im :. f ..,v i. ^ '.,,r r h t r -� .'i •N.'1 _1 It-,f.'�i-•Y I. 11 l�'d t -.�-r. • -`' t.••,.. F - ' �. f,Y45 I - _.._ - _ _d ,,;':1151._.�.. o i. ■ y 'Y I i I J 0 - . CONNECTION TO -uv • CHRISTIAN PARK , t- si TAFT PARK r+Y to d,,ig- -"+1 oJra - j-5 v1`,6uueool0 f T Y F • 4 ;+ k 1n.1 'rot •.(!<4.t ...iv aT 11'4 r El [1191 K�l d 1 y '..— -_ any 4191 i 1 S tb r� r 4 •teR16- k as y,t:i >a� -7'. ,e 'r ! M si ` L + 1 1S (y4044'4' f..'k•S.,t ' A- ��! � �5any 4111 L * ,,*,, viii _ _ s aA 1epao T :',.-.--- - b.n.I.(/.•1_ b..v.I..7_--.--- @_ Damon Farber Associates _ Marquette Advisors Page 4 --,. a 7, ,... .•c... c:, = z 2 '8`-=-: > El tz4 -J v) ..__ 1 , 14 . th.. .. 1_, 1 \ _ , r 1_ -_ I i ; 1 [ a i i 1--- I 1 1 I _. i ! . ‘J f I 1 - I r 111 I 1 L,_ -1 ■.'M \`‘., ■ ...o \ ,, , t , - r r- ......... -,.. I- H I— i 1 1 1 I, 1---T'r 1 1 ' ' I , 1 I 1 F 1 LI 1 . fr: I 5. . ' ' 1 T' I I I I 1 a .-.\.\.- I ,. 1 l . 1 -- - T ri I 1 Es — - -- - TT' ' F T . , ,---"" I i . i H , I- -I I —, 4.,_. 1 i = I , 1 _t_t_l_[ •— _ II -- - - TT --I 1 '- - ili ! i , ,,c • • , ,, • -,-, - , r , , ,...,, , \\ 1 . L L i L -\. 1 I I , :... 1 _ I I l l II TIT kM1-,,, I 1 I II. -, I - 1 iII C4 1 1 I I i I 1 1 " I Mg ge-1 L I 11 . r_____ B _ . _. ._ __ .. , B IIII li- ---- i th U) 0 a) - a) 0_ (f) 'a o a) 2 - ':•07:.... _ ..■. a) -0 CL -II:3 a) ....y, , 2 2 c .... .....; -T. L 0 24 ---, 44 ••••■ E __ - 1 [..1 •I P • F- ' 44 i.1.1 ....., ..._ ,A , r 42) \ , _,,,, ' il -I I - - anuanv puelpod -----IF I - ' I I E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment We find that properties in the west portion of the corridor are generally well maintained and complimentary to the larger corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. Veterans Memorial Park is a very significant community and regional asset. East (Cedar to 16th Ave.) The eastern segment of the corridor is mainly commercial, anchored by Cedar Point Commons, a 30-acre development by Ryan Companies at the NW corner of Cedar & 66th. Cedar Point Commons contains a 175,000 sf Super Target, as well as a 103,000 sf Home Depot. In-line space as constructed to date includes 31,300 rentable square feet, of which 15,250 sf remains vacant. Current tenants include Famous Footwear(5,671 sf), Chipotle (2,124 sf), Subway (1,653 sf), Verizon Wireless (3,421 sf), Caribou Coffee (1,875 sf) and Great Clips (1,251 sf). A 4,500 sf TCF Bank is also located within Cedar Point Commons. A pad site (Building 1 as shown on the plan) is now being marketed for a full-service restaurant user in the southeast corner of the development. A second development phase is planned for Cedar Point Commons west of 17th Avenue, calling for four additional retail/restaurant buildings totaling 21,600 sf. We understand that the developers have recently been in discussions with an investor to construct a McDonald's at the SW corner of 66th and 17tH Cedar Point Commons is a major commercial hub in eastern Richfield. Because of the drawing power of Target and Home Depot, which extends into South Minneapolis and East Bloomington, this development brings an entirely new customer profile to the E. 66th Corridor. This is a very significant trend, and its implications are discussed in forthcoming sections. Marquette Advisors Page 6 4-1 k CO { �_ O �g c0 IC �� R 63RD STREET " _� , tet."...A , ks....t:_, __.,,- s L lZ' � 1 I _ p fr • _ n u CA 'd tikt ' „ i....) i, r C'C3 . p 2 , - - ' ba CA i!./ i - tel I O i '' O S HL48 __ - �� r-� ar C _ 0 C) 7 cs ao -.. � , '" o a., .mss' ,1 W 3 5 J �, •' 9 ` 1 S. E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Additional development in the eastern portion of the study area includes the Richfield Liquor Store at the SW corner of 66th & Cedar, as well as a low-rise multi-tenant office building just west of the Liquor Store, a larger 84,000 sf multi-tenant office building immediately behind the Liquor Store (6636 Cedar Ave. S.), and Mount Calvary Church and its affiliated pre-school building fronting both sides of 16th Avenue on the north side of 66th St. Two dental offices are located on the south side of 66th and there are two shallow vacant land parcels on the south side of 66th Street between 16th and 17th. These parcels back up to single-family residential neighborhood immediately to the south. Additionally,there is an existing TIF district just north of 66th and west of Target which will include future multifamily residential development for a two-block area currently comprised of single family homes. These blocks are bound by 17th Avenue on the east, 16th Avenue on the west, Taft Park on the north and 65th Street on the south. Central (Bloomington Ave. to 11th Ave.) The central portion of the Corridor contains a mix of mostly older (1950s & 1960s) commercial buildings, including several small stand-alone retail and office structures, and two commercial • strip centers. There is one gas station and several auto-repair and related businesses in this area, two dental offices, a commercial printing business, a small multi-tenant office building, three barber/beauty shops, a bar, and a commercial laundromat. There are two Montessori pre-school and child care operations in the central portion of the E. 66th St. Corridor. Other unique businesses include two pet (fish) stores, a pet hospital and two ethnic grocers (one Mexican and one African). Several (not all) of the existing buildings are showing signs of disrepair as documented separately by the planning team. Aesthetics and curb appeal are generally inferior within this portion of the corridor as compared to the east and westerly segments. Nonetheless, the central portion of the corridor contains several retail and service businesses which have operated here for several years and continue to provide good service to the surrounding neighborhoods and Marquette Advisors Page 8 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment broader Richfield community. The business mix includes a number of property owners, while others are leasing space. The affordability of the real estate (relatively low rent levels) is one reason why these businesses continue to operate here. Several businesses have operated here for many years and have a well established customer base at this location, although they may not be able to afford significant property upgrades or higher rental rates as would be required in a new building. We note that there is also some vacant land and vacant buildings within the central portion of the E. 66th St. Corridor. For one, there is a vacant parcel at NW corner of 66th & 14th. Additionally, we understand the Richfield HRA recently purchased two small vacant buildings (a former mortgage office and another residential structure) on the south side of 66th between 14th and 15th Avenues. We also note that infill and redevelopment projects in this area will be a challenge due in part to the lack of depth of parcels here. Active public sector participation through land assembly would almost certainly be required in order to make redevelopment viable in this area. Marquette Advisors Page 9 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment RETAIL MARKET UPDATE The following is a snapshot of retail market conditions along the Corridor and throughout Richfield and the broader Twin Cities Metro Area. As well, we provide a summary of retail market conditions along the subject corridor and assess the demand for additional retail and restaurant development in this area presently and over time. Retail Trade Area The very important first step in evaluating the demand for retail development at any location is accurately defining the primary trade area. The primary trade area is the geographic area from which stores and restaurants at a particular location will attract the majority of their customers. Certainly the trade area will vary, often substantially, depending on the type of business. Still, we know that most small businesses and those located in neighborhood commercial centers of less than 30,000 square feet (as would typically be found along the E. 66th St. Corridor) generally include a mix of restaurant(s), convenience stores, service businesses and specialty shops. While specialty shops can sometimes draw customers from a much larger geographic area, depending on the goods sold, the majority of business types located in neighborhood shopping centers attract most of their customers from within about a one-mile radius, or a five-minute drive time, along with some drive-by customers. We have defined the primary trade area for retail development along the E. 66th Street Corridor based on our review of existing household and income data, traffic patterns and an examination of existing retail configurations and spending patterns in the area. The map on the following page shows the primary trade area surrounding the E. 66th Street Corridor in Richfield. The population residing within the primary trade area will be the primary source of business for stores and restaurants along the Corridor (Cedar Point Commons is an exception, as discussed later). Based on our review of traffic patterns, man-made and natural boundaries, and the location of existing retail centers and nodes, we know that there is considerable "leakage" of consumer dollars from the persons residing in the primary trade area to retail shops and restaurants at commercial Marquette Advisors Page 10 E. 66Th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment centers throughout the surrounding market, notably Southdale Mall, Southtown, the Mall of America and various Richfield and Bloomington shopping centers. The focus of our analysis was to examine consumer spending patterns and retail sales in the primary trade area, as well as leakage of consumer dollars to competing retail centers/nodes outside this area. The point of this analysis is to determine whether additional retail or restaurant development is supportable within the corridor at this time, and then to evaluate how this may change over time. Primary Trade Area E. 66th Street Corridor,Richfield,MN Red line= 66th St. Corridor Planning Area Green line =Primary Trade Area m 0 t ..n rarr0dtaie to.+on Veterans 57th St W 4 22 67th St W 4 za 57th St E n 57th St E heal to 7th St E 62 pie!.. 55 58th St W — 11 msmosdlake E 58th St ..- -`8th St E i J rlos �. -6 - Weigel Bhd r 00 59th St W ury a E 59th St - l - c, D Sit] SI E Rte,, m Minneapolis - ^nm' ( ; Foil Srr r a' 121 i Chester s, 4 t ° -o E60th St 1' cs W bOth SI VJ to = ..i c1`1 Mother LaAe o odd ° W 61st st a o f 61st St 4 4 D `{ 'O r CD_ r �+et3t V+l-- :'_ ut .__ .::_ •--. 3 fir `„ C L ] - W 63rd St 7 _ ➢ Q 44 m `i L�E 63rd St W 66th&LYrshste m 66th&ricolet Veterans co m �'i 4'e model Perk . v t! k . W 65th Si Park 0 5 66th S[ U ®. +N-. X it l iJ s g 11�� Cedar Pant Commons I Pa I Int mayetta. 5 66th St 66th St W 66th St 53� E 666th St E 16th St 11.E 66th St co d / N N E6 hSt 35 mm 3 4 11 co C4' j .,'. W69th St EE4h St cn N4sNyr 77 L t=t`' R' a((j W 69th St E 69th St 4-2 mw4L , s fi I, .:.r Late 52 '� ��D } rat redeemer W 70th St E 7pk er a1° t=. ° a E 70th St h It m S:Hr y( a s ikkgr rgE 71st.St o m 4 y y— �� Park `c s y V U 4 R,coreld m 4 E 72nd Si 4' $ r'f R. d 4' w 1' m W 73rd St a a, = E 73rd St m s m a S t Q 4 m mIIJ U,. Fort Sr sum Natrona!Cemetery irtntc 4' W 74th St s to to ,,,o 4 sr a 46 74th St � t E 73rd St 5't.g r{ `tiy 75th St m Sad' m a m a 1_,_g„1 4 m m m o w v 4 4 00 or 0 5 €€ E w _ 4'4 ndele 6.494 ?m m= 44 V, 0"a ti c- 444 44 6S Sl 4-2 61 Copyng1i @2003 IACrosoft\Corp.0ntlfor As sonp0ers.Psii6Vs reserved-, = V 60 MTC Rd �.I An Expanded Trade Area -- "Secondary Trade Area" (Target Impact) The Cedar Point Commons development has had a significant impact upon the customer point of origin and profile in this area. Developer representatives and local retail brokers have noted that the Target store, in particular, has quickly developed a strong draw into South Minneapolis and East Marquette Advisors Page 11 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment Bloomington. Because of this, we believe there may be an opportunity for current and/or future stores and restaurants along the E. 66th St corridor to also benefit synergistically from Target's presence and its attraction of customers from a much broader geographic area. The map below shows the primary trade area for the E. 66th St. Corridor (green line), as well as the secondary trade area, which we estimate to comprise the approximate area from which the Target store draws most of its customers (blue line). We have estimated the trade area for Target based upon the location of other Target stores in the region, the surrounding transportation network, neighborhood demographics, commuting and shopping patterns. Primary and Secondary Trade Areas Primary Trade Area=Green Line Secondary Trade Area(approx. Target trade area)=Blue Line _ O.Ihnur�„as i ,Ter9et� 5. ST.LOWS ��� 25 .. 7 Wk.. �� al Perko #p e I� YL LalMOr. o]x e ]2 T 'ar:4 oo ITaraetI lake W%On St 3�S'E Powtlerhorn r.r�.t... Calhoun Lakewood Perk 1 P k / Cemefery 55 E 38111`_I ”; , P..k_ - 20 x 1�1nnedpolis Linden Nill. LP dNe St.Paul R ry Psr r.A E R A M S E Y Hopkins,.. 4: - ene er,e 51 2 1 - ti. anal� 42 i $I,.a.P/axe 20 - 54 21 •.,1.ale, Mnuehaha N. �.( _._ I] V nckhuntis • 'k. P irk y Smetana Rtl ■ I y4l N E S O T A a Minnetonka Veter. v „MN 1.one Lalo l'a, t ¢' Vre2nd _ lirydale Leke H z 66th a,N. t A Fon 5 vR a 22 11,1111111 Memorial Park et 55 ktendot 1 Ion ."Q Q' IiG ,den a Mendota lleights/' &yw.! zlz ery Target ,< I c. RCemetery 1 I.aAe (711 Cemetery Richfield F i 5n�ng PJe1 Cemetery w 4•fsh'ie Eliall ._E^176th SY.. 5' art.S1 �ihk.o]d IX � ,� Ifs y; •; Andes stn t ake+ 'Yew Peik Pil-vvc 28 Matl of Anoka D A K 0 T A. . .` Hyland Lekc Hor2R I7 Perk Presrved Parke W 901551 Co. '.N 82003 Mcrosoft Cw..endlor As SO tiers.Alin Ms reserved. _ .._ � Eagan To date, this "synergistic" benefit has been experienced primarily by businesses located within the Cedar Point Commons development itself, as franchise restaurants and small businesses located in the in-line space here benefit from patronage by persons coming to the area for the primary purpose of shopping at Target. Our review of store financials indicates that the Richfield Liquor Store has Marquette Advisors Page 12 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment also benefited, seeing approximately a 20% increase in store sales since the opening of the Target store. From our interviews with E. 66th St. Corridor businesses, we understand that this positive impact related to Target's customer draw has generally not accrued to businesses located to the west along the Corridor. There are a variety of reasons for this, which are addressed later in this report and as part of the larger Corridor planning exercise. At the same time, we understand that to-date the Target development has also not had a significant negative impact upon existing businesses along the corridor, since they are generally differentiated from Target and its product mix. At this stage it is most important to note the positive impact of Target upon the corridor in terms of the expanded customer draw. A focus of this analysis and future planning initiatives should be to set the stage for the balance of the Corridor to benefit from the presence of Target as a major anchor and customer draw at the Corridor's east end. Trade Area Demographics The following are key points regarding the trade area demographics. Data for 2000 is from the U.S. Census, while estimates (2010) and projections (2015) are from ESRI Business Information Solutions, a nationally recognized demographic and econometric forecasting firm. A table showing key demographic data for the primary and secondary trade areas is provided on the following page. • The primary trade area has a 2010 resident base estimated at 6,022 persons and 2,501 households. With a median age of 41.4, the population base in the primary trade area is slightly older than the secondary trade area,which features a median age of 39.3. • Nominal population and household growth is expected throughout the primary and secondary trade areas. This is due to the fact that the area is fully urbanized. However, it is important to note that these forecasts do not consider growth in the resident base through infill and redevelopment efforts. Marquette Advisors Page 13 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Table 1 Demographic Characteristics Richfield-E.66th St. Retail Trade Area Primary Trade Secondary Area Trade Area Population 2000 6,348 79,518 2010 6,022 79,487 2015(projected) 5,961 81,557 2010-2015 Annual Growth Rate -0.20% 0.52% Median Age in 2010 41.4 39.3 Households 2000 2,575 34,158 2010 2,501 35,358 2015(projected) 2,486 35,995 2010-2015 Annual Growth Rate -0.12% 0.36% Median Household Income 2000 $52,388 $48,852 2010 $68,394 $66,376 2015(projected) $77,364 $75,150 Median Home Value 2000 $126,794 $124,386 2010 $161,340 $157,102 2010 Households by Income Level Household Income Base 2,501 35,358 <$15,000 3.7% 4.9% $15,000-$24,999 4.7% 5.4% $25,000-$34,999 8.0% 8.2% $35,000-$49,999 14.0% 15.0% $50,000-$74,999 27.3% 25.7% $75,000-$99,999 19.5% 18.1% $100,000-$149,999 15.8% 16.5% $150,000+ 7.0% 6.4% 2010 Per Capita Spending on Retail(NAICS 44-45) $10,600 $11,200 2010 Per Capita Spending at Restaurants(NAICS 722) $1,900 $2,100 Sources: U.S.Census,2000 Census of Population and Housing. ESRI BIS estimates for 2010 and 2015. • The estimated 2010 median household income for the primary trade area is $68,394, compared to $66,376 for the secondary trade area. Household incomes are forecast to increase at a rate of about 2.5% annually through 2015. Marquette Advisors Page 14 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment • Annual per capita spending on retail goods and services is estimated at $10,600 for persons residing in the primary trade area, compared to $11,200 for the secondary trade area. Annual spending at restaurants and drinking establishments is estimated at $3,750 and $2,100 per capita for the primary and secondary trade areas, respectively. Retail Market Trends In this section we address regional trends, focusing specifically on the performance of shopping centers in the region, as well as the supply of retail centers within the primary trade area, and several at its periphery which also attract shoppers who reside within the primary trade area. Regional Retail Trends The following are key points regarding the Twin Cities retail market environment, based on our review of market information and published reports such as the recent Nortmarq Compass report for mid-year 2010. Summary tables and graphs are also provided. • The Twin Cities Metro Area has a total of about 67.5 million square feet of rentable retail space. Of that total, 20.1 million square feet (about 30%) is located in neighborhood shopping centers. Neighborhood centers are generally less than 30,000 square feet, representing the type of retail centers that might be located at infill sites or through redevelopment along the E. 66th Street Corridor. Those which are anchored by grocery stores or drug stores are typically somewhat larger. Neighborhood centers usually include a mix of restaurants, necessity/convenience retail, service businesses and specialty shops. • Successful neighborhood shopping centers are supported by strong neighborhoods and/or nearby larger community or regional shopping centers or big-box stores which draw additional shopping demand to the area from outside what would otherwise comprise the primary trade area for a smaller neighborhood center. Marquette Advisors Page 15 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • The Twin Cities overall retail vacancy rate (including sub-lease availability)jumped from 8.9% in 2008 to 11.4% in 2009, before leveling off. Vacancy remained at 11.6% at mid- year 2010. Neighborhood centers showed a 15.7% vacancy rate, as many centers have struggled due to store closings/bankruptcies related to the recent economic recession. Re-leasing these vacant spaces remains difficult for shopping center owners, even though economic conditions have improved. Table 2 Retail Vacancy and Absorption Twin Cities Metro Area(2010 1st half) Absorption- Total Net Rentable Vacant Vacancy% Absorption Absorption trailing 12 Center Type Bldgs. Area Space w/sublease 2010 1st half 2009 2nd half mos. Community 120 30,839,543 2,775,559 9.0% 49,559 41,986 91,545 Minneapolis CBD 17 1,574,001 346,280 22.0% 43,935 (11,554) 32,381 Neighborhood 311 20,075,962 3,151,926 15.7% (118,176) 7,023 (111,153) Outlet Mall 3 788,440 37,845 4.8% 3,000 (7,100) (4,100) Regional Mall 9 11,808,064 1,204,423 10.2% (28,991) 141,793 112,802 Specialty 17 2,027,969 251,468 12.4% 41,791 306,786 348,577 St.Paul CBD 9 355,390 34,117 9.6% 0 0 0 Total Market 486 67,469,369 7,801,618 11.6% (8,882) 478,934 470,052 Source: Northmarq Compass,2010 Mid-Year • The region experienced negative absorption of -8,882 square feet (sf) of retail space during the first half of 2010. Gains in some areas were offset by dramatic negative absorption in Neighborhood Centers, which lost tenants totaling -118,176 sf during the first half of 2010 alone. This was primarily the result of continued store closings within and near Brookdale Center, as well as Hollywood Video and Blockbuster store closings throughout the metro area. Limited positive absorption was noted in some Community and Specialty centers, as well as Downtown Minneapolis. Marquette Advisors Page 16 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Twin Cities Metro Area Retail Vacancy&Absorption ' ■Absorption 1995-2009 --n-Vacancy 10 - 12.0% 11.4% 9 - 10.0% 8 . 9.0% 8.9% 7 - 8.1°/0 8.2% - 8.0% c 6 7.6% 0 '2 6.9% 6.8% a E 5 - °6.3% 6.0% ;' 5.4% 5.6% LL 4 - 5.1% 0 3. 4.5% 3.17 3.10 4.0% co 3 2.17 1.94 2 - 1.62 1.73 1.40 - 1.31 2.0% 1 - 0.41 0.37 0.06 0 _ - n n 0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Table 3 Average Net Rental Rates Twin Cities Metro Area Avg. Quoted Net Rental Rates Center Type 2009-2nd Half 2010- 1st Half Community $19.23 $19.39 Minneapolis CBD $21.36 $24.00 Neighborhood $15.29 $15.45 Outlet Mall $15.19 $15.19 Regional Mall $58.59 $63.64 Specialty $39.06 $35.39 St. Paul CBD $16.39 $16.39 Total Market $26.28 $26.86 Source: Northmarq Compass, 2010 Mid-Year 1 Marquette Advisors Page 17 E. 66 th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment • Because of the recent economic recession, new development activity has been very limited. Rates have dipped below the point that will support new speculative development. Some build-to suit activity continues, along with user-driven demand, although developers have shelved several large speculative projects throughout the region. Only 290,000 sf of retail development is expected to be completed this year throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area. • Landlords have been left with significant vacancies due to bankruptcies and store closings. According to Northmarq statistics, more than 70 empty big-box and junior boxes (spaces with 15,000+ sf) remain vacant. Meanwhile, Neighborhood Centers have been particularly hard hit. As a result, landlords are aggressively pursuing opportunities to re-lease now vacant space. Some have reduced rates, while many are offering concessions in an effort to lure new tenants. So, while asking rents averaged $26.86 (triple net), reportedly unchanged from a year ago, landlords in many cases are converting leases at a significantly discounted rate. • Landlords have also become more accommodating of value-oriented retailers and deep discounters (i.e. dollar stores, thrift shops, consignment shops, etc.) and are more willing to divide larger boxes and junior box spaces to accommodate smaller stores. • Some Neighborhood and Community Centers have fared better, as many grocers continue to do well. A number of casual dining restaurants have also expanded in the Twin Cities market. Grocery stores generally did well through the recession and continue to perform, as consumers are eating at home more frequently. However, grocers continue to compete for market share, with Wal-Mart and Target adding additional grocery, and smaller concepts such as Aldi, Save-A-Lot and Trader eying new locations in the Twin Cities. • Casual dining concepts have also fared well in some submarkets, as consumers are opting down for less expensive dining options. We understand that SmashBurger, Five Guys, Burger Time and Burger Jones are all burger concepts actively considering sites in the Marquette Advisors Page 18 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment Twin Cities. Other restaurant concepts considering new outlets include Panera Bread, Buffalo Wild Wings, McDonald's, Little Caesar's and Panda Express. • Mixed-use developments incorporating street level retail along with multifamily housing in upper floors were popular during the early to middle part of the decade. Local retail experts note that while mixed-use development, particularly vertical mixed use, is sometimes popular with planners, as well as nearby apartment and condo dwellers, they are susceptible to failure if they are not supported by a strong demographic base, offer easy access and high visibility, and ample parking. A small amount of retail can be successful within mixed-use developments, although the region now has several examples of failed mixed use projects with a commercial component that was too large, overpriced, insufficient surrounding customer demographics and/or failed to provide sufficient access or parking. E. 66th St. Corridor Retail and Area Shopping Centers Table 4 shows a listing of retail and service-retail businesses located along the E. 66th Street Corridor from Cedar Avenue on the east to Portland Avenue on the west. There are two small neighborhood commercial centers located within the East 66th Street Corridor, as well as the large Cedar Point Commons development near Cedar Avenue. The Flick Business Center is located on the south side of 66th between 13th and 14th Avenues. The strip retail center was constructed in 1968 and contains 10,000 sf. The property is occupied by five tenants, including an office user (TKDA Architects) and five service businesses, including Distinctive Cleaning, DePaul Lettering, A-1 Vacuum and Chuck's Body Shop. The property is currently 100% leased. Net rental rates here are estimated to be in the range of$8 to $10 psf. Marquette Advisors Page 19 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Table 4 Current Retail Businesses E. 66th Street Corridor-Cedar Ave.to Portland Ave. Department Stores Barber/Beauty Shops Other Businesses Target Dick's Barber Shop VCA Animal Care Hospital Ohana Styling Adon Balloons and Signs Home&Garden Expressions Salon A-1 Vacuum Home Depot Distinctive Cleaning Floral DePaul Lettering Grocery Richfield Floral Clinton Press Printing Cinco de Mayo Ecuadorian Roses Maytag Laundry Jalapeno's Market ADOM African Market Food&Beverage Liquor Target Frenchman's Pub Richfield Liquor Store Chipotle Auto Oriented Subway Richfield 66(gas&repair) Caribou Coffee Sinclair(gas)(closed) T&T Automotive(gas&repair) Clothing/Shoes Carlberg Radiator Famous Footwear Crest Auto Repair Exhaust Pros Pets/Pet Supplies Chuck's Body Shop Something Fishy A World of Fish Source: GVA Marquette Advisors The East End Center, located on the north side of 66th between 12th and 13th Avenues, contains 13,100 sf and is also currently 100% leased. Tenants include an ADOM African Market, VCA Animal Care Center, Something Fishy, and Adon Balloons and Signs. Net rental rates average $12 psf. Additional street retail along the E. 66th Street Corridor includes two gas stations (T&T Automotive and Richfield 66), three small ethnic groceries, three barber/beauty shops, three auto repair/service centers, two floral shops, Frenchman's Bar, the Richfield Liquor Store, Maytag Laundry (Laundromat), and the Richfield Liquor Store. Table 5 summarizes neighborhood and community retail centers, both within and near the primary trade area. Cedar Point Commons includes a 175,000 sf SuperTarget and 130,000 sf Home Depot, as well as a TCF Bank branch. Other rentable space constructed to date contains 31,233 sf, of which 48.8% (15,526 sf) remains vacant. Current in-line tenants include two quick Marquette Advisors Page 20 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment service restaurants (Chipotle and Subway), Caribou Coffee, Verizon Wireless and Famous Footwear. Asking rental rates range from approximately $25 to $30 net. A pad site is also being marketed currently to full service and casual restaurant concepts under a proposed ground lease arrangement. A second phase is planned for the west side of 17th which will include another four retail and restaurant buildings totaling 21,600 sf. The following are key points from our survey of area retail centers. • The combined vacancy rate for the surveyed commercial centers was 3.4% at the time of our survey. However, this calculation includes several occupied big-box stores and anchor tenants. All of the current vacancy (50,425 sf), is in-line space. This includes 15,256 sf currently vacant at Cedar Point Commons. Another 21,000 sf is scheduled for Phase H. Current inline vacancy is indicative of a recent downturn in tenant demand related to a serious economic recession. • Each of the area's neighborhood and community shopping centers is considerably larger than that which could be supported along the E. 66th Street Corridor, which is comprised of smaller, shallow parcels. Nonetheless, these centers provide an indication of retail market conditions, tenant demand and supportable rental rates at prime commercial locations within and near the East Richfield market. • Tenant demand at this time is weak. Cedar Point Commons, the area's newest retail center with successful anchors Target and Home Depot, has more than 15,000 sf remaining in Phase I and another 21,000 sf to be built, plus an additional restaurant pad. We expect that market-leading retail and restaurant concepts will ultimately be drawn to this location first, prior to any general interest in infill or redevelopment sites along the 66th Street Corridor. Cedar Point Commons is asking $24.00 to $30.00 net at this time. This is representative of the benchmark that is required to support new construction in this market. Few store and restaurant concepts can afford such rent levels in today's market. Marquette Advisors Page 21 `� y " G L P 0- �` �,,. 4, a p'y ue L4L,'O� N `S ,6_ °3 u x fi 04� N gels /Oti cr. - .-.5b y 315-55 v 2' - s rn Cf,Q , Gid H a.L_ i Z_ �r aAy 4>4tr -�` C3T b --- 0 7 S ar_ 4. a'. `il S any pJ£tr .H t^y ..,2 -E ell. 3 pc'' S any 4kltr 0; rzc m 'IS aAy 418£ s '°° I..dc.�P'. v z !,'' �.5l d m NS any"g1tr£ w r +i II-Il c .. Cl a t o c S 3AV 3s 1E: a r', ter" o .g- Fl S 3A'y gw£ W 4••61 3 any 4392 N S' = m t' 24th Ave S z S any 4193 m:.., e� C E 54 - 3F• w 1-1 N S @A'y.41bZ m V � `0 6' C1r C N -. u n .. ? 'L,, ' r 5 any Jepa Y-',P• 17th ' f- ' any Jepa-,PI o any 15th Ave S to ...S any 4191 S aAy 5351 ro ve �1 13th Ave S S any 4154 S any 5131 . N ,� S any 4531 is • s any g1Z S aAy 4101 ,D : p ny any glp. w S any 8101 �' w S any 4304 S any 4301 5 any oteoiyr,w any o5eoy3 $ any o6eapa- con S any lIJed N -A5 /pad $'any snywnlo$ L C d M S any puel�e L7 'S any 1IJa. y m WS S an'd puel1o. ...., m 5 2 -z=Yn tL' 4.w S an, , S any 435 �"55 Cl n S any 415 V -' --`..f F -ca ', S any 5.Ay puZ l`�I, m m S any pJ£S any pus 1 w., w SaAy1S1 I> ION Sany 1=1 an oa! ^' 5 aAy IIBPS!elI5 N r �r S 9AV 14GP15 Jlg i S y fall I yS any AR-1%3111d ^�, s= ' 1� 5 any dJnyspld°• F.r l any�Iabseo , z�' - o r spt?.�1�p` D o p cz , m �� r n Jla 5 any u Uplys anq alepu� d) 5 aAy 1LIe1JG 6., m Q '�^• I 5 arty 3LIenJp s'. S 3Ay lUOLir 4] G C° p O m m s S any pjeilo. _ ."- 9�'�,�_ �JF`;�i-�r= r r.� ° S 2 U r r - co -°'_ « = S aAy x011 `N _ g m n r .0.ca v r= 56H '"'n any uuad c as s t;�. as r Queen Ave S 5 any uua. r A 5 any uepuayr:2?-7.r 2 N iv a o 5 • -=.- VI. v, Q S S '� u Ave S s r n r 3 aty 031/A x=7.: 5 gXerxes A 5 .Av.saxJax�; Xe-sxe-s 35 a Y -- 6 S any 4Uua7 -.. S aAy AJOA o c r s. _ a`o ri n S any,pJea5 O 0 E. N, o v �; y d N $aAy aauaJ I S rR C. !; O 5. b i r v rY r y N S 1t t �rn r v �, G�rnelia I SJ 5 a.iy elappoo 5 e:oy any; `r s 7 m 2.p s: v any..sugar,ZS f I x,1�I` m Yx w o r3 any 5103003 4. ` i t y v c` co Frontage Rd `O pN9 !6N cI pne alapuawJra � ,• og I r r ` i. .G� any glop m o ', v V b W j o e.g e G1 111141A)J ¢ i pJ laleD q I 2J`Tracy Av.__ o ri S7Vndee 'o aka. e�R� (/sf`0.. : -5,..- 5 C9. _ �n . Late i.,.r Rd ' 4: O V \ LK U % % 2 / \ \ \ f }m \ \ )G yi 4-3 E t \\ et • gD (O \ - E o E m r E § / \ 2 / \ o5 . / 7 « � m » 2 « > 4 - £ %al( \ / § / 2 = co Ec ( @ � { ) \ } § / L_ f2 ± \ g / ; \ % / ƒ a5E = 2222 c % 0 { f \ 2 « ) [ < � Co O ( Si r 2 / 2 \ \ 070 « « q \ = meo = = w = \ / § ".I .,- GI 7 q co = \ \ ƒ » \ co Co / & « / ( ( ff / f / ( { O = .; E & - _ _ > g-C*4 UCO \ k /© b / 2 { o E al f u § / \ \ 002220 } 2 gesR @m \ƒ 7 </ / \ f % \ § \/ ` /E F E — 3 k o , } ® \/ f /a 7 \ \ k $ % § ) { ) \§ ¥ ) )\ ) 3 L. . aId _ ¥ j m\ 22 {] } %} } ) § } ? \ g 2 / * \ \ � � \ § © 0 ) \ - ] u u c R = 2 5 Co » £ SES � jm \ \ % 0 3 § � � = £ a / 2k £ g mj 0 E E ) 7 $ m § ) ƒ f 7 § e Co u u w L » a e e e m m G E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment • Other Richfield shopping centers such as The Hub and Market Plaza, as well as shadow centers and free-standing retail in the areas of 66th & Lyndale and 66th &Nicollet provide a full range of retail goods and services. This includes grocery, convenience retail, personal care products, clothing, and casual and full service dining. Rates at these centers vary greatly, from as low as $4.00 for small interior spaces to around $18 net for well located end-caps. • Meanwhile, a wider variety of goods, including big box department stores, clothing and electronics is available at Southtown and the Shops at Lyndale, all within a five minute drive of the primary trade area. Southdale Mall, The Galleria and Mall of America offer a full array of goods and services, as well as entertainment and dining options typical of regional and super-regional shopping centers. All of these centers can be accessed within a 10-minute of the E. 66th Street Corridor. Retail Demand Analysis Table 6 on the following page illustrates an analysis of the purchasing power of consumers residing in the primary trade area. The analysis involves a comparison of retail sales (i.e. store performance) in the trade area with consumer spending data for the trade area's resident base. • The trade area (i.e. customer draw area) for various store types certainly varies. However, for purposes of our analysis we assume that the majority of demand for goods and services and restaurants located within neighborhood shopping centers along the E. 66th Street Corridor will come from persons residing within the defined "primary trade area." Supplemental demand will come from persons working in or around this area (i.e. daytime population), as well as those customers arriving from the "secondary trade area," which includes many of those shopping at Target and Home Depot who originate from South Minneapolis or East Bloomington. Marquette Advisors Page 24 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Table 6 Retail Sales&Consumer Spending Analysis East 66th Street Primary Trade Area Column A Column B Column C Supply Resident Demand Industry Summary (Retail Sales) (Consumer Spending) Total Retail and Food&Drink(Selected Store Types) $78,350,000 $46,210,000 Total Retail(selected store types) $75,350,000 $35,945,000 Total Food&Drink(restaurants)(NAICS 722) $3,000,000 $10,265,000 Selected Retail Store Types NAICS 4413:Auto Parts,Accessories,and Tire Stores $0 $670,000 NAICS 442: Furniture&Home Furnishings Stores $0 $2,050,000 NAICS 443:Electronics&Appliance Stores $0 $2,315,000 NAICS 444:Building Materials,Garden Equip. &Supply Stores $25,000,000 $2,900,000 NAICS 4451:Grocery Stores $3,500,000 $10,920,000 NAICS 4452: Specialty Food Stores $0 $380,000 NAICS 4453: Beer,Wine,and Liquor Stores $4,300,000 $970,000 NAICS 446: Health&Personal Care Stores $0 $2,160,000 NAICS 4481: Clothing&Clothing Accessories Stores $800,000 $2,770,000 NAICS 4511:Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instrument Stores $0 $485,000 NAICS 4512: Book, Periodical, and Music Stores $0 $375,000 NAICS 4521: Department Stores(Excluding Leased Depts.) $35,000,000 $5,000,000 NAICS 4529: Other General Merchandise Stores $1,000,000 $3,625,000 NAICS 4531: Florists $750,000 $185,000 NAICS 4532:Office Supplies,Stationery,and Gift Stores $0 $180,000 NAICS 4533: Used Merchandise Stores $0 $40,000 NAICS 4539: Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers $5,000,000 $920,000 Food&Drink NAICS 722:Restaurants&Bars $3,000,000 $10,265,000 Notes: Column A: Selected store types. Column B: Supply represents annual retail sales by business establishments within the defined trade area. Column C: Resident demand potential represents expected annual expenditures by consumers currently residing within Sources: ESRI Business Information Solutions;GVA Marquette Advisors • Column A of Table 6 shows a variety of retail store types by NAICS code, while Column B illustrates the current retail sales performance for each store type within the primary trade area. We reviewed retail sales estimates from ESRI Business Information Solutions, a nationally recognized econometric forecasting firm. The ESRI estimates are based on adjusted 2007 data from the Census of Retail Trade. However, several businesses are new to the corridor, specifically those within Cedar Point Commons. Therefore, for several NAICS categories, Marquette Advisors developed sales estimates Marquette Advisors Page 25 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment based on our review of the current retail business mix along the Corridor and an analysis of nationally reported statistics for these stores. Retailers such as Target, Home Depot, Chipotle, Subway and Caribou Coffee do not report sales data for individual stores. However, SEC filings and other published reports provide statistics regarding average store performance and average sales levels per square foot for these businesses. Therefore, Marquette Advisors sales estimates reflect our review of these industry reports based on our analysis of the business mix and traffic within the Cedar Point Commons development. Our sales estimates for Target, Home Depot and the various restaurants and retail stores within Cedar Pont Commons equate to about 75% of the national average per store type. We believe that these estimates are somewhat conservative. • Column B shows that total sales at the selected retail stores and restaurants along the corridor are estimated to be approximately $78,000,000. This includes an estimated $65,000,000 in combined sales at Target and Home Depot, with other businesses on the E. 66th Street Corridor generating about $17,000,000 in annual sales. • Column C presents estimates of annual spending by persons residing within the primary trade area. Trade area residents spend an estimated $46,000,000 on the selected product categories annually. Here we are effectively measuring the "demand" for retail goods and restaurants from residents of the primary trade area. When demand (consumer spending) exceeds supply (retail sales), this can be indicative of a situation where the area could possibly support the development of a new store. However, by comparing the data in Columns B & C we see that the primary trade area is probably not "under-retailed." The fact that total sales at stores and restaurants along the corridor actually exceeds consumer spending by a significant amount is reflective of the impact of the Cedar Point Commons development. This development (Target, especially) attracts significant consumer spending from outside the primary market area. With a few exceptions, the other stores along the corridor serve a much more localized customer draw. Marquette Advisors Page 26 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • There are exceptions to the trend noted above, where consumer demand appears to exceed store sales in the trade area. This means that there is current "leakage" of consumer dollars to businesses located outside the boundaries of the defined primary trade area. For example, consumers in the primary trade area spend an estimated $10.9 million at grocery stores, although estimated grocery store sales within this area are just $3.2 million. However, this does not mean that the trade area needs another grocery store. The $3.2 million in grocery store sales is understated, because it does not account for grocery sales which are actually captured at the SuperTarget, which is designated as a department store per NAICS classification. Moreover, it is unrealistic to assume that grocery stores located along the E. 66th Street Corridor will capture all grocery expenditures by trade area residents. Some of this spending will continue to flow to well- established nearby stores such as Rainbow and Cub Foods, which are outside the primary trade area but still quite convenient for trade area residents. • Based on our review of consumer spending and retail sales estimates, one category which appears to be under-represented within the primary trade area is restaurants. Total restaurant and bar sales within the primary trade area are estimated at approximately $3,000,000 annually. Meanwhile, annual consumer spending by trade area residents at restaurants and bars is estimated at $10,265,000. We are also aware that there is significant additional demand from the secondary trade area, related to Target and Home Depot customers coming to this area, as well as airport employees. We expect that additional restaurant concepts will be introduced over the next 12 to 24 months which will accommodate this demand for restaurants. We expect that these new restaurant concepts will locate within the Cedar Point Commons in-line space (current vacancy), pad sites or the Phase II buildings. Marquette Advisors Page 27 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment The "Target Impact" Nationally, Target store sales averaged $287 per square foot last year. Even if the Richfield Target generated sales at just 75% of the national average ($215 psf), this would equate to more than $35,000,000 in annual sales. We know from our review of annual consumer spending that residents of the primary trade area spend about $5,000,000 collectively at department stores each year. Only a portion of this, say 50% at the high-end, is captured by the Richfield Target store. This means that the Richfield Target is importing more than 90% of its customers from outside our primary trade area, including significant penetration into South Minneapolis and also East Bloomington. Clearly Target and other discount retailers can in some circumstances have a negative impact upon businesses within the same area that offer a similar product line. However, this does not appear to be the case with respect to East Richfield and the E. 66th Street Corridor. Rather, the fact that Target is importing customers from a much expanded trade area could present an opportunity for synergistic benefit and increased sales at E. 66th Street Corridor businesses in the future. This positive "synergy" associated with a nearby location is thus far accruing primarily to those businesses and restaurants within or very close to Cedar Point Commons. The Richfield Liquor Store has already benefited significantly from Target and its expansion of the trade area. Liquor Store sales have increased by approximately 20% since the opening of the Richfield Target store. We also examined consumer spending by residents of the broader secondary market area. This analysis showed that these consumers spent an aggregate of about $75,000,000 at department stores last year. Our sales estimates suggest that the Richfield Target store captured approximately 40% to 50% of department store spending by persons residing in the secondary trade area. Meanwhile, the $600,000 sales increase at the Richfield Liquor Store equates to just 4% of consumer spending at liquor stores by residents of the secondary trade area. Capturing just a small share of the much expanded secondary market can have a significant impact for smaller retail businesses. This $600,000 sales increase is very substantial from the standpoint of Marquette Advisors Page 28 II E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment the Liquor Store operation and the City, although its ``market share" of overall liquor spending by persons in the secondary trade area is quite small. Persons residing in the secondary trade area spend an estimated $675,000,000 annually at retail stores and restaurants, excluding department stores and gas stations. If those same consumers allocated 3% to 5% of their expenditures to stores and restaurants within the E. 66th Street Corridor (similar to the Liquor Store capture rate) this would equate to between $20,000,000 and $30,000,000 in annual sales. This should equate to about 50,000 to 60,000 sf of additional store space supportable in the area. We expect that a large share of this demand will be accommodated within existing and planned new space in Cedar Point Commons. Key Conclusions—Retail Analysis Current market data suggests that demand for new retail space is suppressed at this time. Moreover, rental rates have declined to a point that will not support new construction of retail space for-lease. Residents of the primary trade area surrounding the E. 66th Street Corridor are generally well served by existing retail along the Corridor or within a short distance to nearby shopping centers. We have calculated "short term" potential for approximately 50,000 to 60,000 sf of retail and restaurant space along the corridor over the next two to three years. We expect that new retail and restaurant concepts will focus initially upon the remaining space within Cedar Point Commons, but eventually may consider other locations elsewhere along the Corridor as this space is absorbed. City and/or County participation in development through land assembly and public-private partnerships in financing will likely be required to support infill and redevelopment, however. The new Target store continues to import customers from a much expanded draw area, although synergistic benefits to-date have accrued mostly to other businesses within or very near to Cedar Marquette Advisors Page 29 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Point Commons. A longer-term opportunity may exist for more businesses located westward along the E. 66th Street Corridor to capture additional sales from Target customers coming to the area to shop. Target shoppers, however, must have a reason to travel westward along 66th Street. Through this Corridor Planning effort, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield can help to "set the stage" for existing businesses and new businesses to better cultivate an expanded trade area related to Target customers. This will include market-related, transportation and land use elements as described in this report and the Corridor Plan. OFFICE MARKET UPDATE The following is an overview of office market conditions along the E. 66th Street Corridor, throughout Richfield and the broader Twin Cities Metro Area. Included is a summary of existing office properties along the Corridor, as well as current market rental rates and occupancy levels for multi-tenant office buildings here and in the surrounding market. This provides valuable insight regarding the current and potential future demand for additional office development on or near the E. 66th Street Corridor, and supportable rental rates. Regional Office Market Trends The following are key points regarding the Twin Cities office market environment, based on our review of market information and published reports such as the recent Nortmarq Compass report for mid-year 2010. Summary tables and graphs are also provided. • The Twin Cities Metro Area has a total of about 72.3 million square feet of rentable office space in multi-tenant buildings. Of that total, 5.6 million square feet is located within the "South/Airport" submarket, of which Richfield is a part. Marquette Advisors Page 30 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment Twin Cities Metro Area Multi-Tenant Office Vacancy&Absorption MEN Ao:Q-oton 2001-2010 -41—Vacancy 1.468 1.500 25.0% 1,35' 22.8% X59.0 20.7% 602 - 20.0% 522 -- _ 3% 18.4% - - 15.0% V I I I I I CC 2 ..- 2005 2006 2007 2y"eig 20111 st half) 209 U -50.0 - 10.^0% . Q - 5.0% - -2.000, -1,;11., 1.839 0.0% • The Twin Cities overall office vacancy rate (including sub-lease availability) jumped from 18.4% in 2008 to 22.3% in 2009. At mid-year 2010 the regional office vacancy rate stood at 22.8%. • Vacancy in the South/Airport submarket, at 25.9%, was second highest among metro submarkets to the Northwest metro. Negative absorption in this submarket totaled - 145,397 sf during the past twelve months. • The Twin Cities office market was overwhelmed with negative space absorption, linked to the serious economic recession of 2008/2009. Negative absorption totaled more than 1.8 million square feet metro-wide in 2009, but slowed to -290,000 sf during the first half of 2010. Economic conditions have improved in the region, triggering some improvement in the job market, although leasing activity continues to lag as office users are slow to pull the trigger on new space. The recent Northmarq Compass report notes that leasing volume is running at about 50% of pre-recession levels, with much of that activity being renewals at discounted rates. Marquette Advisors Page 31 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Table 7 PAult-Tenant Office Vacancy and Absorption Twin Cities Metro Area Absorption Submarket& Net Rentable Vacant Sublease Percent Percent Vacant Property Class Area ISF' Space Space Vacant w/Sublease 2nd Half 2009 let Half 2010 Last 12 Months Twin Cities Total Class A 34,471,338 5,916,929 1,318,936 17.20% 21.00% -386,206 -66,092 -452,298 Class 6 30,854,721 6,823,398 617,838 22.10% 24.10% -370,029 -184,173 -554,202 Class C 6,927,558 1,673,559 103,995 24.20% 25.70% -110,979 41,470 -69,509 Total 72,253,617 14,413,886 2,040,769 19.90% 22.80% -867,214 -2088,795 -1,076,009 South?Airport Class A 1,752,403 355,542 155,184 20.30% 29.10% -55,602 4,980 -50,622 Class 6 2,950,308 709,561 53,874 24.10% 25.90% -60,392 -41,766 -102,153 Class C 877,862 139,161 0 15.90% 15.90% 410 6,973 7,383 Subtotal 5,580,573 1,204,264 209,058 21.60% 25.30% -115,584 -29,813 -145,397 Minneapolis CBD Class A 14,459,723 1,983.149 358,102 13.70% 16.20% -152,965 -8,807 -161,772 Class 6 10,011,538 2,761,262 178,693 27.60% 29.40% -134,067 -152,336 -286,403 Class C 2.318,198 522,394 20.730 22.50% 23.40% -57,396 28,314 -29,082 Subtotal 26,789,459 5,266,805 557,525 19.70% 21.70% -344,428 -132.829 -477,257 Northeast Class A 2,032,059 536,092 49,188 26.40% 28.80% -197,704 151 -197,553 Class 6 4,623,794 813,588 74,334 17.60% 19.20% -101,009 -39,443 -140,452 Class C 1,069,121 273,044 604 25.50% 25.60% -6,701 -6,577 -13,278 Subtotal 7,724,974 1,622,724 124,126 21.00% 22.60% -305,414 -45,869 -351,283 Northwest Class A 862,704 190,656 11,283 22.10% 23.40% -7,672 -85,090 -92.762 Class 6 1,102,734 304,405 35,139 27.60% 30.80% -11,114 95,029 83,915 Class C 399,273 93,393 1,176 23.40% 23.70% 3.772 10,801 14,173 Subtotal 2,364,711 588,454 47,598 24.90% 26.90% -15,414 20,740 5,326 Southwest Class A 8,431,432 1,849,737 320,926 21.90% 25.70% 110.338 53,636 163,974 Class 6 4,914,821 828,334 154.818 16.90% 20.00% -137,081 -46,628 -183,709 Class C 984,070 282,554 55,662 28.70% 35.50% -59,661 -1,681 -61,342 Subtotal 14,330,323 2,960,625 542,406 20.70% 24.40% -86,404 5,327 -81,077 St.Paul CBD Class A 2,443,690 424,648 118,429 17.40% 22.20% -10,158 -26,201 -36,359 Class 6 33,7702,831 545,333 26,867 22.90% 23.60% 107,186 20,725 127,911 Class C 724,655 261,307 14,823 36.10% 38.10% -€.820 158 -6,662 Subtotal 6,871,206 1,532,288 160,119 22.30% 24.60% 90,208 -5,318 84,890 West Class A. 4,489,327 577.105 305.824 12.90% 19.70% -72,443 -4,761 -77,204 Class 6 3,548,665 559,915 94,113 15.80% 18.40% -33,552 -19,754 -53,306 Class C 554,379 101,706 0 18.30% 18.30% 15..1' 3.482 19,299 Subtotal 8,592,371 1,238,726 399,937 14.40% 19.10% -90,178 -21,033 -111,211 Source: Northmarq Compass,2010 mid-year Marquette Advisors Page 32 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Table S Multi-Tenant Office,Average Rental Rates,2009-2010 Twin Cities Metro Area Submarket i 2nd Half 2009 1st Half 2010 Property Class Avg.Net Rate C-, axes Avg.Gross Rate Avg Rate CAM Taxes Avg.Gross Rate Twin Cities Total Class A 515.11 57.39 54.42 526.94 514.79 57.42 54.52 526.73 Class B 510.70 55.08 54.44 520.22 510.56 54.88 54.52 519.96 Class C 58.79 53.06 54.44 516.29 58.41 53.04 54.52 515.97 Total S12.87 56.18 54.44 523.49 512.61 56.07 54,52 523,20 South;A i rport Class A. 514.22 55.86 54.44 524.52 514.20 55.72 54.52 524.24 Class B S11.90 54.04 54.44 520.38 511.77 53.96 54.52 520.25 Class C 58.84 52.99 54.44 516.27 58.81 53.16 54.52 518.15 Subtotal 512.28 54.51 54.44 521.23 S12.20 54.45 54.52 521.17 Minneapolis CBD lass 44 515.15 57.79 54.42 527.38 514.68 57.36 54.52 527.0€ Class B 59.94 55.45 54,14 519.86 59.81 55.08 54.52 519.41 Class C 54.29 52.80 54,41 516.73 59.13 52.83 54.52 516.48 Subtotal 513,11 56.67 54.44 524.22 512.63 56.57 54.52 S23.72 Northeast Class A 513.87 55.14 54.44 523.45 513.58 55.27 54.52 523.67 Class B 510.91 54.15 54.44 519.50 510.80 54.08 54.52 519.40 Class C 58.09 51.65 54.44 514.18 57.87 51.57 54.52 513.96 Subtotal 511.90 54.46 54,44 520.80 511.84 54.46 54.52 520.82 Northwest Class A 512.93 55.92 54.44 523.29 512.73 56.14 54.52 523.39 Class B 510.10 54.26 54.44 518.80 59.88 54.17 54.52 513.57 Class C 57.86 53.30 54.44 515.60 57.51 52.86 54.52 515.22 Subtotal 510.55 54.59 54.44 • 519.58 510.38 54.53 54.52 519.43 Southwest Class A. 515.80 57.05 54.44 527.29 515.44 57.04 54.52 527.00 Class B 511.70 55.43 54.41 521.57 511.55 55.20 54.52 521.27 Class C 58.76 53.44 54.44 515.51 58.51 53.22 54.52 513.25 Subtotal 513.90 56,24 54,44 524.58 513,63 56.14 54,52 524.29 St.Paul CBD Class A 512.08 57.60 54.44 524.12 512.05 57.79 54.52 524.35 Class 8 58.34 54.85 54.44 517.63 58.31 54.886 54.52 517.49 Class C 56.93 53.10 54.44 514.47 55.72 53.20 54.52 513.44 Subtotal 59.77 55.84 54.44 S20.05 59.85 56.01 54,52 520.38 West Class.4 516.57 58.45 54.44 529.46 516.38 58.32 54.52 529.22 Class B 511.81 55.93 54.44 522.18 511.46 55.84 54.52 521.82 Class C 58.57 53.50 54.11 516.51 58.16 53.43 54.52 516.11 Subtotal 514.07 57.08 54.44 525.59 513.80 56.97 54.52 525.29 Source: Northmarq Compass, 2010 Mid-Year Marquette Advisors Page 33 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment • Employment growth has resumed in the metro area, although regional employment as of August 2010 remained about 100,000 jobs short of pre-recession levels according to Current Employment Statistics (CES) from the MN Department of Employment and Economic Development. Improvement in the office market will be tied to employment growth. Most market observers suggest that the metro vacancy rate will continue to hover around the 20%mark for several months. • Weak demand fundamentals have also created downward pressure on rents. Landlords are working hard to retain current tenants, and to replace those lost over the past several months. Many are cutting rents in an effort to retain or recruit new tenants. Within the South/Airport submarket, Class A net rental rates averaged $14.20 psf as of 2010 mid- year, compared to $11.77 psf and $8.81 psf for Class B and C space, respectively. • Leasing activity has reportedly been very slow within the South/Airport submarket. However, in the coming months two significant tenants will be seeking to fill large space requirements. Both are Federal Government Service Administration (GSA) and related to the feds' plans to redevelop its office properties at Fort Snelling and the Mpls. Veterans Hospital. The GSA is currently seeking two 250,000 sf spaces and are reportedly considering buildings such as the former 265,000 sf Delta Airlines building in Eagan, a 325,000 sf former US Bank office building on Shepard Rd. in St. Paul, and the Best Buy Corporate Campus, as Best Buy is now marketing a portion of its corporate campus as sublease space. There are no buildings within or near to the E. 66th Street Corridor in Richfield which could accommodate such a large space requirement. East Richfield Office Buildings We also identified and surveyed several office buildings along the subject E. 66th Street Corridor, as well as multi-tenant buildings near 66th at its intersections with both Nicollet and Lyndale. The characteristics of these buildings are summarized on the table on the following page. Marquette Advisors Page 34 To To O c C c o co - O @ a) O co c w C N sr - U U U 2 0 c > L U O D U U O a O co O 0. N N .�,C a) E N a) To en D U 75 2 as 0 c `) ° o O) E LU L N — T 0 N N X .-- O c Z ,n +6 N Q G S j.F N O) Q ) O U .° O co = c U -0 N "O N O m R U ° W E _Y- 0 7 Q p_ ' 7 -p L 7 L (O c • N O Z N _U N _U I— a 2 W D 2 c U iE 2 it U CO N Cl) O O c0 (6 O O O 0 O N O) O O O CO O co co f6 O) O) O) N O ' O • �_ 64 EA ffl 63 64 cH 03 (6 O O a co O a) O_) V co cA CZ N CO N N y R c0 O O O r 5 X C C D D c C O CO 0) Q 12 O1 EF3 Ef3 Ef3 O O c c to- N R R c0 c0 c0 co co O O • N c c cc co L) (n LO Ts, a (i c0 (ri o0 R N 03 i» 03 a) o y m o0 0 in o 07 ca Q N Z Ce OC) L(-; N Ea O) C. U_ d E co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' W V O O O O CO M O) co co O) O O O O O N r C ` a o Co N N > < C a R d co N 42 > r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) c o 0 0 0 o 00 CO a Q' d • CO co 'd' O r Lo N E N LL — co- r CO .•U a f L co ii {i co O O O O Ln O CO O N O CO r O O r O O O O Co p N V O LO W O O) O O Co O H C CO M r V r (0 (. V CO N 'cr- y) N Lo co O) N O N O CO CO c0 00 N CO O LO I-- CO r co co O (O m O) O) O) O) O) O d) N N O o 0 o m N 8) c I co u W � �a C Q• w• 0 a N- --- 0 ..--:iL C(f)LLI O O i n 0 co CO co L L CO t6 (O CO 111 LLI N- LP u) v L L O zia.CC (O LLI LLI O N- N Co °s y a m co N�_1 m 0 oes C.) °7 °O ai Q> c Q d a U Y ? R p O co L0 LO w CO 0 N O Z o n 0 co C R m CO co To N L co 0 N Q O ai R>C Q U Z N 7 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment • There is an approximately 57,000 sf of office space along the E. 66th Street Corridor from Cedar to Portland. This space is located in six buildings, the largest of which is the MN Evangelical Association building at 1515 E. 66th Street. Two of these buildings are dental offices, at 1537 and 1717 E. 66th Street. Multi-tenant buildings are located at 18th & 66th, as well as 1717 and 1300 66th Street. Rental rates are quoted on a gross basis, at $19 psf. • The largest multi-tenant office building within close proximity of the E. 66th Street Corridor is located immediately south of the Richfield Liquor Store at 6636 Cedar Avenue. Built in 1988, the property contains 84,070 sf, of which 28,000 sf(33.3%) is presently vacant. Asking rental rates range from $10.00 to $12.00 psf on a net basis, or about $19.50 to $21.60 psf including common area maintenance expenses (CAM) and taxes. The building is occupied by a mix of legal, professional and medical firms, but has maintained an elevated vacancy rate for several months. • The Woodlake Center at 66th and Lyndale contains 98,000 sf, with a 7.9% vacancy rate at the time of our analysis. The property contains a Houlihan's restaurant on the main floor, along with several medical and professional tenants, and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce. Asking rents here are $18.50 psf net, or about$30.00 psf gross. The Bremer Bank Building at 6500 Nicollet contains 22,850 sf, with a 6,581 sf vacancy (28.8%), and asking rents of just$5.50 psf net and $14.00 psf gross. Key Conclusions — Office Analysis Demand fundamentals for multi-tenant office space remain weak. Very few user groups are seeking space in today's market, creating downward pressure on office rental rates. Vacancy in the South/Airport submarket stood at 25.3%, roughly double what is generally considered to be a healthy equilibrium vacancy rate. The largest office building near the E. 66th Street Corridor, at 6676 Cedar, contains 84,070 sf of rentable area, of which more than 28,000 sf is vacant at this Marquette Advisors Page 36 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment time. Six smaller office buildings are located along the E. 66th St. Corridor, totaling about 55,000 sf, of which only 2.6% was vacant at the time of our survey. However, this includes a number of modest single-user and owner-occupied buildings. Older multi-tenant buildings along the E. 66th Street Corridor are advertising space available today at a $19.00 psf gross rate. Current tenants along and near the Corridor include mostly small firms and service providers such as insurance agents, counselors, and small service businesses, along with three dental offices. Medical offices tend to be more focused around the 66th & Lyndale area due to the presence of major senior housing communities there. Current demand fundamentals and market rental rates are not supportive of new construction at this time in the East Richfield market. Continued economic improvement and sustained employment growth over a significant period of time will be required to absorb current excess vacancy in this area, and others throughout the region. Long-term demand may support smaller redevelopment or infill construction on a small scale. We would expect demand from professional service firms and possible an uptick in demand for medical office space, particularly if new senior housing is constructed in the area as is being contemplated near 66th& Cedar. HOUSING ANALYSES The E. 66th Street Corridor contains several older 1950's and 60's vintage apartment buildings, generally in the western portion of the study area between about 12th and Portland. Our analysis showed that the buildings are generally well maintained and provide quality workforce- affordable rental housing. For two primary reasons, we do not believe that construction of market rate multifamily housing along E. 66th Street will be viable in the near term. For one, parcels have very limited depth. Secondly, market rents in this area are not sufficient so as to ensure financial feasibility. Rather, we have focused our analysis upon the multifamily TIF district which is located just north of 66th Street and west of the Cedar Point Commons development. We expect that future multifamily construction near the Corridor will be focused Marquette Advisors Page 37 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment in this area. Further, we believe that this site is best suited for senior housing, and have thus focused our analysis upon the surrounding senior housing market environment in order to determine what level of demand may be supportable at this location. This analysis follows. Senior Housing Market Area We have determined the primary market area for senior housing in East Richfield based on man- made and geographic boundaries, traffic & commuting patterns, the location of existing senior rental properties in the area, health care facilities, and our general knowledge of the senior housing market in the Twin Cities. As depicted on the map below, we estimate that the market area for senior housing in East Richfield will include the City of Richfield and a portion of south Minneapolis, which includes a section of the Nokomis and Southwest Minneapolis neighborhoods. E. Richfield Senior Housing Market Area �AA v, m i ,n r st St E ? ? m 41st St E u n - m � James Ave N r n v. IN 42nd St Linden Hills ,3 ,� y 4g n U .c ? (� 33..c c rn 43rd St E +n �, U, 4 d'. ar �� , ,t, 20 ,. -� � r LV.,,St rn E S to V.if, 44th St ? '� � v m rn "m` i 44 N r v v` ,,Eleanor Ave — 44th St W .,, ?46th St W ,..C.3 2 s , , 4e E 46th St Hiawatha g v 46th a, : d 31 t `. 47th St E Golf Course Cv -7 `F 42 0 Ford Pky rn 5 U Bridge m 46th CI W — - .., - • � ", St.Paul g . vv eh"t. ar 49th St o W50th St W 16 S1 W',r 'rn Montreal Ave m Montreal Ave 1 59fhSt u.. 2 �' 4,..°' m M enehaha D 5 52nd St'Orr ivlirr�eha - ' ?, e c 4 v, qi ' ct I.d..arountrYClub 3rd St 711 h� 1 F a..x. -. E - A m -c 43 Q ,1t�� rn W 54th St D-s 1 v, N ) l k L 544fi S 6 46 Ave ,. nth St VJ a S % _ m UI n 0 ? 56th St W '° m °: A or — S v .'0' a m fo U- " to 7th St W U 57th St E " � g'a �P Crosby a 128 `_dthr St E c Tn $ 'r' � fake Par at a m Q` ? r::.`tS W #21 t2a 35 w 'd ne Fort Sneling .. .�,�� 2174 61 17 IN 64th sp(. rnE 64th St ,11rr,ar.i-.;t $e ,... Nr. Mendot m E 65th St I.6th Street Corridor(Subte t Area)pool Iri trot enai !/qJ W 66th St W 66th St V 66th St �.. W 66th 51 E 66th`ii.r.�r,,y ?' yr 4 '7 G7 Tri, Tom ` v esth St rn i;10,, ? CO �, m ,;S f u ? E 69th St I 33" Ia p A Vv 701n St 31 0 L - 6 ill 70th St c4)13 mm 32 c `m _ u ? . Fy: c¢:. m m U,° = Richfield - Fort Snelling MS7 f, 1 c a N W 7-rd.St ° U; U 16 National m m N 741h St or W 74tn St m 3 �.a ra Cemetery r;,,l;G./kb E -, n`' Lane c: m. o W 76th St 52 , it c c --0 77th St g 3- 'e'VV 77th Sty - - fort Snelling Nor-11-14d Ur n i.;,. _ ((.' G Bloom 1r, gton IN 721x1 St ,. ( m A X ' v U, ' . c a n : VV fiat! 3t VV 64th St qr v' m n 'ri r _. n n t II �" m a m n Long.Meodow or 4 G xW 86t 1St L Oxboro am'' A v, 0 Lake 1-x Eagan , Marquette Advisors Page 38 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment A Variety of Senior Housing Products Senior Housing is typically defined as an age-restricted housing product designed specifically to service seniors, generally those aged 62+ or 65+, although the market has developed a wide range of product types over the past several years. The four major senior housing product types and a brief description of each are provided below. The choice of product type will depend on the level of care needed on a case-by-case situation, in addition to household income levels and financial assets. Independent Senior Housing — This is the least service-intensive of all senior housing products. These properties offer virtually no support services or health care, but restrict tenancy to those ages 55 or 62 and over. Typically, independent senior housing communities will attract persons aged 65 and older. Apartment-style rentals are most popular, although condominiums, cooperatives and townhomes have also been developed throughout the region. Some of these communities do provide limited activities for residents, as well as scheduled transportation to medical appointments or shopping centers. Congregate Senior Housing — This type of senior housing offers support services such as transportation, meals and housekeeping. These services are offered either for an additional cost (congregate-optional services), although such services are sometimes included in the monthly rents/fees (congregate service-intensive). Congregate senior housing tends to attract an older and more frail resident population compared to independent senior housing. Congregate units are also much more likely to be occupied by a single person (75% to 85%) than independent senior communities, where often times 50% or more of the units are occupied by couples. Assisted Living — Assisted Living is the most service-intensive product type and offers the highest level of services, just short of those available in a skilled care/nursing home environment. Assisted living typically includes at least 2 meals Marquette Advisors Page 39 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment per day, along with all of the support services found in Congregate housing. The most distinguishing features of an Assisted Living community are that it provides 24- hour staffing and emergency response, along with the availability of personal care assistance (bathing, dressing, grooming, etc.). Assisted living facilities tend to attract people age 80 and older who need assistance with the ADL's (activities of daily living) mentioned above. Memory Care—This type of senior housing is a specialized Assisted Living product, specifically designed and programmed for persons afflicted with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias. These facilities include all the same services as Assisted Living, plus additional safety through secured-access doors and/or wander-guard systems. They also feature a higher staff-to-resident ratio. Furthermore, special active (stimulating) and passive (calming) programming is involved to respond to the needs of the resident base. Demographics The potential resident base for senior housing in East Richfield will include mainly income- qualified senior households in the surrounding Market Area who need and/or desire a multifamily living environment, either with or without meals and personal care services. In the forthcoming paragraphs we summarize our analysis of the current and projected senior household base in the Market Area. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the size of the current and projected market demand for senior housing. Household Incomes Table 10 on the following page shows estimated and projected incomes for senior households by age in the 66th Street Corridor Market Area for 2010 and 2015. The figures are based on data • Marquette Advisors Page 40 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment from ESRI Business Information Solutions, a nationally-recognized demographics data services firm. Household income data will be used later in estimating market demand for senior housing. Table 10 Senior Households by Income,2010-2015 E.66th St.Corridor Market Area Current Year Estimates(2010) 55-64 65-74 75+ Total 55+ Household Income No. % No. % No. % No. % Less than$15,000 281 4.9% 239 7.6% 605 13.7% 1,125 8.5% $15,000-$24,999 240 4.2% 308 9.7% 722 16.3% 1,270 9.6% $25,000-$34,999 385 6.8% 375 11.9% 637 14.4% 1,397 10.5% $35,000-$49,999 767 13.5% 470 14.9% 711 16.1% 1,948 14.7% • $50,000-$74,999 1,277 22.4% 749 23.7% 729 16.5% 2,755 20.7% $75,000-$99,000 1,199 21.1% 310 9.8% 472 10.7% 1,981 14.9% $100,000-$149,999 937 16.5% 448 14.2% 339 7.7% 1,724 13.0% $150,000-$199,999 299 5.3% 134 4.2% 124 2.8% 557 4.2% $200,000+ 310 5.4% 126 4.0% 90 2.0% 526 4.0% Total Households 5,695 100.0% 3,159 100.0% 4,429 100.0% 13,283 100.0% Median Income $72,138 $54,299 $39,161 $56,012 Projections(2015) 55-64 65-74 75+ Total 55+ Household Income No. % No. % No. % No. % Less than$15,000 213 3.5% 217 5.1% 477 11.3% 907 6.2% $15,000-$24,999 161 2.6% 254 6.0% 499 11.8% 914 6.2% $25,000-$34,999 315 5.1% 357 8.4% 492 11.7% 1,164 8.0% $35,000-$49,999 574 9.3% 450 10.6% 486 11.5% 1,510 10.3% $50,000-$74,999 1,419 23.0% 1,067 25.2% 829 19.7% 3,315 22.7% $75,000-$99,000 1,233 20.0% 417 9.8% 541 12.8% 2,191 15.0% $100,000-$149,999 1,320 21.4% 860 20.3% 560 13.3% 2,740 18.7% $150,000-$199,999 473 7.7% 331 7.8% 216 5.1% 1,020 7.0% $200,000+ 462 7.5% 287 6.8% 115 2.7% 864 5.9% Total Households 6,170 100.0% 4,240 100.0% 4,215 100.0% 14,625 100.0% Median Income $81,326 $67,737 $53,220 $69,785 Change,2010-2015 55-64 65-74 75+ Total 55+ Household Income No. % No. % No. % No. Less than$15,000 -68 -24.2% -22 -9.2% -128 -21.2% -218 -19.4% $15,000-$24,999 -79 -32.9% -54 -17.5% -223 -30.9% -356 -28.0% $25,000-$34,999 -70 -18.2% -18 -4.8% -145 -22.8% -233 -16.7% $35,000-$49,999 -193 -25.2% -20 -4.3% -225 -31.6% -438 -22.5% $50,000-$74,999 142 11.1% 318 42.5% 100 13.7% 560 20.3% $75,000-$99,000 34 2.8% 107 34.5% 69 14.6% 210 10.6% $100,000-$149,999 383 40.9% 412 92.0% 221 65.2% 1,016 58.9% $150,000-$199,999 174 58.2% 197 147.0% 92 74.2% 463 83.1% $200,000+ 152 49.0% 161 127.8% 25 27.8% 338 64.3% Total Households 475 8.3% 1,081 34.2% -214 -4.8% 1,342 10.1% Median Income $9,188 $13,438 $14,059 $13,773 Sources: ESRI;Marquette Advisors Marquette Advisors Page 41 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Studies have shown that seniors are often willing to pay in excess of 40% of their incomes for independent senior housing, compared to roughly 50% to 60% for "congregate" housing, and about 80%to 90%percent or even more for assisted living or memory care housing. Further,the proceeds from the sale of a home, as well as financial assistance from adult children are often used as supplemental income for some seniors to afford the appropriate housing and care environment. • The ESRI 2010 income estimates show a median household income of about $56,012 for Market Area adults aged 55 and over. This is up from roughly $36,854 in 2000, reflecting about a 4.0%annual growth rate. • The younger senior age cohort (65-74) will typically have higher median incomes when compared to the older age cohorts. This is primarily due to younger couples being married with two pensions and Social Security benefits. In 2010, the median household income for those aged 65-74 was estimated at $54,300, while the median for the age 75+ cohort was $39,160. • A senior household earning $54,300 per year (the median income for households aged 65 to 74 in 2010) could afford a monthly housing cost of about $1,810, allocating 40%of the household's annual income towards housing. Comparatively, a senior household earning $39,160 (the median for households age 75+) could afford a monthly housing cost of about$1,630, allocating 50% of income towards housing. • By 2015, the median household income for the 65-74 age cohort is projected to increase to $67,740, up about 25% from 2010, while seniors age 75 and over is projected to increase to $53,220, up about 36%from 2010. Marquette Advisors Page 42 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment Tenure by Age of Householder In addition to current income sources, many senior households are able to derive additional income to be used for senior housing by investing the proceeds from the sale of a single family g Y g P home. This supplemental income can be used to cover the costs associated with residency in a senior housing community. Table 11 shows data on the tenure by age of householder for the older adult and senior households for the 66th Street Corridor Market Area and the Metro Area, according to Census data. • Homeownership rates typically decline as householder's age. In 2000, about 86% of households age 65 to 74 owned their homes (roughly 2,620 households) in Market Area, compared to about 82% Metro-wide. The 75 and over age group owned about 82% of all households (3,833 households), compared to 66% for the Metro Area. • As seniors age, they may no longer desire, or be able or willing to maintain their single- family homes. Some prefer to move to housing that offers them greater freedom from maintenance and/or offers support services. Seniors typically begin to consider moving into senior housing in their early 7Os. Table 11 Senior Tenure by Age of Householder-2000 66th&Portland Market Area Age of Householder 55-64 65-74 75+ Total 55+ 66th&Portland Market Area Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Number of Households 3,085 546 2,620 432 3,833 853 9,538 1,831 Homeownership Rate 85% 86% 82% 84% Metro Area Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Number of Households 102,583 18,205 68,030 14,491 53,673 27,236 224,286 59,932 Percentage 85% 82% 66% 79% Sources: ESRI,GVA Marquette Advisors Marquette Advisors Page 43 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment Home Values Table 12 presents a summary of home resale data for the East Richfield Senior Housing Market Area from 2006 through August of 2010. This data is from the Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota(Northstar MLS). Home values will help dictate the amount of equity a senior will be able to derive upon the sale of their home, which can be utilized towards monthly fees for senior housing. Seniors' homes are often older and therefore, to better gauge the potential equity that seniors would be able to achieve, we have examined sales data for homes that are at least 15 years old. • The East Richfield Market Area has also felt the effects of the financial and mortgage crisis, as the average resale price of single-family homes declined in each of the past three years to a low of about $204,400 in 2009. The market has shown considerable improvement during 2010, however, as the average sale price increased to $228,364, up nearly 12%from 2009. Table 12 Single-Family Home Resales(Including sales of homes built prior to 1995) E.66th Street Corridor Market Area 2006-2010(through August 2010) Single-Family Home Resales Total Median Annual Average Annual Average Days Year Sales Sale Price Change Sale Price Change on Market 66th Street Corridor Market Area 2006 1,193 $239,900 - $274,407 - 53 2007 1,099 $238,500 -0.6% $269,518 -1.8% 55 2008 1,049 $210,272 -11.8% $233,526 -13.4% 65 2009 1,228 $189,400 -9.9% $204,390 -12.5% 53 2010* 644 $203,000 7.2% $226,880 11.0% 55 *Through August Sources: Northstar MLS, Marquette Advisors Marquette Advisors Page 44 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Resale Data - 66th Street Corridor Market Area 2006 - 2010 (August*) Sales Average Sale Price 1,400 — $274,407 $320,000 $269,518 1,200 — $233,526 $280,000 $204,390 $226,880 1,000 — $240,000 $200,000 v 800 — To $160,000 600 — $120,000 400 — $80,000 200 — - $40,000 0 - $0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* Year • Total home sales declined from 1,193 in 2006 to 1,049 in 2008, but increased to 1,228 in 2009. Sales volume has slowed in 2010. This year, the Market Area is on pace to see about 966 homes sold. • The average market time has fluctuated from 53 days to a peak of 65 days in 2008, and has averaged about 58 days over the past five years. Today, a single-family home in East Richfield Market Area is expected to be on the market for just under two months (about 55 days). • A majority of senior homeowners own their homes free and clear, and thus would have access to a sizeable financial resource in the equity they can realize from the sale of their homes. While the interest earned on investing these funds can help to offset the monthly costs associated with living in a senior housing facility, many seniors are also willing to Marquette Advisors Page 45 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment begin spending down assets in order to live in a housing environment which meets their lifestyle preferences and care needs. For example, a senior who owns his or her home outright and has a home valued at $203,625 (the 2010 median resale price of homes in the Market Area) would likely be able to derive approximately $189,370 from a sale after factoring in marketing/real estate commissions and moving costs at roughly 7%. Should this equity be invested in an interest-bearing account with a 3% annual return, it would produce an income of$5,680 annually (or $473 per month). This income could be used to off-set the cost of senior housing, without spending down assets. Existing Senior Housing Supply Table 13 shows the existing supply, as well as any pending senior housing developments in the East Richfield Senior Housing Market Area. We have included market rate independent senior rental communities, as well as congregate, assisted living and memory care housing. We have also identified owner-occupied senior cooperatives and condominiums, which will later be considered penetration analysis and demand calculations. Independent Living • We identified three market rate independent senior living projects in the subject Market Area, all of which are located in the City of Richfield. These properties include: Gramercy Park of Lakeshore Drive (160 units), Lake Shore Drive Condominiums (178 units), and Woodlake Point (157 units). Gramercy Park is a cooperative and requires an entry fee or down payment. Lakeshore Drive and Woodlake Point are both owner- occupied senior condominiums. All ownership properties also require monthly association fees. Marquette Advisors Page 46 CO CO co CO CO N- CO CO CO 0 O C P. M V O Cfl O N N a) CO co CO c d' V W CO M a M V 0 N CO I- N M O s- O ,- N ‘- f.- a) ( L.,_ T H LL. 2 E EA T Go r 0 (4 Vi (4 64 -> m .0 Co V T Cfl C31 N 'C O O C co N N CO M O M CO C 0 o 0 69 ER C r L0 C .- C) Ct ° ,_. N N N N 64 2 ce ea to aa 64 64 a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v a 0)) 0) 00 CO ' 0 CO CO N M M s- N el U o 0 E E O 0) O O C) O O M N N 00 ' O O)V 0O ' N O H > > N w J "0 N� O CO CO L CO > �Q co r o a) 0000 0) CO 000 0 0 ' ' ' CO ' CI 0 co ,- N 3 O) Q a) 2 r 0) N c c 0 0 0 U U r C D C O CO N- v) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 c , ' CO OD N- ' - a) CO CO N- a) , r N Tr -co C c c a) a) Q a) a) a a c c N O 's- .-� O W W O OD O o) O O N N a) 0 O 0) O) O 0) O 0) O O O O O ,- O >- CO N N N N N N N N ,- N O N CO CO Cl 0 o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m CO CO CO a) O c c c C C C C C C C C C C >• 0 0 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) F U U U CL CC CC fl CC fY CL CC CL CC CC c c c 0 0 0 c "0 "O -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -O C C C o ro a) w CO CO CO .� .O .O CO CO E E E 0 CO m .0 L s .0 c 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 v 0 0 C) 0 C) _0 0 a s _0 0 0 > J Q' d' E d' a' d' E d' d' W W m m m C 0) C 0 0 O 2 a) i O `) a L. 2 U) aa)) o .2 t. CT 0 is c aCi c E m c co u) U CL m m y '8 0 . < E � J E n. - = a0 0 0 0 v 0 > m m U C a) . y c c o 0 a TS i C C > O CO) .2 CO o C 0 a) 0 ca C� c6 c m d CO - : N 0 od ac 0) L E -° >, °c m Q. O p U O N .2 O O 'd < C CO ._E N.. a 'a 2 O C a) C a) J C C Q"O .0 C o o .z 0 > CO > o) co 0)Q > 0 a N W O ° 0 0 Y c u) C - N to E m 2 • U d G a ++ d ] C . CO ..1 a) c 0 0 O O m c6 .: N 3 T O .E m t '� J w • U n .E E t°a ° U U C� 07 En ° 2 L N = y N (n y N CO C C C. c6 CO 6)a E « .E C oUa R L. ns h ' o)E R 0 d m dU` E m a E E E N m N G m Y o O C .Q 0 O v, .Q m a) O N O > N O m w a) 0 X X a) c6 0 0 — F- N — C H a) = H a) O L O 0 0 0 Z 0 wui w 0) 0 _I > 0 > Q2 > H * H ci >- Hmo > H cn E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • The three projects have a total of 495 units and a mixture of unit types. Gramercy Park Coop of Lakeshore Drive was built in 2000 and has mixture of 1 BR, 2BR and 3BR units. The entry price ranges from $47,710 to $103,677, with monthly association dues of $1,085 to $2,383. Lakeshore Drive Condominiums were built in 1982 and has a unit mix of 1BR floor plans, 1 BR+Den units, and 2BR units. Association fees range from $267 up to $434 per month. Woodlake Point was built in 1986 and has a mixture of 1 BR's, 1 BR/D's and 2BR's, with association fees ranging from $240 to $515 per month. • Additionally, the City Bella community at 66th & Lyndale is a co-operative high-rise which, although not age-restricted, contains a number of senior residents. From our familiarity with this project and interviews with other industry experts we estimate that approximately 75%of City Bella's 138 units are occupied by seniors. Congregate (Housing with Services) • We identified two congregate/optional services properties in the Market Area. These projects include Mainstreet Village (69 units) and Village Shores (145 units), both in Richfield. • The two congregate with services projects feature a combined 243 units. The rents at Mainstreet Village begin at $1,166 for a one-bedroom unit and go up to $1,887 for a two- bedroom unit. Rents at Village Shores begin at $1,119 for a one-bedroom and go up to $1,748 for a two-bedroom unit. These properties offer additional care services, available on an a la carte basis. Assisted Living • We identified three assisted living communities for a total of 156 units in the Market Area, all in Richfield. The largest project is The Pines with a total of 78 units. Village Shores has 47 units and Mainstreet Village has 31 units. These properties offer unit Marquette Advisors Page 48 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning • Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment types ranging from studio/efficiency nc units up to two-bedroom units. Rents ranged ed from $2,500 per month up to $3,000 per month for studio units, $2,500 up to $3,450 for one- bedroom units, and $3,323 up to $4,985 for two-bedroom units. Assisted Living projects typically include at least two meals per day and assistance with at least three activities of daily living(ADL's). These services are included in the monthly fee. Memory Care • We identified only one memory care facility (The Pines) in the East Richfield Market Area. The Pines features a total of four memory care beds (double-occupancy rooms) with rents at$2,130 per month per resident. Planned and Proposed Senior Housing Developments As of September 2010, there were no pending senior housing developments in the City of Richfield. We did identify two projects located in the City of Edina and three projects in the City of Bloomington, but based on their locations we would not consider them to be directly competitive with new senior housing developments along or near the E. 66th Street Corridor. They may be peripherally competitive, however, as these developments may attract a small percentage of their residents from the subject Market Area. Marquette Advisors Page 49 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Senior Housing Demand Estimates The following paragraphs summarize our calculations of market demand for senior housing in the East Richfield Senior Housing Market Area. Our calculations are summarized by product type, and are based upon our review of the age/income-qualified senior resident base in comparison with the supply of senior housing units available within and near the subject Market Area. Independent& Congregate Senior Housing Demand In determining demand for independent & congregate senior housing, we estimate the potential market to include those households that are both age- and income-qualified. Seniors age 55 and older are defined as the age-qualified market, although such developments typically attract seniors age 65 and older. Detailed demand calculations are provided in Table 14. • The minimum household income required to afford independent or congregate senior rental housing at approximately $1,000/month and up is estimated at $30,000 per year. Additionally, however, we include senior homeowners with incomes of $20,000 to $29,999, since these seniors may be able to supplement their incomes with the proceeds from the sale of their home. Our calculations indicate there are an estimated 11,210 senior households in the Market area with incomes of$30,000+, as well as those within incomes of$20,000 to $29,999 who own their homes. • We then adjust to include appropriate short-term capture rates for each age cohort. We use 1.0% of households age 55 to 64, about 6.5% of households age 65 to 74, and 20.0% of households age 75 and older. These capture rates are based on our review of the • income-qualified household base compared with the resident base for independent senior housing communities in the metro area. This results in short-term demand potential for about 882 independent senior units in the Market Area in 2010. Marquette Advisors Page 50 • LU o 6) O o N V O') _ V o N- C) N- o CO •V O LO C(') 0 0 0 0 co CT co I� O O O O co Cn d' co N- N N Cn CO N CO O N 0 oO N N N N CO M 07 N V N N N O r ,- .- N W ° Cn W N- ° LO Cn 0 L V O o O CN CO N N O CO V C) r c- O CO N CO ON N CO N N o N- L N o LO N- o N N O o 0 CV CT)CO C) CO V CO In CO N V CO N N-• N N O M M CO CO ° O CO CV LO CV CO 'd' ° in Cf') ° CO C '7 ° L M N O N 0 CO N V N- (7 co V i7 { L CO N N a a O O N 0 0 a o 0 O -O -0 0 C C U O 0 O O 0 a O O C O E C 0 a) u0) O C U C U C a) a) a) a) y 'O - O c O -0 C N a) a a) a C a U CL U C II) -0 a) -O a) @ c o C a N _ C) 7 =@ / N ca m `n To- -CI m E O L/ _c m E O O c O O O o m 1' 0 ° � U _3 @�11 CC) In O C N r-, ` U M C N V U N .C N X -I- C 2 u) N O D a) p a) E O C p c i v ? O @ c - 7 rn ° c a .E a) O) co c a Y 0 a y m rn rn o c t a 2 rn N w ° D m v `- D i r N N a) t CO N a) a) To bg CO m e a) oN @ O f>-) m a) c' @ c O C O CC 0) a N 0 00 CO 0) 'N C C O N ` ` y o L c O o _C o o O ` E 0 N @ o . cc) 64 N m U •@ 0 ac u) "CO U ac) .O o - ac) a) = d o o C ,m uS O c ,._ M cn a o o m otS c M to O a) u) 2 tai) 2 c LO a) a - c = a) = N a) c LO m _a ' c a) 7 =o d E -o m 'c 'N CL c m y a m c o '� N W° m cn U Q 0 = N m 0_ UJ W e aa) E ac) E 0 " a) @ d cr) W a a) E ac) d £ o5 c o F L U 'o c _c m p a) a F 0 7 Y U a L m p o a L F- >, o O E m .3 oo L O E m .3 3 C m o 'E m a m m aEi m a p o a a a ° ac a .o a O U > d G u) Y m ~ L o Y @ a) t CO 'O N o N m o o p o-° o ~ N a N@ 0 0 p -° a ~ a3 m N > Q a o o J o f -o a) O -o = z o O o E m o a r Z o 0 C 'a L a) _ C L C > J Q O y L a) C _ L C > ,J Q O > y m N 3 .m -O ,`° t- m O a L m V u) 3 •- a •- In IT 0- O w -o W N O c"i a)Lr' E o a o o c c N d -0 = O c o c ti t .c N o a) c6 s d• U C o a) � c a) 7 O _ ` U c c N '0 C O a) a) (6 a) 7 O N Y U CO 6 a) ` 0 -0 d E a ° a •Ed ° COw2 W ETD- F- a n E -a od o' ° cnw � w .- H � � a U � 7 y d Q) 2 co d N y a) 2 u) d ti •• m W in N u) W N N w W in ti m W in N Cn aj C) m N u) N @ N N @ [� V) 00 fn N V) m m 7 m N @ m N @ 7 7 @ 7 m m s o E o o E C c o n n c u> E a c c c c c c ° c c C o U c o r E tr? sE o• - isc s - 6 E a? o- E o- - a- o s - a' O c 1- 0- to N w '��' a� v� E E W nm E ate) Nw 'va) n�� a- E E W n� E E a; QO) E. 66`'' Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • We then subtract the existing competitive senior rental units and market overlap with existing senior ownership units (including 75% of all senior condominiums and cooperatives) in the Market Area, accounting for a 5% vacancy rate. Subtracting for the current unit inventory indicates there is local demand for another 189 independent senior units in the Market Area. • Some additional demand will come from outside the defined Market Area. We estimate that 10% of the additional demand for independent senior rental housing will be generated by seniors currently residing outside the Market Area. This demand will consist primarily of parents of adult children living in the Market Area, individuals who live just outside the Market Area and have an orientation to the area, as well as former residents who desire to return. This results in additional demand for 21 units, equating to short-term demand for about 210 independent senior units in 2010, including age- restricted rentals with no services and congregate housing. • Table 14 also shows our estimate of demand by 2015, adjusting for growth in the income/asset-qualified household base over time and expected changes in the senior unit supply. We did not identify any planned senior rental units located within the subject Market Area, but we did identify five planned/pending projects just outside of the Market Area in Edina and Bloomington. We estimate that only about 10% of these units would be competitive with the proposed project in 2015, meaning that only about 10% of the resident base for these new properties will come from our defined Market Area. Adding the various demand sources and then subtracting for the projected unit totals results in revised demand for up to In total, then,we calculate demand for 220 units by 2015. Marquette Advisors Page 52 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Assisted Living Demand Table 15 presents calculations of demand for assisted living units in the East Richfield Market Area. The availability of intensive support services such as meals, housekeeping, and personal care at assisted living facilities usually attracts older, frailer seniors. Hence, the age-qualified market for assisted living housing is defined for our analysis purposes as persons ages 75 and over. • The first step in determining the potential demand for assisted living housing is to identify the age/income-qualified market, based on a senior's ability to afford the monthly fees at an assisted living facility. Based on our review of household income and age data for the Market Area,we estimate roughly 52% of all senior households would be income/asset qualified ($40,000+ incomes), which results in an estimated household base of 1,750. • Because demand for assisted living housing is need-driven, the age/income-qualified market is reduced to account for the potential market that needs assistance. Studies indicate that about 35% of all seniors age 75 and over need assistance with at least three activities of daily living. We apply this proportion to the age/income-qualified household base, which results in a potential assisted living market base of 613 seniors in 2010. We estimate that roughly 70% of the age/income-qualified market needing significant assistance with ADLs will be able to remain in their homes with the assistance of a family member or home health care agency. The remaining 30%will need assisted living housing within the next three years. We apply this short-term penetration rate which gives us local potential demand for 184 assisted living units in 2010. • Additional demand will also come from residents that are currently living outside of the Market Area. We estimate about 20% of demand will be generated persons currently residing outside of the Market Area. Because of the availability of services, Assisted Living housing tends to draw seniors from a greater distance compared to Independent Marquette Advisors Page 53 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment Senior Housing products. We then subtract existing and pending assisted living units in the Market Area (subtracting for a 7% equilibrium vacancy rate). As of September 2010, there are a total of 149 existing units and no pending assisted living units. In total, our calculations indicate demand for 81 assisted living units in the East 66th Street Corridor Market Area in 2010. Table 15 Projected Demand for Assisted Living Senior Housing,2010 and 2015 66th Street Corridor Market Area 2010 Demand Householders Age 75+ 4,429 (times)Senior Homeowners 76% (equals) Estimated Age 75+ Homeowners 3,366 (times) Estimated % Income/Asset Qualified for Assisted Living Senior Housing 52% (equals) Estimated Age/Income Qualified Household Base 1,750 (times) Estimated % Needing Assitance with 3+Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) x 35% (equals)Age/Income Qualified Market Needing Assistance = 613 (times)Short-term capture rate x 30% (equals) Local market demand potential = 184 (plus) Estimated Additional Demand from Outside Market Area @ 20% + 46 (equals) Potential Short-Term (2010) Market Base = 230 (minus) Existing Assisted Living&Memory Care Units` - 149 (equals) Excess local demand potential = 81 (minus) Planned&proposed assisted living& memory care units (not including subject project) - 0 (equals)Projected Short-Term Unit Demand(as of 2010)(Over 3 Years) =I 811 2015 Demand Householders Age 75+ 4,215 (times)Senior Homeowners 76% (equals) Estimated Age 75+ Homeowners 3,203 (times) Estimated % Income/Asset Qualified for Assisted Living Senior Housing 63% (equals) Estimated Age/Income Qualified Household Base 2,018 (times) Estimated% Needing Assitance with 3+Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) x 35% (equals)Age/Income Qualified Market Needing Assistance = 706 (times)Short-term capture rate x 30% (equals) Local market demand potential = 212 (plus) Estimated Additional Demand from Outside Market Area @ 20% + 53 (equals) Potential Short-Term (2015) Market Base = 265 (minus) Existing Assisted Living&Memory Care Units* - 149 (equals) Excess local demand potential = 116 (minus) Planned&proposed assisted living& memory care units(not including subject project) - 45 (equals) Projected Short-Term Unit Demand(as of 2015)(Over 3 Years) =1 711 *Accounts for a 7%vacancy rate Source: Marquette Advisors Marquette Advisors Page 54 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • Again our calculations indicate demand for Assisted Living by 2015, adjusted to account for growth in the age/income household base and changes in the Assisted Living unit supply in nearby markets. Our calculations indicate demand for Assisted Living will decline to about 71 units by 2015 due to projected supply increases in neighboring communities. KEY ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE E. 66th STREET CORRIDOR PLAN Based on our analysis of real estate market conditions, we identified the following key issues that we feel should be considered in the development of the E. 66th Street Corridor Plan. Housing • The Corridor currently contains several market rate apartment buildings, particularly in the western portion of the study area. Fieldwork indicates that these buildings appear to be generally well maintained. Our assessment of rental market data indicates that these and similar "workforce" affordable rental units throughout the area maintain high occupancy levels. • We suggest that the City and/or County support the upgrade and preservation of these existing workforce housing units over time along the Corridor. Renovation and upgrade of existing affordable rental and ownership units along the Corridor and in adjacent neighborhoods should be supported, possibly through subsidized low- or no-interest loan programs and creative incentive programs. • However, the construction of additional market rate multi-family housing along the Corridor will be a major challenge for two primary reasons: 1) the small size of parcels fronting 66th Street and the lack of depth of those parcels, and 2) new construction will not be financially feasible without significant public subsidy, based on current construction costs in comparison with market rental rates. Marquette Advisors Page 55 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • Still, the City can work to support the private sector development community over the long term through creative public-private partnerships involving quality infill and redevelopment which increase the supply and diversity of housing along the Corridor and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Appropriate support mechanisms may include land assembly and land write-down, promoting the use of Section 42 Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Tax Increment Financing, and other creative financing direct and indirect subsidy programs, as well as passive support mechanisms such as density bonuses. • We understand that the City is targeting multifamily development for a two-block area north of E. 66th Street,just west of Cedar Point Commons. Our review of this location and surrounding neighborhood and demographic data suggests this area is best-suited for senior housing. We understand that the City is currently evaluating developer proposals for this area. Our calculations indicate market demand for approximately 210 independent senior units and 80 assisted living units at this time in the East Richfield Market Area. Retail • Our market analysis indicates that demand for retail space is suppressed at this time. Rental rates have declined to a point that will not support new construction. Residents of the primary trade area are generally well served by existing retail along or near the E. 66th Street Corridor. The new Target store continues to import customers from a much expanded draw area, although synergistic benefits to-date have accrued mostly to other businesses within or very near to Cedar Point Commons, not extending westward along the Corridor. • A longer-term opportunity may exist, however, for businesses located to the west along E. 66th Street to capture additional sales from Target customers coming to the area to shop. Marquette Advisors Page 56 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment • We estimate that there is potential market support for approximately 50,000 sf of additional retail & restaurant space in the Corridor in the short-term (next two to three years). We expect that most, if not all, of this demand will be accommodated within existing space and future development phases at Cedar Point Commons. Another 15,000 sf of existing space is still available here, with another 21,000 sf planned in a second construction phase. • Eventually, however, following the build-out and absorption of Cedar Point Commons (likely 18 to 24 months), new retail and restaurant concepts eventually may consider other locations along the Corridor. Target shoppers, however, must have a reason to travel westward along 66th. Through this Corridor Planning effort, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield can help to "set the stage" for existing businesses and new businesses to better cultivate an expanded trade area related to Target customers. This will include market-related, transportation and land use elements as described in this report and the Corridor Plan. • Over the long-term (three to five years) it is possible that a smaller amount 20,000 to 30,000 sf of additional retail/restaurant space could be supportable in a new infill neighborhood center to the west along the Corridor. However, as with residential development, it is likely that public sector land assembly and creative public-private partnerships in financing will be required in order to support commercial development due to site constraints (limited parcel depth) and current market economics. • Our analysis shows that there are six auto repair-oriented businesses located along the E. 66th Street Corridor. Most of these businesses have been operating here for several years and provide good service to the surrounding neighborhoods and the larger Richfield community. While these are long-standing businesses providing an important service to the surrounding community, at least three of the auto repair properties (along with other commercial businesses) are showing signs of deferred maintenance. Design, aesthetics and streetscape may not be priority elements to an auto repair business. Further, the cost Marquette Advisors Page 57 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield, MN Real Estate Market Assessment of maintaining and improving these buildings in many cases may in fact exceed the financial return from doing so. At the same time, the affordability of the existing real estate, regardless of its appearance, is one reason these repair shops continue to operate in this area. We suggest that the City work with such property owners in developing incentives and/or loan programs for property upgrades. • Meanwhile, we note that auto repair businesses are not in all cases a complimentary neighboring land use, and this too may hinder the potential for infill or redevelopment within the Central portion of the E. 66th Street Corridor. Perhaps there would be an opportunity for the development of a multi-tenant auto care and service center somewhere along the Corridor, perhaps within Cedar Point Commons. This may allow for clustering some of the auto-oriented businesses within a new quality facility, also freeing up additional property along the Corridor for redevelopment. Clearly, a primary impediment will be the ability of existing repair shop owners to afford the rental rates that would be required to support a new multi-tenant facility as described. Office • Short-term demand for office space is weak, given fundamentals inherent to the current economy. The area's largest office building (84,000 sf) is 30% vacant at this time. A few older, smaller office buildings are also located along the corridor, and although they show higher occupancy levels, rental rates here are not supportive of new construction. • The lack of developable land, paired with traffic, access and parking issues will likely preclude large-scale corporate or multi-tenant office development along the Corridor. Small-scale infill office development and mixed-use developments with a small office component may become viable over the long-term (3-5+ years out). However, public- private partnerships will be required. Marquette Advisors Page 58 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment • We would expect an increase in demand for medical office space/clinics in the area if new senior housing is constructed in the area as is being contemplated near 66th & Cedar. A development which clusters existing health care providers in close proximity to senior housing would be appropriate and complementary to both land use categories. Additional Development Considerations • Lastly, from our analysis it is evident that the Cedar Point Commons development has significantly changed the complexion of the eastern portion of the E. 66th Street Corridor. It functions as a major anchor in this area, greatly expanding the E. 66th Street trade area by importing customers from South Minneapolis and East Bloomington. • The western portion of the E. 66th Street Corridor also has a significant asset, that being Veterans Memorial Park. The park serves the Richfield community well, and events here such as the 4th of July Parade and the region's third-largest farmers market attract people from throughout the Twin Cities Metro area and beyond. However, we believe that an opportunity may exist to enhance this community asset through the development of a health club/fitness facility. A private club such as Lifetime, LA Fitness or Bally's would probably not be viable due to market economics, demographics, facility requirements and corporate business modeling. However, we believe that a joint public-private venture with the YMCA may in fact be supportable on some scale at this location, and should be considered. Such a facility would be complimentary to Veterans Memorial Park and the City of Richfield as a whole, and Could have a major impact upon the e. 66th Street Corridor, giving it a strong west anchor, just as Cedar Point Commons and the recently developed Target store is anchoring the east end of the Corridor. • We suggest that the City and/or County begin to evaluate the potential for construction of a YMCA (or similar model) at Veterans Memorial Park. This should include evaluating in detail the market and financial feasibility of such a project, including a "right sizing" Marquette Advisors Page 59 E. 66th Street Corridor Planning Richfield,MN Real Estate Market Assessment analysis, identifying how and where such a facility might fit on the site, and exploring funding sources and public/private partnerships in order to move forward. Marquette Advisors Page 60 66th STREET CORRIDOR PLAN I Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture, Site Planning, Urban Design 08/18/2010 66th Street Corridor Plan Subject: Corridor Walking Tour- Comments and Observations Date: 08/12/2010 Attendees: City of Richfield, Head of Transportation Commitee,Three Residents, Richfield Floral & Garden, 66th Street Laundromax, Something Fishy business owner and Building owner, Hennepin County, Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church, Damon Farber Associates, GVA Marquette Advisors, Wenck As- sociates. Traffic & Safety: • Desire for safer pedestrian crossings (north/south) across 66th Street. Drivers coming out of the roundabouts are not stopping for pedestrians • Desire for bike paths/trails with connectivity to the north and south as well as along 66th Street (path in Veteran's Park is too secluded and can be uncomfortable for individual users) • Desire for traffic calming along 66th Street (vehicles travel too fast). People driving the corridor are not stopping to frequent the businesses---perhaps don't even realize they are there • Desire to have pedestrian safety improved while walking along 66th Street (sidewalk is too narrow and close to passing vehicles) • Desire to have fewer business entrances directly off 66th Street (try to eliminate conflicts with vehicles slowing down to turn, vehicles passing quickly) • Need for improved streetscape including improved sidewalks set back from 66th Street, increased/im- proved plantings (amenity zone), uniform setbacks, and cohesive design standards Land Use: • Potential unique busniess opportunities related to ethnicity of neighborhoods • Importance of VISIBLE and proximate parking to businesses. Important for customers to see that there is easy parking, immediately adjacent to store • Desire for more sit-down type restaurants to draw people to the corridor • • Need for consistent building setbacks, improved building appearances • Desire to retain existing businesses, but limit or reduce number of repetitive types of business (i.e., automotive service, dental) • Desire to see existing properties make improvements and/or removal of substandard buildings along the corridor • Presence of unique retailers on corridor (Something Fishy, Richfield Floral & Garden) • Presence of auto-oriented businesses on corridor (repair, service) could be clustered • Presence of current business mix is partially location-oriented, but also due to affordability. Buildings may not look great, but they are affordable for these businesses, and that it in part is why they have chosen to locate here • The Cedar Point Commons development has had an uncertain impact on sales in existing businesses in the corridor. No one on tour reporting big jump in sales. Some talking about stable sales, which is probably good in many cases considering the economy. So maybe would have been worse without Cedar Point Commons t)uinun/w/'ej Ictiu,'cli , 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332-7522 I ,roww.damonfarber.com Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture, Site Planning, Urban Design 08/18/2010 Miscellaneous: • Desire to have the power lines put underground and out-of-sight • Buses cause significant vibrations (especially in residential properties) • Desire to institute a business association/networking group for the corridor • Presence of blight and desire for city to be pro-active in addressing this • Property taxes are too high (commercial) • Periodic flooding issues need to be corrected along 66th Street south of Veterans Memorial Park Damon Farber.Isso imc'N 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332-7522 rher^or 66th STREET CORRIDOR PLAN Hennepin County j City of Richfield II Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture, Site Planning, Urban Design 09/15/2010 66th Street Corridor Plan Subject: Introduction and Visioning Session public meeting Date: 09/15/2010 Time: 6-8pm Location: Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church Attendees: City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Damon Farber Associates, GVA Marquette Advisors, 23 resi- dents, business owner's, and stakeholders (see attached sign-in sheets). This was the second public meeting for the project following the walking tour held on August 12th, and the first visioning session for residents, business owners, property owners, and stakeholders to help shape the future of 66th Street. The meeting started with a brief introduction of the project, a recap of what we observed on the walking tour, and concluded with the attendees forming small groups and listing corridor assets, corridor liabilities, and what they saw as a future vision for the project. The following is a summary of the responses. 1 - Corridor Assets Parks & Open Space • Veterans Park, Pool, Ice Arena Corridor Institutions • Bernie's and Appleseed Montessori Schools • Mt. Calvary School and Church Corridor Business • Existing neighborhood businesses • Liquor store • Florists • Dental offices Miscellaneous • Public transportation • 2 - Corridor Liabilities Image & Identity • Poorly maintained homes, businesses • No curb appeal, no landscaping • Overhead utility lines Transportation • Pedestrian - vehicular conflicts • Too many driveways on 66th street • Sidewalks too close to street • Corridor is set up for cars • Only two bus shelters Miscellaneous • Airport noise • No family restaurants • Frenchman's bar /)canon Farber I csociaw 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332-7522 I mvw.clamontarher.com Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture,Site Planning, Urban Design 09/15/2010 3 - Future Vision Image & Identity • Curb appeal, landscaping • Well maintained facilities • Plant more trees for sound abatement Transportation • More bus shelters • Two lanes with center turn lane • Convert road into parkway • Airport access at end of 66th street • Public transit alternative, light-rail • Centennial lakes "like" trail system link Land Use/Redevelopment • Support current businesses while promoting new business development/redevelopment • Larger lots—redevelopment of whole blocks deep • Community gathering cluster, plaza with small shops • Professional business as opposed to retail • Expand on legion park theme &programs (ice arena, area sports) nunrnn/-in ber.1.csociatex 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332-7522 I www.damonfarber.com z 66 ST • D c . • II Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture,Site Planning, Urban Design 12/07/2010 66th Street Corridor Plan Subject: Present Preliminary Land Use & Opportunity Sites Concepts Date: 11/30/2010 Time: 6-8pm Location: Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church Attendees: City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Damon Farber Associates,Wenck Associates, GVA Marquette Advisors, 40 residents, business owner's, and stakeholders (see attached sign-in sheets). This was the third public meeting for the project following the visioning session held on September 15th, and the first session to present preliminary land use plans and opportunity sites concepts. The meeting started with a brief recap of the visioning session, and moved into the land use alternatives and the design concepts for the four different locations along 66th Street. After the introduction and explanation of the different concepts, the attendees were asked to place green,yellow, and red dots on the concepts. Attendees were also encouraged to leave comments on the boards in response to what we had proposed. The following is a summary of the ratings given to each concept and comments given. 66' Right of Way Sections Section #4 • 7 green dots, 2 yellow, 1 red • "What about 4th of July parade route?" • "Like boulevard, green space, sidewalk away from road traffic" Section #5 • 2 green dots 83' Right of Way Sections Section #6 • 2 green dots • "I believe traffic counts are much higher than 11,000 day now, this volume of traffice needs more solutions." Section #7 • 2 green dots, 2 yellow • "What about a bike trail on 65th Street or just have a bike lane on one side of the road?" Section #8 • 6 red dots (all placed on bike lanes) • "Want to see a solution with the bike trail pulled off roadway for kids to get to pool safely from their neighborhoods." Section #9 • 4 green dots (2 in street parking lane), 5 yellow, 2 red dots (in center turn lane) • "No parking on 66th Street here" Opportunity Site #1 - 66th and Portland Ave Sketch A • 2 green dots, 1 yellow /honor,i,n I ', l ss, ,a, 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332 7 522 I ;.tiw.damor,tarber.com Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture,Site Planning, Urban Design 12/07720-10 Sketch B • 1 green, 4 yellow, 8 red Sketch C • 13 green, 3 yellow Opportunity Site #2 - 10th Ave to 12th Ave Sketch A • 3 green dots, 4 yellow, 5 red Sketch B • 1 green, 1 yellow • "Not too fond of high density housing on south side, it restricts park from neighborhoods" Sketch C • 1 yellow • "Get rid of frechman's or make them fix it up" Opportunity Site #3 - 13th Ave to Bloomington Ave Sketch A • 7 green dots, 4 yellow, 2 red • "Pretty walk areas with pathways and flowers" Sketch B • 8 green, 3 red • "12th Ave to Bloomington no parking on 66th street" • • "Fix up front faces of shops - make it look more uniform & up to date" Sketch C • 1 green, 5 yellow, 3 red Opportunity Site #4 - 66th and 17th Ave Sketch A • 2 yellow, 3 red Sketch B • 3 green, 2 yellow, 5 red Sketch C • 11 green Uumon how,./icr 'ssuoune.' 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332-7522 :;.v+,.ciao antarber.com 66th-STREET CORRIDOR'PLAN-°----� • ' 4 1 U 11=11101111, - I -kennel) Ouiii■;;;I Appendix E - Open House Three Minutes Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture, Site Planning, Urban Design 02/03/2011 66th Street Corridor Plan Subject: Present Revised Land Use & Opportunity Sites Concepts Date: 01/31/2011 Time: 6-8pm Location: Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church Attendees: City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Damon Farber Associates,Wenck Associates, GVA Marquette Advisors, 30 residents, business owner's, and stakeholders (see attached sign-in sheets). This was the fourth public meeting for the project following the visioning session held on September 15th, and the final session to present revised land use plans and opportunity sites concepts. The meeting started with a brief overview of the revised land use diagram, street sections, and district concepts, and concluded with visitors forming small groups and filling out the comment sheets provided. The following is a summary of the comments provided by the attendees. Transportation 1. Single lane will significantly impact how buses flow and needs to be looked at further. 2. If there is no on street parking, business lots will continue to restrict occupancy. 3. Plowing will need to improve in single lane model. 4. Will narrowing road to only 2-3 lanes cause frustration for traffic flow? 5. Bike trail needs to be off the roadway. 6. On 66' R.O.W having single lane in each direction and no bike lane looks too tight for emer- gency vehicles. 7. Would rather see the same road configuration for entire corridor regardless of changing R.O.W. 8. It's more important to keep the amount of lanes that we have for cars on 66th street. Keep bike path off 66th street and keep this road open for the purpose of people driving and getting to and from where they need to go—don't bottle neck with extras. 9. Keep the leisurely bike trails out of the busy traffic areas. 10. The 83' R.O.W. would best be served with on street parking. 11. With approximately six months out of the year with snow, it seems the best use of 66th street would be parking on street which is lacking now. 12. The 83' R.O.W. with parking makes the most sense in an area that is trying to accommodate commercial expansion. 13. The two lane configuration with a turn lane is a good idea, but show sufficient room for snow stacking. 14. The focus for 66th street should be for accommodating motorized traffic, not biking. 15. Bike trail should be on a quiet street, such as 65th, and have somehow the streets blocked so it is a green bike parkway, no cars, with less traffic intersections. 16. Appreciate bike paths with serious attention to safety—we need to guarantee safe bikeways for our kids. 17. Taking 66th street from four lanes down to two lanes will put additional traffic on the residential side streets. 18. Bicycle access would be wonderful if it can be separated from the roadway. 19. Don't replace lanes for cars with lanes for bikes. Do bring bikes a block off of 66th street. 20. Keep roundabouts out of Richfield, The residents don't like them. 21. Keep residents back from the 66th Street corridor. /.)amen I-arht•c lswciata' 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis,MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning Tel:612-332 7522 ; ,ma-.aamon*arber.coni Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architecture,Site Planning, Urban Design 02/03/2011 22. One lane east and west is not enough, we need 5 lanes, 2 east &west with one turn lane. 23. We like the boulevards, provides a place for snow, and keeps pedestrians safe from traffic. 24. Not sure about reducing the amount of lanes on 66th Street, cars are using the street to avoid crosstown. 25.A park and ride is needed on 66th Street. Open Space 1. I like the idea of a community center in the park. 2. Crossings to Veteran's park should not just align with bus stops 3. The crossing by Park Ave needs a button to cross the street. 4. The bike path shown from Taft Park to Veterans Park on 63rd street would be ideal because it provides access without obstructing the roadway. 5. What is the cost associated with boulevard trees? 6' wide seems too narrow. Land Use 1. As a business owner along 66th street I have concerns with either business or all residential along the corridor. I believe you will lose business along the corridor if all housing goes in. 2. Until redevelopment occurs please try to get existing businesses to improve the appearance of their exteriors. More landscaping, paint, etc. would greatly improve their appearance. 3. Business cannot have "economic viability" if signage is hidden by trees and parking is inadequate. 4. Senior housing would be a nice idea for the park. 5. We don't need high-density, low-income housing across from Veteran's park, don't want loitering in the park. 6. I don't know about the plans to build higher density housing closer toward the airport. 7. Many of the parcels under consideration for redevelopment are very small or not very deep, this presents a challenge for future use. 8. High density housing usually decreases in value over the long term. 9. Redevelopment area#2: it would be impractical to redevelop the Montessori School, I would exclude that from the plan. 10. Multi unit, medium density around Veteran's park makes a lot of sense. /)union/mhcr.Issuciaw■ 923 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis.MN I Landscape Architecture+Urban Design+Site Planning I Tel:612-332-7522 I wwa.damonfarber.com AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS , AGENDA ITEM# 8 , REPORT# 150 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 411111‘.A■ REVIEW: • REVIEWED BY CITY /// r MANAGER: drAri . I ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development plan at 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The proposed amendment includes an increase in the number of units from 90-94, an increased setback and green area between the proposed building and adjacent single-family homes, and a larger underground parking area. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amendment to the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development at 6401 Lyndale Avenue, 515 64th Street West and 521 64th Street West (Lyndale Commons) to allow the construction of a 94-unit apartment building. II. BACKGROUND Last year, Michael Development proposed and had approved a planned unit development that would allow them to construct a 90-unit apartment building at the southeast corner of 64th Street West and Lyndale Avenue. Since that time, the project has gone through a revision that is large enough in mathematical scope to require Council approval of an amendment. The revised proposal increases the overall value of the project by creating units that will rent at a higher rate than the previous plan. Unit size throughout the project has increased by approximately 15-20 percent per unit and the interior amenities of the project have been improved. The community and fitness rooms are over 200 071211 - APUD 6401 Lyndale Ave percent larger, interior finishes have been improved and offices and a business center added. The revised proposal includes 5 studios (-2), 50 one-bedroom units (+14), 30 two-bedroom units (-7) and 9 three-bedroom units (-1). It should be noted that while the overall number of units has increased from 90 to 94, the total number of bedrooms has actually decreased from 140 to 137. The increase in unit size has increased the non-parking area of the project from approximately 90,000 square feet to 110,000 square feet and while the building remains three and four stories tall, the fourth floor has expanded. The revision also includes a significant expansion of the below-grade parking garage. This has allowed for an increase in the overall parking ratio from 1.32 stalls per unit to 1.44 stalls per unit (17 additional spaces). At the same time, the surface parking lot is significantly smaller, increasing the setback from the residential properties to the east to nearly 50 feet and decreasing impervious surface to only 65 percent of the site. Finally, the enlarged below-grade parking deck will allow for added amenities in the courtyard along Lyndale Avenue (additional landscaping, grill areas, benches, trellis and pedestrian lighting). The overall increase in the project value will also allow for better exterior finishes. The entire exterior is brick, cement board or metal panel. Previously, the project included large areas of vinyl siding, all of which has been removed. While the proposed changes mathematically classify this as a "major" amendment, the physical changes to the above-ground portion of the building are relatively minor and constitute an improvement to the project. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In 1998 the City adopted the Lakes at Lyndale Plan that called for the redevelopment of these parcels after 2010. • In 2008 the City approved designation of the entire Lakes at Lyndale area as a "Mixed Use" area to incorporate a variety of uses including high-density residential, commercial, office and recreational uses. • The Comprehensive Plan calls for housing in the Mixed Use area to be developed at a minimum of 50 units per acre. The proposal meets this requirement. • Zoning Code requirements: o More than a 10 percent change in the floor area of an approved planned unit development is considered a major amendment. Major amendments are to be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and decided upon by the Council. o Planned unit developments are intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources and to encourage innovation in planning and building. PUDs provide flexibility in the application of dimensional requirements, density and land uses if the proposed development is well-designed and can be successfully integrated into the neighborhood. o The guiding district for a Planned Multi-Family Residential (PMR) District development of this size is the High-Density Residential (MR-3) District. o The purposes of the MR-3 District regulations are to "reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities; preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family district, while permitting higher population densities; provide space for semi-public facilities needed to complement urban residential areas and space for institutions that require a residential environment; minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the surrounding infrastructure; and to provide multi-family residential areas that are safe and attractive." o While the development is not required to meet the regulations of the guiding MR-3 District, it does meet most of them (minimum lot size, lot width, floor area, height, outdoor open space, rear setback to residential). The development does not meet the minimum lot area requirement (146,000 square feet for 94-units as designed), the front setback requirement (40 feet) and exceeds the maximum principal building coverage of 30 percent. The proposed development site is 79,715 square feet and the building covers 43 percent of that area. If the development were to meet the required lot area for a 94-unit building, it would not reach the density required by the Comprehensive Plan. The reduced front setback creates a more visually interesting site, specifically along Lyndale Avenue. The design respects the proximity of the adjacent single-family homes to the east and provides significant outdoor open space for residents, thereby meeting the intent of the regulations. o Parking requirement: • 118-153 spaces • Proposal includes 135 stalls (an increase of 17 from the previous proposal) o All other Zoning Code requirements are met (trash and recycling location, parking lot setback, screening of mechanical equipment, provision of bicycle parking, landscaping, architectural design, pedestrian connections to street, irrigation, etc.) • On April 12, 2010 the Planning Commission found that the proposed development was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • In May 2010 the Council approved a resolution creating the Woodlake Housing Tax Increment Finance District. • On September 14, 2010 the Council approved plans for a 90-unit apartment building at the proposed location. • The sale of 515 64th Street West by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to Michael Development will take place once the project is approved and ready to proceed. Required Findings The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD amendment application (542.09, Subd. 3): 1. The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates these properties as part of a larger mixed use district encompassing the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue area. Residential development of 50 or more dwelling units per acre is an approved use in this area. 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. The building is designed to provide on-site amenities like greenspace, parking, and a fitness center for residents. 3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are justified by the design of the development. The development is in substantial compliance with the guiding MR-3 District regulations. Deviations have been allowed in order to add interest and presence along Lyndale Avenue and to achieve the density required by the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The development will not create and excessive burden on parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the development. Right turns onto 64th Street from the development will be prohibited to minimize traffic in the adjacent neighborhood and utilities will be upgraded to accommodate the new building. Greenspace, including a tot lot and a plaza, will be provided for use by the residents. The development also sets aside an area for an enhanced transit facility to serve the neighborhood as a whole. 5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. Traffic in the neighborhood will be minimized by prohibiting right turns out of the development. This movement is not currently prohibited from the commercial development. The site has been designed to locate the building closer to Lyndale Avenue and farther from the single-family properties to the east. The greenspace/tot lot and parking are will be screened with a privacy fence and landscaping. 6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interest. The final development plan, which establishes the terms and conditions of the development, meets this requirement. All uses are conditional uses in the PMR District. The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates these properties as part of a larger mixed use district encompassing the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue area. Residential development of 50 or more dwelling units per acre is an approved use in this area. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the prop0osed use. The proposed use will assist in the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan by adding additional high-density housing to the City's "downtown" area. The use is consistent with the intent of the Planned Multi-Family Residential (PMR) District and the underlying High-Density Multi- Family Residential (MR-3) District. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. The Lakes at Lyndale Plan was incorporated into and updated through the Comprehensive Plan update process. The proposed use is consistent with guidance for mixed use. 4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed use will comply with landscaping, screening, architectural, lighting, parking, pedestrian circulation, utility and stormwater management requirements. 5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. There are or will be adequate facilities, utilities streets and services to support the development. 6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. Adequate provisions have been made to protect public health, safety and welfare. 7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. There is a need for new and larger rental units in the City. 8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock 'started' when a complete application was received on June 14, 2011. A decision is required by August 13, 2011 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. C. FINANCIAL • The HRA and City Council approved creation of the Woodlake Housing Tax Increment Finance District in 2010. • Required application fees have been paid. D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July June 27, 2011. No members of the public spoke. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and sent to residents and property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcel. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The revised proposal further reduces impervious surface on the site. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve the amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit with additional conditions. • Deny the amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding that the proposed project does not meet City requirements. (The previous approval will remain valid.) V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Proposed plans • Previous site plan • Planning & Zoning context maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Michael Development representatives —I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 94-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 6401 LYNDALE AVE, 515 64TH STREET WEST AND 521 64TH STREET WEST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an amendment to the planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit to allow an additional four residential units and increased setbacks on land located at 6401 Lyndale Avenue South, 515 64th Street West and 521 64th Street West, legally described as: Lot 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and the Northwesterly 25 feet of Lot 18, Block 6, "Lyndale Oaks", according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the vacated alley that accrued to said Lots by reason of the vacation thereof; and Lot 10, Block 6, Lyndale Oaks Addition, including adjacent 1/2 of vacated alley, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and recommended approval of the requested amendment at its June 27, 2011 meeting; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to residents and property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on June 14, 2011; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for approving a planned unit development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for approving a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 6 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. An amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for a residential development as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. - � 3. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to the following conditions: • A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. • The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. • This approval does not include the signs shown on the drawings. Separate sign permits are required. • That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. • That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. • That a maintenance agreement related to sidewalks and landscaping be executed. • That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a traffic control plan for disruptions on Lyndale Avenue be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. • That the property be platted. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, Michael Development shall: i. Receive approval and record final plat; ii. Submit a copy of Hennepin County's approval of the final plat; and iii. Submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping improvements not yet complete. 4. The amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 5-1 0 . i„g ii,.. 0 .. _ a ,' *.14.Natr,---eyr. 1 v,,,, F7i_mt l'eneint4z,--.3..'Ntoiori t WI thilitlit4 . I ! i.t .P-., 7 ,1' 11111 1 , I Z<..P.. . .,,,,i"A":`,---.1"1 , . , I 'i I I.. • tf?;:,,,c r-f''' .7,';',-> ■ OMB . Ill 001111111111111M i ...1 1 I II '' . --=, A 0 r.!,, ...i. i 1 gi I, igl 11 .• - ore..40K-...emmost„.,-....,, -1-ill ...7 , ,,--mili 1 1110 it — 0 _ 0:, I I 1 ,_ - I II ._ A g , ii A 0 air 4 in . _1 11 ' I 11.I- i mini IR mar I I I I I I il 1 ' - I ' '". -nommin 117 ! = MK ____ _ . . I ' 4re, . 1. M km #1 I -III II il I i 4 Mill I II , . , El __ MET a I , 1 - - -- -1,--4- -• 11 '..- ......----- - , au II, , 1 i' : i.... --, - - ., 11 J11 §1.11 MI 11=71;1 -^7 3 , ..--,—.... ,I ti -- - II I.• IV' I 01119 _ ..... _..-,,,- .,, ' --- I ili II I ill .. _ _____- IRIII 0, ' .•=7.,A.i.--••-;••`•,-' , ., , , . _ . 1r 1 I I - _ a :.,-, -- I i • t--„-- `' !I IA- .111111111111 z---- II Li BO II -,_ , 4 . . ... • - .... : .,.-_-,.. . r III I 111, !II Li I I I ii _ . . . . ,„.„ _.....„. , ; : ' -.!.-xi f fi r - ,,,,, ...10111nom ■I 1 ■ r _ .$) I 11. ii 1401. 1-17 its, 1, 11 ,..,,,,,, . ....A.-4--: 2-_-,_ _ 1 il ! • 4*.AlMillif 1111 i II Ili- ''1i ril r-,A- , , .I.-, - L gli kitli..1 ., -- ..„...t-s-,-- p iim 2"4- -4 - ., ,='"..,. .-- "' NI o.„. P. ..7--, - . .....,,„., , . ..,-,-,-- !,- ........r.,--.,,,,,„ , Nil II.;-, ,..... imslit :tt.o., ft.'',... * i a rill IA F7,-, ,..-l. r,,,,- 1M ,... .- -1.4 „1- -, 4 1- 5 - 4,... • i . 141ilf' t , ,c-w4V-. -cr.: i---'--,.:7.; ma Or 1,q,.- '.i.,,, - ' :--•1 :-.-- I I I ill II ' .., .,. ,..-4... li , .., I li N ......, 1 I 1. ..• a I„. ... Ci •••I . I 11 H ; I I . ble I III $ 6 414-1" i „ al ril _ f4• MS , lag -4-7'. " '- ,f, a •• ' . - " • I-. ult., • -:'-' ''''' ' —'- , . • P. if I • , a PP. 4 , :!.4. ..e,..... IF.3.5 k. 1 ii.1,„4„4,4,j4 -.4_ 1/4,i i I vl-ix* MIMI " a ow anam ==kik 3%,•,- ,- -.i.. ,s, tto , f- • .,..,T , 0,•, . ••1 I,, 1 • , f* - ,I. I. . - MM. ill■ -.... - ,.....-...,___-=— I• am - , ,.„ , .?{,-, _ . --: ---„,,, . . , E4' ` -..---' •-•--"° =".... .- •-•,`Az-fij''A.-';"- "4;:t-' 11, ' ''''''''' -- - 15.''.‘-='--,:--, _. '° •:,-..- _, •II' I ___-___,.___,__ _ ‘_ .....,,,,,,......■ *,,.. a = 1 1..„ -- unir( ) • . \..„.„..,..------ —"-----......._. • - P ------- ---------- - ,, ______ 1.....i........qt_....al ,.., _ ._:_.-- itr:------- — -- ----- 7111127--:: 4111.- 1:: 11IIF ',4:-• -.. ...._ • ; — :211101011111 ere. ,,, r 1°' ::;; '....-14.•-...4.,..,,.. ,_.... _ INN wx, i , ___ . tf G IR I 113 it- II $ . li v 1-- r ; ' n 2 ko- 0 Mai iii Piro Imo at•rm. ..... II., . _ - r...... / -- 1 l 1 1 oi 111 1 , 7L-, ma Is .__)6 nil _ LI miN _LT; !! _ _i.■! "II 1 III Is -* - Iv I - IN ,art ris em =, J, i. _,4 - --- .. - - r-Al -- ito•'--- iii , V't. 1 ri ,.._ :: , MLA 1 . :,...:_.welt,. ,._,, . _4... .,. .fm. .,„„ , . al ,-:::1 I _ 1 ti = ,-, sis Imo it-A, "'` ' a ..: ...;.-- - 'i--. i 51 i r; , ..474. • , ,t = ,,,,1 n 1a5 ."' li _,.... ' -4" ', __= 2 s‘al'il.iN 4 -- -zz-aur ix gig 4., ' - mgrj 4,7!-.0.;,-,3: %.1" " ' - I■IEMAIS ---- i' 4110, LIN ' * ' .:i"L .-. .. . ..,..A. ---- _f ...41w - 4. ;--- .....-----.2,-- 1. 1111 ___ - '''..-Ai•--..--43.-,m4,4-='--- '4171= '.= -- ar . - - -1 _- 0 ® - -----=------"—- , /NM I:11 ..yndale Commons Richfield, MN May 31, 2011 Collage - -- � - LEFT OUT ONLY Site Plan r � ?��� • \--zy-----ry� ��a ,r `R sr Site Area .__. ,.....__ _ . - _ �,t , 1 .83 Acres I ( .+�' - n ,.%\ Building Footprint ..,. 37, 149 SF Building Footprint 148,385 GSF - Total Impervious 92 S _ Courtyard i \,y or_oT 2,300 SFr - 1 Units J Y — 94 Units Total 3S }� I � Parking /// Q � _ 89 Garage Stalls � Stalls 04 Garage Tandem Stall 42 Ground Stalls • Above roun to 7 v 135 t °� Total Parkin g Stalls le./ \ \\-- \\..„.\-, ,/-/9<> # ,� 1 /' \ \\ ,\ \ \\ ,\ r ' " \\ A - \\ Fr�yy��' , ) k,,,,',S7 \ �_/ (11-) R &yndale Commons SITE PLAN 1 " = 40'-0" IS Richfield, MN May 31, 2011 '.al architects • GARAGE , 0 , ) -3 ! , "IMIIIIMarli".171....rimmimimmiumilLemn ! --- Garage Footprint i , 375149 GSF 1 333 2 ni . 31 30 29 ■ i Z.7 - “1."' ''".1.1' r""•-'1` 1 28 27 26 1 25 2 23 . 22 21 20 19 18 17 , .....■ L ,_. _ „::._,,._ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ ___ __ i _ ,....„, ....... ..,„, 16 Parking 1 34 1--,... .--1" 11'1, .--. r----- ----- :'-, ,----- ,,-- , 89 Garage Stalls -- -1- ', ->,•-- ... ,- , 35 '-' • ‘., .,-- -,., -. , ,- ...-- , .,,,,,,,,--" '',-... ‘, -14 04 Garage Tandem Stalls „,... . .. . .,, •_, , , , . . 14 ,-• _____ , - ' 42 Above Ground Stalls 36 ,.: 37 38 39 40 i 41 42 43 ;\44 45 46 1 47 48 49 , ' \: / • - — 135 Total Parking Stalls , . ,,./ • „.._ 4 ''..„.• •,1. . , \.1•• 84T•,-.,‘ . 50 : 11 .• 1 /\\,.<.:'''s c''''' ., , ' /'/ '>.••‘/ / \ .- / / \' , 83 \ / \,:\ \ i',, 1 \\„/ 851”'''S;;',„ \ 13.6 • / / / \ /\••••\ •, ,• COIOACT ',■, .07, 51 '',1•1' N -----• ' \ >;.. ,,, \ >\ °••••`:.1 / . e<---- \ / \‘',..`:,•,‘ , ,/ • -------------...„4,' / ••••••`:.‘ 86 \\s .., , ' \.N. / S3 / / 1 12.6 L \ V----. • .. , ,1/\ ---■____ N 8Y \', ' - / ,/ / \.•,:, / \ S4 . 11 , \ / \ ,1 / ‘ •■•••• • .ig- -+ •. .L,/ \ ,,,/' / \ ‘,:.., / 55 1. .z.„ .. , \ ,, , \•„\ / N,. ///-‘\1.• \ \•\/ \\:, ••••-\--: / , ' .\ ;:i1 \\ - , IP /11-,-•;/ .\..--, / ,' , ' 74 l• ___ / \ \ ,/1/1, 56 _____4 __7s=.7...r!', \- I / .._ \-, -A --/ . , 8 •1-11// \_:' / / 72 `,..)( \ ,- — 4-4- - , . , / 70 / \ • 1: .-. \ / 6 -I- , / / 69 • /11-1: 2\ ' \ i 5 .,---, •:,' ., \ ' 68/ 01/\r, 58 1 ti \it / / 67 / , . / '/.v “,,,1 • 1-1- '• ,/ / S' .\-9 9 ,----,,/ / '-----;i' 1. !I 3 / 7-- 71, • 60 S . / . ' , —•111 ',. , /-1 ' ■'' / ..._., / 01 //----!--- *,,,,• / ,--, /Z , ^. ------,-- , ----. / ,' \ -- -11.1 _-1 1 . / -1 - -..\ , -..,, ,4:',. 62 / 1,, ,, // . WAS# , , ",, Y , ,, / ,/ • / /,..•:V11 ,11,•2/ ... .„, ,......i. , ,.. / , ..yndale Commons .._: - ‘ ,,,,, FLOOR PLAN 1 ” = 30'.0" ; is Richfield, MN May 31, 2011 2-11 Collage ‘,..) 2-4 aZA46....... FLOW OUNRKNG C B9 ENSED S a 4 STALLS ABOVE GROUND PARKNlC CWNT: a 43 STALLS III TOTAL PARKING COUNT: Co i I a�+e 155 STALLS ABOVE GROUND BIKE STALLS: G STALLS BELOW GROUND BKKE STALLS wlYM.f� 5.00111 10 STALLS TOTAL BIKE STALLS 18 STALLS(9 REQUIRED) AaFA DFIN ATION AI nAn(NJS —.—.—.—.—.— H 5 j : , L' iii, 9 x vE6---40.11"111111111111111.11111** 10.11.11111111bMINIIIIIIII Y mmn 'ff I.oa.ge .4x �•\ ‘�� � J9/a% i65s @m 1. 2 e..e „, I.4 r*.rc wNVrc.m.m.mrTim m�,awaN�nlmommm� d� a 0/ I_ _.._. _ _ _ _- _ .¢ xA NAME / i-- I "�'" ®� D ` . ; „ LYNDALECOMMONS ® AvA-NnN wlnmm sx u..aW ww wL.w,SI III.,/, j ' 1 ; SRI HPOBDM MINNESOTA I♦�% , 5 LYNDALECOMMONS,LLC 5:021(�4�s I' ,,� `/1/ , DIFABT 11 VAT n16 PIA svEQGnW as REPORT WAS 191N5ssTxu , �/� , i. FREPA RE OBTE0RUx06twOwECTERBNFpNAx91NUTIAA µ uxxc 1mNwmy , • ` / ` ■ DOLT UCDGFD ARGxIECi UNDER TIE Uw5 Of TIE STATE OF •MOW= WO ..:�X,W rm(MOW CMS WS•31 MIS AMMW ` 4• ION■■■ '! �p�// o� aEB B�. ,r. �o ...I Imo. j___.. ('�l I I I , N 'i � 'li�w®axa+�sa�I�Immnimx�N�1 �_�@_ \_ �� TOT-LOT I. AREA D � i/ .�®1�I�II�I�II�I�IIt_��11 ���� ■ Collage I architects I ANEW AL .�w_' .'�1. T:57.-- --_1--_.:_=,- i_ 1 VI T,PkS �N@Blxl. - 440409*wminxmlK BUeNSm•,� � ♦ �� q7,..I _ , - CLOSE LANDSCAPE+ . I `v/ �.. ). fi11A55.2WOMT111i501 ,,/��', T 1•x'•1 pia ; 409INIAwmw North EA Siff // INN I iA= xPNi MdnNmlN 55401 ,S�/ I L.. It.. 9.LS �1�� J , BIIBM En9lnllen A. j6r?�E1 E.M.1��11��G36911� I„ /wBT+roNIw /,,�� \ I -• //// \_ I M5I4 NixIeAa 55119 Energy Canapls ///// �•I� , NManx+I Fnyn•Nr *// �._ )•®® mwKT MI Nib NEW OrM �� �� �41111� R Melrose E Electric �/� �`,`` ®''• i • UNBAR / 11.9 i4emNa wSSz, \/�/ �. ���1 ���� I 9 \ SA, \./1 '\ * 39 • • \' 42 / `4�i /t \ \ \ / KEY PLAN ''/` 4 DATE: 06.151011 /�� , , / PERMIT ISSUE / / ... DATE DESCRIPTION • ��% • / PRMCT NO: 09-100 AVA DEDICATION ..., •, ' W OiIC rL1E ++*S ES Mt MU maemm; 3919 S Daum et PK/JJ/SB III On PK COPYRGNI: 511111 TON£ SITE PLAN AREA 5` - ' DEDICATION OSITE PLAN Sod:1/16•.1,0. A-001 B 8-7 I Itt! 1S I11 I9 ' L —13 • ! I I MATERIAL INDEX il _�. .-__. _ _ - __ - - _ —_ _ • - t i BURNISHED BLOCK --_- n w i - - - _ n Im s ai OCK FACED BLOCK- —::::'n`i�A uw.9 r^R • I FC.ON ROOT _ _ '¢ ( (4 I KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL _ _ j - L I It6! I 1201 3,,,,,j..7.,„,-::,-TE\ _.• :: - : .. - -- — ,---r I -- s� re4 - 4` CE BRICK#2• ii J1 FA :-- -_ - -- - _ - PRECAST STONE CAP _Li 1 :�_ _ L _ _ (-i PRECAST STONE SILL T.- _ j 8i - 1 : - i CEMENT BOARD PANEL#1 -' ---_-. ' -...--.:-. - ' F __ ,i _ _ _ ___-_ I — -_ � __._ - a EMENT BOARD PANEL#2 _ I __ ;:------ .1 �i -� - - t - - =] —-E 10 i 6"CEMENT LAP SIDING#1 ! _ t _ I _ - _ _ -- __ I-.--• 13"CEMENT LAP SIDING#2 �y — I f i r- - _ 7 2 CEMENT BOARD TRIM#1-11- -•--- ;_ - - -- - EMENT BOARD TRIM#2 20 I ' 1 _ I 1 ...... _ -7 n nv-s>m - - - - - ... � -- __. -_ n ,w re __ s k 4 .-. _ ! _ ---- - - _ ONTROL JOINT .T 4iC a°u°n°m -- „ -- -- -._:____:_ .-- : :i r ._: --__ _ _ 'PREFINISHED METAL LOUVER - - I _ _ -_ _ z _ _ - x - �PREFINISHEQ METAL RAILING s _- :: g - - _ t gg -VERTICAL MESH � 3 ---••_- t I- - ! °` - PREFINISHEQ METAL RAILING 4 # - Z.:rs f - y - Imo s 117 j v EFINISHED METAL TRIM#1 f -- -- --- _ - ER7ICAL PICKET `t PREFINISHED METAL FASCIA 4 - 20 2— - 5 1 - 4 21 I 120 h___, IS 1S i AND SOFFIT -J 201 PREFINISHED METAL PANEL L_- _._... .._.._-.. ,..... _... m-° O .-_ - - 0 -_ F w-a Q - ! AL PANEL RRUGATED 10.°,a�, `P ETFINISHED CO _ Y - AREA WILL VERIFY r00TIN r+ 12:1121901,1 1 M T.45';M -------` '�`__y DEPTHS WITH STRUiTURAL ,-- ,—_ I - West Elevation (West Wing) West Lyndale Elevation (West Wing] it 8 I 18 78 117 I U 18 15 - - - • 'F'±''''-'7:1EZ-51 :7::1;'''1'-'r---------r----":-.....''.----'"'--- -.^E":1'.--IH'IT- : . L-----4-1-71.: : !: 1 iL-i--J.:1 [ :I—�,, t _ .......____,,,==,..1;:a::::;;.:.:;;',-;,:.-- ---.E.EE-f.E.LL--2L-;;;;I:::::::::::f.'..,...:':.. . . -= .c,q.,•..`,.. -',-,i,.-i":,-,,k.'&.--1-:.+_,A,,f,1-1'-'1",T,-,":`.` - two no. _ e { .1=1,,.......i:..T=____—_—__:__ rfc.4.3.trIn.o.,4 I C • �- = . - t t- J ^r l'I'''' :-.;;;;;7;117;;:"'-;;;''': :;;;;;;;;;-;;;;;i: ;:.;;-;;IM;;---•:::,:..1t; ;- ; r---7— 7-7.-L-i: -.:t:::::::11111:::11111111'11i:-11117,::::'.:-,„. _,:.,_____, :---,21--_-_-__ —.....==.,„_::ii;J:-,:--,-tiii 'IlL:::::=......,..1 :_:::_.-:1. :4 ::_i_---:: iti:11:-.:!...-17.,...7..-i i' fir:ii!r111'7;ii 1::':;::',.:::::::...5.:11::::::::::.:.17'----1: 1 T—, • • �_ / j 4 20 16 I 9 9 I gis 1 South Courtyard Elevation (West Wing] _yndale Commons ELEVATIONS 'I!°I6" _ 1 '-D" Richfield, MN Ma 31 2071 �° Cof1B9e hit t g -g E ■ I S I (� 20 19 ; 16 -I I I ti _ I MATERIAL INDEX L - I I - --_— BURNISHED BLOCK I - - _ _ _ _ _ 1 ------ ROCK-FACED BLOCK = t - i -� , 3 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL - J _ s '--� I - F r Li 110 M1 � - - - J -- - -_ x-� -_ _ _ CEBRICK#2•• ¢oa ._,. _. � - CAP �; L-1---'' i i 5 - -` = ' - PRECAST STONE SILL is -. .: �: :. _....r <.... ..__ _.. - _ _ _ _ - - .. _ .. - EMENT B PANEL#1•..___ ._._ _ . BOARD P II .: -v-� _-____ --- _- - _ - + 7 'CEMENT BOARD PANEL#2 i ". - { - __ _ I 1 O 6"CEMENT LAP SIDING#1 1 • ,,._: :; ; ._ I I3"CEMENT LAP SIDING#2 t _ j CEMENT BOARD TRIM#1 t - EMENi BOARD TRIM#2 . . _ __ !_ - ONTROLJOINT a i 8 j ' j 75 PREFINISHED METAL LOUVER I I I j '� I 1 = _ - - _i t i PREFINISHED METAL RAIL{NG -- i -VERTICALMESH I -f--= �+*� t162 PREFNISHED METAL I-VERTICAL PICKET tIP EFINISHED METAL TRIM#i R C 4 -- E— a iC F— 12 S 70 PREFNISHED METAL FASCIA AND SOFflT 2Oi PREFINISHED METAL PANEL —_ w I PREFINISHED CORRUGATED I_ --1- _ I 27 METAL PANEL West Courtyard Elevation (South Wing] — 9 ( 7B -7151 f - - - - - - - - ---+-------7 - - - t ' � ,wss. - - "1,r:::,‘,11"$: • -$ (i- - _:,.____•,___, : , p , a �;� � I` '-I2 18 4 76I,;: .. „,r.,.,_,....„.„.„,..,„=,„„„_„„„..„,„:„:„„:„.„,„..„•::,,li :::: 1 1 i_..1_,......._._. :•••••____:,._:z::E.7,_ ,___ .___ ,„......„.„,_. .,_,_______„„„„,,,,,,,„„.„1,:a.„,:...z.z4z.i..7,755:m„,.,:„,_. is _— �::.' - :-�_:]: —__ ._. —.. _—:..._ _— F — - __ _ ---_::: • ,,,.;.,,,,,,,.:...:,.,...„,„.,____:___„...,..,... _ ....... ,,,, ,,,,,,,„„_„,...____... =:::: . 7 r--,- _ I _"::: _ _::::::,:i: .,.,„.„,,_,,,, : E - ; r __ :_ _- _.gyp —— Emm nm — T - _ I s F. 3 .. ��-� ,� may. --Ti MODULAR 1-41-- S I 4 - .. 42°HIGH _ i 42'HIGH i GUARDRAIL GUARDRAIL 5 ._._ ..... _, '- rw�vae i 1 :_ -: .. -- - i BLOCK WALL >w i .., uOUl;lpk____� BLCK WALL ri J� Southwest Lyndale Elevation (South Wing) Southeast Elevation [South Wing] g..yndale Commons ELEVATIONS 7/7 6:� - 7 ,-0" Richfield, MN May 31, 2011 B Collage _ / 18 „i ;-O P �9 —19 16 8 iQ 20 F-[11 9 1$( I ( 9 ( --� 73 I i 1; 19'I 1 18 19 I L --- — — — —� '. — I 4 t L t 1 — *'r 9 MATERIAL INDEX {: - -- I i BURNISHED BLOCK { - "��."'H`°-/'� ROCK FACED BLOCK 2 . :----7 ,----",----, 1: :1: 1.1. i-- ii R :: i.-^-74-41—II - - - � - - - -� KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL•• S — —1 $ $ - - T _.__. - _. • - 1 —FACE BRICK#I • — _ I 1 ¢ ,�zs� � I FACE BRICK#2 g 4 LiI -. ..- -- - ._ O C -- - -- - - - -- - _ _ PRECAST STONE AP•s - SILL e s _ :< '_..__ - .. CAST STONE r: — 1c -: _.__.-- 7 I CEMENT BOARD PANEL#1 .-_. .: is f!' _ _ - - -. r— `:—`.—•—: ——'.- __. :r - ;.- ._--- _- - - _ 8 CEMENT BOARD PANEL#2• - .: : ........... __-_-_ CEMENT LAP SIDI -'- ---- _ - CEMENT LAP SIDMG#2• F ? I NG#E .; ..._.. -- --- MENT BOARD TRI _.__: + _ _ _ _ ___ - ICE M#1 ,_ 1 l {• 3 s _y._.-. _ — ___ ZICEMENT BOARD TRIM#2 _ _ w, —. = — = CONTROL JOINT PREFt ---- - _ > 11 - NISHED METAL LOUVER a — ....::._: - _- -- _ - - 5 PREFlNISHED METAL RAILING$ 16 1 r.. -- _ VERTICAL MESH Wee MUST _: J : `�! -__ ° 117 PVERTICALEPICKET METAL RAILING - ------ - 18'PREFlNISHED METAL TRIM#1 "- - PREF:11 NISHED METAL FASCIA • 1E _ i6 I _ 18 6 I JI ( 5; 15 I-- 7 �- 4 �— tE - 4 _ I 1 1�I AND OFFlT• `ir 20 PREFNISHED METAL PANEL RP 0-51.4 -, y PREFlNISHED CORRUGATED • ...__._-_....__: -_._... ,_-_.....-._. _..__. ... _._..:__. ._...__ _ _.....-_._ .. _..._.. _.,,.._....., LL 1 ..__..__.._. .,_.,...,__ :METAL PANEL 1 East Elevation (South Wing) gli 14 ( 1? 1 18 1 9 1i I 9 I 1 16 1 20I 119 Hi) 18 I14 tb I9 � 81 � I4I H791 10 13 111.. — 1 i I f l I i 1111 —J — -- I __ _— — __ - -1 I - - • . .. ,.,.__, ,___„_____„ : ._•._,.„ „„„ :. ir 1: i I 1B I 18• t _ „_______„. .:.__,_„ 18 ice=,i __' ` d .- '. S 1-. : - - r . , . .._____________............. . : • -._ -_---,--= ,[1:!.7.',..!1:.:;.._!.:_.-fr.:-. is � - i 5 — - - n 1 i. i _ 1 I I I - is _ - :: p �� - rim,°nin: • • 12 10 9 I 1 15 —I 10I ._._._._.___..._.._.-_ 9 I t6_ 19�-- t 16 I'..__. q 1 _ - sv° L. North Elevation (West Wing) 10...yndale Commons ELEVATIONS x/16=' i 1 '-015 Richfield, MN May 31, 2011 Calla9e • h,t e c e • 2 -to • , ,..._, \,,„ . „_:NV S333 58 / (PER PLAN) • ., I RIM 541120 1 RIM 540.71 M1 RIM .39.9 1.\ \ , _ 1,., c.,....: 2ii_t_42A,2_ 1.i., --- ___________t_r________,---- ___ ___,,,, ..,: '`,,z_--,.-_-. -- . _._i \-,.:7_76/..._......;(7,, r_AN:i1,, _ . \ .) 1 `-`1-1 N.4 B.:4 - - - - - --11, --- . 1 . :NV,832.,14.(0•12 ' • --4-----.._..,Z.,';',..e •--- --1-- . 1.11.1 840.38 1 • \ ..--1- ./...,..."'' 0 .•- .• • : . P.„.,,.;m).% ..:\ ,,...X,_,...------- I \ - , . , • , , \ 0--- ■ i ,..,' 1 i- S" IPE (1)AUTUMN FANTASY MAPLE -(26)GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC - •- ' . • 1111...-_-.--1 , '.-/- (50)QUAKING ASPEN (1)AUTUIAN FANTASY MAPLE'/1 ''''(1V)AUTUMN FANTCASY'E*1.1AP''LLEAN.' \ '''''''''FL''''41----''''' ,,. ,,. -,_.......-- , - ...... .....,.... (7)SCOTCH PINE --*--•...., (9)MINT JULEP JUNIPER . ' ..- ,..,......,.........., Colia9e www.collage•uracorn -1,...,_ ------;---\ -74111i371.e.g1 • - . . .: .... . f _ ''L--- \1.."..'s,-?------4 ‘, \ \ -N*,.._,.,„..\- ...---_IiIM 834.58 I ...----'** .----.-'-- \ fES-831.87 ; \ •-• \ / *1,, ' (PER TILAN).1---------______ . . . . . . : • --.-- „v..-OS' "ia (FIR ) , LB 1.-----r P.....,_ SS' r 1 -S° • , \'''` •-''-'-"- ,: '-:* 3.318"; *. .litA Va. --...--......--- lig M' -To. R8.3 'f.: 4"I: 18-ME ' 4111MlinillifftlifinliWit/14123MIffitragglinii.. -Wrigialli. 11 ,111PIP_PeliWP-RMIKAriligata.1115114211)b16111MEMIIIIIII4& \. .44! ) \ i ' %‘C- -..A.V.111,/, -----W'-ingritiRit ,fir-wil . . . 111111111ite4A1.-°-. ifiZtraTiAilinar1111.'."..-.•1"Van .' *..-j-4-., . = 4„S4,,jal,„....m..,-m•-tii-. ill i- ,,, ,,,--.,.-_= "9 ft - - n ---, i \ , , .......- ...,..1.....,;a-,...1 _ .lio,..-......A.A.......• .•A.,..,,•,.1-A ImAgyAVA■ ;"441111r.., ... ,,,-,-.--. ...,......- '5"';'"--""''' Arm f-Agrambm.V.8.4 1,14,11#411 - \ ,.., \ \ •... ‘ ---,16■0112.11111919)21-,-;;I:::-.1-:.,, i-..,:- li wad/ .-iipt.,At • 11-, :-,.. - . ipwroity,A4,-.. 4.6firt 1 \\ i . •, ' litiV,',F- - --11 ir'*--4.3....'+•. '.. I .7-7-..--1---f-7.---- '----.-77*.-.L.-:.,-*.":',..-"7".--.7...777."r....*.°.'"MMIMMN rANTASY'"111,1ri.*M .''''''''''''. * ' -Apmiti,a, N,,,,ti- , .......:11111M 8 3.' -.1-' ea .-: - - ----1- ........,....„..„,..„.......: \ ' 4.41431 re....;,4-11:,itiii71,40re.+6 ,.-.........• •••••• ---„,"-.-----M111.---'Imia ' ' ---"-----'------‘=.0... ":-",---,---H...noss' f---""••"•-•-•`•""""111111APLE('- 111-"1-3 ./Ski/P. ,:,,„ i .i't3,,,;;;R.,......„■:-. \ \. \ 4..'.....4 ' ..... -'4,-1-',Ale•ea (6)SCOTCH PINE ' I.\ . ' -1--•-• - - . • 1 ..1.‘% , \'N., \ \ \ *"...lau 9.171 641.4041140,7jItft•--+.14.4-0 S INE4IIMM 11. 0 'inil lij r..... W3,c.f.":_.INA%.3„.,..c,i6 / i, ., . . . . . .„..,..,... .Ass,j1 \ , , \41‘4.714*-0:7 et-N,,V40. ■••m•V4.. ...„0:___-,;_„..i. ,;\ '-, ; §- - - - -1 - - Ein ! 1 I , t . ... . .. . . . 1 \ ----- -'.. . . .. .m.LN111 (4)BLACK HILLS SPRUCE LYNDALE COMMONS '‘k. \ \ ,,, \ \ '•,..Alp.01,k1. avit.:-,IVatiMr.F.:-....041.revreq., • ' " ' ' *,e,o, , ,. .....„,... , , , , , . (9)QUAKING ASPEN • ...,'WORNI.d F.C.A841111 rit.44,9000.1101MISAIA ,-,•-•.---,•.-.:•.-2,----.-...raTAIMS3 / i I .\:'-.,. . \ \ \ #* I \ , 1 OA MOM I I! ! (-4‹ - 1-1 1' 54(NRILZEIDDALE:=SOUTH • ,N , \ Alli*-Nr1,41'lli:ISt'i,;174.:2,14.;11-----1*46-L-44k N \ / Allianii.. - 1 VL-„LY/..*----.. •• - - - -,..__:_...- • 4 . ‘.\. \ '-' ' ‘i W.A-Likillifir'ISTISSIP,V4=0.L ,-' - ) \ .' 1411 , „ ,L_ -I : ,% - \ ' '''''''•-.56',', ‘...w_ .,o*:,.■...4,41,1121Vilie ,,,. I' . \ VI •, (3)FLAME MISCANTHUS . .1, . (4)PAGODA CLUMP DOGWOOD LYNDALE COMMONS,LLC (1)PRAIRIE ROSE CRABAPPLE 1. Astp‘r Ilir letlik (12)TALINTON YEW,...--• (B)ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA .\ - - (84)BLUE HEAVEN LITTLE ,-1-_-,.-7.--_- - , \ (6)EASTERN RED CEDAR , • -BLUESTEM INTERPLANTED WITH- - 7 ..- :.\ (6)BURGUNDY CAROUSEL BARBERRY s \ ti,e 11*egor „ \ , OA I (25)RATTLESNAKE MASTER . * "j '..j.,1 * " 1 ‘.. DATE01.21.2911 \ .....'(13)TOM THUMB COTONEASTER NW- A& 9911816111, : „ . \\ ., .1, ISIIIL (7)TAUNTON YEW \‘ .-(6)BURGUNDY CAROUSEL BARBERRY, :q11110k- * % VIM! -/ __ ,, 01 !HEREBY OSRIFY TILAT IRIS MAN PECIFICATKIN OR REPORT WAR \\l' (1)PRAIRIE ROSE CRABAPPLE''' \ ‘7,410W Vil /*\‘,.. / \ ( . ,..-, \ Ull e''-'' .. -- 1 : (3)TAUNTON YEW--___. • N PREPAREDBYREORUMORRIATOIRECNRIPEIMMON AND1HATIA/A A DULY 1.881383 LAMOSCAPE ARON=LIM ME LAWS OF THE STATEOFBANNESOTA ' \ \ \ \ 4,11Malett r ‘ .`-.. \\ \ '. . ' ' I .. .., ' "3 , (18)TOM THUMB COTONEASTER I . N In # Mill '''''Z'c.,.Y.".•••■r:*::**t . 1 ROBERtAttDRE ., , (1)'HITCH'BIKE RACK ILI . MODULAR BLOCK RErmiNs BALL liCliai 4 Raysmirmsomso \\ MINT JULEP JUMPER\PER \lilit4ireal,N* / (1)AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SETMCEBERRY ,83.-RR.41T11- (4)FLAAIE MISCANTHUS \ ' \, \ \ \ (I)"MSS ROSE°WWII\..*. ' 4A,:,-, , / (4)SCRELLA PLANERS- NNW.PLANTINGS LARGE UMESTONE ROCK SMALL :-,1111111 1 ' 3:s*„ \ \ le.` '1*--1 \.8. \ ' (3)SEM FALSESPIREA :,, ‘1"(10416 .,.. Will= w/BIALT IN Nam WODO SEAT ,___MADMI _ AIIINIMEMEMaL ,N \ \\ \ mda■ 411110 MODULAR BLOCK RETNI47k WALL 10.1... •-• )F UMW 11.11111. mw.au Iv HIM,-\ i N, ligniliaMi 1a4 '.. (4)PAGODA CLUMP DOGWOOD KEY • \ Iv..%, \ , k,4*,. .--40.16....116...iiii..."14•16,1, mmili • . . ,\ 1111r, 7 i -_, , \ , \ \ \ „1„.7,14 I „.,./. jlipeasasiaz,wiaratarair.raarroammossineswim A #112 ,...---...,........., ,vi AIENI !I 1 . ,,, , - - , \ \ \Nrfir ‘ detilillifill112.111.111Tdiiiiiii „„ . . Collage I ardigeda (2)BLUE BEECH ' , / /,‘ OrdiPli \‘ \ usda•-aem,......08490ssa- cesmauvaroAtoem9A19881.ea \ (2)PRIME ROSE CRALAPPLE \ \,..**1111, SII\V# •.,e*<40", ar.,===......- fg•WFT--,-,- ,-t- .■....- A inzasinta ,. ■E 1! AGM --------.1: i .":\•,.■ Am . \ .. . Pats Kftly \ ••■,. 4,-„,44■i-ao 'N.,:acavimearoxipp4-11.i .-....-- \ ,-- : 851A71.0030 (8)TAUNTON YEW * ' '*'..-.:714111.16. •/ „___ / 12°ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP \ \ . (")"ffERCREPER ELM6WS \ \ PO,Ari'1101161/ 411 targiikkAkin-'117'':',41-3/1 vu_ _ . , 480191Awoos Nertlar419 5n \\ \ (5)SIN FALSESPREA , .-1 : ...:\ ,itgi i (1)PRINCETON ELM NA NhoolobaS401 i \\\.. • )1(\ IROISE ROSE CRABAPPLE \ \' 44110o.. 4...,Ir 01, '4I,RI,ROOP:41.00-41-40,314.:4844z11111111111M. --.MIrreATIMM1 / ',. 1 .*-*•*•**•-•-• V:31! \‘, \ GREY On AMER \ \ t'S4L4 -'4V- 4141*:ird*Aggi‘iii211 rAill . 1411 itigieg4C142R°. 111 IN \ 1114;10 I "'• 1-4._ ; (5)EASTERN RED CEDAR CLOSE LANDSCAPE+ Ak 612.455.791D NOTES: \ . \ • \ -46)RD)WORE 00G11000 ...tea,c4.9,41t,"WA . 440 0, --, 1. ALL PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO BE EDGED -‘, , <A -. - At, \4 ..,..,...,,,r,,,.....9„,,,,,,:,,,.:,„,„, 2111 III Aim ll (1)BLUE BEECH -,...,.„. •:•:R(r5:3 7 11 ,, 1 : IN STEEL EDGING. \`• \ ,(I)NARasT Tow CRABAPPLE •■.41, ...'11 .11141%.21:iragrii ..... i! 1 \ r'...7".-.'-- i'.-.7'' OR 1st Meow Berth Studia5111 \ \ i 2. MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL TO BE STRAIGHT-FACED, \‘''' \ 4007,z-40.11140 Ai.. ,ArF30,7‘7.1,-,Nggi ......= 71! e ... , .....„, , . . i . „,..,,.....ssau COLOR TO BE DETERMINED. , \ (3)'Mar BRE RACK \ ', -‘8■Fi• 4,d18.14Rial ie.:WINO Min .I, I i i . -_.__..,.- 1 3. PLANTERS TO HAVE SELF-IRRIGATING LINERS. \ ,., \ 4/\(42)IRTTERCREEPOR EuarnAuS I, A - • , - - . .- -/i , , BKIMI Engineer!! \\ \ \ \(1)MIER SPRfa LINDEN \,.„ 40111111DS14.14::•::;(11Ekir: IIII1114,411.11111 (8)ANNABELLE HyDRMICEA dakatalak -M6-4,.R.C);/ ; , • 1 4. PlANTING BEDS TO MULCHED IN LimESTONE ROCK MULCH- ' 11,40,M4'.4174fro,........o■ini ' ...,_ PA 11 , ft...who EAMnate 00 1 1 .A■°Ve#74,14Rgir -/ I I I 0 COLOR BUFF , CRY OF RICHFIELD LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS- 541.03-Mta 4E 1.19EMUM OVERS101131REE SW-4 STOW BUILDING ::‘\\.\\„/ .... (134)PDXONP4Sil \ \ 53 CAROuSEL MILE BLUESTEN 27 TARA PRAIRE DROPSEED, ''-'\\\ \ 4...7:ED:us:.::: . , „- ..... w,,.........:........0 ' '\ #ALL.,Iitti::.0140.:s.1 ..„,\,.. lento \ ,,,• ,,,_..,,,T0 .I. .1. i ..- /too - • 1 .., ot, OA ir, I I 04,41.A.4,, - I ...-_spiw-way.k-..-/ ,I,.,-,-;-, i k#1141b;_aat . ,/ ,..A,),„,.; , I ...2.0,w-calv / "ii.,...,f .48"I COTTONWOOD 753.843./.431 595011racklyalvd. Npls,Mau.55429 NAM; - - ' I ':---C: N's ,‘ , CORBROWIR.i0 MANE '‘ .11illetitil Mg ; 410 • - ea' 'ff, - */: 781 COL-40%.35'CAL.30S.4,5'CAL-308 8\\ \. . PAO SPADE .N... - .. . \ tc.„'c\ci Ai... 41/4 0 'SI 4A •••••••+•■•• Billirl arrjAsligUS --11..f ._ .../ , Energy COnCe ate , I tea".."7 ) NedmalcalEeqbwr • . , • . , I . l 94 INERSIORP TOTAL 1REES-(36)2.5'ML(75)WU.(29)4.5.CC (19)CONFORM BAROBar&(471)PERENNNIS-• N- . ''.- ..$0300000 II (2)BLUE BEECH 7159819977 • \..''''`,\` 414 .tet illettob+Viihrel-• / • I II \ iahl . . • . ARRANGE PI GROUPINGs Frf spEoEs:\\ f' tiear• / i ; , I ' SEE PUNT SCHEDULE FOR MOMS 9 SRES 131 ROE WAIN Lou BLIZTEN \,(69)alfloicREEPER MMUS \'‘„ I , ..% •1 „' 1949WiliaN9Jer Dd. 544.03-91130.5 20 SUIDO:coilFIEDBER.20 leEZTMEDN ZEE%oNER,\\\\:\(2csaaiR slam UNDER ' larobt..4,N 4114th:4114101401EIME TAU ('6)TAUNTON YEW , / 1 /\ ).,I' \ 1 14144NA Wircertgo WU ! CRS i' */ REES REMARED-I OVERSTORt1REE&1 ORM/Mk TREE PER PQM URN (f(c714435,(3C-L1 al Rua LYED sow.20!MOLD HATIM,\ _oyiiiiii RoiCcAApptE \ \‘•' f. V41 111'*'-''' i (3)AUTUMN BRILUANCE .i. / Mame Electric 94 PROPOSED DRELUNG UM=186 TREES TOTAL 20 LORE LEM GOLDENROD,20 TURREHEAD, I SERVICEBERRY TREES \ 0/0 4,4 \".■.. k. his dig, . i. \-.-/ 1\ - \./ El4cOlo1EARYNor fNERS1ORT 1REES 123 (39)GRO-LOw FRAGRANT SAW \ 114A 04$41 Kg ill. , M1 I I p/Pli ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA , 520.295.3648 OPIVAIENUL TRES 59 1 TOTAL WEAR NM '‘\\. '\\ 05)'Mal.M R.BMPLE :7'C'-'-'"',4.1,?;-:•--2. .4'. ,'F.'77-15,4•44.414S.N..1:34.1411111-11.. i • \ 1:47.4ili( a OAN r P1.1011 (17)TAUNTON YEW /A • • , „. (9)QUAKING ASPEN 119 NM Awn.Wed 14eIrs.189005091 65951 PLANT SCHEDULE ' \\ <\‘' '\. _\.:c.-,-N-.:;;;-,I, lik<6^ • 1.r.,11■%%. \ or( I CONON HAW f BMW NAUE I SNE I ROOT I REUARKS \\ \ \.•■••7\-5,L,' ' '' .C,. ' , 4.,.,'1. ' I e DECIDUOUS TREES \ \,-,,N.A-4-•-• 12-AS,: •...- \\ Z.O• ) \01. () Ii : 60 ASPEN,ETUAaNG POPULUS TREMULOIDES 125 CONT. \sz...I...,1 .,,-S- \ /..• .40p, j>4‘.11114‘110:11, '41-4 ..3.tr, t \..3,,...,4407 /. r\-f' /\s-----------' (2 PRI_ETON ELIO. -- 2)pRiNCETON ELM ( 18 ASPEN.OUNONG POPULUS TREMULOWES /45 COW. 3.5'cAL EOM \ .,..\ (24)SW FALSESPISFA \:.(2)sumo spRa UNDEN \ 1'.,-1•416..,44. tV:it\ C• .,.. ".. Alla*,?,\\ , \\ ,s-c. , i .• (17)GRO-LOW SUMAC E 5 BEECH BLUE CARPINUS CAROUNIANA 1.75 CAL BB N. ' \-.,'(IB)GRo-Low BAK --N. \ s, • ‘Ii \'rr Atit 0. \ \• . : 6 CRABAFPLE,HARVEST GOLD MALUS NARGOZAAY ...,.. \ . (3)MINN TIRTUJANCE SMACEBERRY NA....0400. . ROSE,CRABAPPLE ., \‘‘Iiiillm‘liCrlp:107■.%410‘‘. 44 N*-0 , , _. ,...) 11 CRABAPPLE,PRIME ROSE MALUS'PRAIRIE ROSE' 1.7r CAL BB ‘,\ (1)PRAIRIE ROSE CRABAPPLE - I CRABAPPLE.PRAM ROSE MAWS PRAIRIE ROSE 2.5 CAL BB FRUALESS \N \ ‘,--k., \\.... IIITAPEr'Sor" 4.1,110 '---......... .../, SW 835.5e/ --,, i I () =ROOD,PAGODA CORNUS AITERNIFOIJA 4.-0. BB MAP FORM \N \ '''N.... , '''-'-------.11P NAOrkettlerfa: > 15,:v 635 I'L ,,,,,,16 ,..., \1 6 EASTERN RED CEDAR SUE PFANCETON ULM'S AMERICANA PRINCE/OK 45.CAL MACHINE MOAT '`N- A LINDEN.SUMMER ME MA COIWATA 7IAUCA' 4.5 CAL BB ' ..-...-N's- lip,OriN \ .1, : 1 OAX,CRIUSC44 SPIRE QJJERCUS ALBA X QUEREUS ROOF 2.5'CAL B8 \\ \ \ \.4V111. I \*....t.w. ..i. , 1 SENCE8ERRY,AMUR BRILLIANCE AMEIANCHIO?X GRANINFLORA'AUTUMN ' 6...0. BB CLUMP FORM , \ ,,'kN.,•\ \\ 4 -).. SALit, ,,,,AN",....„1 BRILLIANCE \N \ 4Ziriol) .... MAPLE.AMIN FANTAST ACER X PREDAWN'AUTUMN FANTASY 25'CAL BB TO REPLACE ASH \ . 1REES ON 64TH lr........:404-„, ,,•.., ,,,o;;k \\, EVERGREEN 1REES \‘5;c•,,,,'\ N''s\(II)GET Oa JuNIPER ilk ..,& , 0,,, ,--,2,yg-iy{\''. ' ,.,. 13 PINE SCOTCH PINLIS SYLVESTRIS 10 FOOT MACHINE MOVED 4.5'Mix \ N \ \(I)PRAM ROSE CRABAPPLE 11•0''''...710-.T'.,,A1A` 4, I //41171161111) A 4 SPRUCE,BUCK HILLS PICEA GLAUCA VAR.DENSATA 10 FOOT 68 4.5.MUM .. N , s(24)RED MOW DORM - ,kwoo///.4%.geoll_At..V4i- 6 RED CEDAR.EAsrOm JUIIIPIMUS VIRGINIANA 6 FOOT BB 2.5"EOUN. \ NN\\...<N. (2)AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SaKEBERrn, ', 111111k 11F4P,441) ‘14' ei B34.7,V.:: ..\::::„:;:4 ‘ \.‘ , ,, .....„ • s 10 RED CEDAR,EASTERN JUNIPERUSVIRGINIANA 8.5 FOOT MACHINE MOVED 3.5'EOLIN. • \ \ • ' /. \ (Ok '4440.0.9.\, ;\,__, jirror- 1 RED CEDAR.EASTERN JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA ID MOT WHINE ATONED 4.5'ECANV. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS . \\ ‘\•,,,_ „ s„ ,A .. s., --. ' 12 DARBERRy,BURGUNDY CAROUSEL BERBER'S THUNBERGO IIML7IVO' NO.5 CONT. •(I)PORNO RoSE CRALAPPTE .111111. s '...1: N/ VIVO / AO' 29 BARBERRY,CONCORDE BliPBERIS THUNBERGIPCONCORDE NO.5 CONT. \', \,,, „ ,,, ...AI, N, S I iffr-e- • \,• ss,7 :•.„ . KEY PLAN 18 COTONEASIER.TOM 10008 EOTONEASTER APICUIATUS TOM THUMB' ND.2 CONT. \\.‘, \,...„, \ N\ . \ \•, A, . „4/r3.\60M_ .‘0.40Y. :. ,,..,?cv .....v.-v.-ffoo.& i A, ..' 0. DATE: 06.13.2011 30 DOGWOOD.RED GNOME CORMS ALBA SIBIRICA 000 GNOME NO.5 CONT. , -._ \ (a)SW FALSEsaREA • .‘10,4.,-.. 11,46• , 44 FALSESPIREA SEM SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA SEM' NO.5 CONT. \N....,\\'N',....,..<1;?1-fk.,1;-.i'•\(i)AMAIN, Daiwa SETCEBERFN -...'..)•P>WO S.;:,..iNciak -Or 1, e.kv# \ PERMIT ISSUE ' 35 traRARGEA,ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS'ANNABELLE NO.5 CONT. \ e.-----k---,---,.! la 0 SUMAC.GRO-LOW FRAGRANT RHOS AROMATICA ORB-LOW 140.5 ' CONE ..,'..,-. ZN,-3l'i_AN) , ().. ' 7•.‘i 00 lir.* s ,,,,,.5.32,.:7 .0,110 . \, /401t(fr4? EVERGREEN SHRUBS * \ "-......... `, \,,,.s\`'s\02)CrousON STARE DAX•• \ ifr....,, 'L,,.3,sAfi.w.-----., ,. .. _ , 58 JUNIPER,BUFFALO JUNIPERUS SABINA BUFFALO^ NO.5 COW. .., \\ N ."--„ \ \\ss NIB)BUFFALO NAM \ \ Ali A....#40, \-14;4fe' •44 ' -4,1-F-a-•0:-.(5,FF1 :4111 ''' '. ,-../ MARK DATE DESCRIPRON ; 15 JIMMY,GREY VAL JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA GREY Ova. NO.5 \ / /. ' / 12 JUNIPER,WATT AAR JUNIPERUS EHINENSIS%WILD' ND 5 CONT. \\ \ '-"'-.‘ . ,\ -,...,\(I)PROBE ROSE cimaPPLE ' . ,,,/ . - 53 YEW,TAUNTON TAXUS 110441144 TAUNTON' ND.5 CONT. \ \C..51AN.,44%r#______ ,./. •',-N.rf.:474•0/*,:#4(;„/ ../// PERENNIALS . X..__,...\ ‘ \\\ „ 5, ' \ Ak • ...--. / -' IA CONEFLOWER,PURPLE ECHINACEA PURPUREA NO.I CONT. \ ...\‘ / 20 CONEFLOWER,WRIEST MOON ECHINACCA X.MATTHEW SAUL W.I CONT. ••., \ \ \\\•..\ , , . __\ , . ,,.. ,,.• • 20 CONEFLOWER,a/WM ECNINACEA X.EVAN SAUL NO.1 CONT. \, \\ \ 7,_., PROJECT NO 09-100 130 DROPSEM TARA PROVE SPOROBOLUS NETEROLEPIS TARA' NO,4 OW , / \ . \ ' . '41/.. ,.. . -)"V'--s* -,,, - CAD MD na: 7 128 FUONTIAUS WINIERCREEPER ELIONYMUS FORTUNE!YOLORATA. WO.1 CONE \''\ .,., \ \ \ UM 138 PA/RU/SR 20 GOLDENROD,LITRE LEMON SOIJOAGO LITHE LEMON. NO.1 coNT. \ \_., \ OHS BY: PK i 100 WASS,TUFTED MR DESCHAMPSL4 CAESPITCSA SCHOTTLANC, NO.I Con \' '. \ ,. ''' 1----kf'''.-'' .-/ COPYRIGNE III 34 1.1511115,BURRO 'LL4TRIS%MOUT NO.1 215 LOIRE BLUESTEU,BLUE HEAVEN SCHIZACHYINUM SCOPARIUMMINNBLUE A' NO.1 53 LRRE BLUESTEN CAROUSEL SCHIZACHYRIUMSCOPARIUM CAROUSEL' NO.I 7 InSCANTHUS,FLAME MISGANINUS SINDISIS PURPURASCENS NO.2 CONT. CONT. CCNI. CONT. \\ \\ \',..: 1 \, \\ ' .,. ., \ \ ... 1 \ ‘‘'.‘• •.. i . s' '..:' C.-- MI TIRE . \ • 45 RATTLES/WE MASTER ERYPIGIUM YUCCIFOLIUM 140.1 .\.. '\• \ "cP.: LANDSCAPE PLAN 34 SUSAN BLACK EYED RUDBECPA FULGIDAGOIDSTIIRM. NO.1 CM U E. 12 24. 10 SMOKE,PRAJRIE GERM TRIFLORUM 140.1 CONE led...Mill 20 TURREHEAD at/CLONE GLABRA NO.1 CONT. ® LANDSCAPE PLAN Sable:1/151.1,01 • L-200 - 8— it N4 NI/ TO MATCH CITY OR RICHFIELD STANDARD REPLACE EXISTING'ACCE DROPPED CURB UPDATE CURB t") CUT FOR NEW ENTRY DRILE REPLACE EUSDNG'ACCEmBLE'DROPPED CURB _ • TO,`, ♦����■�■■■■■■,♦ ♦ .—.—��EI(IPN ONTO .—.—.—.—.—. . • 1.. 1111111 111111 . N ■ 1, . —.—.—. ♦-■■■■■, 64P1=7REE1_ F J I I : �_ L O �—12'W.x 16'POURED CONC.WALL(SEE DETAIL) • 119'-11' .. ,.,.t ... , , , , 1_,,_, ... Ina• ; I 1-71-1 . MODULAR RETAINING WALL MI _ • VMw.CWa9b11tlS.cMn . 6 �s �� �� �' PAVERS i I �� ��$siio. 9 Iii t _ _ - ���v4,7� . 1 L I A1 :'$ •\r4 aa LYNDALE COMMONS 6401 CEDAR 6401 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH �� r _ ® a'� RICHFIELD MINNESOTA ■ IEOII PRIVACY FENCE ` �// si=' I PoCHIIELO STANDARDS city• 1111 j ,� '��Q � AI I I LYNDALE COMMONS,LLC ® � _ r■■■iI : N!rr��� ilflli i�:71Li81 _ '`Gi�iL'°'°5aT I rc1i�`�'�e+Deil ., OT-LOPREPARED BY�, � S�L¢Ng'� ® �11 ... l/ I IRS. _'. REfB��aaa • i ! 2 .e.%. 21'-p• 19'-D' �`3 './s\___ BENWL: PLANTER AREA ■` I•• h '' ■ENLARGED BUS SHELTER PLAN ®�� - -.1 • -1 + ill YEl 9_, O SCALE:I/4•.1'-0• '�a� i r=:-1 1E-s' ( m'-D' I 9U;V; / CDIla9e I architects �, am ORR∎ —B'QDAR BURURD Is Sveiiiifiilm=c ONIMI I PR VncY FENCE Pete Ned L`''---- •-N swam PNR■ I�� a� EDGE OF\ LIMESTONE STEPPER Mir- SMOOTH CONC.FlNISY j Mk 1st 0050 PARHIL% METAL RMAIG i:I 100 1st Avenue NPNA MOM RS EDGE OF PARKING BELOW to, CONTROL SCENT(TM.) NPU,NaPesPM S510t U.. I■■ 13. -BROOM FlNISH CONC.) ' CLOSE LANDSCAPE+ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ,,,®i�Cf®RRlIIIPMiRR IIIIIOI®IRIS_i6_iTRJ' ‘hl • '■ ASS.MBD v. _—_I -• '- -5-�I■■ �- . NOD III AUecue No.StuBO STS ® •.,. �•� ...Cr tae•.tT / NpM,NMSPG 55101 A■��IC Ili VIII _ 11m � ■ m w�..Aa BM Engineers f 'I�6®@rW>lilll�1�l6� is ®�����I� �+♦• �� L : /1 ! AYo—i? �R iii• V® li�::O_Rreir,MI1:rdaM P9,�li_II�I,_I _%:� � Energy Concepts III 1�1� P P 1 ,_--, Neeha:dW EglRxr 111_11_11 M"'._I'�LI 3 �_1�_li_11 LIMESTONE �L:2i�i�:1�_�°r- 4��1-!i1�1i�ipJy.� �� �" �B / vrov '77 Dm . STEPPER ■I'1■■ 1. ii,:y�lFli-4-4 i.1i yi-a-lF1i-1 ° d IIi"�1�11'�11.1.1�1P11�11�11�11�1P11' a �4 844.0 ■■ I'_W.R....--��■. s'', SEE SHEET/,2006 FOR A - • Melrose Electric ,` ❑�1 ENNWI Engxxn .•.W. ` ■1. pU ■ PLAZA SURFACE AND +.00$4 \O\� •� j�■ ,847.33 C�- SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE PLANS ► )9 31015638/6 1� .0.111 OM vRB RIO va x uA Axa.Nwen �`17 847.0 �� Y p .:47.33 •\•` N<x.,e,Nn..aa s6lsx I FTT� �+_' A '-..W. =_ 1:id.::.I .,AN1ER AREA ■■ .Nr##1t4 \ Ali :I-P. ,847.0 \ /• l��1_`RI��J-11� 18._6. 29•_0• fi'-0' _ i��_li_li-1i. MIN �� c� /mum 6_I._Er —--I—■w-- • �� 4-16 CONCRETE CURB �r �\\•j��S.40. MODULAR RUNNING WALL -EDGE CF PARKNNG ` EDG,op STEPPER SMOOTH CONC.FINISH /BELOW lll■METAL RAINIC CONTROL JOWT(TW.) � �� ' / EDGE OF PARKING BELOW • e • O . BR00M FINISH CONC.) . `./ // .847.0 / KEY PLAN •W ACCESSIBLE CITY CURB CUT TO ® , MEET ARD OF RICHFIELD �/ / • DATE: 0$.31.2011 STANDARDS 11, 165131t2 ... .Y PERMIT ISSUE lit.fr .1 :44.0 0 SITE PLAN MIX °"` D�`"""Or 22 0' ♦ ♦ / uue;N+u) FRDXCT N0: A�PP�w0 0 IWAwN�: PKiAI� '' :■■ ddd Ci'D Bk F% �,� � COMBO: .44.0 - - SHEET n11E T.D,W. SITE PLAN • ■ , 1 : 6'-O' 6'-0' 2'-0" 6'-0' 6'-0' e'-O' 2'-0' ]•_p- ]'-D- 3'-0' 3'-O' ]'-O TYPICAL PATTERN AT LYNDALE AVENUE SIDEWALK OENLARGED PLAZA PLAN O LYNDALE AVENUE PAVING PLAN A A-OO1 SCALE:1/0'-1'-0' s.ul 1/4•T1'-0• S --LA. CHAMFERED POST . 1E4 CEDAR CAP `'',t 7X4 CEDAR R/1 CEDAR 4X4 CEDAR POSTS -_ i fp �� 4"CEDAR TRW 1 1%6 CEDAR PLANKS -� P.WKNIO T.!!` 1x6 CEDAR PUNKS IIII1111111111111111111111— 4"'CEDAR TRIM C®"a9e 0 2E4 CEDAR UVl CEDAR r�.a LOT SIDE 1j1 1 34 CEDAR I I I www.cdlage-0ds.Ban 4x4 MAR POST mote 11 11 II 11 _____1L____—_JL I I r—caw:POST To FROST DEPTH PRIVACY FENCE ELEVATION AMA MAE N PIA¢wNr9"7 CH I I IZ SCALE:3/4-=r-0" - L_, • II II , — �^ �� � I x 13 PRIVACY FENCE ELEVATION „-9 �iI 'f SCALE 11r=r-0• m. 6 I .�. ®�il �jl® LYNDALE COMMONS 4.W waP Lel,rO �I�I �' �� � f !MCC MU.Nrs 6401 LYNDALE MINNESOTA SOUTH •- _ I RICHFIELD MINNESOTA "" °° a.NV®lmvn-_— 4111 a,r�S�aWR, LYNDALE COMMONS,LLC 1'-0" 4'-0' i'-]' B'-6' '-4 6'-O' 4' 1'-O' 4'-0• 1'-]' " BALE:Bi1E101f r J L, r L, AIWA KO x nmCo 1',9" I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT UM PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED VIE OR UNDER W DIRECT SUPERVISION AND MAT I MIA DULY LICENSED mama WIER DIE LAWS OF 7HE STATE OF WWlE50TA 0 BUS SHELTER NORTH ELEVATION . BUS SHELTER WEST ELEVATION 10 BUS SHELTER SOUTH ELEV. O PLAZA TRELLIS DETAIL O PLAZA TRELLIS ELEVATION SCALE:,/4'=1•-0• SCALE:tH•-1'-0• SCALE:4,•-1'-0. SCALE:1/4•.1'-0' 70'-0• PETER KEELY n n n n n n n n n n • �� RFG6.AIDINM 21576 1.i ./) II µ.14_-.1-__yy_-P.-_y{__µ}1__ +. I7'-ft• coon ounce a van veL w9v Ce Ranh silt__ - 1E__1 _Lt__I _ - ] 1. a,a s 1st oaw vV tsruml _ µ ov °a II !! !1 •biww,m • P II 'pr� ••"�i 4•.vvacsmme " " 1'� - ----�~--j II I ' ' Collage I architects G f Ti i II II II I I _ - H k -°- -4d 1 II° II :I 1 w I 1 3'4• 13'4' 3'4' Pete� y� ii I 11.9. 1 II I I e.n1 aWM LS+a, Gsu»msB a_____M 1 aT I I in ------------------_____' , w I I I _ _ . 00 Est AVeOa North SU:fo 78 ,I a Npk I,ixoceh 55M1 •vnaawWACO IV ____� i JI II, 1 w - rxa 9'F== —aF=1F__{F__FE__ __ ] MAMMA ecc II - I I I I CLOSE LANDSCAPE+ lll --I -I1--I+__µ-_;+__µ__I}. __ r� ■ L —� LANDSCAPE 1 n n II I I 1 II I I �, 1'-5 8'-6• 1•-4 6'-D" LA Y-6" U L I U LI U U U U U 400Ut Aneee KIND SNNO SIN Dols,MMrosela 55401 19'-,' 13'_4• O BUS SHELTER PLAN O PLAZA TRELLIS PLAN O PLAZA TRELLIS ELEVATION BUM Engineers 5Do3uN/cimi cosines, SCALE 1/4'-1'-0' SCALE:1/4'-1,0. SCALE:,/4=1'-0' Ra Ww,e • 3430430410 5910 Break*SW. NW,Minnesota 55429 Energy Concepts TOP OF WALL AT 645.0 —I I -. I�IiI MTDLLNE 116381901Ir'pfMer 6.OFF-SET METAL LEIIEFS — /=I 1149 WN4s Mier OCiPe Hudson,Wisconsin 34016 Melrose Electric LYNDALE MMONS Elennn1En00aer y --j 2 3M.156.3H4fi 319 N 6.3846 Wet NeNOa,NM9e0M 56352 SMDOTN CUi LIMESTONE Co1MR CP AN.x 500100 RflAY6NG TO ROCK-FACE BLOCK MATCH ROCK-FACE O NOT USED O LYNDALE AVENUE ELEVATION . SCALE:1/4,1•-0' 3 SCALE:,lr=ry =I II 10 I II I o l II I I II I o I II I O I ii I o I II I O I II I o I II I METAL PNLINO/GUARD ROL . I 1 EiiUeiitiiitii :....•::. .... :::..:.i......:.::::::Ct::::::::UCi ::::...:.:.....:.::�. ..........:::..... MACRAME fir® ii '— r- (1 ■I ROCK-FACE BLOC( ■0001AR RETAINS 70 LANDSCAPE GRADE AT BUILDING MTCH ROCK-FACE WALL ROCK-FACE BLOCK KEY PLAN BUR116111D BLOCK DATE: 05.311011 OLYNDALE AVENUE ELEVATION PERMIT ISSUE SCALE:1/4=1'-0• UM DATE DESCRNI09 IOPOF WALL AT MTCRWE I I I —' 646.0 -.I L I _ B'PREMSHED OPERA,GATE - .�MOM BLOCK 'STAND-OFF'METAL TO M701 RIDING WAGE COPY - - �•� PROJECT Et 09-100 � - c `I\ + 1-- -- CID 011C TAE: m1 1.9.9D......BLOCK CAD Y D A L E DRAWN BD PK/44/50 —9 I �� r-- CARD Y: PK —�- .— -COMMONS COMM oPm 0 LANDSCAOE WALL WET 701E 0A DOCK-FACE 0T BLOCK SITE ELEVATIONS AND GRADE AT MANS ROCK FACE DAM CUT GRADE AT SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE BLOCK IN6TONE BLOCK DETAILS . OLYNDALE AVENUE ELEVATION eI F:004-3'-0' A-302 - .gfI3 i , arolla9 - Wnnce0ego-ads.roa LYNDALE COMMONS t- Syg :: ` " � f h: � t. t..r:..�1_apigr!®—. _ , 'Mini �-1 � 640l LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD MINNESOTA t: , H e t..\`b.: t.a 1:.:.t., t.: t t.a t .s b.a s t t a b S.c SA • ro. .v ..z *, _ b,e b.z h_ MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT x iffl k.a i i x. .;S.. c b c ].: ` `. t.: .: k z k z bv t a c .0 t u I heb y that this ' 'b. S.: e0 b.; \ !,:. ,,: \ eaa 3� 'I e � e }. . .` , : t.; 1-.e t bs b _ i.c€ a x i i .� o ..e ,a a a. 5: t; t:1'4 3 t t:j t, �r J . .- !..3.0 1.: b.n b.: S c 11 1 �, :.t i.+ .. .. ^ .., .1.1 . t , .: 3.e .v ;. c [;, ee e. .. t.: NI -- ? . t t .e a x 5_ ,. .0.1 a texNPldg me or under m report eUPetzizenao and Met I em a duly Iicemed PMeeisml �yHaear umar tr w an a tee gate el SOmeeat.. Punt Hama: Jews T.Sommer 81RmtzrS el Date: 6/IWyk..../4.480T CollaCe`architects NNMee PNe pe J 651.02.0010 5vtlb 52e VA Mnn�t+u10 Melrose Electric,Inc HnhulpYw Jason Stamm 120.156.3616 roan aye tebose,MWUMe SQSJ s t. ,�� b, t+ t ,.. I .. b.a b: .. L• it, t.1 t.1 t. ..a 0 STs\ti1/4 ' . N� \ Vii.: e 1., 1. ., ..z b., ...i ..c ■ py ,.' t.: likf.s 3' 3.3 ..–.z b., b.e k.c \ aA,V \ t . : t t., ; �� /' p1.a4... t.c 0 .0 iiift \.0 1rbz .., ,, . ..o v.c ..sbc b.a `\c/,'s .... Z t.c .1 t b,e KEY PLAN DATE: 01.281011 "_1' SCALE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PARK [ATE OFSCRP00N 12.172010 PROGRESS SET 01202011 RENEW SET 02142011- HUD REVIEW SUMMON 06.132011 0110 RENEW SLe1P>SWN PROJECT NO. 04-100 CIO DWG FEC DRAW fit: a 2141(0 E0: a 4111 - COMM SHEER 012E ELECTRICAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN E1 . 02 \ ( I \\,'+ i 7,, — /I I _.1`\ 1 REUDDE ALL ASH TIM PER —/{// — I 410 _ \\],J ^— OGIY REUDRDIE111S•—.,—.—.—.— ° �O 16' — ? \ 6?WEAL sPD W. 64TH STREET III i. ._.______.___.___._6._..CIF ___ WWW.R6IaB6Hdi.Cgn CRY R'DUREYDRS \ yC 1 R=1 1.56 \ e • a��./mummEr� immoi��V�\r��_� > 1._�I������ \ /lam y�5 C8�6`I :111 vRi\\ L-24.38_... ' �\'' .--._.—.—.-- ` RENWE NL ASH RiDSI — •\ • r••,- `81Ig����® /_.—. .—._ \ ; DIY REDORpEIlI$ I_. Y R G �S A=120°50'11" �4� ■ —:a - T w __ ERa.� \ \\ ellt A> �•� ° _ .�■�■f \ \ • `J \ �� \�• \. LYNDALE COMMONS \ % \ Q$r *:a' o # 0 00 0 0 `�,/ '\ /1 — 1�N • Sd01 LYNDALE AVENUE SW7H \ %i \ o tic \ j — D MINNESOTA T of • \ i%ROMLE `�' 0 \�� /� .-` LYNDALECOMMONS,LLC \ o� \ — % \ t O O D/\,O O O I DEREBY CEAI&Y 0NAT MS NM SPE ATlOIl OA REPORT WAS \ \S�,,�rT��\\'S� ° 0 � ,,..7\ *\ * 0 _ - lLJ DULY M�aRIECr�umsR DE Tie:TMaurwa \ \ \ \ ° \\ \. 0 ICI _ ° \ \\ \\ \ �,..°'''� ° \.\\� Y 7 ° RRESIERMIONNRRa5111 J!. /! \ \ \ ` \ �� c o,C:.' Imo \ * 0 PAD n. •••••••• 8 \0 �" // / _,RI_GrmrA9as�mi�W®srialliaEas��E �'E ' —A,� _ \ \ /° D_ f\I ° CDOaOe I architects ilk.1 \ \ \ \ ♦• 4/ „J.,. 1•I; --------� \ 400IstAm0 `—V _ \ \ \ t `\ ' . S" — NN41Hwnga SSfOE 0 \ \\ \ ���k �� �� ?. I`` — CLOSE LANDSCAPE+ \ \ / \\ 4►• \14� /'/, IN II I //// `\ I c;\`— 61L/SS.aWM[HITER I \ \ ♦, \ \�, 1.. ..=. �Ea=_ `��I o 6W 1st Aram NRrtM ass,sa r1 I 144 hlhwNe HMI ' \ \ \ �! ` '_ N,.. ._.. .R_L_ 1111 /' —' \ \ \ \ �/► \�'� L cARMIN.t♦���11•MM®1 „ J `, -- BUN Engineers ® ` ---_ \ SWtivnl/DM En61n•Rr Rm aeeR \\ \ \\ ��./IA� � iii I \`` \ • • I \\ \ \ / X. —� ��\ "�(p Mph,wuawssra st • \ \ I/A` ;� \ �s��L�• AO i Aio 7901.g @tea // `\ ` \ \ `` \ 4 \` `��®,B - / ,, ∎• Melrose Electric■\ \ ' \ ° ,�``Z`a'�` C*\&_,. 4 I�� o \ la e anA.mm Wed 41 Helm.,Maude S61S2 \\ \ \ .� ♦ o \. / SW Q • TREE PROTECTION FENCE \ \\ \\ ►� ��I� / N...\ ‘\ ° \ \ \ 6 ° \�' xcPS i 6 \ \ \ 6�4 ooh \ 97`�: /. NOTES: \ \ 6.% ° \•/ 1)ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED a\\ \ ' \. h ACCORDING TO THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION.AFTER DEMOLMON OR AS \ \ �* 4C /// /1 `♦ / `, LANDSCAPE A�RCHITECT.ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES\\ \\ \\ °�; 004``` // a / \ .`•SHALL BE MAINT AINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD \ �,� /// \ 0 \ ��\ \`� 2)CONTRACT°RSHALL NOT STORE ANY/MTERIAS OR PARR ANYVEHICLES IN TREE \ \ ` /// PROTECTION ZONES.THE FENCE SHALL PREVENT TRAFFIC MOVEMEM AND THE PLACEMENT \ \ \ `. ° /' \ • OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES,EQUIPMENT,STOCKPILES AND SUPPLIES FROM HARMING \ \ ` / ```"\ VEGETATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION. ` •• 3)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEANLY CUT ALL ROOTS EXPOSED BY GRADING AS DIRECTED \ \ \\ \' 5 0 ° / \\`♦ BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. \ \ \ \• ° \• \I •4)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING \ \ \ \, 4\ 0 //'/ \ • \�• • • • • KEY PLAN AREAS ��i�//� A\ \\ \\ �►� wv �� v�V \ J DATE: 06.132011 _ ` I// DRIPLINE VARIES.SET FENCE DRIPLINE VARIES `eo h � ..!--_ 6'OIITSIDE DRIPIJNE. \ \ /. ' a' 6.':_,e'6 S' - '\ �� �� `e'`��' A1kil`� 1`F �; — \ \V 1 A //' PERMIT ISSUE POSTS:T U.CHANNEL \ 1 ds• p°v ),:lA,-"''-�.4 6/t 1.12 LBS/FOOT STRENGTH \ \ \ ♦ /,.,'\ / .P� I�C-=-;`,.`AJ'�/•i,v�•/CS,�O� eIC'�g0400O PAINTED OR GALVANIZED • / �� / \ \ \\ "\.- .� r,°J /// NMI( DATE OESCIm'ilIX1 >; II 0446 FENCE:MEET OR IXCEED \ \ �� k`V / A 1 ItAld 4,,,4 wocrr 2572.28(2000) + / , \ \ \\ a\! // Gj .'l1 },0._�. ') \ \\ REAM ALL ASH TREES PER \ / -C 6 f 6a�4P% \ 6' \ \ CV RTaIatFYDns \ / l //'/ MEM NP. D9-I00 04044�48PR4 4C 44,/40 FROA1 ORl \ \ ' / p P bb; /0444464?472 \\ / MINE \ •\ •` `%/ �� /' /j CAD DRS RtE o0e0g4 60` 40.44''00 \ \ / /// °/4•'� TREE PROTECTION FENCING: Daum et DH AI/� �,6' ^°41 1.x°44444,6° N L / \ \ \ s6 /4e��-4s:`f�ieLO`.'eT..!%r\J0440{ / ♦4jA Oti O4 r;e` 'e•� Oy4 o00ae:S 48'CONSPICUOUSLY COLORED / \ \ \" \ // /• MID DC PA III 14004 I t � 4 c9°P.. FENCE.FASTEN TO POSTS WITH • \ \ \ // / COMM: N44\I •eC•:•: •o�y`(pQ6® GALVANIZED WIRE TES \ \ -4404'x,•, IO\e0. Ot\P4 j° PLAN VIEW \ \ \ \ /'/// SHEET 118E • \ \ \ + 6 MAX—+ 6MPXPUNG \ \\ \\\ \\ \\ '/ / / TREE PRESERVATION PLAN \ / / 0 6• 12' 20' O TREE PROTECTION DETAIL c \` \ \\ \\'/ / �� N� OTREE PRESERVATION PLAN Sale:1/16"=1'4• L-100 Is LYNDALE COMMONS PROJECT PROPOSAL 7/10 Surrounding Zoning • ,I • C-2 MR-3 MR-3 R I R R C-2 R C-2 MR-1 'MR-1 MR-1 R R R MR-1 M' 1 3S0FT 64TH STREET WEST , R R R PROPOSED PMR ZO\JING PC-2 C-2 R R R R C-2 )._///, R R R 9F it, <. R R R 411 'LG K c-2 C-2 R MR- C I MR-3 11#1k 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 L 1 Feet LEGEND R-Single-Family Residential MR-1 -Two-Family Residential MR-2 - Multi-Family Residential N MR-3 - High-Density Multi-Family Residential " III A PMR- Planned Multi-Family Residential C-2 -General Commercial PC-2 - Planned General Commercial I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\Lyndale Commons -Z.mxd • g-16. „ 1 al :, : iii - : ! , 1 La•__.... . = , I En . , '■ --7- g v: .1 Hi i [ 1:_ -°,1),.. - ::: 1 l,i• 2 _i,, 1 z m ,,R .-, a•2.- < i itii, n3 i '' ---,/,' ,'1 !I E PI I i ch / 4ev F- I. 'i'-' ,-*/ !Eli ; - r= 1•=c9 irr=1 "'''- •- •-.-•:- L.4.,' '-21 f !;. 1 71- ,, .- a, i a L. a 1 L 1.: '`fct,,-,6 ttk,- g i2 g :i! i 11 s= .2 g. p , . VP7 , 1 1„ 7-40/ . a,,,,, ... -,-,-,.- E 2.1- -i - :a ,14. aa ,li .1 ^ al: rga aft g a.• 9 ," f; : ' 0 . 311i,i1 illillt -232iil LI,_ 1--- 1 '.; li 1–•—•—•– • . 1 ■ , ■ , „„„,'N I> h i I I 1 1 1 I ., • i 1 .0'--,' ' / \• i • - Ir■ \ + • I I , I . * \ ,28= .gP,• i :; t., -,,, , 1 / '', fig.5 ,al : /r' = • , \• 7 I I h, —, / f i. i .. , , ,.... .., , -,, . , , \ — I a j i , ----r MillUINIIMMUEIMBEK I— ' ,„,,, : ,, : ' ! : 1 ,9'VI ' -1 = 1 ,:■ \ /". 1 / '74 'ig, ; • '---- :),..: • 1-.'i ° ---- 1,1Tia' MI 111.11= IIME 7% 's',/ „/ s,,s■ , , in -".■1_, I 3:1111111111111111 A,2, / ir .1 NE , .--- 1 L , a ;.__.: 111MIIIM #' ' T.: ifir • , 4•:, /.// ,._,,,, L MI FM MIME i elP - - ,111111 i ii..........4 orinv. „.. ,./' ,... a • / go IM ,.._ L I ! • , • # / – I r ., • i c, -0 - A, i . 1 _, I L ' :111•1•1111 I 1 ■ r, H ? &I''.. .•.. ' I , =PPM UWV, • - =L.' \ ' .., .• iA --‘v. ....., i . .- --1 1 • 3 4, +:7 3't - 8 I ' ' . . •• :', 1112211111111111111 .''' I i iN \,1 11•14., / --- \,- 11121111.11.11 ' g !CCM . , i Ili T ig --- ---- ug _. ,' ! 1 L_,-[ ; 1 i . - , 1._ v, , 1 h p il i 1 i g t'J iiii • ,, 1, i ; 1 i „ !Ot ' i id 't ; 0 ,- g A 115 - I 0110 !' !: i;i5 5 ill illi g I Li, . I 1 4,:,b1 HI LI:i' :i -S 1 1 i ri ; il hi 5: : . :. gi! i! if;,i 1 333 3 i'.3 3 1 LL!f i ' gl i ill ! f ! r o3 s; loi ILI tgli I I [ .9.; 1 .._ gi h 1 p . p ii• i• 1I2?- - ---, w.i- .. I . , ou ucglagi; oi ,hn1000A i Li: .i: 3 !!!! 1, t, , - -. , . , ---- • — - R I g -1? LYNDALE COMMONS PROJECT PROPOSAL 7/10 Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designations • CC _ MHD MHD LDR - I LDR LDR MIXED LDR LD MHD MHD MHD MHD LDR LDR LDR LDR L 350 64TH STREET WEST PROPOSED PMR ZO\IING MIXED LDR LDR MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED LDR LDR 4 MIXED yQ/c<\ MIXED LDR DR •hi MIXED LDR LDR tiG F MIXED \IIIC.°111°MIXE14 IXED MIXEr MIXED MIXED MI MIXED MIXED MIXED 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 LEGEND Feet CC-Community Commercial LDR- Low-Density Residential MHD-Medium-High Density Residential • N MIXED -Mixed Use AI:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\Lyndale Commons -CP.mxd