Loading...
02-21-89 agenda HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 8 February 21, 1989 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution authorizing submission of an application to HUD which requests an allocation of Section 8 housing payment assistance. Background: Staff, in cooperation with the Area HUD office and the Metropolitan Council HRA (Metro) continue to work toward the full transfer of Section 8 program activities to Richfield. The HRA and City Council directed staff to proceed in this manner in June, 1988. In August, 1988 the HRA approved a resolution very similar to the attached. Subsequently, HUD funded an application making it possible for approximately 60 clients to be served directly by Richfield HRA. On February 13, 1989, HUD notified Richfield staff that approximately 116 additional units would be available to Metro. Because of agreements with Metro, the 116 units are being made available to Richfield. As was true with the original 60, existing Metro clients would exchange their certificates for a Richfield voucher. An application for approximately 116 units, or $585,000 annually, was submitted according to a HUD imposed deadline of February 21, 1989. However, HUD will not allocate the additional assistance unless the HRA has, by resolution, authorized submitting the application. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application and other documentation to be submitted to HUD to secure additional Section 8 housing assistance. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The HRA and City Council have previously directed staff to proceed with the establishment of an independent program. 2. Section 8 housing assistance cannot be secured from HUD without submitting the application. 3. Officials representing HUD and Metro HRA are cooperating in the application for and exchange of benefits to Richfield households. Alternative Recommendation: Direct staff to withdraw the application. However, this will prolong the time it takes to become independent and cause confusion at HUD and Metro HRA. Decision/Discussion Mode: Adoption of the resolution on February 21 is necessary to meet HUD's processing schedule. Respect submitted, James D. Prosser Executive Director HRA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING HOUSING PAYMENT ASSISTANCE APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Richfield (Richfield HRA) has the desire and capability to contract directly with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide housing assistance in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, HUD, on August 2, 1988, has determined that the Richfield HRA is legally organized under Minnesota State Law; and WHEREAS, HUD and the Metropolitan Council HRA are cooperating in ensuring a successful transition to an independent program for Richfield; and WHEREAS, HUD has offered housing assistance to Metro HRA and Metro HRA is making these resources available to the Richfield HRA to ensure the timely development of Richfield's independent program; and WHEREAS, an allocation can be processed by HUD provided that the Richfield prepares an application, equal opportunity plan, administrative plan, tenant allowance schedule, cost estimates, program budget, and other documents as requested by HUD; and WHEREAS, an application to provide approximately $585,000 annually for housing assistance to approximately 116 households has been prepared by housing staff and submitted to initiate processing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, that the Executive Director is authorized to submit to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development an application and other documentation in continuing support of a request for housing assistance payments to serve Richfield residents. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield this 21st day of February, 1989. Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 7 February 21, 1989 Issue Statement: Opportunity for interested persons to express their reactions to the proposed PASSS Interim'Ordinance. Background: The City Council has as] people to express their Ordinance. The regular the date for the forum. the City Council at the ied the HRA to provide an opportunity for reactions to the proposed PASSS Interim HRA meeting date in February was set as The comments made will be presented to continued hearing on February 27, 1989. Information about the February 21 meeting has been widely distributed. A copy of the attached letter dated February 9th was mailed to approximately 1050 people who have an interest in property within 350 feet of the PASSS Study Area. The Interim Ordinance was discussed informally by the PASSS Advisory Committee at their December, January and February meetings. No formal recommendation was made. Attached to this letter is additional background material including the January 9th Council letter, the proposed ordinance and the resolution adopted by the HRA. • Recommended Motion: 1) Invite interested people to express their views on the proposed ordinance. 2) Designate the Chairman to report to the City Council on the nature of the opinions expressed at the meeting, and to indicate the position of the HRA on this proposal. Basis of Recommendation: The purpose of this agenda item is to encourage people to present their opinions, collect them and report to the Council, as requested by the City Council. Alternative Recommendation: Request staff to report on the thoughts expressed at the meeting. Decision Mode: The input is needed for the February 27, 1989 Council meeting. lv ully submitted, Prosser e Director JDP/eja 46? . t City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl February 9, 1989 Dear Property Owner or Tenant: Regarding: The PASSS Interim Ordinance Housing & Redevelopment Authority Public Meeting:. February 21, 1989, 7:00 P.M. Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. City Council Public Hearing: February 27, 1989, 7:00 P.M. Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. You are invited to the above meeting and subsequent public hearing. In late December, 1988, you received a similar letter of invitation to a City Council hearing in early January. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the proposed interim ordinance. At that public hearing, the City Council requested the HRA to hold a public meeting to provide an opportunity for people to express their thoughts about the proposed ordinance. The Council also decided to continue the hearing until February 27th, 1989. The interim ordinance is being proposed because the city has recently begun a planning study for the area within the boundary depicted on the enclosed map. If you have an interest in property within the area or close to it, you have probably already received mailings about the study. It is known as the Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area or PASSS. The purpose of the study framework. The frameworl property owners, tenants development decisions as a plan would help assure planning guide should be is to form a comprehensive planning t is a statement to be used by the city, and developers to guide future property in the area is upgraded. Such the long term health of the area. The completed during 1989. The benefits of a comprehensive planning guide may be threatened by piecemeal development activities. You may have noticed several properties in the area are now vacant and for sale. Other properties may experience similar changes. If redevelopment were to occur before a new plan is in place, it may only add to the problems in the area rather than helping to solve them. The proposed interim ordinance is written to minimize the amount • of piecemeal development which takes place during the planning Telephone 869-7521 (612) An Equal Opportunity Employer v PENN AVENUE SIXTY-SIXTH STREET 0 0 0 - STUDY (PASSS.) AREA CO. wR. ., CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter Number 8 January 9, 1989 Agenda Issue Statement: • Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance which would restrict the issuance of permits in the Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Planning Area (PASSS). The ordinance is attached. Background: An interim development resolution was passed on December 12 restricting the issuance of all permits or other approvals in the PASSS area pending final consideration of the attached interim ordinance. The interim, or moratoriums ordinance is designed to restrict development or redevelopment in the PASSS area which would negatively impact the planning process. The City Council and HRA have directed staff to conduct a PASSS area study, several meetings have been held with an Advisory Committee and preliminary research accomplished. Random development or redevelopment of underutilized properties during the planning process may well intensify problems such as parking and traffic or result in development which is inconsistent with the final proposed plan. The interim ordinance in restricting permits recognizes the need of businesses and property owners to conduct business and maintain their property. Section 3, subdivision 1, on page 4 sets forth the exceptions to the regulations permitting normal maintenance and limited additions or new construction of $25,000 • or increase of ten percent of fair market value. _ It should be noted that projects in process are not precluded by this moratorium. The conditional use permit already granted for a restaurant on the old Arby's site would allow construction as approved. Similarly, the boundary of the district has been adjusted to permit the construction of a dry cleaning business at 6613 Penn Avenue. this has been under review and revision as requested by staff since its proposal late last spring. The interim ordinance would be effective for ten months from the date of publication. This will allow sufficient time subsequent to the plan completion this summer to modify any ordinances necessary to properly regulate the area consistent with the plan.An interim ordinance strategy has been utilized for other redevelopment areas in the city. Within the LHN, restrictions were placed on the block now occupied by Woodlake Point and Market Plaza prior to redevelopment. More recently, restrictions placed on the ILN expired in September, 1987. In both instances, the objective was to permit time to formulate a comprehensive planning frame work for the area so that development could be pursued systematically. Recommended Motion: Adopt the ordinance following the public hearing. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City has deliberately embarked upon a program to improve and enhance the commercial areas of our community. -$7 e - _?? 2. The HRA has recently funded a study which provides for the formulation of a comprehensive planning frame work to be used as a guide for future development decisions. 3. A comprehensive approach will provide an opportunity to maximize.the potential of the area for the future of the City. 4. Continued piecemeal development activity in the area will frustrate the implementation of a comprehensive plan and exacerbate existing problems. 5. The HRA adopted the attached resolution at their meeting on December 5, 1988. The resolution urges the Council to adopt the proposed legislation. 6. The PASSS Advisory Committee met on December 6, 1988. The concept of restricting the issuance of permits during the planning framework study was noted. 7. The Planning Commission discussed the ordinance at their meeting on December 13, 1988 and raised no objections. 8. Notice of the public hearing appeared in the Sun-Current on December 28, 1988. 9. Letters explaining the proposed ordinance and announcing the hearing were mailed December 27, 1988, to people with an interest in property in the PASSS Study Area as well as those with an interest in property for 350 feet from the study area boundary. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Pursue the ordinance but on a different time schedule. 2. Not support the proposed ordinance. Decision/Decision Mode: Property owners and tenants are making decisions regularly on their property. To protect the planning process, the resolution and ordinance should be pursued now to minimize additional problems. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/eja 0 i CITY OF RICHFIELD BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. U89-1 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic use, devel- opment and possible redevelopment of that area of the City generally referred to as "Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area" hereinafter referred to as the "Area," the boundaries of which Area are more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly right-of-way line of Co. Hwy, No. 62 and the Easterly property line of Lot 3, Block 1, Leslie Terrace Addition, thence in a line along said Southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Westerly right- of-way line of Oliver Avenue South. Thence, Southerly along said Westerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Southerly right-of-way line of West 66th Street. Thence, Westerly along said Southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Easterly property line of Lot 10, Block 6, Fairwood Park Addi- tion. Thence, Southerly along said Easterly property line, as extended, sore or less, to its intersection with the Southerly sight-of-way line of West 68th Street. Thence, Westerly along said Southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of Penn Avenue South. Thence, South- erly along said Easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Southerly property line of Lot 15, Block 9, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition. Thence, Westerly along said Southerly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the Easterly property line of Lot 16, Block 1, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Third Addition. Thence, Northerly along said Easterly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the Northerly right-ofway line of West 67th Street. Thence Westerly along said Northerly of right-of-way line to its inter- section with the Easterly sight-ofway line of Queen Avenue South. Thence, Northerly along said Easterly right-of-my line to its intersection with the Southerly property lies of the vacated alley (12-17-67 filed) abutting the Northerly property line of Lot 21, Block 1, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Bills Addi- tion. Thence, Westerly along said vacated alley property line, as extended, to its intersection with the Easterly right-of-way ? 36 line of Russell Avenue South. Thence. Northerly along said Easterly sight-of-way line to its intersection with the Northerly sight-cf-vay line of West 66th Street. Thence. Easterly along said Northerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the Westerly right-of-way line of Queen Avenue South. Thence, Northerly more or less, along said Westerly sight-of-way line to its intersection with the Southerly right-of-vay line of West 65th Street. Thence. Westerly along said Southerly right-of-vay line to .its intersection with the Westerly property line of Lot 2, Block 1. Harry Tickner's Subdivision. Thence. Northerly along said Westerly property line, as extended, to the point of beginning,, except the North 40 feet of Lot 8 and the South 110 feet of Lot 9. Fairwood Park Addition. B. There are a number of planning and land use issues arising in the Area which require comprehensive planning and the consideration of official controls as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 462.352. Subdivision 15, among which are the following: 1. The City is deficient in commercial and industrial tax base. Very little undeveloped land remains within the City. The location of the Area is such that with proper planning it has the potential to provide a location for valuable and desirable commercial and/or industrial development within the City. Absent such planning, the opportunity for such development may be lost. 2. The Area presently contains tracts of underdeveloped land which may not be developed to the optimum without improving access and im- proving traffic patterns. 3. The Area may best be developed pursuant to a unified plan and/or in large segments rather than on a piecemeal basis. 4. The Area contains a number of buildings which are aging and appear to be in a deteriorating condition. Some parts of the Area present a poor visual appearance because of such factors as lack of uniform setbacks. unrelated facades. inadequate or inappropriate loading and unloading areas. insufficient parking, excessive land coverage, conflicting traffic movements and other functional inadequacies. 5. The Area is bounded by single-family residence districts which are jeopardized or adversely affected by non-residential traffic. There appears to be a need to relocate and redesign streets and other traffic control facilities in and around the Area so as to safeguard such residential areas and so as to minimize land use conflicts. It appears necessary and desirable to formulate a long-range master plan for control and movement of traffic within and around the Area. 6. It appears necessary and desirable to avoid fortber piecemeal development and redevelopment of the Area so as to reverse the undesirable development patterns which have existed and which now exist within the Area including fragmented land eomership and under-utilization of the land. 2 r 7. It appears that there are or may be substandard building conditions and structures within the Area. 8. It appears that by reason of sociological and technological changes, as well as by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence and the faulty arrangement or design of buildings and improvements in the Area, there is a need for comprehensive planning and development of the Area. 9. It appears that there is or may be excessive land coverage in some parts of the Area, deleterious land use, and obsolete layout of land tracts and developments, requiring planning and redevelopment. 10. The foregoing factors and other factors are found to be injurious to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens and property owners of the City and persons occupying property or working and being in and around the Area. 11. The presence of such conditions has caused an impairment of the value of private investments, has threatened sources of public revenues, has deprived the community and its residents of better facilities and job opportunities, and has otherwise adversely affected the public welfare. C. There is a need to consider the formulation of a new comprehensive plan and program, together with official controls for the development and/or y' redevelopment of the Area. Such plan and program and controls will require 1 intensive study over a number of months. There is a need for an interim ordinance applicable to the Area for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and to insure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the new compre- hensive plan and development-redevelopment program and new official controls for the Area. There is a further need to regulate, restrict or prohibit uses, developments or subdivisions of land within the Area during. the planning process, so as to avoid the occurrence of events which will be inimical to the orderly development and redevelopment of the Area in future years. Sect. During the period that this interim ordinance is in effect, no privately owned property within the area shall be developed or redeveloped nor shall any licenses or permits, rezonings, plattings or land divisions pursuant to Richfield City Code be issued by the City for any such development or redevelopment except as provided in Section 3 hereof. Section . Subdivision 1. Notwithstanding the limitations, restric- tions, and prohibitions contained in the foregoing Section Z, the City may grant license renewals for licenses previously issued for activities within the Area; and may grant permits for development or redevelopment within the Area if it finds that the development or redevelopment involved will comply with the following criteria: A. The permit will not involve the construction of a new building or the enlargement of an existing building at a cost of sore than =25,000. B. The construction will not materially change the future use, devel- opment or redevelopment of the property involved or any adjacent properties. C. The construction will not increase the fair market value of the property involved.by more than ten percent. D. The construction of the improvement will not intensify traffic or parking problems on the subject property, adjacent properties, or adjacent highways and streets. E. The proposed project will not exacerbate or intensify conflicts between residential and non-residential traffic within the Area. F. Granting of the permit will not sake a material difference in or create a serious impediment to the development or redevelopment of the property involved upon completion of the planning process. G. Subject to the limitation contained in Section 3, Subdivision 1, paragraph A, the construction will permit (a) the better utilization of an existing structure on the same property, or (b) the repair, maintenance or safeguarding of existing structures, or (c) the completion of building interior improvements which are necessary to the property continued utilization of the property pending the planning process. Subd. 2. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent the City from processing licenses, permits, rezonings, plattings or land divisions up to the point of, but not including, their actual issuance if the project or projects involved will comply with the following criteria: A. The project will be on a single tract of land within the Area having an area of at least 80,000 square feet and will involve development or redevelopment which will have an estimated sarket value in excess of $2,000,000 per acre. B. The project involved is consistent with and complementary to the development or redevelopment of other adjacent properties within the Area. C. The proposed project will, in the opinion of the council, contribute to and accelerate the development or redevelopment of the balance of the Area. Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing Subdivision 2, no license. permit, rezoning, platting or land division shall be Issued for any project described in that subdivision unless the site for the project is removed from the provisions of this ordinance by an amendment to Section 1-A hereof. 4 a ' "j-7 Sub_ d_4. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent the final approval of any subdivision which vas given preliminary approval prior to the effective date. Subd. 5. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent rezoning to any of the districts specified in Section 530 of the City Code or the issuance of any licenses, permits, plattings or land divisions in connection with any Planned Unit Development. Section 4. This ordinance shall remain in affect for a period of ten months from its effective date, provided that in the event the planning process has not been completed within the ten month period, its effectiveness may be extended for such additional periods as the City Council say by resolution determine' to be appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of eighteen (18) months. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198. Steven Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk RfldOrdl:0055OD15.E14 5 HRA RESOLUTION NO.342 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND OTHER APPROVALS IN THE PENN AVENUE SIXTY-SIXTH STREET STUDY AREA WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) of the City of Richfield finds that the formation of • new land use plan and program including consideration of the adoption of official controls as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subdivision 15, for development and redevelopment of that area of the City generally referred to as the "Penn Avenue Sixty-Sixth Street Study Area," hereinafter referred to as the "Areas" the boundaries of.which Area are more specifically described on the attached map, as a means of guiding future development of land in the Area is necessary to insure a safer, more pleasant, more economically viable environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of Richfield's citizens; and WHEREAS, the HRA also finds that the formation of a land use plan and development-redevelopment program for the Area could bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, enable public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the land use plan and development- redevelopment program to be formulated, assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, make the provision of public services less costly, and achieve a more secure tax base; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City has heretofore determined the need for such a study and the creation of a program within the Area, and has authorized the expenditure of Authority funds to assist the City in such an undertaking; and WHEREAS, the HRA in order to further promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Richfield has concluded that the adoption of an interim zonin ordinance, for the purpose of protecting the planning process In the Area, regulating, restricting and prohibiting certain uses, developments and subdivisions within the Area, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, Subdivision 4, is desirable; .and, WHEREAS, immediate action is needed to effectively protect the planning process and to insure that the benefits of municipal ?a. planning for the Area are secure by the City of Richfield and its citizens. NOM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the HRA that the HRA recommends to the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the City Manager and City staff receive authorization and direction to: -, Take immediate action to pursue to conclusion with the cooperation and assistance of the Richfield HRA, the planning process already commenced for the land use and long term development-redevelopment of the Area; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the HRA recommends to the City Council that City staff be authorized and directed to halt the processing of all requests or applications for any variances, permits, licenses, except for the annual renewal of previously granted licenses such as restaurant, liquor and vending machine licenses, rezonings, and land divisions made pursuant to Richfield City Code, and to stop accepting any additional applications for platting made pursuant to Richfield City Code, for property located within the Area. The prohibition against the processing of the requests and applications contained in this resolution shall not include any applications or requests which have been given final approval prior to December 12, 1988, or subdivisions which have been given preliminary approval prior to that date. The restrictions within this proposed ordinance should include such time and dollar limitations, variance provisions, and procedures for implementation as are consistent with the spirit of this proposal, State law and the best interests of the..City of Richfield. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 5th day.of December, 1988. Thomas E. Harms Chairman ATTEST: Steven L. Dev ch Acting City Clerk n L? r ?tMu Ai SNM ?IXTY-SIXTH $TUFT 9TWT A lEA lip is W r+ M • I I 1 i M M • HIT !i t ( I 1 I 7H •