Loading...
03-17-86 agenda~~ / HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 10 Agenda March 17, 1886 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: LHN Plan Amendment No. 5 Commissioners: This letter requests HRA referral of plan amendments to the Planning Commission for two locations in the LHN. The first. site is at 6th Street on the east side of Lyndale Avenue. The second location is at Graham and Lyndale Avenues. 6th Street Site The property between 6~+th Street and-65th Street on Lyndale Avenue was originally identified as a location for multi-family housing. Subsequently., it was deemed an inappropriate site because of its size and configuration. The owners of this. property, Mr. Oreck for the northern parcel and Mr. Ahlquist for the southern parcel, have or are renovating their property. It would be appropriate to modify the land use plan map to indicate a commercial land use for this area. (See the attached map). Graham and Lyndale Avenue The second site is at Graham and Lyndale Avenues. Originally in 1975, this area was identified for purchase by the HRA for redevelopment. It was to become part of a home improvement center concept involving both Lyndale Hardware-and Lyndale Garden Center. However, in 1979, this concept was. dropped and the Plan was amended to show rehabilitation of the two commercial structures (Big Wheel and Trestman Music). Graham Avenue was to be vacated and additional commercial space constructed in the former right-of-way.. The three buildings, Big Wheel, Trestman Music and the new structure, were to be "united" in terms of a unified facade treatment. Parking would be located at the rear, on a portion of the vacated Graham Avenue and the three parcels owned by the HRA, which would be sold to the .developer. Over the years, staff worked with Mr. Shaller and Mr. Trestman, owners of Big Wheel and Trestman Music respectively. However, in spite of_ the interest of prospective tenants, the two owners have been unable to initiate a viable project in this area. ~-~ In early 1985, the Walker Methodist Residence and Health Services, Inc. expressed .interest in developing rental housing for the elderly in the community, and indicated an interest iri this site. Because of this interest and the lack of progress. on the potential commercial improvements, staff did not continue to pursue commercial rehabilitation. Walker has been attempting to assemble a development team to pursue housing on this site, and undertook a market study.. A study questionnaire was circulated to the HRA in the fall of 1985. The response to the questionnaire was much greater than anticipated. However, the system for processing the data was not designed to handle the 36% return rate. Thus, the results. have not been compiled as of this date, but are expected to be available soon. On October g, 1985 Mr. Shaller inquired about the status of his property and the balance of the site. He indicated that he would be willing to pursue the initial plan so he could retain his business.. It would be appropriate to modify the land use plan now (See the attached map). The modification would simply identify the appropriate land use for the site as commercial and/or multi- family. Thus, either the existing commercial could continue with renovation as envisioned in 1979, new commercial could be constructed, or, housing could be developed. The process for this modification is time consuming in that three bodies must act on it, the HRA, Planning Commission and City Council. The Council must hold a hearing with a ten day publication requirement. By processing this modification now, it would shorten the schedule for processing a housing proposal if one is forthcoming. Recommendation It is recommended that the HRA request the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the conformance of the proposed land. use plan amendments with the Comprehensive Plan at their earliest convenience. After completion of that process, the HRA will be asked to take formal action on the proposed amendments. 'Res e fully submitted, ~~~ n evic Acting Executive Director SLD/e ja -~ MODIFICATION N0. 5 THE LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM "Amendments to the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial Improvement Project," approved March 12 , 1979 by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and, the City Council. on March 26, 1979, is hereby modified as follows. The Land Use ~iap, page 31 is hereby modified for the following: The property lying between Circle Place and Auto Lane adjacent to the west .side of Lyndale Avenue, known as Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Fairwood Shores Addition, and, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition, also Graham Avenue, the adjoining Circle Place and the right-of-way adjoining Lot 5 on the west from Commercial to Commercial and/or Multi-Family, and; The property lying between o4th and 65th Streets adjacent to the east side of Zyndale Avenue except Block 2, J. N. Hauser's Second Addition, from Multi-Family to Commercial.. 7 ~-35 '~ /~ tTNwppD - If~ -_ V~ ~~ `~, ~~ \ •\ ' `~ - - -" ~ ~ - _ _ -.._ .. /~i~I~ ER~tR~Y~tt~lt _[YCRSON^ AVL _ ~/ I ~ ~ ,~` ~ . 0=~0=T AYL ~ , ~ l` j •~ f- ~~t ~ 1 `i~ \\ rim` \ ~ ~, ) ~ w~~-_ ~ i, .`'~11 ,. I ~ ~ _ O ~ -' '~ -- ~ ~. I `i PI ~ ^, ~ / ~ 1 ij\1 ~_ `. ~ i \~r - i /^\ ~- T rw \ ~ s ~> ~ I • ~ ~, ~ ; r ~~~ ; 'ice .._ ,~- eaenE[e AYC: "~ _ ~ i, ~ ~ , ~ ~ NARRI[T IYL ~ ' 1 e' ~- I ~ ~ CRANO 4YC ~-! j' ' ' i ' ~ 1 ' ~ -~ ! f ' ~-rte , I ~I , ' ~ ,~~ i ' ' ~ + I ~ ~ y -1 i fA O ~ , ~ MLLSRYRI AYL O I ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ T g 1-------; ~ i !1 j `/ ~ i a ~ ~ I - w[NTIYORTN AvL ' I t~ O v ~ i I I~ Z ~ ~ Ru1sDEU AYL I I ~ ~u..u~ I ! ; ; 1 i ' NICOLLET AYL j .pC ~` y _ ~~ ~ I ~ ' f STE VENS Av[. ' ~ .. .YE: ,: ~ ~ LYIVDALE / HU$/ NICOLLET , ~ ~ :~ COMMERCIAL IIViF~ROVEMENT ~ x ' .; PROGRAM ' RICHFIELD, MN ~~_ j HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 9 Agenda March 17, 1986 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: LHN Report Commissioners: Submitted with this letter is a copy of the recently completed LHN Report - Ten Years and $81,000,000 of Investments. The report will be reviewed at the March 17, 19 6 HRA meeting by city staff. This report, which is a comprehensive analysis of the L/H/N, includes: o A chronology of significant events o A comparison of the original 1975 plan with redevelopment through 1985 o Exhibits o Evaluation of Impact on Community o Expenditure and Revenue Analysis o Debt Service Cash Flow o Penn Avenue and 66th Street Study Area The overall-cash flow analysis of the entire tax increment district can be found on page 9~ of the report, and indicates that an entire project can be successful while individual projects .may not be. Res etfully submitt , ~/~ ~. ev n L. evich Acting Executiv Director SLD/eja HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 8 Agenda February 18, 1986 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City. of Richfield Subject: Consideration of a Request of National Coalition of Redevelopment Agencies to Support Their Lobbying Efforts to Preserve the Issuance of Redevelopment Bonds Commissioners: The tax reform bills presently before Congress eliminates the tax exempt status of redevelopment tax increment bonds. Tax increment bonds are critical for the economic growth and revitalization of cities and, in many cases, represent the single most important remaining financing tool left to local officials. The National Coalition. of Redevelopment Agencies is request- ing that municipalities contact national `legislators to seek their support to remove redevelopment bonds from state volume caps. A copy of the communication received from the Coalition is attached to this letter. It is recommended that. the to contact Senators Durenberger support in maintaining the tax tax increment bonds. JGC/eja HRA direct the Executive Director and Boschwitz to request their exempt status of redevelopment R pectf bmitted, ohn G. ar fight Executi e Direetorl NC RA National Coalition of Redevelopment Agencies States Authorizing Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing: 1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 503 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone (202) 639-8830 1986 February 7 Alabama , Alaska Issue N O . 3 Arkansas Subject: '~CRA activities in :vashington, D.C. this week. California Colorado Senate testimony. *~eed for your action now. Connecticut Florida Illinois Dear COlieacue: Indiana Iowa Kansas At the req.~e=t of the ~t~or,al Coalition cf edevelop- Maine meat Agencies and others, Senator Pete Wilson Maryland (Calif.-R.) opened the Senate rinance Committee hearings Michigan on tax reform .this week with testimony calling for Minnesota '°"'•S~^}e '""t of y~e t~~,--=?:e-%ut S~atuS Or ''2..eVe10U^,•ent Missouri -a?: -'":..- _ ='?~ ~_.~_, w~_c~: are effect:-~ _~ eiir•.:ina~ed Montana for n'oS- ^~°=,C1e= ~~' t_',e '-;Oi:SE verSlOn of tax reform, V '~raska Se:,ator k•ilson e^~:phasi zed how critical rede- H.R. 383E. _vada velopment bonds are for the economic growth and revital- Ne.wJersey ization of cities and. that, increasingly, redevelopment New Hampshire and tax lncrc-^ent bonds represent the single most impor- NewMexico font remaining tool left to local officials. He also New York underscored the di fferznce between conduit financing North Dakota such as industrial dev2ioament bonds anc tax supported Ohio redeveioaa[ient bonds. In response to Senator Wilson's Oregon testimony, Senators Durenbercer (Mint..-R.), Chafee Rhode Island (R.I .-R.) , Grassiey (Iowa-R.) , Baucus ('!ont.-D.) and South Carolina Bentsen (Texas-D.) individually thanked Senator Wilson South Dakota for ra~ sing the redevelop~~er.t bond iss~.:e ar~d commented Tennesee favorably that the committee sho;:Ic pres_rve this mu- Texas nieipal financing tool. Utah Washington Zt was apparent to the redzveiop:r~ent agency officials in Wisconsin attendance t'r,at these Senators had been effectively Wyoming lobbied by redevelopment officials f-tom their own states. The Committ~~ Chairman, Senator .Robert Packwood, made no comment. Earlier in the week, or, '~9on av ^eb. 3 at the NLC of- fices, redevelopment officials from Graacn, "'exas, Iowa, Minnesota, Cciorado, Ltah, Illinois, anc California held the first "grass roots" strategy session o* ~CRz. Sev- oral lobby=~:o ob_ecti v?s were ide.nt=r~e~, the ?*ost _-~~nortant O_ w^~.^~'1 ~S ~he "'e2d fOr cTl ?~_-C'.._ no-.::QidS- ~~r-ed io~~~~ti~r:c ef~or+ to reT,c;,c ~_:.~.e=:;~-~=nt bonds r ~:.~,~~:,~e caNs 1^ ~ ^a~e -,-=. ~~on of tax _,--,~; sy~}e i% e Je The Coalition was initiated by Redevelopment Agencies Eor thepurpose of re[aining Federal Tax Exempt Tax Increment$ond Financing. It operates in conjunction with the National League of Cities. NAHRO. [hevarious State Municipal Leagues. and ocher concerned organizations reform so we can go into a hostile conference committee with maximum bargaining strength. The Senate Finance Committee staff is moving rapidly ahead with the drafting of a tax reform bill beginning Feb. Z0. It seems likely, however, that the Committee members themselves may not take the issue up until the 1987 budget, a growing federal deficit and. the need for a revenue increase are addressed. It is urgent that city and redevelop~~~ent agency offi- cials contact their Senators and their respective Repre- sentatives immediately, calling their attention to the drastic impact of the elimination of tax-exempt redevel- opment bonds -- effective January 1, 1986 if H.R. 3838 is actually adopted. Not enough cities or agencies have responded to date to this request for Dersonal contact and letters on the issue of redevelopment bonds. Representatives of the National Coalition of Redevelop- ment H~_nces have traveled to ri'ashington D.C. twice in the last ~»to anc one iici~ fi.OL?t~S to arcue our c,se before the stall IileIP.~erC o. .he "Mouse 'v.avs and Means Committee, the Joint Tax Committee and !the Senate Finance Committee. After perhaps ten hours of explana- tion and rebate, it is clear that the Committee staff will. continue to be extre~r~ely hostile and will advocate and indeed draft legislation which will so severely restrict the issuance of redevelopment bonds as to close down their use. On the other hand, when we talk to our Congressmen and Senators, we find support after our case is presented. Preserving redevelopment bonds outside a State volume cap appears achievable, but only if ex- traordinary political Iobbving is done at the level of elected officials. We urge you to act as soon as possa- ble. Please report the results of youz meetings and any follow-',:p actions {such as meetings between your Sena- tors and Senator Packwood; to Milt Farrell {916/448- 8760) or David 3ones {202/539-8830). Thank you for youz help in this important matter. Sincerely, ,y __ Milton R. Farrell Chairman MRF:dmo Lnclosure