Loading...
10-21-85 agenda~~,~ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 58 Agenda October 21, 1985 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Final Plans for the 66th Street and 'Rae Drive HRA Housing Development Project Dear Commissioners: This letter requests HRA review and approval of final plans for development of the housing project at 66th Street and Rae Drive. On September 16, 1985, the HRA reviewed preliminary plans for the construction of eight housing units on this site and authorized and requested that the plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The HRA also requested the rezoning of the site to a "Planned Two Family Residential District -PUD". On September 24, 1985, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the PUD and rezoning provided that a common element residential subdivision plan be developed and submitted for city approval. (This would probably occur in the Spring, 1986, as completed units are prepared for sale). The City Council met October 14, 1985, to consider the Preliminary FUD Plan, the request for rezoning and a special use permit. The Council gave first reading to an ordinance for the zoning change and scheduled the second reading and the public hearing on the rezoning for October 28, 1985• The City Council is required to review the final plans before a building permit may be issued. With HRA review of the final plans on October 21, 1985, the City Council could review these plans during the public hearing October 28th. Thus, all City Council actions-would be completed in October, HRA actions would be completed in November (when a developers agreement and public hearing on the sale of land could occur), and construction could start December 2, 1985 (which is 30 days after the rezoning ordinance is published). The attached summary information sheet discusses the changes made in the plans since the HRA reviewed and approved the preliminary plans on September 16, 1985• .The minor changes are primarily the addition of more detail, were made to the site .3d dimension plan, grading plan, planting plan, and building plans. Building plans were modified at the request. of Sievert Hendrickson, City Building -0fficial. Plumbing and heating plans and detailed material specification have been added. An erosion control plan was added at the request of the Minnehaha Watershed District. If the final plans are approved by the HRA, they will become part of the developers agreement that is presently being prepared. The HRA would review this agreement at their November 18, 1985, meeting. It is recommended that the HRA adopt a motion approving the final glans and authorize their submission to the City Council for review and approval. p)ectfu~ly,/ ~yYbmitted , ,~ohn G. Cart~i_ght Executive Directofr JGC/eja .3 -3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE TO PRELIMINARY PL ree an ae rive eve oilmen Dimension Plan -deck dimension (10' x 12') has been added -sidewalks on easterly units will be made of concrete material (material not previously specified) Grading, ,Plan -drainage Swale added to the back of 82.0/924 W. 66th (existing townhouses) and through middle of eastern side of property to allow for proper drainage. -elevation increased slightly along some portions of the rear property line of 1016 W. 66th to ensure proper drainage away from the .northern neighbors. Planting Plan -changes made to remove some trees in the way of construction or with unhealthy growth and to increase sunlight in the. more densely covered areas.. Some others not originally included on planting plan will be retained. -tot lot detail has been added (bench and play structure). Building Flans -addition of windows to side elevations of westerly units.(although not as many as requested by the neighbors during planning meetings) -identify location of roof vents, plumbing stacks, etc. on roof elevation. -elimination of skylights on two bedroom westerly units. -relocation or addition of some light fixtures, smoke detectors, ventilation fans, windows. -expanded detail of sidewalks, decks, foundation, and basement wall construction. -modifications which address code related concerns identified by the Building Official; i.e., plumbing access door, attic access doors, crawlspace access,. party wall firestops, ventilation, fire doors, combustion air for furnace. Erosion Control Plan -Erosion Control Plan added utilizing hay bales or siltation fence to restrict erosion materials from entering street and storm sewer. (prepared at request of Watershed District) ~-~/ ~s ~~ _~ ~~g Z~Z .~ ~~ ~~ s~ ,; ~.I•^t. ;~, ~ ~- :; m~ U 0 Z `~~t t ~[~. fi~~ r~;1 i ~, f~~f ~~ ~~~ D ~~ ~~~~ e #~~ ..i ~~ - -~~r In, ~ ~~ ~ €~ ~~~~ L 3 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 L ~ U Z P ~_ ~ ~ g ~~ ~. ~. Y 4-2 ~ `' `~ ~ ' 1 am ~~ F 3 in" ' 7 , i z- +~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ ~~ • J~ ~ D "~ ~ }+~ V I I n i~ Z ~~ I ~~ a } tsi -_ ~~ 1~3 i' ~. ~ s ~~ ~~ I i "~~ ~i ~ _~~ ~ ~~ ~ zi F 3 ~~ ~~~~3~° ~3i ~ _ r <{~~ i T~~ Y~6 n a, 3 a ~ C ~P ~N ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~.. ~ ;, ~~ ~., t g p P a~ `~a~~ N~ 3~_ r~~ ~g" sr ~~S b 7 ~~ J ~ ~ ~~ ; .. • 1I /1 u ~~~ 3~~{ Z .~ ~~rt n ~Z~ ~'~'`~ z^^ U' I1.. i ij 1 is i!( ~ ~ ~~ L I I ~ ~ ;i I I ~ ~ ~~ ;I i ~ .: I ;~ i i ,~; ~~ x'11` 4~`~~ ~~ z t:.. ~~~. ~, g ~ ! ~' '~ ~ i~~ I W' ~ 6 i ~~ ~~II i ~~ I ~ ~. ' f~ i ~ u C r I m ~ ' I ' ~~. ,~; a ~ ~i~ `; 4i t ~,.-~~ z <o -- ~ ~ ~ ~ A . £ ~~m J ~' ti :~ ~ ~ '~'~ U ~P'~tV= ~'~(/~ ~" ~}~ 'F ~.~~ a - ,:,~,;:~ - - ., ' ` _ ( ~~ ~- -~ $ an~< ~s I ~ ~, }~. ~ a ~ ijc ~ ~ 1t S ~~ ~ ~ $ . }~ ~ P2~~_ ~ ) i ~"0~ ~vJ ~ I 'C ~ ` ~ ~~ '~ ~~ .. it =; i _- - --~ -t ,n ~ ~ v ~ , •a o ; ~ - ;~` ~:, ~ R ~ z,; .L _- ~ , ~. ' P ' i ~ ~ i ~ '~.,\ i \ ~ c ~ ~' ' ~ r s 7~ ~;~ ~ V ~~ _ n ~. ,~' - C\ ' 1. ~ .~ `l ` f ` ',~, l p~ F ~~' 1 ~ ~ s. ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 1, .k. ,~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ F~} ! c - :i ~: _ ~ x ~• ~Z (yam( ,l $ S ~~.~ ~' -~~ ~ ~ / Y ~ 9 ~1 f 'r~ u' I ~ ~' ~. ~h z ' 3 ~ ~ ~~ ,.,. `~; _ ~~ ~ , ,_ ~f~= __- ___ ,,~ "9 Gam., rr$~ ~ ~-- ,M.-- d~'i ;~1 pp} u ,,~ ~ { p~ <$ ~~ _:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ a .3-7 r • • ~3-A C ~~ fr m Y, C \L ~r > tl (~ i I ~ ,~ ; ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I i f ~I~~I.~ 111 ,~ ~`,I ~ ~ r . ~ :~ ~ ' :; I,~. ,, ,~;~ i"'*I I z I ,~~I ~~ ~, ~,; I,~ II i ~~+ I ! ~ ~ - '~ I i ,( If ,'~~ ~ ~i ~~ ii ~. ~~~ ~j~ I ~ i" ~~~~~ii ~ ~ ~+, I ~!~~~t ~I ~( ~~~ ii~~l _ : I i ~ `.. ~„ I l. ~~ ~ tlll~ ' Q ~I II (r~ ~ ,;~ ~ ' i~ t I t ~ z ~i ' ~ ~ ' - S 1 -- r _ ~ ' I' {t tt~. tl _; t i;j,:, i . ' ~, t 1 itl ~ t t ~ _ I ~{ .. 1 {r t i 1: ' , ~ j ~ { { ~ I I t i Ii.f t { ~ t j{ t! I i{i ' i1 j~ . , w ,, ,~1 ; i 4i, it , ~~ ~ , ; i ~ li ', , ti ~ j' ' , t ~ t { ? ; ~ p I ~ ~ ~ ~` - i ~ . {i~; ~j~1 ;~ . :f. ~ t ~; ~ ~, t ~ ~ : 1 i. _ ~,' , 1 ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ' / ~ 1 Z ~ y ~t / t ~ c f' t ' t ~~ C f f i { { I'j tj~i { ~ ~ I { ~I li, ' ; • `ilil' ,I I i illl'n ~ li~i( i ~o- i I i ~~ ~ ~ i i + li '" {'{~~~' t I~ I~~j~~~l ~~ ~ t lj+i~i`~fci~l i'li ~ > ~ ~ I ~ ,jii,. •M t II' i ~1 i ~ II ~ I ~ I i ~~~: ,~ {tlili ,. ~, ~j '~~jil'~I~'j~' ' ji 1~ is IIj ~ ~j~~l~~! j ~~ i' ~ ~' ~ j ~ ~ I _ ~~~ ~r L p9 Z N ~ ~' t p O L y o e • ~aa HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 57 Agenda October 21, 1885 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners. City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, Sale of 7508 Colfax Avenue and Authorization to Enter Into a Developers Agreement with George E. Branton Construction Company Dear Commissioners: A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 21, 1985, HRA meeting to consider the sale of 7508 Colfax Avenue.. On August 19, 1985, the HRA selected George E. Branton Construction Company as the developer of this site as well as the Rae Drive site. Staff was also authorized to negotiate a developerrs agreement with Mr. Branton. In this letter,. the HRA is asked to review and approve final development plans and authorize the execution of a development and land sale agreement. The final plans are attached. The agreement is summarized in this letter. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have previously acte-d on this development. The Planning Commission has previously made a finding that disposition of the property for construction of a-.new single home would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On October 14th, 1985, the City Council approved a lot size variance that would allow new construction to proceed. The HRA approved submitting the request for a variance to the City Council a~t their September 16, 1985, meeting. - In the past, staff has presented the Colfax development together with the 66th Street and Rae Drive development. dealing with the two sites as two separate projects at this time is beneficial to both the HRA and the developer because: -A construction start on Colfax is possible by the end of October because rezoning is not necessary. (The anticipated 66th Street/Rae Drive construction start is early December) -More days of favorable weather are anticipated, which helps to keep costs down (these costs will be difficult to avoid at 66th Street/Rae Drive) -An early start helps to ensure an earlier completion of the construction of the single family home and the timely a-~ use of the first time homebuyer mortgage commitment. (Individual units of the 66th Street/Rae-Drive duplexes would not take as long to build and sell as this single unit). To proneed with this development, it is necessary for the HRA and George E. Branton Construction to enter into a sale and development agreement. A discussion of the development and sales agreement follows. Developer Responsibilities: -to complete construction according. to the final approved plans and specifications and applicable federal, state, - and local laws and regulations so that a closing on the sale•of the dwelling to a purchaser shall occur no later than July 16, 1986. -demonstrate availability of equity capital and. construction financing sufficient to complete the improvements. A construution ].ender, Builders Development and Finance, Ina. of Wayzata, MN has agreed to provide financing once the final plans have been approved by the HRA and City Council. Sub-contractors have agreed to accept payment for their work from the sale proceeds of a buyer. This is a common practice for a single family construction project. -to pay a loan origination fee of 3 1/2 percent on behalf of a buyer when the completed house is sold (approximately $2,250) . -to provide additional financial assistance in the form of a "mortgage buydown" to ensure that a moderate income family within the following annual incomes may qualify to purchase the home: Family Size Maximum Income 3 $23 ,600 ~ $26,250 5 $27,900 6 $29,550 (This assistance would approximate $700 to $1200 each of the first two years of ownership depending on the income of the family. The developer would be allowed to finish the fourth bedroom if it meant a ls-rger family with a hig-her income could purchase. -to market the unit to a qualified family. -ensure that the structure, excluding land, does not exceed $69,900 in cost. (cost includes construction, related development costs, buydown assistance, profit). -to pay to the HRA approximately $2,000 as a mortgage commitment fee if the sale does not occur before July 16, 1.986. (This would help assure that the HRA funds paid to MHFA for the mortgage commitment would be returned). -to pay liquidated damages sufficient to cover the costs a-3 as outlined here, i.e., loan originate fee, mortgage buydown to return ownership of the land to the HRA, and, permit the HRA to complete construction of the dwelling unit should the developer fail to do so. -to enter into a development and sales agreement with the HRA no later than November 30, 19$5. -to pay real estate taxes payable in 1986. HRA Responsibilities: -provide clear title to the site. -clear existing structures, driveway, and household debris from the site. (Site clearance was authorized by the HRA September 16, 1985) -pay the mortgage commitment fee (approximately $2,000), to be reimbursed to the HRA from MHFA if the unit is sold by the developer to a qualified purchaser within the identified deadlines. -sell the land to the developer for $1.00 and file a lien on the property for a value of approximately $18,000. (value to be more exactly determined by an appraisal after ronstructon is completed in 198.6). Also, the agreement provides that the initial purchaser would repay the $18,000 (for the land) when the property is sold in the future. -ensure that the developer performs according to the development and sales agreement and provide a certificate of completion when work is satifactorily completed. Attachments to the agreement will include a quit claim deed in the form to be used at closing, final plans (see attachments), a certificate of completion, a development guide (as previously approved by the HRA), energy requirements of the. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and a release of HRA responsibility for discovery and removal of hazardous wastes on the site, should this occur. As discussed with the HRA in August, 1985, the developer profit will be approximately 10 to 12 percent. This is an acceptable range. With potential costs of mortgage buydown assistance, the construction of a fourth bedroom, and some structural changes recommended by staff, the profit margin may be even less. However, Mr. Branton has a strong commitment to proceeding with the project. The msximum price of the -- structure, $69,900, closely approximates the $60,000 cost for the present Vo-Tech project on Humboldt Avenue if the potential costs and risk cited in this letter are considered. Also, the 7508 Colfax Avenue structure will have the additional cost of a double car type garage whereas no garage is being provided with the Vo-Tech project. It is recommended, following the public hearing, that the HRA adopt the attached resolution which: a-~1 -authorizes the sale of 7508 Colfax Avenue to George E. Branton Construction Company for $1.00 subject to a lien; -acknowledges that the HRA has reviewed and approved the final development plan and. specifications subject to approval of plans and specifications by the City Building Official and the issuance of a building permit; and, -authorizes the Chairman and Executive Director to execute a Development and Sales Agreement and, the necessary. documents for conveyance of the property at the closing on the sale of the property to the contractor. e pectf 1 ~ remitted, Lt~c~ ~l2 ~"z~ G~, John G.~Ca twrigh Executive ecto JGC/ja ~-5 HRA RESOLUTION NO.~ Resolution Authorizing The Sale Of 7508 Colfax Avenue South and Entering Into A Development and Sales Agreement WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Richfield owns the real property located at 7508 Colfax Avenue South, legally described as: Lot 3: Block 22 _. Irwin Shores Addn., and WHEREAS, the existing structure on the property is substandard and deteriorated, and WHEREAS, a developer, George E. Branton Construction Company (Developer) has submitted. construction plans and specifications for a single family home to be built on the cleared property to be sold to a moderate income family, and WHEREAS, a Development and Sales Agreement has been prepared which prescribes the conditions for the sale of the property to the developer and development of the house. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of .Richfield, Minnesota; That the HRA authorizes the sale of 7508 Colfax Avenue to the Developer for $1.00 subject to a lien for the value of the land. That the HRA has reviewed and approves the final development plans and specifications submitted by the Developer contingent on acceptance by the City Building Official and the issuance of a building permit. That the HRA authorizes the Chairman and Executive Director to execute a Development and Sales Agreement with the Developer once a written letter of commitment to finance the construction has been provided from the construction lender.. That the HRA authorizes the Chairman and Executive Director to execute the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of the property to the Developer. ~'. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield this 21st day of October, 1985. '~ T omas E. Harms, Chairman ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary -', '~ .' 3_ 1 ~ rt h~ ~1r yam. 4~ r< J n ~N- .. ('~ ~ f ~, _~ ~ ~~ ~ n N ~~ (~ J _ 1. ._ ~~~ ~ _ X ~} -- _ ~ ~ ~ l (~ ~ -.i ,j .. ~ -/-' ~~ ` ~~a ~ {K C '1 ~ ~. ~~~ -*. -~ ~ ; a ~ ~I ri~ ~ '~3 3 ~ D 2 f • l ,i ~~ O~ n ~ ~ -_ ~~~ ~~ _'_? e ~~jQ ~J N ~ '~ ~ , ~~' I,\ m '( \ 5 ,!~ kI m XI ~, Z -~ 0 ~~ x o ~` 14'0" -_ f ,- z s; m t- t -,~ ~t~ U F '- 0 ~.. of ~ -{~ ' a W ~ ~ . ~. ~~m; ~ i ,~ ~ ~ ~~ `~~~ o ~ .~P, ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~ -~ ~~ s ,_~ ~ ~~~ N ~ ~ ~ b 11 ~ ~ v ~ ~ h -;'~ '~~ ~ ~ , ` ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a N ~~; ~~ ~~ Q Lis• < { •~, / T `.,.+ ~ ' ' ~' ~ +i '1 r: - ~ ~ ,- '~ jai' l~,III! ~ _! ~~^ ~~~ ~~ } ~ - ~. a ~ f } if E~ ~ ~~ ~' Z s `` } III Ii~l~ j i 1,~1 ~ ~ ~ j~; ~ ~' , , t : ; I 1 ~ 1 I ~: I ~ ~ r I ~ N '~' t s ~ ~< ~ ~ ` eMn.+v , c ' !~1-y~-y' ~~~ I ,li ~ I ~I I F ~1~}~! ~ 'I ~ i ~ 1 - to-m• - ~`=' #7'~ ~._ _.._.~,s•.w., I~ 1 I ~i I~ I 1 .. ~ !j~7 I' ~ !~ j ~ ~ twos _ s«..~. I a. 'rte-i~r=i ~ ±~,I ~!j,j,~ Itlll ~ I ? ~ ~ ~ ~' 1 X11 ';~" I1 !'~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c Est ~; i .a (pj. ® aJ L .•.c '1'1 Z ~' c• 3c• 1 ` ~ t5 _ ; ~. ~ ~~ ~, ,< ~ ;< ~, . .~I~ o- 1~1 ,11 1 .1. 'II ~ i i4 1. -~`- ^..t' ~ ~ ' ~~,.~. ~ ._-. I tb.,+. _..--__- SbyG" ~2 i 1 f ki~ 1~=0" xs ~ ;~~ ; e# , I Y s i i ~ i j ~ i.j ~ ~ ~ i '~- y~ fir ~ `~ ~ .~~Ot ' 6 .I r , o_ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ~.. ~ ~ ~ • n ~; r F ' ' ~! ~ ~ ~ z 7 j :'e r.S j Ia.A• ~ N, +•; c-~ S'./ -~( 14'•0' '~ `• Imo: ' L ~~ _.°•: fr .' '.- . _ ' ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~... ___ _. 1 Y _X ~ tI ~~ 1~v ~~. .I , ~ ` ~ I 1 { S'-b• ~ N .i Zrl~ ~ awl ~ ~ ~~' ,j ~~ , 1 ~_~' .. !_,y _ ^~. ~ ' ~~ i ` s L- ~ _ ~ i j • I T io j sr i ~ ~ ("~ NISI~ ;~4\ I'f f ~ i i~ ~ -- '-"tD'~l~E'--.- - 1 ~~~~~ 1 a ~ ~ s ~~ SI1 '~c ~ p i ~- T~ 1 ~,~ 1!~rfLeVp\\ a m Y ~ Z ((~ lK R %~ -r a ~- f ~ - ~ s` ~ ~ '~ 1 ~ ` . .. ~... _ r -r--a~~ ~-~''~ lib' (u'1 L'L' R -~.- ~ ~~ G ~_ z ''~{'''''''' i ~ ~ S ~ r 0`, [ ~~~' s'•e -d-+ ~~~fi i ~ C~=1:: ~ ~~Y.;; .F~S,~ .d L ' e R !S _. -y'- e F ~ S t '~ r~ ,, ~ r c~~ ~~ ~ ~,~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ., jS ~ ~ ' ;. ~ r ~/~~ ? I ' ~! ~P ~r C ~ ~, ~' ..~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~; ./ C. 4 \ ~ ,. ~ \ 4 ~+, III/// -1 ~ I ... / ' r C I I 1 ~ ti _ ~ ~ ~, ~ c. ~, ~ - 'f 'r ,~~ II 'c ^ ' ~ = C i ~ c F k-. ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ r ~ ~ s S ~~\ / ~ j ~ I V' 'I e ~I ~Y 'q ' _ s ~ ;y s # a. .- ~ ~ ~~ o`, ~ ~ a i r 3 ~~~;~ ~ :,~~ '1 -_;~, i ® .. ~~ ~~ 7 ~ ~' R~ ~;, t /-/ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 56 Agenda October 21, 1985 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Approving A Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan For The Interstate- •Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Project, Requesting The City Council To Conduct Public Hearings and Recommending Approval Of The Plans By The City Council Dear Commissioners: At the October 7, 1985, HRA meeting, the Commissioners received the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans. The HRA authorized the Executive Director to transmit the plans to the Planning Commission for their opinion as to the conformance of the plans to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission met on October• 8, 1985. Planning Commission Resolution No. 52 was adopted at that meeting by a vote of 7-0-1 (Robert Jensen abstained because of owning property in the area). The Planning Commission found the plans to be in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the traffic circulation plan. However, the Planning Commission. needs to initiate an amendment to the roadway functional classification plan to reflect the proposed street improvements.. With two exceptions, the Plans which accompany this letter are identical in every respect~to the Plans presented and discussed at the October 7, 1985, HRA meeting. One exception is related to a customer parking lot facility which had been proposed to occupy the property at ~b28-30-32 Lyndale Avenue. At this time, staff is of the opinion that the exact location of this facility in this block should be determined as part of the detailed comprehensive planning work proposed to be undertaken early in Phase I for this area which has been designated as the Core Commercial District. The appropriate modifications to the text and graphic: materials have been made to reflect this change. /~ The second exception or change is found in the text on page 66. It simply clarifies that the bonds to be issued may be general obligation tax increment bonds, and, temporary short- term tax increment bonds, but the total amount of those bonds would not exceed $18,675,000. Evensen-Dodge, financial consultants to the city, are evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of a possible three to five year bond issue and then a refinancing at that time to obtain better interest rates. The Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing District Plan meet the statutory requirements for the establishment of a redevelopment project and- a tax increment financing district. These Plans are the means by which the Interstate-Lyndale- Nicoliet Planning study formulated by the consulting firm of BRW may be implemented. -- The ILN Land Use-Plan and Phase I Development Plan, which are the focal point of the BRW study, were presented to the HRA, City Council and Planning Commission on September 16, 1985. The Land Use Plan and Development Plan were the result of the study initiated by BRW in March of this year. Back in March of 1985, it was anticipated that the ILN Plan prepared by BRW would be completed first. Then, the redevelopment project process would be initiated. However, because of the significant development proposed by CDR Investments and the Hampton Inn proposal and the discussions in Congress regarding placing limits on bond financing, staff and our financial consultant recommended proceeding with the redevelopment project and bond issue during 1985• Also presented at the September 16, 1985, HRA meeting in Letter No. 49, was the revised time schedule for considering the establishment of a redevelopment project "and tax increment financing district. With the support of the HRA,. City Council, and Planning Commission, it may be possible to adhere to that schedule and close on a tax increment bond sale prior to December 31, 1985• During the initial period of the BRW study, it became apparent that resolving circulation issues was the key to improving the ILN area. Thus, a ciruclation plan was formulated. -That plan was presented to the HRA and City Council on July 1, 1985, and subsequently to the ILN Advisory Committee. That plan is presented on page 38 in the Redevelopment Plan section entitled Physical Inventory and Analysis/Land. Use and Related Issues in the form of a map entitled Land Use/Circulation Plan (several sections of th-e- Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District Financing Plan discuss the. same information. In this letter only the Plan which first discusses the relevant proposal or concept will be referenced). The Land Use/Circulation Plan map also contains a recommendation that the land use in the planning area be designated commercial thus limiting new development to commercial uses. Goals and objectives for achieving the redevelopment of the area according to the Land Use/Circulation Plan are discussed on pages 10 through 15. Capital projects which would initiate the implementation of the Land ~-3 Use/Circulation Plan are identified as the Phase I Development Program. If the Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Financing District are established, additional capital projects would be developed over a period of several years in successive phases. The Phase I Development Program is graphically represented in a map on page 17. A description of the private and public activities proposed for Phase I appears on pages 16 through 24. These activities include the construction of the CDR office/ramp/hotel. proposal and the Hampton Inn proposal. The HRA and City would work cooperatively to upgrade and realign _ 77th Street east and west. of Lyndale Avenue, to upgrade Lyndale Avenue for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, widen the Lyndale Avenue bridge, and provide improved off-street parking - in three areas along Lyndale Avenue north of 77th Street in an area which is -also proposed for renovation as a community oriented commercial area (Core Commercial District). The area east. and west of Lyndale Avenue. and south of 77th Street would be redeveloped. In addition to the construction proposed for Phase I, detailed comprehensive plans would be formulated for the renovation and redevelopment areas to guide these activities . and provide a basis for successive Phases of .development. To implement the public development activities, property would be acquired by the HRA. The Redevelopment Plan section titled Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Activities, pages 24 through 28, contains a map identifying the property proposed for purchase as well as a list. identifying by address the property proposed for acquisition.. The proposed Tax Increment Financing District Plan on pages 53 through 55 discusses the relocation process to be followed. As its name implies, the proposed Tax Increment Financing District Plan discusses the use of tax increment and other reve-Hues to fund the public improvements. At the September 16, 1985, HRA meeting, Letter No. 48, entitled Report on Financing Alternatives Study for' Proposed Project Improvements and Development was presented. It concluded that there were probably five viable sources of funding for the proposed Phase I Development Program. Tax Increment was the-only revenue source which had the potential of providing funds in the amounts needed to proceed. It may be possible to utilize funds such as Municipal State Aid and FAUS to help finance a part of the public improvements. -- - -- - In the Tax Increment District Financing Plan, page 66, Exhibit IX, entitled. Anticipated Source of Funds, indicates the likely sources and amounts of revenue available to fund the public improvements. It estimates that $21,820,000 may be available. The budget estimates $21,189,490 may be needed. Exhibit VIII, entitled Project Costs by Line Item, pape 65, is the proposed budget. Note that there is an appendix which discusses. the basis for the budget numbers. The source and use tables are a part of a section entitled Tax Increment Financing /- ~/ Plan which begins on page 6~. It indicates that the tax increment cash flow for funding Phase I is based on the construction of development valued at approximately $7#.b million. The Hampton Inn proposal is valued at approximately $3.8 million and the CDR proposal is valued at approximately $70.8 million. These values appear on page 70 in Table 4. The tax increment cash flow section beginning on page 71 discusses the assumptions made for the cash flow and contains a cash flow print-out prepared by Evensen-Dodge. At their August 29th meeting, the ILN Advisory Committee adopted a motion which supported the BRW Land Use/Circulation _ Plan and Phase I Development Program and Public Improvements Plan. The committee also endorsed the TIF as the means for financing the public costs. Fifteen of the twenty-five members were present and the vote was unanimous. Minnesota statutes provide Richfield with a way to implement the Land Use/Circulation Plan and Phase I Development Program formulated by BRW and recommended by the Advisory Committee. That is through the establishment of a Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Financing District. . This proposed Redevelopment Project Plan and proposed Tax Increment Finance District Plan respond to the requirements of the law. Ample time has been available to those interested to review the proposed Plans. The Planning Commission has made their findings. Thus., it would now be appropriate for the HRA to approve the Plans by adopting the attached resolution. In addition to approving the Plans, the resolution requests the City Council to conduct a public hearing and recommends the approval of the Plans as well. Following the adoption of the resolution, the HRA should also consider a motion establishing Tuesday, November 12th at 7:30 p.m., as a time for a special HRA meeting. The City Council will also be meeting that same evening. After the City Council holds the public hearing and considers the adoption of the ILN Plans, the HRA would meet to consider adopting a resolution requesting the sale of bonds and approving a tax increment agreement. In the agreement, the HRA would pledge to transfer to the City all the tax increment revenue it receives from the ILN to pay for the bonds. The City Council would then be requested to act on the HRA request that same evening. It is recommended that the HRA adopt the resolution approving the ILN Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing District Plan and schedule November 12th at 7:30 p.m. as a special meeting for the HRA. Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Ca wr' t Executive Director /-5 HRA RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: REQUESTING THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS THEREON: AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield (Authority) as follows: Section 1. Background,. The Authority finds as follows: 1.01. The Authority on its own initiative has prepared a redevelopment plan and program (Redevelopment Plan) for the area in the City of Richfield generally known as the Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Area (Study Area) in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 4b2.411 to 462.71b (Redevelopment Act) and has prepared a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 (TIF Act). 1.02. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan are contained in a document entitled "Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District Plan" dated October 21, 1985, now on file with the Authority. 1.03. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF accordance with the Acts, referred to the Planning Commission which by action taken Resolution Number 52, has commented on the and TIF Plan and found them to conform to with the general plan for the development whole. Section 2. Referrals. Plan have been, in City of Richfield on October 8, 1985, Redevelopment Plan and not be in conflict of the City as a 2.01. The Authority finds and determines that the objectives of the Redevelopment Act and TIF Act and the City's and_Authority's objectives for the redevelopment of the Study Area will be accomplished by the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF' Plan. 2.02. The Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan are approved and adapted by the Authority. 2.03. The Executive Director is authorized and directed to transmit copies of the Plans to the governing body of Independent School District No. 280 and the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County for their review and comment as provided by the TIF Act. Section 3. Establishment of TIF District. 3.01. The Authority respectfully requests the City Council to conduct the public hearings required by Section 462.521 of /-!o the Redevelopment Act and Section 273.74 of the TIF Act as soon as convenient, and further recommends to the City Council that it approve the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Pian. 3.02. The Executive Director is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution and the Plans to-.the City Council. Section 4. Further Action: Financing.. 4.01., The Authority intends to request the City Council from time to time to assist in the financing of the public redevelopment costs identified in the TIF Plan by the issuance _ of general obligation. bonds of the City payable from tax increments from the 'T IF District. 4.02. The Authority also intends to request the City Council from time to time to consider various other actions necessary to the implementation of the Plans including but not limited to, rezoning of property., the use of eminent domain authority, the execution of joint and cooperative agreements, and the use of other powers which the City is authorized to exercise on behalf of and in conjunction with the Authority pursuant to the Redevelopment-Act and the TIF Act. 4.03. The Authority pledges its cooperation tc the City Council in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield this 21st day of October, 1985. .Thomas E. Harms, Chairman ATTEST: oan e m erger, ecre ary r • ~-/ RESOLUTION N0: -52- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE. CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA, PRESENTING THE OPINION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT. AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS OF THE HOUSING AND-REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA '_ WHEREAS, it has been the intent of the City of Richfield to improve conditions in the section of the City of Richfield referred to as the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota ,(the "Authority"), has now prepared a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project for the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Project Area"), dated 1985 '(the "Plan"); and ..WHEREAS,. the Plan has been prepared for the Authority with the :cooperation and assistance of the appropriate city departments and a planning consultant; and WHEREAS, the Authority has now transmitted the Plan to the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield for its review, and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission on the Plan, all. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.515; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has now studied and considered said Plan,. which consists of the: Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans NOW,. .THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMLSSION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, that, having studied and considered the Plan, the Planning Commission, by this ` ~~ -2- • resolution; advises the City Council; the Authority; and all interested persons, that it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that: • 1. The Plan provides an outline for the development and redevelopment of the Project Area and is sufficiently complete - to .indicate the relationship of the-Plan to the objectives of the City of Richfield as to appropriate land uses within the .Project Area ,.,and to_ indicate the general land uses and general standards of development or redevelopment within the Project Area; 2. The Project Area is a deteriorated and deteriorating area within the meaning. of Minnesota Statutes 462.421, Subd. 11; 3. T.he redevelopment project proposed by the Plan is necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of, such deterioration; 4. The Project Area is subject to conditions preventing • private development and would. not. be made available for redevelopment without the governmental assistance and financial aid proposed by the Plan; 5. The Plan affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise, consistent. with the sound needs of the locality as a whole; 6. The objectives and purposes of the Plan conform to -and are consistent with the general land use proposals and planning. objectives of the City of Richfield's Comprehensive Plan.. ?. The acquisition plan is consistent with the City of Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. 8. The traffic circulation plan and improvements proposed are consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Richfield's Comprehensive Pian. The Planning Commission will initiate the process to amend the roadway functional classification plan contained in the Richfield Comprehensive Plan to reflect the. improvements contained in the Interstate- , Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans. • • ~~ 9 _3_ Passed this 8th day of October ;.. 1985 by the Planning Commission of .the City of Richfield, Minnesota ATTEST: li ~ W Steven Quam, Secretary Connie Hoverson, Chairperson - _.