Loading...
07-28-1992CITY Of R10HRELD Puunin6 oommission AGHIDfI July 28, 1992 7:00 p.m. hpr•u).i1 a)f' linute' Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1992. I "ul li• I- I.ir•ir. ITEM #1 92 -RZ -1 521 West 64th Street Investors Savings Bank Rezone property from R to C -2 to allow parking lot expansion at Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center i''t'V• Utillletiti ITEM #2 Information Letter #8 Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment and TIF Plan ITEM #3 Information Letter #9 Quarterly report of Administrative Review Committee OICI : UtililC titi Pon 1)11 Ij ti School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council AdHoc 135/1494 Traffic Committee Ad.j ()u 1•n lui e 1- r PLANNING CONIIVIISSION NIINUTES P, ppw- Regular Meeting June 23, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson William Snyder; Commissioners: Robert Elliott, Timothy Erlander, Michael Gallagher, Daniel Linnihan, Morris Nilsen II, Thomas Scaglia, and David Sumnicht MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Nancy Edwardson COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director; Bill Weaver, City Planner; Shawn Drill, Zoning Administrator; and Diane Anastos, Associate Planner The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Snyder at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Erlander, S /Gallagher to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1992. Motion carried: 7 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Sumnicht arrived. CASE 92 -SD -3, 7626 -44 Knox Avenue South ITEM #1 Leaseback Properties Limited Partnership Subdivision- waiver to divide parcel into two lots Zoning Administrator Drill reviewed the staff report, stating that the request consisted of dividing the subject parcel into two separate lots with one commercial building on each lot. He stated that the division would allow separate ownership of two principal buildings which occupy the property. Mr. Drill gave an analysis of the site plan, noting that there would be no physical Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 2 changes, except required improvements such as landscaping and restriping of the parking lot. Mr. Drill reviewed the occupancy status of the buildings and addressed parking issues. He also stated that variances to allow the lot configuration were under consideration with the Hearing Examiner. Staff recommended approval of the request with three stipulations as outlined in the staff report. Responding to Chairperson Snyder's question, Mr. Drill stated that no curbing was planned on the proposed lot line separating Parcel A and Parcel B. Responding to Commissioner Gallagher's question, Mr. Drill stated that federal law would require one handicapped parking space on Parcel A. Michael Thornton, representing Leaseback Properties Limited Partnership, concurred with the staff recommendation. He stated that a handicapped parking space would be provided as required for Parcel A. He also stated that the buyer for Parcel B will occupy the vacant area in the building. He anticipates that the other two tenants in this building will remain in place. Responding to Chairperson Snyder's question, Mr. Thornton stated that Leaseback Properties would be responsible for the required improvements through submission of an escrow agreement with the City. NVScaglia, S/Linnihan to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 M/Elliott, S/Linnihan to recommend approval of the subdivision waiver with the following stipulations: 1. That the Heariniz Examiner grant the necessary variances. 2. That the parking lot be screened pursuant to landscape requirements, be striped in accord with the proposed site plan, and the curbing be repaired where broken. 3. That a cash escrow be provided for all required improvements. NVScaglia, S/Linnihan to amend Commissioner Elliott's motion, adding a fourth stipulation to read as follows: 4. That a handicapped parking space be provided on Parcel A. Motion to amend motion carried: 8 -0 Motion as amended carried: 8 -0 Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 3 CASE 92- CUP -3, 6745 12th Avenue South ITEM #2 Norma Jean Sims Conditional use permit for two family dwelling in the R zone Associate Planner Anastos reviewed the staff report, stating that the request was to allow an upstairs accessory apartment in a single family dwelling located in the R zoning district. She stated that the applicant received a conditional use permit in 1984 to allow the upstairs apartment, however, that permit had lapsed because the project was not completed within the one year expiration period for all such permits. Ms. Anastos gave an analysis of the site plan, stating that the apartment would have a separate entrance, kitchen, and bathroom. She reviewed the conditions under which two family dwellings are allowable in the R zone, and stated that all conditions have been met. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with three stipulations as outlined in the staff report. Responding to Commissioner Linnihan's questions, Ms. Anastos stated that the dormer would be an expansion of the existing dormer and that the egress window in the second story bedroom would serve as the second means of escape. Responding to Commissioner Gallagher's question, Ms. Anastos stated that the double garage would qualify as one parking space for each unit, and the driveway would qualify as a second parking space for each unit. Responding to Commissioner Elliott's questions, Norma Jean Sims, applicant, stated that the apartment would be 17 feet by 42 feet, providing over 700 square feet. She also stated that the apartment would have a refrigerator, stove, and had plumbing for a washer and dryer. Responding to Community Development Director Wallace's question, Ms. Sims said that the interior stairway will be closed. Ms. Sims stated that the no work was needed in the existing bedroom. She also reviewed the proposed floor plan. M/Erlander, S/Elliott to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 M/Erlander, S /Scaglia to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. That the dwelling meet building and fire code requirements, specifically that an egress window be provided in the sleeping room. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 4 2. That a hard -wired smoke detector be installed in the unit. 3. That the ceiling height must be at least seven feet -six inches. Motion carried: 8 -0 CASE 92- ACUP -2, 7627 Lyndale Avenue South ITEM #3 Hope's Chow Mein Restaurant Amended conditional use permit for restaurant expansion Community Development Director Wallace presented the staff report, stating that the request was to allow restaurant expansion into an adjacent building owned by Fred Ryan. He stated that the expansion would increase seating capacity from 26 to 50. Parking standards require one space for each 2.5 seats at Hope's Chow Mein. The additional 24 seats would require ten additional parking spaces for restaurant use. Mr. Wallace gave an analysis of staff concerns related to parking. He stated that he had talked with many store owners in the area who felt that a parking problem already existed. Mr. Wallace reviewed the attachments to the. staff report, specifically noting a letter by Russell Walzer of WW Properties, owner of the existing restaurant site, which stated that the additional parking spaces required for the additional seating must be provided by Mr. Ryan. Mr. Wallace also distributed copies of the most recent petitions for and against the restaurant expansion. Mr. Wallace said the restaurant would use 1,200 square feet of the neighboring 4,000 square foot building owned by Mr. Ryan. The petitioner's parking plan indicated that only two parking spaces would be left for the remaining 2,800 square feet of general retail space, which normally requires 12 parking spaces. Mr. Wallace stated two parking spaces for this space is inadequate and will only delay a major additional parking problem in the future. In addition, the spaces indicated as 4, 5, and 6 located along the south wall of the Ryan building cannot be considered because this area is an extension of the alley around the side of the building. He added that the City would not allow an encroachment on a neighboring property to handle parking and/or access unless there was a long term agreement running with the land. He also noted that a handicapped parking space must be provided on the Ryan property. Upon further review of the petitioner's parking plan, Mr. Wallace stated that staff would not recognize six spaces allocated for restaurant parking on the WW Properties site. The spaces indicated as 14, 15, and 16 are not currently marked. This area is needed for snow storage and to insure access to the alley. The spaces indicated as 17 and 18 were also eliminated from consideration as they would block the delivery door utilized by Mattress Liquidators. Additionally, space 19 is not reasonably accessible and would not be used for restaurant parking. Mr. Wallace stated that spaces indicated as 1, 2, and 3 are located on the Lyndale Avenue right -of way, but staff had no argument with the continued use of the spaces. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Wallace said parking is currently available on the Total site at 7645 Lyndale due to a vacancy, however, the City cannot assume that this space will be vacant forever. Presently, several cars are parking on this site and easing the parking problems temporarily. When the Total property becomes re- occupied, parking problems will become more evident. 77th Street has also long been used to ease parking problems in this area, however, no parking will be available on 77th Street after it is widened to four lanes, which will further impact the parking problems in the area. Staff recommended that the application for expansion be denied because of inadequate parking. Mr. Wallace said the recommendation was based on parking concerns for other businesses and landowners in the area who need parking spaces for their own customers, and were not willing to concede all the parking spaces required for Hope's Chow Mein to their own detriment. Mr. Wallace stressed that denial of the permit would not close the restaurant down, it would simply not permit them to expand. He also stressed that no new parking spaces were being added to the site to justify the more intense land use. Commissioner Linnihan asked how late other businesses in the area stay open. Daryl Cook, owner of Hutch and Mantle, stated that they are open until 5:00 p.m. three nights a week, and until 8:30 p.m. two nights a week. Mr. Wallace added that this was probably typical for most businesses in the area. Responding to Commissioner Sumnicht's questions, Mr. Wallace stated that there was generally inadequate parking throughout the area. Based on the square footage of retail space, parking was not in compliance with City standards on either side of the block. Mr. Wallace also stated that several business said they were promised the parking spaces in front of their lease spaces. Monica Dorow, representing Hope's Chow Mein, stated that the restaurant owners have worked hard to accomplish the proposed expansion. She stated that approximately 80% of their business is carry out. She also presented a revised interior floor plan, stating that handicap accessible bathrooms, dumpster area with hose bib, and grease trap would be provided. She noted that several names appeared on petitions submitted both for and against the expansion. She stated that a major reason for the expansion was to widen the kitchen area for more efficient operation. Ms. Dorow asked the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit because she did not believe parking would be a problem. Responding to Commissioner Linnihan's question, Commissioner Elliott said that he believes Electronic Devices Inc. has a garage door on the northeast corner of the north building. Ms. Dorow stated that ten or 11 spaces were available for restaurant parking on the north end of the block abutting 76th Street. Two additional spaces were available on the northeast Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 6 corner of the Communications Center property, and spaces were available directly in front of the Communications Center. She stated that all Communication Center parking should count towards space available to Hope's Chow Mein. She noted that someone at Southdale would walk farther to get to their destination. She also stated that they recognized the legitimacy of the Staffs concerns regarding parking availability at the Total Station and had no argument there. Responding to Chairperson Snyder's question, Ms. Dorow stated that Hope's chow Mein is not paying to park on the Total parking lot. Responding to Commissioner Sumnicht's question, Zoning Administrator Drill stated that City staff has not received the revised restaurant plans, and could not reply if the plans would meet health and building codes. Responding to Commissioner Linnihan's question, Ms. Dorow stated that 24 seats would be added, which would amount to roughly 7 tables. She said there are about nine tables currently. Ms. Dorow also stated that a lot of restaurant business takes place in the evenings when many other businesses are closed. She stated that the lunch and dinner rush were busy for the restaurant, however, parking was available the rest of the time. Responding to Commissioner Nilsen's question, Khanh Kwan, restaurant owner, stated that the restaurant hours were 11:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. Responding to Commissioner Elliott's question, Ms. Dorow stated that the restaurant owners would not prefer to expand the kitchen without provision of additional seating. Eugene Carlisle, 7639 Garfield, stated concern with parking overflowing onto Garfield Avenue, which is a residential street. He felt there would not be adequate parking with the proposed expansion, and a parking restriction should be placed on Garfield Avenue to prevent overspill parking. Responding to Commissioner Sumnicht's question, Mr. Carlisle stated that Garfield Avenue is not currently getting parking generated from the shops on Lyndale Avenue. Fred Ryan, owner of the proposed expansion space, stated that he was having difficulties leasing out all 4,000 square feet to one tenant, and will divide the interior into two or three smaller lease spaces. He gave a brief history of his property and stated that he has not noticed any significant parking congestion in front of his building. His stated that his major objective was to lease the property out. Two other perspective tenants included a State Farm Insurance office and Rapid Printing. Mr. Ryan said both of these tenants would need very little parking. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 7 Responding to Commissioner Sumnicht's question, Mr. Ryan stated that he would repair the parking lot if he could afford to. He stated that if he gets tenants that pay a decent ongoing rent rate, he could afford to borrow the money to make the improvements. Responding to Mr. Wallace's question, Mr. Ryan stated that St. Paul Book is moving out of the space at the end of June, 1992. Daryl Cook, owner of Hutch and Mantle, said that the parking has been a "live and let live" situation, however, problems presently exist which are hurting business. Many customers come to his business to shop during the lunch hour, when parking supply is very low because of the restaurant. He said people come to him to avoid the hassles and long walks of the large shopping centers. Mr. Wallace stated that with respect to restaurant parking on the Communication Center site, there is no long term agreement running with the land stating that Hope's Chow Mein can utilize these spaces. He also stated that the restaurant would be almost doubling the number of seats available without adding any new parking spaces. Ms. Dorow stated that the petitioner should not be penalized because of the parking problems on the west side of Lyndale Avenue. She also stated that Hutch and Mantle should not have to worry about a parking shortage because they have signs stating "no restaurant parking" in front of their business. Mr. Cook stated that the signs in front of Hutch and Mantle don't mean anything because normally at least two of his four parking spaces were being used by restaurant patrons during the lunch hours. Responding to Mr. Ryan's questions, Mr. Wallace stated that no parking will be available on 77th Street after the construction. He also stated that he has been unsuccessful in contacting someone at Total to discuss their plan for the Total property. Responding to Commissioner Elliott's question, Mr. Wallace stated that the take line for widening of 77th Street would affect the Total station, but it was still unclear how much of a taking there would be. M/Sumnicht, S/Nilsen to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 Responding to Commissioner Erlander's question, Mr. Wallace stated that there was a possibility that the Total property could be taken completely and be made available for public parking, however, there is no plans for that at this time. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 8 Responding to Commissioner Linnihan's question, Mr. Wallace stated that a municipal parking lot has been considered on the west side of the Lyndale where parking takes place on the sidewalk. He added that there are no current plans to buy the Total station for use as a parking lot, however, it is a suggestion that could be made. Responding to Commissioner Sumnicht's question, Mr. Ryan stated he could repair the parking lot if he was able to rent out the entire 4,000 square feet at reasonable rates. Commissioner Sumnicht stated that inadequate parking was a problem in the area, however, he was inclined to look at parking as overall parking for the entire area, similar to that of a strip center. He added that if a business wants to expand, the Commission should encourage it and let the owners resolve the problems on their own. Commissioner Linnihan stated he recognized a "catch 22" situation, where the City needs to attract businesses, however, the biggest problem facing business expansion is parking. He said the City should consider looking at a municipal parking investment to encourage business. Commissioner Gallagher stated the he observed a lot of parking at the Total site earlier in the day. Commissioner Scaglia expressed disappointment that businesses in this area that want to expand are faced with parking issues. He recommended that the City Planner's office come up with some ideas to handle this parking problem. Responding to Chairperson Snyder's question, Ms. Dorow stated that a lease was already signed contingent on the issuance of the necessary permits. Mr. Wallace suggested that a singular ownership between the Ryan property and the Total property may be the best way to deal with this problem in terms of operating a viable business with adequate parking at this location. General discussion regarding the Total site and municipal parking lots followed. M/Sumnicht, S /Scaglia to recommend approval of the of the amended conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. That handicapped parking be provided on Fred Ryan's property. 2. That the petitioner provide a grease trap for the restaurant. 3. That the petitioner provide a dumpster area with concrete slab, screening, and hose bib per City Code. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 9 4. That an interior layout including table location and aisle width be approved by the Building and Health Departments. 5. That the parking lot for the Ryan building be repaired and striped. Motion Carried: 6 -2 (Gallagher and Elliott opposed) NEW BUSINESS Community Development Director Wallace explained the differences between the Planning Commissioners role and the Hearing Examiners role. He reviewed the variance process, and provided a hand -out which defines a variance. OLD BUSINESS None. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: The girls softball team finished first in the state; and the boys golf team finished second in the state. Community Services Advisory Commission: A bus tour was held on May 12th. 1992. HRA: None, City Council: The Council approved the conditional use permit for 7440 Penn and the subdivision waiver for 7629 -45 Logan. Ad Hoc Traffic Committee:' None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:00 p.m. Timothy ander Planning Commission Secretary madO CITY Of R10HRELD M . Knnnm oommission notion itequeA Item: ;lil Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: X192 -RZ -1 Date: July 28, 1992 Petitioner: Location: Type of Request: Present Zoning: Proposed Zoning: GENERAL INFORMATION Investors Savings Bank 521 West 64th Street Rezoning R- residential (single family) C -2 (general commercial) Present Land Use: Single family residential Proposed Land Use: Commericial parking lot Comprehensive Plan: Medium density buffer References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: Section 545.11 outlines the procedure for zoning amendments. City Code: Chapter 462 outllines the procedures for zoning amendments. ACTION Proposed Change: Rezone property to allow a parking lot expansion at Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center, 6401 -35 Lyndale Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning petition. Public Notice: Bearing Examiner: City Council: W OODLAKE. DOC HISTORY Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Not applicable. Planning Commission action would set first reading of the City Council on August 10, 1992. The City Council public hearing and second reading would be tentatively scheduled for August 24, 1992. ANALYSIS Issues: Investors Savings Bank, owner of Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center, is requesting to rezone the property at 521 West 64th Street from R- residential to C -2 general commercial. They presently have a purchase agreement on the home contigent upon the outcome of the rezoning request. The home would be demolished and the site would accomodate additional parking for Woodlake Plaza. The rezoning application, in conjuction with an off - street parking permit, would expand Woodlake Plaza's parking capacity from 78 to 103, adding 25 new spaces. . The application states that the rezoning and parking expansion will improve the viability and vitality of the shopping center by attracting a more compatible tenent mix. The rezoning will also improve site appearance and overall presentation of the shopping center to the neighborhood and the city. The parking lot would be screened and buffered from the adjacent residences and 64th Street through a combination of fencing and plantings. The alley which tuns behind the existing Center was vacated in 1982. Concurring signatures from property owners of at least 50 % of the land within 300 feet is required for a valid rezoning application. This rezoning application included signatures of property owners of 65.6 % supporting the rezoning application. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning application in accordance with the proposed site plan. BMiS: 1. The parking expansion would alleviate some of the traffic circulation problems now present in this area of the City. 2. The proposed site improvements would comply with City engineering and landscape requirements. 3. The parking area with buffer yard and screening would minimize the impact of the Center on the adjacent properties, while improving the overall appearance of the neighborhood. 4. Approval of the request would not constitute a spot zone, because contiguous parcels are presently zoned C -2. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the rezoning application with a finding of fact that the rezoning wouold have an adverse impact on neighboring properties. WOODLAKE.DOC CITATIONS ZONING CODE: 545.11. Amendment procedure. Subdivision 1. Public tiggings. No amendment to this code shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the council. Subd. 2. Notice of hea"n . A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. Subd. 3. Mailing of notice. When an amendment involved changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine he names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by he responsible person an shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. Subd. 4. Initiation. An amendment to this code may be initiated by the council, planning commission, or by the petition of the owners of not less than fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by the owners of at least fifty percent of the land within three hundred feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Properties owned by federal, state, municipal entities or other political subdivisions shall be excluded from any computation of the percentage of landowners necessary for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners. Subd. 5. Issuance of building permit. No building permit for any building or structure may be issued while proceedings for rezoning of the land wherein the structure is located or to be located are pending, unless the permit would be permitted under both the existing zoning classification and the proposed zoning classification for such area, or unless council approval is first obtained. Subd. 6. Limitation: Time. Not more than one petition for the rezoning of any particular lot, piece or parcel of land shall be made within any twelve -month period. Subd. 7. Amendment: fee. The fee for a petition to rezone land is set by appendix D. W OODLAKE. DOC ZZ i o ft l 0 o w l c + 0 tON ' t ; lire E.l, . @. N fl;-st il f , :11i!l f bD ltlf l f bID N bD 0.; • g moil t It dy It ts g z o " o a J Y I O O6 _ b U 54 Imo' O gr bID W bJD 'mil Z m Z. l till Qz eof IN PE N 1111 Y owl ® i A p r a o Y " o O O 0 a g po W c z Ofza ZI of NI Z2 JiL d5 PC Ir. TIM lit dgM CITY Of R10HRELD Puinnin6 oommission Infoemabon Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business Information Letter: #8 Date: July 28, 1992 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) requests the Planning Commission to consider modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans. Modifications allow a Phase 2 Program to begin. The Phase I Program was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1990. Type of Request: Consideration of compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan for (1) Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans and (2) Acquisition and Disposition of Richfield Rediscovered property. References: Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute requires that whenever any public agency acquires or sells property in the City, the Planning Commission must review the proposed acquisition or sale for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute also requires Planning Commission review of Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Adopt the attached resolutions which make a finding that: 1. Acquisition and disposition of property for Richfield Rediscovered is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan modifications is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. RR- LTR3,DOC Basis: 1. Richfield Rediscovered is a proven redevelopment program. Qualifying redevelopment sites have been identified within an area specified in a Redevelopment Plan originally approved in 1990. 2. The Planning Commission is required to review the modified 1992 Plans and make a finding as to whether proposed acquisition and disposition of the properties identified would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates each of the identified sites for residential use. 4. There is a market of owners who wish to voluntarily sell their substandard and /or obsolete homes. 5. There is a builder and buyer market for new larger contemporary housing. 6. A source of funding is available to implement the program. 7. A cash flow analysis indicates that the program continues to be self supporting excluding staff costs which are covered by the New Home Program. 8. Existing staff resources are available to administer the Program. 9. Legal counsel has reviewed the program and related documents and found them to be in compliance with existing law. Alternative: Find that the Program and Plans do not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. However, this would appear to require amending the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND Purpose: Richfield Rediscovered acquires substandard and obsolete housing followed by replacement with larger market rate housing units. Richfield Rediscovered Program Phase 1 is essentially completed. Funding for Richfield Rediscovered Phase 2 has been approved by the City Council and HRA in April, 1992. Richfield Rediscovered Program Plan modifications to start Phase 2 use the original "A" and "B" project areas without changing program boundaries. New substandard properties, presently being voluntarily offered by sellers are identified in a modified "A -2" and "B -2" District. Phase 1, 1990, properties no longer being voluntarily offered in the 1990 "A -1" and B -1" Districts are dropped from the Plan. The added properties are listed in the attached resolution and plans. The dropped properties are listed on page 5 and 6 of the Redevelopment Plan and pages 5 and 6 of the Financing Plans. In April, 1992, the City Council, at the request of the HRA, appropriated 500,000 for the continuation of the Richfield Rediscovered Program. Phase 2 would accomplish the following: demolish approximately nine substandard homes on properties valued by the Hennepin County Assessor at $435,000; provide ten homes (one site is a double lot) valued at a minimum of approximately $1,080,000 and generate an estimated $270,000 in land proceeds. Tax increments generated by the new housing development over a 25 year period would provide the balance of the revenue to repay the $500,000. RR- LTR3.D0C During May and June, housing staff identified 32 substandard properties. The Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans identify the 32 eligible properties. Attached is a one page summary and the Plans in their entirety. Given that the resources available from the HRA and City Council at this time are limited and approximately nine properties are anticipated for purchase (to make ten redevelopment sites), 23 properties would remain. The HRA intends to consider other initiatives that might allow some of these 23 properties to be redeveloped. An objective of this program is to make it possible for developers to initiate construction in late 1992. Favorable action by the HRA, Planning Commission and City Council during July and August should allow the program to proceed in a timely manner. Public Notice: Not required for a finding of this type. City Council: A public hearing is scheduled for August 24, 1992 for the City Council to consider modified Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans. In April, 1992, the HRA approved a 1992 Richfield Rediscovered Program and the City Council authorized funding of a 1992 Program. ANALYSIS Issues: All sites identified in the Plans are presently zoned and used for single family residential purposes. The majority of the sites meet the, width and area requirements for the single family residence district. Lots that don't meet these requirements would be reviewed through the hearing examiner process. However, all lots are lots of records. The following sites would require a variance- from City ordinance lot width or size (50 feet lot width and 6,000 square feet lot size is the minimum required): District A -2: 6926 Chicago Avenue; 48 feet wide 7112 First Avenue; 5,900 square feet lot size 6844 14th Avenue, 48.7 feet wide 6404 15th Avenue; 48 feet wide District B -2: 6300 Aldrich; 40 feet wide, 5,120 square feet lot size The Hearing Examiner will consider variances on a case by case basis. The Planning Commission is only being asked to determine at this time whether acquisition and disposition as residential property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RR- LTR3.DOC CV G3 rfgrrat ' mania -------- O0113U1rD, N"lo _ , 'M MOl'a uN • ooLJo '- r1a 000000d o unu - ' " "' 0000noo^' c oo "" Z w0lewrt001 o ®ooLJ OQQ i r l7lwmlf 14.I OD o0 00 00 ", oCI COO O loo 4i11; o000000o W o l 4444 134o0oQo00 ' ua II I rya aana • o o o Q o0o I aa,n fl ( . CL o0o YYr1 CD owr,Ya 1 L9r (,— ==C: d td i5 C o OrrlYOr V At Orrurw ')Ar Otlr1a1100 tJ/ OCC Bo01°1011„ o0 00° o0 01p1Y1p a wwat O © 00 . ) AU, aAr talloalr •aAr ut,o,lr 11""11 waro ar>. ,i wa orawar 11gIN1,l1 -O -• ©oo O ' AAnU IA awnrro = ...... Lr i unsm orre orre ulrrtr oaarre I!i CIF-1 7fAt slwrAt •sAY )trorAi MIX IJ / I I 1talYOT ,' pp \ Y IYOIt awrAYf I! J 7 I a01rAM n arorm wOtY)wa O ft ' wofrawa OY.YNI uEE= aO, 0a0w1AnVr I =EE)= * OaOMr,rIAorMeM I Samyt JL SOME w nw O000' r -- 1• -- ooCJO ' YeYY1 Yree, 0^01 -- J7 u000 ( rn 010100, Yr0Y0w ol 100 0 I lo`-' 0101 OYOw MOIr)w o 00r0 JE J === Y1AI10, --- '-""' _ ( III JI ! u oo Yamlo 7Ar wM]Y - I, • o^'"^ - u000 '] AY w0134 W Bam Ir' [' JO ' 01)]/10 rrOlr)rf r— u —ll. _ O 1 -.. r 1• 1 c I OAl — ltl r p rYalrare Lh_y1tfwOra • _. .(` Ol m O. 1 - 7 t o i t.wOrl woldn _ -._ L S `. j Jo N 1L r_ J.: JnJ ro 7 I maLdn 14 O a MiaYlA `. .. ••--.J o l i ]l r!; '' rL 1 )., I aY7aMU W 01Ynrwfrr r.. .- I _IF . _, F b' i ._ L t _ I III ._• , p MrnLMi.r Y -Y 7AY t)kY1k A. L)kY7k G K K k G C G : m"d f El 24- Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment and Tax Increment Plans Summary The activities will be conducted from within two redevelopment projects known as Redevelopment Project Area "A" and Redevelopment Project Area "B" (see page 24 in document A or page 24 in document B for a map both of which are the same. These areas were established in 1990.) Each redevelopment project area will have a tax increment district, Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -2" and Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -2" respectively. Each district will be composed of any of the 32 parcels-on which redevelopment takes place. They are listed on pages 3 and 10 in "A" documents (20 parcels) and pages 3 and 10 in the "B" documents (12 parcels). The only parcels which could become part of district "A -2" and "B -2 ", would be those listed. No property will be purchased by the HRA which is not listed. Although all the owners of property listed expressed interest in selling, it is likely that negotiations will not be satisfactorily concluded with all the owners. Thus, not all property listed will be purchased. The balance of the Plan documents are similar to those previously reviewed and approved by the HRA and City Council for this program. A few of the more significant features of the documents are briefly identified as follows. Because the activities in each project area are the same, the documents for Redevelopment Project Area "A" and "B" are the same except the "Description of the Redevelopment Project Area" (boundary description); and "Acquisition and Relocation Activities" (list of properties to be considered for purchase). The documents for Tax Increment Redevelopment Districts "A -2" and "B -2" are the same except for "Parcels in Acquisition" (list of properties to be considered for purchase), "Original Tax Capacity ", "Estimated Captured Tax Capacity" and the "Appendices ". Objectives are listed on page 7 of the "A" document. They are the same in all documents. The budgets for each project area appear in the Appendices and total 1,142,900 for project "A -2" page 27. The budget assumes the HRA would purchase all 20 properties in the plan. However, only four would be purchased in Phase II. For project "B -2 ", the budget totals $633,900 on page 27. However, only five of the 12 properties would be purchased in Phase II. The proposal is to create two TIF redevelopment districts with a 25 year life. The increment captured by the two districts would be that generated from the property on which new homes were constructed. No bonds would be issued. A perusal of the Table of Contents in plan document "A" pages i -v and plan document "B" pages i will reveal a full listing of all topics. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the acquisition of property associated with the Richfield Rediscovered - Scattered Site Housing Program Modification No. 1 Housing Program) which are located within Redevelopment Project Area "A" and Redevelopment Project Area "B ", as described in Attachments A and B, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of the property would serve a public purpose; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition for single family residential purposes of the property would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds the acquisition and disposition of the property described in Attachments A and B for single family residential use to be in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Passed this 28th day of July, 1992 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA William Snyder, Chairperson ATTEST: Timothy Erlander, Secretary ATTACHMENT A RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED - SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROGRAM ACQUISITION PROPERTY LOCATED IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA "A" MODIFICATION NO. 1 ADDRESS 7500 Bryant Ave. 7520 Bryant Ave. 7528 Bryant Ave. 6926 Chicago Ave. 6608 Stevens Ave. 6616 Second Ave. 6844 14th Ave. 7112 First Ave. 7245 12th Ave. 7525 Girard Ave. 6634 Fourth Ave. 7021 Nicollet Ave. 6310 15th Ave. 6225 14th Ave. 6825 Elliot Ave. 6404 15th Ave. 6525 15th Ave. 7432 Aldrich Ave. 6800 Portland Ave. 7516 Fourth Ave. 7025 Nicollet Ave. PID NUMBER 33- 028 -24 -41 -0106 33- 028 -24 -41 -0110 33- 028 -24 -41 -0112 26- 028 -24 -33 -0028 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 26- 028 -24 -43 -0056 28- 028 -24 -12 -0096 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 33- 028 -24 -42 -0094 27- 028 -24 -41 -0052 34- 028 -24 -12 -0023 26- 028 -24 -12 -0077 26- 028 -24 -34 -0071 26- 028 -24 -34 -0085 26- 028 -24 -13 -0052 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 27- 028 -24 -44 -0001 34- 028 -24 -41 -0053 34- 028 -24 -12 -0022 ATTACHMENT B RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED - SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROGRAM ACQUISITION PROPERTY LOCATED IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA "B" MODIFICATION NO. 1 ADDRESS 6641 Oliver Ave. 6924 Newton Ave. 6539 Oliver Ave. 7124 Washburn Ave. 6645 Upton Ave. 1908 West 66th St. 2916 West 71 -1/2 St. 6300 Aldrich Ave. 6,912 Oliver Ave. 7015 Penn Ave. 7021 Penn Ave. Redevelopmnt ] <ENHP- Acq /DispResol> PID NUMBER 28- 028 -24 -32 -0045 28- 028 -24 -33 -0073 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 32- 028 -24 -12 -0073 29- 028 -24 -42 -0015 28- 028 -24 -23 -0125 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 28- 028 -24 -33 -0053 33- 028 -24 -22 -0003 33- 028 -24 -22 -0004 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (HRA) and the City of Richfield (City) to provide families and individuals living in a substandard, poor quality environment an opportunity to move to standard housing by establishing a cash market for their existing housing and to provide an opportunity for Richfield to house families seeking larger housing units with features popular in today's market; and WHEREAS, this type of housing would encourage existing residents seeking this type of housing to remain in Richfield and attract new residents as well; and WHEREAS, in order to realize these objectives, certain plans have been prepared for the HRA with the cooperation and assistance of the appropriate city departments, planning consultants, and fiscal consultants, all arising from a January 16, 1990 HRA directive and endorsement to proceed with formulation of the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program now known as Richfield Rediscovered (Housing Program); and WHEREAS, in April 1992 additional funds were provided to continue this program; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 1992, the HRA determined that certain modifications were necessary to the previously approved and created Redevelopment Project Area A and Redevelopment Project B and Tax Increment District A -1 and Tax Increment District B -1 Plans; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the continuation of the Housing Program to guide development, redevelopment, and new construction of single family residential housing within Redevelopment Project Area "A" (Project Area "A ") and Redevelopment Project Area "B" ( Project Area "B"), the HRA has prepared and approved Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plans for Project Area "A" and Project Area "B ", made modifications to Tax Increment District A -1 and B -1, and approved the establishment of a new Tax Increment Financing District A -2 and Tax Increment Financing B -2 in Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 (Tax Increment District A -2 ") and Tax Increment Financing District B -2 (Tax Increment Resolution No. Page 2 District "B -2 ") collectively, Plans pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 469.001 - 469.047 (HRA Act) and Minn. Stat. Sec. 469.174 - 469.179, inclusive, as amended (TIF Act); and WHEREAS, the HRA has now transmitted the Plan to the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield (Planning Commission) for its review, and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission on the Plans, all pursuant to the TIF Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has now reviewed and considered said Plans which consist of the Richfield Rediscovered - Scattered Site Housing Program's Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, that, having reviewed and considered the Plans, the Planning Commission, by this resolution, advises the City Council, the HRA, and all interested persons, that it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that: 1. The Plans provide an outline for the development, redevelopment, and new construction of the single family residential homes within the Project Areas and are sufficiently complete to indicate the relationship of the Plans to the objectives of the City of Richfield as to appropriate land use within Project Areas "A" and "B ", and to indicate the general land uses and general standards of development, redevelopment, and new construction within the Project Areas. 2. The objectives and purposes of the Plans, specifically the recommendation to continue single family residential use within the context of the expanded Housing Program, conform to and are consistent with the.general land use proposals and planning objectives of the City of Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council hold public hearings to adopt and implement the Plans. Passed this 28th day of July, 1992 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA William Snyder, Chairperson ATTEST: Timothy Erlander, Secretary The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification No. 1 To The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" Modification No. 1 To The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -1 " Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -2" All Related To The Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Dated: July 20, 1992 PREPARED BY. The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 612) 861 -9760 MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL William Bullock Ivan Ludeman Michael Sandahl Kristal Stokes HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chair Joan Helmberger Ivan Ludeman Vern Luettinger Larry Wozniczka CITY MANAGER /EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James D. Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION William Snyder, Chair Nancy Edwardson Robert Elliott Timothy Erlander Michael Gallagher Dania/ Linnihan Morris Nilsen, ll Thomas Scaglia David Sumnicht CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Director, Community Development John Dean HRA Attorney Ronald Batty HRA Attorney Bruce Palmborg Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Bruce Nordquist Housing Supervisor Catherine Jones Housing Specialist Kathy Jablonsky Redevelopment Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1. Modification No. 1 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" Original Modification i) Plan No.1 Page No. Page No. Note To Reader vi) A. Statement of Public Purpose 1 B. Statutory Authority 1 C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area. 2 D. Statement of Goals and Objectives 3 E. Development Activities and Agreements 4 1 F. Proposed Land Use 6 2 G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 6 2 H. Environmental Considerations 7 I. Redevelopment Plan Modification. 7 J. Administration of Redevelopment Project 7 i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Part ll. ii) Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District A -1 " Original Modification Plan No.1 Page No. Page No. A. Statutory Authority 9 B. Statement of Objectives 9 C. Development Program 9 D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District .' 10 5 E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District 10 F. Parcels In Acquisition 12 5 G. Estimate of Costs 12 H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. 13 I. Sources of Revenue 13 J. Original Tax Capacity 13 K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 14 L. Duration of the District 14 M. Estimated Impact on Other, Taxing Jurisdictions. 14 N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 14 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 14 P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 15 ii) iii) Original Modification Plan No.1 Page No. Page No. Q. Limitation-on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement. 15 R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment 15 S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements 16 T. Excess Tax Increments 16 U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit. 17 V. Assessment Agreements 18 W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account 19 X. Annual Disclosure Requirements. 19 Y. Assumptions 20 Z. Municipal Findings 20 Appendix A: Map: Redevelopment Project Area A 25 Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -1" 27 6 Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments. 28 Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget. 29 Appendix E: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 30 iii) A. H. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. a R. Table of Contents Part Ill. Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -2" Page No. Statutory Authority 7 Statement of Objectives . 7 Development Program 7 Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District 9 Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District 9 Parcels In Acquisition 10 Estimate of Costs 11 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. 11 Sources of Revenue 11 Original Tax Capacity 12 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 12 Duration of the District 12 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. 13 Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 13 Limitation on Administrative Expenses 13 Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 13 Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement. 13 Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment 14 iv) S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements T. Excess Tax Increments U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit. V. Assessment Agreements W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account . X. Annual Disclosure Requirements. Y. Assumptions Z. Municipal Findings APPENDICES. Appendix A: Map: Redevelopment Project Area "A" and "B" and Tax Increment Financing Districts "A -2" and "B -2 ". Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -2" Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments. Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget. Appendix E. Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions v) Page No. 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 18 21 23 25 26 27 m NOTE TO READER The following text represents modification to the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, formerly known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program. Changes to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A" and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "A -1" are identified under the section titled Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" (Redevelopment Plan) and Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -1" (Tax Increment Plan). Only those areas of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan requiring revision are incorporated in this first modification. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District "A -2" (Tax Increment Plan) represents a new plan, not a modification. The modified Redevelopment Plan and the new Tax Increment Plan both represent a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the original Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan. Generally, the substantive changes to the housing program under the modification and new Tax Increment Plan include broadening the opportunity for program participation and identifying additional acquisition property. To understand all of the program modifications and proposed activities, a review of the original Redevelopment Plan, Tax Increment Plans, and other related documents, dated July 16, 1990, is recommended. vi) Part 1. Modification No. 1 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" E. Development Activities and Agreements The objectives of this redevelopment plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.001, et seq. The following activities are appropriate for the area. Description of Anticipated Public Development Activities The anticipated public development activities in the redevelopment project area to be undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities include: 1. Property acquisition; 2. On -site clearance; 3. On -site improvements; 4. New construction 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities The private development activities within the project area which are anticipated to occur include: 1. Property acquisition; 2. On -site clearance; 3. On -site improvements; 4. New construction; 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. 1- Any and all proposals for development and redevelopment will be reviewed by the HRA and City, when appropriate, to determine conformance with the redevelopment plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes. Property acquired by the HRA will be subject to a contract for sale to an interested developer, builder, or buyer.- The general requirements to be imposed upon an interested developer, builder, or buyer by the contract for sale are: 1. To redevelop the property purchased in accordance with this redevelopment plan; 2. To commence and complete the construction of improvements on the property within specified periods of time; 3. Not to resell the property before improvements are made without the prior consent of the HRA; and 4. Not to discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, sex, creed, or national origin on the sale, lease, transfer, or occupancy of the property purchased from the HRA. F. Proposed Land Use The current land uses in the redevelopment project area include the following: Single family residential; Apartment; Duplex; Commercial; Parks; Schools; Vacant; Public; Quasi - public (e.g. churches, cemetery, nursing homes, private schools, and service organizations); and Water. New uses will be restricted to single family residential. G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 1. Acquisition As a means of comprehensively formulating Cycle II of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff recently undertook the following tasks to identify property for acquisition: a. Survey residential property owners that have expressed interest in the voluntary sale of their property in Cycle II of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program. 2- 3- b. Evaluate properties for program eligibility. The following property is identified for acquisition for Cycle II of the program: ADDRESS PID NUMBER 7500 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0106 7520 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0110 7528 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0112 6926 Chicago Ave. 26- 028 -24 -33 -0028. 6608 Stevens Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6616 2nd Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 6844 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -43 -0056 7112 1st Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0096 7245 12th Ave. 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 7525 Girard Ave. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0094 6634 4th Ave. 27- 028 -24 -41 -0052 7021 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0023 6310 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0077 6225 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0071 6825 Elliot Ave. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0085 6404 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0052 6525 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 7432 Aldrich Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 6800 Portland Ave. 27- 028 -24 -44 -0001 7416 4th Ave. 34- 028 -24 -41 -0053 7025 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0022 3- For Cycle II program purposes, the following Cycle I property is removed from the acquisition list. This property may be considered for program acquisition at some future date. ADDRESS PID NUMBER* 6351 Bloomington Ave. 26- 028 -24 -11 -0024 6332 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0083 6349 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 6325 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0114 6400 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0051 6507 Bloomington Ave. 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 7435 Emerson Ave. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0014 7039 5th Ave. 34- 028 -24 -11 -0079 7216 1st Ave. 34- 028 -24 -13 -0094 4- Part ll. Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -1 " D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District The property listed within Appendix B has been identified for removal from TIF District "A -1 ". This property may be considered for acquisition at some time in the future. F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified for removal from the acquisition list. This property may be considered for acquisition at some time in the future. PIN NUMBER ADDRESS 26- 028 -24 -11 -0024 6351 Bloomington Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0083 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 26- 028 -24 -12 -0114 26- 028 -24 -13 -0051 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 33- 028 -24 -42 -0014 34- 028 -24 -11 -0079 34- 028 -24 -13 -0094 5- 6332 - 15th Ave. So. 6349 - 14th Ave. So. 6325 - 15th Ave. So. 6400 - 15th Ave. So. 6507 Bloomington Ave. So. 7435 Emerson Ave. So. 7039 - 5th Ave. So. 7216 - 1st Ave. So. APPENDIX B' PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A -1" The following property, known as Cycle I property and listed within the Tax Increment Finaning Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "A -2 ", is hereby removed from Tax Increment Financing District "A -1 ". The removal of this property is a program objective under Cycle II of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program under the original Plan. This property may be considered for acquisition at some future date. Original Net Tax Capacity for taxes payable in 1990. ORIGINAL NET PIN NUMBER ADDRESS TAX CAPACITY* 26- 028 -24 -11 -0024 6351 Bloomington Ave. So. S 547 26- 028 -24 -12 -0083 6332 15th Ave. So. 1,506 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 6349 14th Ave. So. 1,458 26- 028 -24 -12 -0114 6325 15th Ave. So. 1,611 26- 028 -24 -13 -0051 6400 15th Ave. So. 513 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 6507 Bloomington Ave. So. 541 33- 028 -24 -42 -0014 7435 Emerson Ave. So. 469 34- 028 -24 -11 -0079 7039 5th Ave. So. 528 34- 028 -24 -13 -0094 7216 1st Ave. So. 1,584 Total 8,757 Original Net Tax Capacity for taxes payable in 1990. Part Ill. Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A -2" A. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the undertaking of a tax increment financing district (TIF District "A -2 ") and related Tax Increment Financing Plan (Tax Increment Plan) in Redevelopment Project Area "A" (Project.Area "A ") for the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program formerly known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program (Housing Program) and the activities proposed in the tax increment plan relating thereto is conferred upon the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA), pursuant to and in accordance with the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. B. Statement of Objectives The HRA and the City seek to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in Part I of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A ", dated July 16, 1990. In addition to these goals and objectives, program objectives set forth in HRA Letter No. 13, dated April 20, 1992, are as follows: Create a voluntary market for the purchase and removal of substandard, poor quality housing. Provide sites for new homes by working closely with a qualified builder /buyer team. Provide a continuing program presence which maintains the interest and market momentum already achieved. Provide a financial structure which generates a sufficient cash flow to pay off principal and provide interest payments if funds are available. C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities On January 16, 1990, the.HRA adopted a motion directing staff to proceed with the formulation of the Expanded New Home Program. On April 20, 1992, the HRA passed a motion to authorize continuation of this program, currently named the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program. A survey of purchasers of new homes involved in the original housing program (Cycle I) provided information on the success dJI of the program. The following observations were made with respect to Cycle I and addressed in HRA Letter No. 13: a. The program has met the needs of various buyers which include young families, empty nesters, singles, move - up buyers, and first -time home buyers. b. The permanent bedroom count added to the housing supply in the city is 25. c. Relatively few school -aged children are involved with the newly acquired housing units. Therefore, confidence exists that the increase in dwelling unit size will result in a new increase in school -aged children when all the new units are occupied. d. During the first quarter of 1992, approximately 60 sellers and 15 buyers have indicated interest in participating in a continued program. Sellers, builders, and buyers continue to contact HRA staff to indicate program interest and participation. As with Cycle I of the program and so with Cycle II, a comprehensive, integrated approach for acquisition, site clearance, and new construction was formulated and will continue to be provided through program guidelines. The HRA will assist prospective developers, builders, and buyers with development, redevelopment, new construction, and other related activities within the context of the modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A ", this Tax Increment Plan, and other related guidelines. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contract Currently, there are no development contracts. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Proiect. Proposals from prospective developers, builders, and buyers will be required to be submitted to.the HRA as part of the review process. The following activities may be expected to occur: 1. Property Acquisition; 2. On -site clearance; 3. On-site-improvements; 4. New construction; WE 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. For Cycle II of the Housing Program, a total of.32 properties have been identified for program participation and acquisition. Twenty one (21) of the properties are located within Redevelopment Project Area "A" while the remaining eleven (11) are within Redevelopment Project Area "B ". Refer to Appendix A for map of redevelopment project areas and tax increment parcels.) Redevelopment Project Area A contains one property with a double lot. A property subdivision will be required in order to construct two homes on site. Initial construction for Cycle II is anticipated to begin in the last quarter of 1992. Construction for each home is anticipated to be approximately 120 days. Timing of construction is contingent upon favorable market conditions, reasonable time period for processing applications and availability of funding revenue. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Property located within TIF District "A -2" is identified in Appendix B. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The Richfield HRA and City Council, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, find that Tax Increment District "A -2" to be established within Project Area "A" is a redevelopment tax increment financing district as defined in Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Since the tax increment parcels within the scattered site program are non - contiguous, each parcel has been.examined by staff against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled "Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle II" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. ME F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified for acquisition in Cycle II of the Housing Program: ADDRESS PID NUMBER 7500 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0106 7520 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0110 7528 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0112 6926 Chicago Ave. 26- 028 -24 -33 -0028 6608 Stevens Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6616 2nd Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 6844 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -43 -0056 7112 lst Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0096 7245 12th Ave. 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 7525 Girard Ave. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0094 6634 4th Ave. 27- 028 -24 -41 -0052 7021 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0023 6310 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0077 6225 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0071 6825 Elliot Ave. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0085 6404 15th Ave. 26- .028 -24 -13 -0052 6525 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 7432 Aldrich Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 6800 Portland Ave. 27- 028 -24 -44 -0001 7416 4th Ave. 34- 028 -24 -41 -0053 7025 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0022 For Cycle II program purposes,'the following Cycle I property is removed from the acquisition list. This property may be considered for acquisition at some future date. 10- ADDRESS . 6351 Bloomington Ave. 6332 15th Ave. 6349 14th Ave. 6325 15th Ave. 6400 15th Ave. 6507 Bloomington Ave. 7435 Emerson Ave. 7039 5th Ave. 7216 1st Ave. PID NUMBER 26- 028 -24 -11 -0024 26- 028 -24 -12 -0083 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 26- 028 -24 -12 -0114 26- 028 -24 -13 -0051 26= 028 -24 -14 -0116 33- 028 -24 -42 -0014 34- 028 -24 -11 -0079 34- 028 -24 -13 -0094 The tax increment district budget includes acquisition costs for land sale subsidy which will be offered to eligible developers, builders, and buyers as development incentives. G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment district are outlined in the budget listed in Appendix D. H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds At the current time, an additional $500,000 is available under Cycle II to continue the housing program. Repayment of these funds will be through the use of tax increment financing and other sources of revenue, if any, available to the HRA and City. An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness for redevelopment is expected to be $0. The term of the issues is 0 years including 0 years of capitalized interest with an anticipated taxable interest rate of 0 %. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be $0. A projected cashflow analysis of the overall program reveals that interim program funding could potentially be repaid with interest if.sufficient tax increment receipts are available, and housing values appreciate. I. Sources of Revenue The primary source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with proposed developments in the redevelopment project area is tax increment. In addition to the tax increment 11- revenue, other sources of revenue potentially available to the HRA and City may be utilized. J. Original Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 1 and Sec. 469.177, subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (OTC) for TIF District "A -2" is based on the January 2, 1992 assessed value placed on the property by the county assessor. The OTC for the district is $15,074. (See Appendix H, Property Located in Tax Increment Financing District "A -2 ".) Each year the office of the county auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total net tax capacity of the tax increment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total net tax capacity in the tax increment district above the original net tax capacity, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total net tax capacity in the tax increment district declines below the original net tax capacity, no tax capacity will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The county auditor shall certify in each year after the date the original net tax capacity was certified, the amount the OTC has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; or 3. Change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court - ordered abatements. K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 1 and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 2, the estimated captured net tax capacity (CTC) of the tax increment district is within a range of 135 to $782 per home. The total CTC for 21 new homes within the project area ranges from $2,835 to $16,422. As a result of the improvements to be constructed, it is expected that the estimated captured net tax capacity will be available for the housing program. It is also anticipated that this amount will be captured not more than 25 years. (See Appendix C, Estimate of Tax Increments). L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sect. 469.17.6, subd. 1, the maximum duration of a redevelopment tax increment district is 25 years. The HRA elects to capture 100$_of the tax increments for the duration of the district. 12- M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Refer to Appendix E, Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District All tax increment plan modifications will be processed in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec.•469.175, subd. 4. The modifications pertaining to the necessary processing include any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination of capitalized interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the County Auditor. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 14, and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 3, for districts for which certification was requested after June 30, 1982, no tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 1, the HRA must issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed within three years of the date of certification of the tax increment district by the county auditor. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subdivision 6, "if, 4 after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service 13- including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the HRA or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and t_he.original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the HRA or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of.a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan; the HRA shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced, and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district." R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minn. Stat., 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality. This provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 4j, at least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of a redevelopment district under section 469.174. These costs include acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures, clearing of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in -the qualifying costs. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 4, the HRA will review and search property files for properties to be included in the tax increment district and to identify those properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the City.' 14- T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minn. Stat., Sec. 475.61, subd. 3, the HRA shall use the - excess amount to: 1. Prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. Return the excess to the county auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rates. The amounts distributed to a city or county must be deducted from the levy limits of the governmental unit for the following year. In calculating the levy limit base for later years, the amount deducted must be treated as a local government aid payment. For the purpose of this tax increment financing plan, excess tax increment means that increment received in any year which is in addition to the amount needed to satisfy the HRA's current financial obligations or commitments, as specified in the tax increment financing budget listed in Appendix D, or which is in addition to that which is placed in a separate account for the purpose of accumulating funds needed to satisfy those financial obligations or commitments in the future. U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, the following terms have the meanings given: Activities" means acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities, but only to the extent that tax increment revenues may be spent for such purposes under other law. Activities do not include allocated administrative expenses, but do include engineering, architectural, and similar costs of the improvements in the district. Third party" means an entity other than (1) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, 15- or (2) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, subd. 2 with respect to expenditures outside the district: a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived from tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b), may be deducted first before calculating the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 3 with respect to the five -year rule: a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: 1).before or within five years after certification of the district, the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; 2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; 3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or 4) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a party for payment of the costs. 16- b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two tests is met: (1) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified or (2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 4 with respect to use of revenues for decertification: Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used only to pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph a), clause (2), and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4). When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd— 8, the HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with a developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment district will be the responsibility of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the net tax capacity of the tax increment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other HRA and municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned activities identified in the tax increment financing plan. 17- X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 6a, on or before March 1 of each year, the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following: 1. Total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. Total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. Also in accordance with this requirement the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the tax increment financing district: 1. Type of district; 2. Date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. Captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. Tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. Whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment financing district; and 6. Any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the HRA, City, and County staff, and consultants. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: 1. The Tax"Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. It has been determined that parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Specifically, staff has examined each parcel against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions due to the non- contiguous nature of the tax increment parcels. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle II" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. 2. The proposed activities listed in this plan, in the opinion of the HRA, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the proposed development requires certain necessary planning, property assembly and other improvements without which interested developers, builders, or buyers could not construct the aforementioned improvements; and without the use of tax increments or other revenues authorized by this plan to assist with the financing of the activities, interested developers, builders, or buyers would not proceed with redevelopment in the redevelopment project area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole as it will result in the continuation of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, formerly known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program for the development, redevelopment, new construction and other related improvements of 19- residential homes for which there is limited sources of revenue available. 4. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of 'the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the HRA to provide the necessary redevelopment for the project area and City, as a whole, in a planning manner suitable to both the public and private sectors. 20- APPENDICES Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Redevelopment Project Area "A" and Tax Increment Financing District "A -2" 21- APPENDIX A MAP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA "A" AND "B" AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS "A -2" AND "B -2" 23- 7 T E ! t ! ! M 1] Owtaw.lt N11 LI. JJ C 1.11 loi fEf J 11a LUG ra,\1nao, _ apa,wroCll 1$ ll fa ll C c COC Cf1 coocC C1411 ^ 14111 , Il 101 e,.a.ID jl °- sman,d, srwr _l _ mrl [ 7>w orruGo* © fltU w,lrnq o =[ wl C C A.. as,wDlr atllD. wrs — 7 - - - vas a11YY,M I @'Mlvv I;i FOP SA. 1,v.AOral wrars 11111orn0 I aotr)wa 1t{Iwi1 - - - r.r1, - lO,OMnw lr1Ar1 t)wrr = F-== ,JE rv,o, E- 7C C C I rworow r 1 wD111]M 700 AV ww)w no lrwow" _. r rrnrX{ra Ir 71s nrru u. 1.,....:..,. L.. it G k 1 c >A QR ' G t K C K C C G G C e 1 e no Y is 1 W032 11. ad C UCI — 11,11 aC oho r1„ 11 MO1MIam1 7c0 C O 41 tl 11 to j co 11 a ocC ; 1.111 1101 mrDlwD rean'I,D 7a rw Vold C a C 1 orr,rro 0 1t aolrrq 0 rrt Jc E c c , r1A)at J F =3== HIV Ut,m1w r",Dala]. lritv)u os rn10E E U C 111•-1-1-1-1 E I SAW ) \rOrA, 134-10,-1 away! Q{v /,DD o f-7 " ruro orwrro ao,o,wnw J' t'% ' ,riArl Uwrr Orr 7OO I ICAO( r.m, Q 1 ol_ . .J rw,r3w J jc l(-7f OCR ] A110 JULY _C- JC-7C .] A. ""S+ 10)1ne asnr aw0111)Xt EY b 11jl 1. d. IA 1a =G F G F G >w K q t e Z T e- 24— MM 9 tK- U z CD I a Q -1U t/w w 1 Nox U r O ct W O r p W u APPENDIX B PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A -2" 25- ORIGINAL NET ADDRESS PID NUMBER TAX CAPACITY 7500 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0106 1,882 7520 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0110 428 7528 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0112 441 6926 Chicago Ave. 26- 028 -24 -33 -0028 410 6608 Stevens Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 360 6616 2nd Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 514 6844 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -43 -0056 498 7112 1st Ave. 28- 028 -24 -12 -0096 1,431 7245 12th Ave. 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 522 7525 Girard Ave. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0094 565 6634 4th Ave. 27- 028 -24 -41 -0052 488 7021 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0023 535 6310 15th Ave.. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0077 1,277 6225 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0071 1,011 6825 Elliot Ave. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0085 606 6404 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0052 482 6525 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 595 7432 Aldrich Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 497 6800 Portland Ave. 27- 028 -24 -44 -0001 610 7516 4th Ave. 34- 028 -24 -41 -0053 679 7025 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0022 1,243 TOTAL 15,074 25- APPENDIX C ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A -2" RANGE ....... A. VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION Per Home Per Home Construction Cost (Land & Bldg) $ 85,000 $120,000 x Sales Ratio 92.50% 92.50% Estimated Market Value $ 78,625 $111,000 B. TAX INCREMENT VALUE Estimated Market Value 78,625 x Tax Capacity Ratio Class 1A; Prop. Type R- Hmstd) 1.00% $72,000 720 2.00% $43,000 133 2.50% Balance 0 New Tax Capacity 853 Original Net Tax Capacity (Avg.) 718) Captured Net Tax Capacity 135 x Tax Capacity Rate (1992) 120.944% Annual Tax Increment 163 x 21 Homes - Total Annual Tax 3,429 Increment C. ESTIMATE OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES Estimated Market Value 78,625 x Tax Capacity Ratio Class 1A; Prop. Type R- Hmstd) 1.00% $72,000 720 2.00% $43,000 133 2.50% Balance 0 New Tax Capacity 853 x Tax Capacity Rate 120.944% Annual Ad Valorem Taxes (per home) 1,032 x 21 Homes - Total Annual Ad 21,672 Valorem Taxes 26- 111,000 720 780 0 1,500 718) 782 120.944% 946 19,861 111,000 720 780 0 1,500 120.944% 1,814 38,094 is APPENDIX D BUDGET* TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A -2" Property Acquisition $ 1,067,400 Appraisals $ 6,825 Demolition /Site Clearance $ 105,000 Legal Expenses $ 5,000 TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURE - $ 1,184,225 This budget reflects the purchase by the HRA of all 21 Cycle II properties located within Tax Increment Financing District "A -2 ". 27- APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A -2" The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District "A -2 ". If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is SO-due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District "A -2" would be as follows if the "but for" test (see Section Z. Municipal Findings, page 18 of the Plan) was not met: ENTITY City of Richfield Hennepin County School Distr. #280 ENTITY IMPACT ON TAX BASE RANGE MINIMUM ............... ENTITY'S TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 23,097,324 1,004,056,028 21,745,830 CAPTURED % OF CAPTURED TAX- TAX CAPACITY TO CAPACITY ENTITY TOTAL 2,835 0.0123 2,835 0.0003 2,835 0.0130 RANGE MAXIMUM............... ENTITY'S CAPTURED % OF CAPTURED TOTAL NET TAX TAX CAPACITY TO TAX CAPACITY CAPACITY ENTITY TOTAL City of Richfield $ 23,097,324 $ 16,422 Hennepin County 1,004,056,028 16,422 School Distr. #280 21,745,830 16,422 The estimates listed in the following table tax capacity when all construction is completed. and tax capacities are the payable 1992 figures jurisdictions. Tax Increment Financing District Ego 0.0711 0.0016 0.0755 display captured The tax rates for all A -2" is anticipated to be certified under rates for payable 1993 or later as the acquisition of property progresses. The tax rate increase column is the estimate of the amount the tax rate of each jurisdiction would theoretically have to increase to raise the taxes listed in the potential taxes column. In addition, the impact on School District No. 280 does not included the effect of state aids for education upon school district funding. IMPACT ON TAX RATES MINIMUM IMPACT.............. CURRENT CAPTURED POTENTIAL TAX RATE TAX RATE TAX CAPACITY TAXES INCREASE ENTITY City of Richfield 0.22953 2,835 651 0.028 Hennepin County 0.34327 2,835 973 0.001 School Distr. #280 0.57013 2,835 1,616 0.074 Miscellaneous 0.05996 2,835 170 0.000 MAXIMUM IMPACT.............. CURRENT CAPTURED POTENTIAL TAX RATE TAX RATE TAX CAPACITY TAXES INCREASE ENTITY City of Richfield 0.22953 16,422 3,769 0.163 Hennepin County 0.34327 16,422 5,637 0.006 School Distr. #280 0.57013 16,422 9,363 0.431 Miscellaneous 0.05996 16,422 985. 0.001 29- The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification No. 1 To The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" Modification No. 1 To The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -1 " Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -2" All Related To The Richfield Rediscovered .Housing Program Dated: July 20, 1992 PREPARED BY. The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 612) 861 -9760 MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL William Bullock Ivan Ludeman Michael Sandahl Kristal Stokes HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chair Joan Helmberger Ivan Ludeman Vern Luettinger Larry Wozniczka CITY MANAGER /EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James D. Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION William Snyder, Chair Nancy Edwardson Robert Elliott Timothy Erlander Michael Gallagher Danial Linnihan Morris Nilsen, ll Thomas Scaglia David Sumnicht CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Director, Community Development John Dean HRA Attorney Ronald Batty HRA Attorney Bruce Palmborg Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Bruce Nordquist Housing Supervisor Catherine Jones Housing Specialist Kathy Jablonsky. Redevelopment Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1. Modification No. 1 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" Note To Reader A. Statement of Public Purpose H. Statutory Authority C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area. D. Statement of Goals and Objectives E. Development Activities and Agreements F. Proposed Land Use G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities H. Environmental Considerations I. Redevelopment Plan Modification. J. Administration of Redevelopment Project i) Original Modification Plan No.1 Page No. Page No. vi) 33 33 34 35 36 1 38 2 38 2 39 39 39 ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS Part ll. Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -1 " Original Modification Plan No.1 Page No. Page No. A. Statutory Authority 41 B. Statement of Objectives 41 C. Development Program 41 D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District 42 5 E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District 42 F. Parcels In Acquisition 44 5 G. Estimate of Costs 44 H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. 44 I. Sources of Revenue 44 J. Original Tax Capacity 45 K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 45 L. Duration of the District 45 M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. 45 N, Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 46 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 46 P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 46 ii) Original Modification Plan No.1 Page No. Page No. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement.- 46 - -- R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment 47 - -- S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements 47 - -- T. Excess Tax Increments 48 - -- U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit. 48 - -- V. Assessment Agreements 50 - -- W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account 50 - -- X. Annual Disclosure Requirements. 51 - -- Y. Assumptions 51 - -- Z. Municipal Findings 51 - -- Appendix A: Map: Redevelopment Project Area A 57 - -- Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -1" 59 6 Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments. 60 - -- Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget. 61 - -- Appendix E. Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 62 - -- iii) A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. 91 R. Table of Contents Part Ill. Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -2" Page No. Statutory Authority 7 Statement of Objectives 7 Development Program 7 Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District 9 Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District 9 Parcels In Acquisition 10 Estimate of Costs 10 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. 10 Sources of Revenue 11 Original Tax Capacity 11 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 12 Duration of the District 12 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. 12. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 12 Limitation on Administrative Expenses 12 Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 13 Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement. 13 Limitation-of the Use of Tax Increment 13 iv) Page No. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements 14 T. Excess Tax Increments 14 U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit. 15 V. Assessment Agreements 16 W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account 17 X. Annual Disclosure Requirements. 17 Y. Assumptions 18 Z. Municipal Findings 18 APPENDICES. 21 Appendix A: Map: Redevelopment Project Area "A" and "'B" and Tax Increment Financing Districts "A -2" and "B -2 ". 23 Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -2" 25 Appendix C. Estimate of Tax Increments. 26 Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget. 27 Appendix E. Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 28 v) NOTE TO READER The following text represents modification to the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, formerly known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered-Site Housing Program. Changes to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B" and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "B -1" are identified under the section titled Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" (Redevelopment Plan) and Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment. Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -1" (Tax Increment Plan). Only those areas of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan requiring revision are incorporated in this first modification. The Tax Increment . Financing Plan for Tax Increment District "B -2" (Tax Increment Plan) represents a new plan, not a modification. The modified Redevelopment Plan and the new Tax Increment Plan both represent a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the original Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan. Generally, the substantive changes to the housing program under the modification and new Tax Increment Plan include broadening the opportunity for program participation and identifying additional acquisition property. To understand all of the program modifications and proposed activities, a review of the original Redevelopment Plan, Tax Increment Plans, and other related documents, dated July 16, 1990, is recommended. vi) Part 1. Modification No. 1 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" E. Development Activities and Agreements The objectives of this redevelopment plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.001, et seq. The following activities are appropriate for the area. Description of Anticipated Public Development Activities The anticipated public development activities in the redevelopment project area to be undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities include: 1. Property acquisition; 2. On -site clearance; 3. On -site improvements; 4. New construction 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities The private development activities within the project area which are anticipated to occur include: 1. Property acquisition; 2. On -site clearance; 3. On -site improvements; 4. New construction; 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. 1- Any and all proposals for development and redevelopment will be reviewed by the HRA and City, when appropriate, to determine conformance with the redevelopment plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes. Property acquired by the HRA will be subject to a contract for sale to an interested developer, builder, or buyer. The general requirements to be imposed upon an interested developer, builder, or buyer by the contract for sale are: 1. To redevelop the property purchased in accordance with this redevelopment plan; 2. To commence and complete the construction of improvements on the property within specified periods of time; 3. Not to resell the property before improvements are made without the prior consent of the HRA; and 4. Not to discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, sex, creed, or national origin on the sale, lease, transfer, or occupancy of the property purchased from the HRA. F. Proposed Land Use The current land uses in the redevelopment project area include the following: Single family residential; Apartment; Duplex; Commercial; Parks; Vacant; Quasi - public (e.g. churches, cemetery, nursing homes, private schools, and service organizations); and Water. New uses will be restricted to single family residential. G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 1. Acquisition As a means of comprehensively formulating Cycle II of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff recently undertook the following tasks to identify property for acquisition: a. Survey residential property owners that have expressed interest in the voluntary sale of their property in Cycle II of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program. 2- b. Evaluate properties for program eligibility. The following property is identified for acquisition for Cycle II of the program: ADDRESS PID NUMBER 6641 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -32 -0045 6924 Newton Ave. 6539 Oliver Ave. 7124 Washburn Ave. 6645 Upton Ave. 1908 West 66th St. 2916 West 71 1/2 St. 6300 Aldrich Ave. 6912 Oliver Ave. 7015 Penn Ave. 7021 Penn Ave. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0073 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 32- 028 -24 -12 -0073 29- 028 -24 -42 -0015 28- 028 -24 -23 -0125 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 28- 028 -24 -33 -0053 33- 028 -24 -22 -0003 33- 028 -24 -22 -0004 For Cycle II program purposes, the following Cycle I property is being removed from the acquisition list. This property may be considered for acquisition at some future date. ADDRESS PID NUMBER 6300 Aldrich Ave.* 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 Subject property at 6300 Aldrich Avenue is being moved to the Cycle II acquisition list. 3- Part /1. Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -1 " D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District The property listed within Appendix B has been identified for removal from TIF District "B -1 ". This property is being moved to TIF District "B -2 ". Also see Appendix B for additional descriptive program information. F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified.for removal from the acquisition list. This property is hereby moved to the Cycle II acquisition list. See Appendix B for additional descriptive program information. PIN NUMBER ADDRESS 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 6300 Aldrich Ave. So. 5- APPENDIX B PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B -1" The following property, known as Cycle I property within the Tax Increment Finaning Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "B- 2", is removed from Tax Increment Financing District "B -1 ". The removal of this property is a program objective under Cycle II of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program under the original Plan. The property will be part of TIF District "B -2" and the related acquisition list. PIN NUMBER 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 ADDRESS 6300 Aldrich Ave. So. ORIGINAL NET TAX CAPACITY* 518 Original Net Tax Capacity for taxes payable in 1990. S-11 Part ll. Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B -2" A. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the undertaking of a tax increment financing district (TIF District "B -2 ") and related Tax Increment Financing Plan (Tax Increment Plan) in Redevelopment Project Area "B" (Project Area "B ") for the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program formerly known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program (Housing Program) and the activities proposed in the tax increment plan relating thereto is conferred upon the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA), pursuant to and in accordance with the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. B. Statement of Objectives The HRA and the City seek to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in Part I of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B ", dated July 16, 1990. In addition to these goals and objectives, program objectives set forth in HRA Letter No. 13, dated April 20, 1992, are as follows: Create a voluntary market for the purchase and removal of substandard, poor quality housing. Provide sites for new homes by working closely with a qualified builder /buyer team. Provide a continuing program presence which maintains the interest and market momentum already achieved. Provide a financial structure which generates a sufficient cash flow to pay off principal and provide interest payments if funds are available. C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities On January 16, 1990, the HRA adopted a motion directing staff to proceed with the formulation of the Expanded New Home Program. On April 20, 1992, the HRA passed a motion to authorize continuation of this program, currently named the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program. I/C A survey of purchasers of new homes involved in the original housing program (Cycle I) provided information on the success of the program. The following observations were made with respect to Cycle I of the program and addressed in HRA Letter No. 13: a. The program has met the needs of various buyers which include young families, empty nesters, singles, move - up buyers, and first -time home buyers. b. The per bedroom count added to the housing supply in the city is 25. c. Relatively few school -aged children are involved with the newly acquired housing units. Therefore, confidence exists that the increase in dwelling unit size will result in a new increase in school -aged children when all the new units are occupied. d. During the first quarter of 1992, approximately 60 sellers and 15 buyers have indicated interest in participating in a continued program. Sellers, builders, and buyers continue to contact HRA staff to indicate program interest and participation. As with Cycle I of the program and so with Cycle II, a comprehensive, integrated approach for acquisition, site clearance, and new construction was formulated and will continue to be provided through program guidelines. The HRA will assist prospective developers, builders, and buyers with development, redevelopment, new construction, and other related activities within the context of the modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B ", this Tax Increment Plan, and other related guidelines. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contract Currently, there are no development contracts. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Project. Proposals from prospective developers, builders, and buyers will be required to be submitted to the HRA as part of the review process. The following activities may be expected to occur: 1. Property Acquisition; 2. On -site clearance; 3. On -site improvements; 8- 4. New construction; 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6: Adjacent- public improvements and utilities which service site. For Cycle II of the Housing Program, a total of 32 properties have been identified for program participation and acquisition. Twenty one (21) of the properties are located within Redevelopment Project Area "A" while the remaining eleven (11) are within Redevelopment Project Area "B ". Refer to Appendix A for map of Redevelopment Project Areas and tax increment parcels.) Redevelopment Project Area A contains one property with a double lot. A property subdivision will be required in order to construct two homes on site. Initial construction for Cycle II is anticipated to begin in the last quarter of 1992. Construction for each home is anticipated to be approximately 120 days. Timing of construction is contingent upon favorable market conditions, reasonable time period for processing applications and availability of funding revenue. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Property located within TIF District "B -2" is identified in Appendix B. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The Richfield HRA and City Council, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, find that Tax Increment District "B -2" to be established within Project Area "B" is a redevelopment tax increment financing district as defined in Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Since the tax increment parcels within the scattered site program are non- contiguous, each parcel has been examined by staff against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions.. Each.structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of 'a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled "Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle II" which will be. on file at City Hall, Community Development Department,' Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. W910 F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified for acquisition in Cycle II of the Housing Program: ADDRESS PID NUMBER 6641 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -32 -0045 6924 Newton Ave. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0073 6539 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 7124 Washburn Ave. 32- 028 -24 -12 -0073 6645 Upton Ave. 29- 028 -24 -42 -0015 1908 West 66th St. 28- 028 -24 -23 -0125 2916 West 71 1/2 St. 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 6300 Aldrich Ave. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 6912 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0053 7015 Penn Ave. 33- 028 -24 -22 -0003 7021 Penn Ave. 33- 028 -24 -22 -0004 For Cycle II Program purposes, the following Cycle I property is removed from the acquisition list. This property is hereby moved to the Cycle II acquisition list. ADDRESS 6300 Aldrich Ave. PID NUMBER 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 The tax increment district budget includes acquisition costs for land sale subsidy which will be offered to eligible developers, builders, and buyers as development incentives. G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment district are outlined in the budget listed in Appendix D. H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds At the current time, an additional $500,000 is available under Cycle II to continue the housing program. Repayment of these funds will be through the use of tax increment financing and other sources of revenue, if any, available to the HRA and City. 10- An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness for redevelopment is expected to be $0. The term of the issues is 0 years including 0 years of capitalized interest with an anticipated taxable interest rate of 0 %. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be $0. A projected cash flow of the overall program reveals that interim program funding could potentially be repaid with interest if sufficient tax increment receipts are available and housing values appreciate. I. Sources of Revenue The primary source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with proposed developments in the redevelopment project area is tax increment. In addition to the tax increment revenue, other sources of revenue potentially available to the HRA and City may be utilized. J. Original Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 1 and Sec. 469.177, subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (OTC) for TIF District "B -2" is based on the January 2, 1992 assessed value placed on the property by the county assessor. The OTC for the district is $9,530. (See Appendix B, Property Located in Tax Increment Financing District "B -2 ".) Each year the office of the county auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total net tax capacity of the tax increment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total net tax capacity in the tax increment district above the original net tax capacity, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total net tax capacity in the tax increment district declines below the original net tax capacity, no tax capacity will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The county auditor shall certify in each year after the date the original net tax capacity was certified, the amount the OTC has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; or 3. Change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court - ordered abatements. 11- K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. l and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 2, the estimated captured net tax capacity (CTC) of the tax increment district is within a range of 79 to $845 per home. The total CTC for 11 new homes within the. project area ranges from $869 to $9,295. As a result of the improvements to be constructed, it is expected that the estimated captured net tax capacity will be available for the housing program. It is also anticipated that this amount will be captured not more than 25 years. (See Appendix C, Estimate of Tax Increments). L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sect. 469.176, subd. 1, the maximum duration of a redevelopment tax increment district is 25 years. The HRA elects to capture 100% of the tax increments for the duration of the district. M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Refer to Appendix E, Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District All tax increment plan modifications will be processed in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 4. The modifications pertaining to the necessary processing include any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination of capitalized interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, on to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity.to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the County Auditor. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 14, and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 3; for districts for which certification was requested after June 30, 1982, no tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures 12- authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec.-469.176, subd. 1, the HRA must issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed within three years of the date of certification of the tax increment district by the county auditor. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the HRA or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the HRA or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the HRA shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced,: and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district." R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minn. Stat., 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality. This provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the-construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used.for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. 13- Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 4j, at least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of a redevelopment district under section 469.174. These costs include acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures, clearing of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in the qualifying costs. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 4, the HRA will review and search property files for properties to be included in the tax increment district and to identify those properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the City. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minn. Stat., Sec. 475.61, subd. 3, the HRA shall use the excess amount to: 1. Prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. Return the excess to the county auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rates. The amounts distributed to a city or county must be deducted from the levy limits of the governmental unit for -the following year. In calculating the levy limit base for later years, the amount deducted must be treated as a local government aid payment. For the purpose of this tax increment financing plan, excess tax increment means that increment received in any year which is in addition to the amount needed to satisfy the HRA's current financial obligations or commitments, as specified in the tax 14- increment financing budget listed in Appendix D, or which is in addition to that which is placed in a separate account for the purpose of accumulating funds needed to satisfy those financial obligations or commitments in the future. U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, the following terms have the meanings given: Activities" means acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities, but only to the extent that tax increment revenues may be spent for such purposes under other law. Activities do not include allocated administrative expenses, but do include engineering, architectural, and similar costs of the improvements in the district. Third party" means an entity other than (1) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, or (2) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, subd. 2 with respect to expenditures outside the district: a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived from tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b), may be deducted first before.calculating the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 3 with respect to the five -year rule: a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: 1) before or within five years after certification of.the district, the revenues 15- are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; 2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; 3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or 4) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a party for payment of the costs. b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two tests is met: (1) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified or (2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 4 with respect to use of revenues for decertification: Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used only to pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph a), clause (2), and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4). When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision .3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 8, the HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with a developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor 16- who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment district will be the responsibility of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the ne "t tax capacity of the tax increment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other HRA and municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned activities identified in the tax increment financing plan. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 6a, on or before March 1 of each year, the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following: 1. Total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. Total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. Also in accordance with this requirement the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the tax increment financing district: 1. Type of district; 2. Date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. Captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. Tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; ' 5. Whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or 17- may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment financing district; and 6. Any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the HRA, City, and County staff, and consultants. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: 1. The Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. It has been determined that parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Specifically, staff has examined each parcel against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions due to the non - contiguous nature of the tax increment parcels. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle II" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. 2. The proposed activities listed in this plan, in the opinion of the HRA, would not reasonably be Offin expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the proposed development requires certain necessary planning, property assembly and other improvements without which interested developers, builders, or buyers could not construct the aforementioned improvements; and without the use of tax increments or other revenues authorized by this plan to assist with the financing of the activities, interested developers, builders, or buyers would not proceed with redevelopment in the redevelopment project area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole as it will result in the continuation of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program formerly known as the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program for the development, redevelopment, new construction and other related improvements of residential homes for which there is limited sources of revenue available. 4. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the HRA to provide the necessary redevelopment for the project area and City, as a whole, in a planning manner suitable to both the public and private sectors. 19- APPENDICES Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Redevelopment Project Area "B" and Tax Increment Financing District "B -2" 21- APPENDIX A MAP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA "A" AND "B" AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS "A -2" AND "B -2" 23- c t c c • 11 a a P. 98 COrsloafas OC r1O7 JII f1O1V/MOl _ Lr orm o,l aD,,,11fDD. o oo I.l 0000COOC 00000clit oC 111 rl ooCCflOlII = CD1,•1) CCOr rYwl —1 _ L Or,lrrD I f i._ =C t9f 1 [ 7Af orrLYOd ® r rr . rojw t MI Ywaf ' lA. AT70 IY uu rnafnlf Iii O IIIwl71d lit O L Awrsrald -- - -- ours I {' Aswrra I fl1 /dr0 (;; Elf rp- Iq IYOIf lid . %` I 1 AwOdno I! i a0tY)w) OY,11r0 AOlO - rwnM M/AY1 arsm - Do C(+i YrOYDw FD=E: [ a0l r]M O OOO ` I o )]n T)ffnr (E frwONA _ r = J'Ol MYMNtrr I I .. _ as Nix C Q 24— rmlLfwl 10 Iwa- rlf rl fl YDAMAnagm 1 fr U fl 1 (1 fl it left rl DI ADn13 00r300 urwm o rrrl ollrlrr0 lAr Mn'LYDd o, of mu mm Ni fr]Aijf al 3Ar Ai11071Y ll)ofrrl, YA]or)r)r AYllff,ld Aarfrlld aNVU5 1)Irrrw D,311.YY, AV )IrDYAI Yj1001r low&N frAIM 106dr10 YO)Y)w1 A+agl/ Oar Ylf ADl0,wna YIAYI Uwr/ Oar Mr001 Yr0Y0a rD1r)w Y Ir10 Ar "3d Y]]AD ll)ifnd MOWN& fr110111 r0jdn AY)DYIA YYnfN(tr Ar f)rY)r E 102- ED n cq z CD bD f— a V U Hw V, W O W A W O W so APPENDIX B PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B -2" ADDRESS 6641 Oliver Ave. 6924 Newton Ave. 6539 Oliver Ave. 7124 Washburn Ave. 6645 Upton Ave. 1908 West 66th St. 2916 West 71 1/2 St. 6300 Aldrich Ave. 6912 Oliver Ave. 7015 Penn Ave. 7021 Penn Ave. PID NUMBER 28- 028 -24 -32 -0045 28- 028 -24 -33 -0073 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 32- 028 -24 -12 -0073 29- 028 -24 -42 -0015 28- 028 -24 -23 -0125 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 28-028-24-11-0041 28- 028 -24 -33 -0053 33- 028 -24 -22 -0003 33- 028 -24 -22 -0004 TOTAL 25- ORIGINAL NET TAX CAPACITY 1,254 676 1,092 530 1,462 450 595 546 655 1,135 1,135 9,530 APPENDIX C ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B -2" A. VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION Construction Cost (Land & Bldg) x Sales Ratio Estimated Market Value B. TAX INCREMENT VALUE Estimated Market Value x Tax Capacity Ratio Class IA; Prop. Type R- Hmstd) 1.00$ $72,000 2.00% $43,000 2.50% Balance New Tax Capacity Original Net Tax Capacity (Avg.) Captured Net Tax Capacity x Tax Capacity Rate (1992) Annual Tax Increment x 11 Homes - Total Annual Tax Increment RANGE ....... Per Home Per Home 90,000 $130,000 92.50% 92.50% 83,250 $120,250 83,250 720 225 0 945 866) 79 120.944% 96 1,051 C. ESTIMATE OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES Estimated Market Value $ 83,250 x Tax Capacity Ratio Class IA; Prop. Type R- Hmstd) 1.00% $72,000 $ 720 2.00% $43,000 $ 225 2.50% Balance $ 0 New Tax Capacity $ 945 x Tax Capacity Rate .120.944$ Annual Ad Valorem Taxes (per home) $ 1,143 x 11 Homes - Total Annual Ad $ 12,572 Valorem Taxes 26- 120,250 720 860 131 1,711 866) 845 120.944% 1,022 S 11,242 120,250 720 S 860 131 1,711 120.944$ 2,069 22,763 0 APPENDIX D BUDGET* TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B -2" Property Acquisition $ 529,000 Appraisals $ 3,575 Demolition /Site Clearance S 55,000 Legal Expenses $ 5,000 TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURE $ 592,575 This budget reflects the purchase by the HRA of all 11 Cycle II properties located within Tax Increment Financing District "H -2 ". 27- APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B -2" The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District "B -21'. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District "B -2" would be as follows if the "but for" test (see Section Z. Municipal Findings, page 18 of the Plan) was not met: ENTITY City of Richfield Hennepin County School Distr. #280 ENTITY IMPACT ON TAX BASE RANGE MINIMUM............... ENTITY'S TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 23,097,324 1,004,056,028 21,745,830 CAPTURED % OF CAPTURED TAX TAX CAPACITY TO CAPACITY ENTITY TOTAL 869 0.0038 869 0.0001 869 .0.0040 RANGE MAXIMUM............... ENTITY'S CAPTURED % OF CAPTURED TOTAL NET TAX TAX CAPACITY TO TAX CAPACITY CAPACITY ENTITY TOTAL City of Richfield S 23,097,324 S 9,295 Hennepin County 1,004,056,028 9,295 School Distr. #280 21,745,830 9,295 The estimates listed in the following table tax capacity when all construction is completed. and tax capacities are the payable 1992 figures jurisdictions. Tax Increment Financing District 28- 0.0402 0.0009 0.0427 display captured The tax rates for all B -2" is anticipated to be certified under rates for payable 1993 or later as the acquisition of property progresses. The tax rate increase column is the estimate of the amount the tax rate of each jurisdiction would theoretically have to increse to raise the taxes listed in the potential taxes column. In addition, the impact on School District No. 280 does not included the effect of state aids for education upon school district funding. IMPACT ON TAX RATES MINIMUM IMPACT.............. CURRENT CAPTURED POTENTIAL TAX RATE TAX RATE TAX CAPACITY TAXES INCREASE ENTITY City of Richfield 0.22953 869 199 0.009 Hennepin County 0.34327 869 298 0.000 School Distr. #280 0.57013 869 495 0.023 Miscellaneous 0.05996 869 52 0.000 MAXIMUM IMPACT.............. CURRENT CAPTURED POTENTIAL TAX RATE TAX RATE TAX CAPACITY TAXES INCREASE ENTITY City of Richfield 0.22953 9,295 2,133 0.092 Hennepin County 0.34327 9,295 3,191 0.003 School Distr. #280 0.57013 9,295 5,299 0.244 Miscellaneous 0.05996 9,295 557 0.001 29- Item: #3 Agenda Section: New Business Information Letter: #9 Date: July 28, 1992 GENERAL INFORMATION I Subject: Second Quarter report of Administrative Review Committee (ARC) activity. References: 1. Activity report (attached). 2. Summary of cases (attached). BACKGROUND Purpose: The planning staff feels it is important to keep the Planning Commission informed of ARC activities. A report of ARC activities is prepared on a quarterly basis. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Review the attached ARC materials, no discussion or decision is necessary. ARC- 2ND.DOC SUMMARY OF CASES Parent - Infant Education, 7440 Penn Ave. - reviewed request for amended conditional use permit to expand daycare from 25 to 40 children in the R- residence district. The City Council approved the request on May 11, 1992. Leaseback Properties, 7626-44 Knox Ave. - reviewed request for setback variances and subdivision waiver to divide the parcel into two separate lots with a commercial building on each lot. The request would facilitate separate ownership of the buildings. The Hearing Examiner granted the variances on June 22, 1992. The City Council approved the subdivision waiver on July 13, 1992. A cash escrow was required for landscape screening and striping of the parking lot, as well as for minor curb improvements. Norma Jean Sims, 6745 12th Ave. - reviewed request for a conditional use permit to allow an assoccory apartment in the upper level of a single family home in the R- residence district. The City Council approved the conditional use permit on July 13, 1992. Hope's Chow Mein, 7627 Lyndale Ave. - reviewed request for amended conditional use permit to allow restaurant expansion into adjoining building and increase seating capacity from 26 seats to 50 seats. The City Council denied the request on July 13, 1992. James E. Thomas, 6315 Oliver Ave. - reviewed request for lot area, lot width, and building height variances to allow constructiuon of a new home in the R- residential district. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the application on July 21, 1992. A decision has not yet been rendered. ARC- 2ND.DOC ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORT SECOND QUARTER OF 1992 DATE APPLICANT ADDRESS REQUEST April 1, 1992 Parent - Infant Education 7440 Penn Amend conditional use permit May 13, 1992 Leaseback Properties 7626 -44 Knox Subdivision waiver & Variances May 20, 1992 Norma Jean Sims 6745 12th Ave. Conditional use permit June 3, 1992 Hope's Chow Mein 7627 Lyndale Amend conditional use permit June 17, 1992 James E. Thomas 6315 Oliver Lot area, width, & building height variances SUMMARY OF CASES Parent - Infant Education, 7440 Penn Ave. - reviewed request for amended conditional use permit to expand daycare from 25 to 40 children in the R- residence district. The City Council approved the request on May 11, 1992. Leaseback Properties, 7626-44 Knox Ave. - reviewed request for setback variances and subdivision waiver to divide the parcel into two separate lots with a commercial building on each lot. The request would facilitate separate ownership of the buildings. The Hearing Examiner granted the variances on June 22, 1992. The City Council approved the subdivision waiver on July 13, 1992. A cash escrow was required for landscape screening and striping of the parking lot, as well as for minor curb improvements. Norma Jean Sims, 6745 12th Ave. - reviewed request for a conditional use permit to allow an assoccory apartment in the upper level of a single family home in the R- residence district. The City Council approved the conditional use permit on July 13, 1992. Hope's Chow Mein, 7627 Lyndale Ave. - reviewed request for amended conditional use permit to allow restaurant expansion into adjoining building and increase seating capacity from 26 seats to 50 seats. The City Council denied the request on July 13, 1992. James E. Thomas, 6315 Oliver Ave. - reviewed request for lot area, lot width, and building height variances to allow constructiuon of a new home in the R- residential district. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the application on July 21, 1992. A decision has not yet been rendered. ARC- 2ND.DOC