The URL can be used to link to this page

11-28-2005PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 28, 2005 7:00 p.m. Introductory Proceedings Roll Call Approval of Minutes: Special Joint meeting with the City Council /Housing and Redevelopment Authority /Planning Commission of August 31, 2005, Special Joint meeting with the City Council /Housing and Redevelopment Authority /Planning Commission of September 26, 2005 and the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 2005. Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 PC Letter #23 ITEM #2 PC Letter #24 ITEM #3 05- CUP -03 ITEM #4 05- CUP -04 New Business Zoning Ordinance Revisions — 1 -494 1 -494 Comprehensive Plan Modifications Conditional Use permit — 1201 East 66th Street Conditional User Permit — 6500 5th Avenue ITEM #5 PC Letter #25 Finding of Consistency of Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered Project Area ITEM #6 PC Letter #26 Finding of Consistency for the Properties on East 66th Street Old Business Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council Human Services Planning Council Welcoming Initiative Task Force Transportation Commission Adiournment Auxiliary aid for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 861 - 9738 ". CITY COUNCIL /HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent Worksession of City Council /HRA/Planning Commission August 31, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kirsch at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Susan Rosenberg; Fred Wroge; Bill Kilian; and Sue Sandahl. HRA Members Present: Thomas Harms, Chair; Martin Kirsch; Sue Sandahl; and Joan Helmberger. HRA Members Not Present: Kristal Stokes. Planning Commission Members Present: Gordon Hanson; Kim Houle; Maureen Scaglia; Donna Drummond; and Kyle Hartnett. Planning Commission Members Not Present: Jeffrey Walz; David Schneider; Greg Van Sickle; and Jeffrey Karr. Staff Present: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director; Patrick Smith, Community Development Manager; Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item #1 , DISCUSSION,REGARDING 1- 494 LAND'_USE STUDY y , .INVENTORY`OF CURRENT CONDITIONS Community Development Manager Smith explained tonight's concurrent meeting is one in a series of four regarding the 1 -494 Corridor Planning Study. He introduced Mark Koegler from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., the consulting planner, landscaper architect and designer firm hired to assist on this study. Special Worksession Minutes -2- August 31, 2005 Mark Koegler presented and discussed the following: Project Team Project Purpose and Goals Review of the work program /communication plan /schedule Project area discussion with comments provided by the City Council, HRA and Planning Commission Community Development Manager Smith explained the next steps and encouraged residents and business owners to attend the upcoming open houses. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:34 p.m. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary yle Hartnett Planning Commission Secretary Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY COUNCIL /HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Concurrent Worksession of City Council /HRA/Planning Commission September 26, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kirsch at 5:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Fred Wroge; Bill Kilian; and Sue Sandahl. Council Members Not Present: Susan Rosenberg. HRA Members Present: Thomas - Harms, Chair; Martin Kirsch; Sue Sandahl; and Joan Helmberger. Planning Commission Members Present: Gordon Hanson; Kim Houle; David Schneider; Maureen Scaglia; Donna Drummond; and Jeffrey Karr. Planning Commission Members Not Present: Jeffrey Walz; Greg Van Sickle; and Kyle Hartnett. Staff Present: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director; Patrick Smith, Community Development Manager; Bruce Nordquist, Housing and Redevelopment Manager; Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING1 -494; LAND USE STUDY REVIEW ALTERNATIVES Community Development Manager Smith explained tonight's concurrent meeting is the second in a series of four regarding the 1-494 Corridor Planning Study. Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., discussed the context mapping and 1-494 land use review alternatives, including zoning designations and Comprehensive Plan designations. Special Worksession Minutes -2- September 26, 2005 Jeff McMenimen, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., reviewed three option concepts: Option 1 is as consistent as possible with the current Comp Plan Option 2 emphasizes residential area Option 3 is more of a mix of uses All options retain the church and cemetery in their current location. The schematic long -term concept options are to be used to define the future direction of the City and as a land use vision, not as a redevelopment plan. The market will dictate development. A marketing study indicates the area as desirable for high- density residential, including strengthened pedestrian - friendly aspects. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:57 p.m. Date Approved: Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary ErHartnett nnirig Commission Secretary Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting October 24, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Donna Drummond, Commissioners: Gordon Hanson, Maureen Scaglia, Greg Van Sickle, Kyle Hartnett, Kim Houle, Jeff Walz and David Schneider. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Jeff Karr COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, Zoning Administrator Bruce Nordquist, Housing & Redevelopment Manager Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer Vanessa Haight, CD Assistant Coordinator OTHERS PRESENT: Tony Heppelmann, WSB & Associates, Inc. Carolyn Krall, Landform Fred Wroge, City Council Member Andrew Gillett, Hennepin County Chairperson Drummond called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Hanson, S/Hartnett to approve the Planning Commission regular meeting minutes of August 22, 2005 and Planning Commission work session minutes of September 12, 2005. Motion carried: 7 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS ITEM #1 PC Letter #21— Approve Resolution finding that the acquisition of the property at 6601, 6609, 6615, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639 and 6645 17th Avenue are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan ZA Poehlman presented the staff report highlighting the Background section, the Critical Issues section, and the Financial section. M/Walz, S/Hanson to approve the Resolution finding that the acquisition of the property at 6601, 6609, 6615, 6621, 6627, 6633, 6639 and 6645 17th Avenue are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried: 7 -0 ITEM #2 PC Letter #22 — Review land use guiding principles at 66th Street and Portland Avenue give the Transportation Commission's recommendation of the roundabout intersection design Chairperson Drummond briefly introduced Item #2. ZA Poehlman followed by highlighting the Background section of the staff report. Housing and Redevelopment Manager Bruce Nordquiest and WSB Vice - President, Tony Heppelmann were then introduced to present further information. Tony Heppelmann summarized what work has been done since the last Planning Commission meeting, including the modfication to the alignment map. The revised map now shows total takes of several parcels that were previously noted as partial takes. He continued to explain that the right -of -way will require both partial and total takes of property. Mr. Heppelmann stated that the primary issues at the intersection include safety and a need for increased capacity. The two options to address these issues are: 1) a roundabout, or 2) addition of a designated left -turn lane. The roundabout provides a higher level of service, results in less accidents, has aesthetic potential and costs less to build than other options. Mr. Heppelmann fielded questions from Commissioners regarding the future viability of the Morris Nilsen Funeral Home, the acquisition of single- family homes, the redevelopment possibilities of the remaining land left over from partial takes, pedestrian crosswalks and more. Carolyn Krall was introduced and presented information on future land use, pedestrian design, transit, and more. Ms. Krall fielded questions questions from Commissioners in regards to redevelopment, pedestrian accomodations and more Commissioner Scaglia added that the Transportation Committee used a points system to compare the two intersection options and there was no question that the roundabout is the best choice. Chairperson Drummond stated that although this meeting was not intended as a public hearing, people with questions could come forward and address the Commission or presenters. Morris Nilsen, owner of Morris Nilsen Funeral Home at 6527 Portland Avenue stated that a new intersection will affect the viability and desirability of the funeral home. Noise, vibration, parking and left -turn options in and out of the parking lots are the main issues the funeral home 2 will face. Mr. Nilsen clarified that both the roundabout option and the left -turn option present the same issues for the funeral home. Terry Drimel of 6617 Portland Ave stated that they cannot lose another inch of their yard. She has witnessed a number of crashes and believes safety is the most important issue. Ms. Drimel stated that she feels better knowing that her house may be completely taken rather than partially taken. Larry Woznickzka of 6744 Wentworth asked for clarification on what is being discussed tonight. Additionally, he asked that the Planning Commission treat the guidelines carefully. Mr. Woznickzka asked the Commissioners and presenters what the remaining portion of the single - family home lots would be used for and asked for clarification on a statement made by Bruce Nordquist regarding Kensington Park. Ms. Krall responded to the first question, stating that the remaining land would be good for redevelopment as townhomes. Bruce Nordquist clarified his earlier statement. Fred Wroge, City Council Member, expressed his concern about townhome development on such small lots. Ms. Krall explained the townhome design further. Transportation Engineer, Tom Foley explained the ability of a roundabout to respond to future increased capacity. M/Hartnett, S/Houle to recommend that a north and east alignment best facilitates land use planning and accommodates pedestrian, transit and streetscape elements. Commissioner Scaglia stated that the Planning Commission should show sensitivity in design to small, family -run businesses that are active in the community and suggested amending the motion to reflect this. Commissioner Hartnett agreed to the sensitivity but stated that this motion need not be amended to reflect this sentiment. Motion carried: 8-0 OLD BUSINESS LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Report from Gordon Hanson Community Services Advisory Commission: No report HRA: No report City Council: Report from Mayor Martin Kirsch Human Services Planning Council: No report Welcoming Initiative Task Force:,No report r- . 1 + AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 1 23 dM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Conduct a public hearing regarding consideration of changes to the Richfield Zoning Code regarding the addition of the Mixed Use Regional, Mixed Use Community, and Mixed Use Neighborhood Districts under Section 530 of the Code, and by motion continue this item to December 19, 2005. 111. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 By Motion: Conduct a public hearing regarding consideration of changes to the Richfield Zoning Code regarding the addition of the Mixed Use Regional, Mixed Use Community, and Mixed Use Neighborhood Districts under Section 530 of the Code, and by motion continue this item to December 19. 2005. II. BACKGROUND On February 8, 2005 the Richfield City Council approved a moratorium for certain properties bounded by Knox Avenue, 77th Street, Cedar Avenue and Interstate 1 -494 the 1 -494 Corridor). The moratorium was intended to provide staff with time to conduct a planning study to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan were in compliance with one another, and to devise a vision for future development along the 1-494 Corridor. The information provided throughout this report and in the accompanying attachments is in need of further refinement. The continuation of this item to December 19, 2005 will allow the Planning Commission additional time to review and discuss the proposed ordinance changes, as well as provide staff with time to revise the ordinance to reflect comments. Over the past few months the Community Development Department and the consulting firm of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi) have conducted a series of public open houses and joint meetings of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority HRA), and the Planning Commission. Drawing from feedback provided by residents, business owners, policy makers and staff. HKGi has prepared a vision for the future of the 1 -494 Corridor. Recognizing the special nature of this Corridor and the proposed. vision, HKGi and staff believe that new zoning districts are necessary to facilitate its future implementation. A summary of the proposed districts and regulations follows. 112805 -MU Zoning Ordinance Amendments.doc Summary of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Additions. Section 530 — Mixed Use Districts. a) Defined: The mixed use districts allow multiple complementary land uses to mix either horizontally or vertically in order to create an environment that offers the ability to live, work, shop and play within a development area. b) Three distinct districts have been created in acknowledgement of the variations in intensity and land use patterns described in the proposed vision. The three districts are as follows: 1. Mixed Use Regional (MUR) — Regional mixed use supports destination oriented commercial and office uses at a high density /intensity of development. Residential uses would be supported as accessory to commercial and office uses and would be intended to support housing opportunities that would support major employment concentrations. 2. Mixed Use Community (MUC) — Community mixed use would include shops and services that support the surrounding community. A balanced mix of commercial, office and higher density residential uses would be included in this district. Vertical mixing of uses would be encouraged to create building mass along primary arterials. 3. Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) — Neighborhood mixed use would emphasize residential development with supporting retail and commercial service uses. The commercial services would be emphasized at key transportation nodes /corners and would be of a smaller scale, neighborhood orientation. C) Bulk and dimensional standards have been written so as to encourage the maximization of land use throughout the corridor. Height, building coverage and setback requirements are designed to minimize parcel size constraints, while open space requirements emphasize the importance of a pedestrian -scale and an overall pedestrian- friendly environment. Street level retail minimums are intended to encourage pedestrian travel throughout the corridor. d) Parking standards have also been written with the pedestrian and an overall visual experience in mind. Rather than expansive parking lots, the higher densities and mixed use developments called for in these districts offer opportunities for shared parking, increased transit use and structured parking. e) The performance standards include specifications for exterior lighting, architectural materials and design, orientation to the street, screening and more. All are intended to push developments to consider adjoining properties and neighborhoods and the connections between uses. f) Changes to the zoning designation of properties within the 1 -494 corridor have the potential to create a number of non - conformities. Non - conformities can refer to either a particular use or physical characteristic that exists prior to the adoption of additional controls which would no longer allow it. Some key points regarding non - conformities follow: MN State Statute 462.357 allows owners of non - conforming businesses and /or properties to continue to operate indefinitely. Owners may repair, replace, restore, perform routine maintenance, or improve their property, so long as the non - conforming use or occupancy is continued. In the case of fire or other peril when the non - conformity is damaged beyond 50 percent of the market value, a building permit must be applied for within 180 days in order to continue the non - conformity. Beyond 180 days, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit. In deference to current property owners, the City has also included regulations that will allow for some expansion of non - conformities. These rules are summarized below: Subdivision 1. Expansion of non - conforming uses. The City Council may allow expansion of legal non - conforming uses through issuance of a conditional use permit. Expansion may be allowed up to 10 percent of the gross floor area. Any expansion or modification of a legal non - conforming use should not impede implementation of goals and policies of the Vision Plan for the 1 -494 Corridor. Subdivision 2. Expansion of dimensional or bulk non- conformities. Existing legal conforming uses that do not meet dimensional or bulk standards of the Mixed Use zoning district may be expanded through issuance of a conditional use permit by the City Council. Expansion or modifications of a legal conforming use shall: a) Not increase the degree of non - conformity, b) Result in the building and property being in greater conformance with the goals and policies of the 1 -494 Corridor Land Use Plan, and c) Not impede implementation of goals and policies of the 1-494 Corridor Plan III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Section 506.03 of Richfield's Zoning Ordinance states as its foremost purpose, "to assist in the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan." Current zoning regulations do not adequately regulate development to be in conformance with the either the current Comprehensive Plan language or the proposed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The moratorium period expires February 8, 2006. C. FINANCIAL Implementation is intended to occur over time primarily through private- sector investment. D. LEGAL Zoning: This ordinance amendment creates new zoning districts to be used in the implementation of the 1-494 Corridor Vision. Land Use: The ordinance amendment will create three mixed use districts. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan will also be updated to ensure that it and the Zoning Ordinance agree. Notification: Notification of this public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within the 1 -494 Corridor as well as those within 350 feet of the moratorium area. Other Actions: Council: The recommendation of the Planning Commission will go to the City Council for two readings and a public hearing. If the council adopts the recommended changes, they will take effect 30 days after the approved Council resolution is posted in the Sun Current newspaper. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S Recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance amendments. V. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance Section 530. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Property owners and residents wishing to comment on proposed Zoning Ordinance changes. Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 530. ixed se D' tri s M S 'visi n 1. b -di ric D conedd.. A mixed use district is an area that sup o s mu tiple d use that are complimentary to one another and supp rt e a .1ity to . , work, shop and play within a development atte i o on ntally mixed or vertically mixed uses. There are three ub -di tric ixed use as follows: a) ed Use Regional — (MU -R): Regional mixed use supports estination oriented commercial and office uses at a high density /intensity of development. Residential uses would be supported as accessory to commercial and office uses and would be intended to support housing opportunities that would support major employment concentrations. b) Mixed Use Community — (MU -C): Community mixed use would include shops and services that support the surrounding community. A balanced mix of commercial, office and higher density residential uses would be included in this district. Vertical mixing of uses would be encouraged to create building mass along primary arterials. c) Mixed Use Neighborhood — (MU -N): Neighborhood mixed use would emphasize residential development with supporting retail and commercial service uses. The commercial services would be emphasized at key transportation nodes /corners and would be of a smaller scale, neighborhood orientation. Subdivision 2. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the Mixed Use Districts shall be to: a) Guide future development along the I -494 corridor in order to adapt to market and transportation changes; b) Encourage vertically mixed -uses clustered at primary (regional) and secondary (community) transportation nodes to build identity within the district; c) Provide a mix of residential densities along the corridor; d) Provide appropriate transitions between uses; e) Promote greater pedestrian and bicycle access and connections throughout the corridor and along the length of the corridor; f) Discourage auto oriented uses in favor of pedestrian friendly mixed -use development. g) Encourage reductions in impervious surface, will landscaped and attractive public and private spaces with a pedestrian friendly character and environment by minimizing surface parking and enhancing pedestrian corridors (sidewalks and trails) through reinforcing build -to lines - getting new buildings to address the street and emphasize enticing street level architecture; DRAFT Document Page 1 of 15 1 — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) Section 530 MU District h) Encourage public open spaces within the corridor by allowing and encouraging taller buildings for high - density uses; i) Ensure high quality architectural design and materials; j) Promote increased use of transit. k) Encourage redevelopment in a manner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plan(s) that exist for the district. 530.02 Permitted Uses. Subdivision i. The following table establishes permitted, conditionally permitted and accessory uses for the Mixed Use Districts. Regional Retail Services: Commercial retail services are single use or multi -use commercial establishments that draw upon a broad geographic area for their primary market area. Regional commercial retail services include retail uses typically with greater than 50,000 square feet of combined retail square footage either in one single building or attached in a shopping center /mall like structure. Regional retail services may include some general retailers that are ancillary to the primary use of the site. Examples of regional retail services include: specialty big box stores, discount retailers, shopping centers, restaurants, larger grocery stores. General Retail Services: General retail services are single use or multi -use commercial establishments that are reliant on a more localized market area for patronage and typically have less than 50,000 square feet of combined square footage. General retail services include professional services such as barber shop, salon, real estate, finance (including banking) and insurance offices, hardware stores, small grocery stores, convenience stores, drug stores, video stores, restaurants, contractors or home repair services, etc... Neighborhood Retail Services: Neighborhood retail services are similar in use characteristics to general retail services: however, neighborhood services have a focus on convenience services that rely mostly on the immediate neighborhood for patronage. Their size is typically small, less than io,000 square feet of contiguous space. Neighborhood services include convenience store, coffee shops, cafes/ restaurants, small offices, barber shops, salons, independent offices, etc... Other Definitions of uses found in the following table are found in Section 506. If a use is not listed in the table below, the use is prohibited. DRAFT Document Page 2 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Table i Uses of the Mixed -Use District: The following abbreviations are used within the use table: P= permitted use C= conditionally permitted A= accessory use N= null or not permitted Section 530 Use MU -R MU -C MU -N Commercial Regional Retail Services (need to define but likely bigger box uses) p N N General retail services (need to define but likely shopping center type uses) P P N Neighborhood retail services (need to define but likely single use, stand alone retail services) P P P Restaurant Class I P C N Restaurant Class II P P N Restaurant Class III C C N Restaurant Class IV P P N convenience store with gas P P N convenience store without gas P P P Hotel Motel P P N Private recreational and social facilities N P N Mortuaries and funeral chapels N P N Health or athletic clubs, spas, yoga studios P P N Theaters, movie or live entertainment p N N Motor vehicles sales —New vehicles C N N Motor vehicle repair and service — New and Used Vehicles C C C Appliance repair and service C N N Motor vehicle rental facilities N N N Assembly, warehouse, manufacturing N N N Drive through establishments C C N Adult uses N N N Gun or ammunition sales /repair or firearms relate uses N N N Residential DRAFT Document Page 3 of 15 1 — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 Use MU -R MU -C MU -N Dwelling, Townhouse N N P Dwelling, Multi-Family P P P Live — work units N P P Home occupation A A A Assisted Living Facilities N N N Senior Independent Living Facilities N C P Nursing, rest homes N N C Institution Public Churches-synagogues etc N P P Government Offices N P N Police sub - station C P C Schools N P P Library N P P Parks P P P Hospitals P N N Transit facilities A A A Public utility A A A 530.03 Conditional Uses. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the MU -R and MU -C Districts and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subdivision 1.. Uses with drive -up window or teller service provided the following conditions are met: a) No drive up use shall be adjacent to a public street; b) Drive through use shall be limited to one service window which is part of a primary structure and no more than two queuing lanes, unless approved along with additional landscaping, screening, or other improved pedestrian amenities such as fencing, seating, raised pedestrian crossings, etc; c) Drive through must be part of a multi - tenant mixed -use development. Freestanding buildings shall not have drive up facilities; d) There shall be no curb cuts exclusively for the use of drive through queuing or exit lanes; e) A buffer yard of not less than 20 feet in width shall be provided to separate drive up facilities and related queuing areas from any lot line. If the drive up facility or queuing area abuts a commercial use, the Council may reduce the buffer yard to not less than 10 feet; f) Queuing space for at least four cars (70) feet shall be provided per drive -up service land as measured from not but including the first drive -up service window or teller station. Such queuing space shall not interfere with parking spaces or traffic circulation; DRAFT Document Page 4 of 15 1 — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 g) Alcoholic beverages shall not be served; and h) Exterior speakers shall comply with the noise control limits set by Section 930 of the City Code. 530.04 Bulk /Dimensional Standards: The following table establishes certain bulk standards for the MU Districts. Standard MU -R MU -C MU -N Building Stories* 2 min no max 2 min 12 Max 2 min 8 max Building Coverage* 50% min 75% max 30% min 50% o min 50% max max Open Space 15% of gross parcel 20% of gross parcel 25% of gross parcel Requirement area area area Street Level Retail 7o % minimum 50% minimum No minimum Set backs residential) 10' min 15' max 10' min 20' max 15' min 25' max Front 5 min 10' max 5' min 10' max 5' min 10' max Side Rear Set backs commercial) o' min 10' max o' min 10' max 5' min 10' max Front Side Rear Set backs (front TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD and parking) Parking structures shall not be included in calculation of building story or building coverage. 530.05 Parking Standards Subdivision i. Off Street Parking Ratios. The following table establishes minimum parking standards for uses within the Mixed Use Districts. Table 2 Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts Land Use Type Off Street Parking Ratio MU -R MU -C MU -N Commercial Retail (per 1,000 square feet) 4 3 3 Commercial Services (per 1,000 square feet) 3 2 2 Office (per 1,00o square feet) 3.5 2 2 DRAFT Document Page 5 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 Civic (per i,000 square feet) 3 2 2 Hotel /motel (per room) 1 1 1 Residential Townhouse (per unit) 1.5 1.5 1.5 Residential Multi - family (per unit) 1.5 1.5 1.5 Subdivision 2. Parking Maximums. Provisions for off street parking shall not exceed 125% of total parking needed based on minimum required off street parking as demonstrated in Table 2 Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts. Subdivision 3. Parking reductions. Refer to Section 541.11, Subdivision 9•. 530.06 Other Performance Standards Subdivision i. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and safety of entry drives, parking, service and loading areas, pathways, courtyards and plazas, without intruding nonadjacent properties shall comply with Section 541.03 and the following standards: a) Standards 1. Poles and fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with structures and lighting on- site and on adjacent properties. 2. Security lighting shall be adequate for visibility, but not overly bright. 3. Metal halide lighting shall be used with a concealed light source of the "cut -off' variety to prevent glare and "light trespass" onto adjacent buildings and sites. 4. Poles within landscaped and plazas shall have a maximum height of 20 feet, measured from grade. Poles within these areas may be set on pedestals no more than 8 inches in height. 5. Poles in parking lots shall have a maximum height of 24 feet measured from finished grade. 6. Lighting fixtures mounted directly on structures shall be permitted when utilized to enhance specific architectural elements or to help establish scale or provide visual interest. 7. "wall paks" shall be permitted only in loading and service areas that are down -lit and shielded from view. DRAFT Document Page 6 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 8. Shielded Illuminators or fixtures shall be permitted to light building mounted signage, building facades, or pedestrian arcades if they are integrated into a building's architectural design. 9. Lighting should highlighting entrances, art, terraces, and special landscape features. 1o. Separate pedestrian scale lighting or other low level fixtures, such as bollards, shall be incorporated for all pedestrian ways through parking lots and drop -off areas at entrances to buildings. 11. All primary walkways, steps or ramps along pedestrian routes shall be illuminated. b) Light Intensity i. A photometric lighting plan is required for all proposed commercial developments to ensure adequate and appropriate light levels are provided for each site condition. 2. The following levels of illumination should be maintained for each of the specific locations *: i) Building Entrances 5.0 footcandles ii) Sidewalks 2.0 footcandles iii) Bikeways 1.o footcandles iv) Courts /Plazas /Terraces 1.5 footcandles v) Ramps 5.0 footcandles vi) Stairways 5.0 footcandles vii) Underpasses 5.0 footcandles viii) Waiting Areas 1.o footcandles ix) Parking Lots 1.o footcandles x) Roadways 1.5 footcandles Values given area in minimum average maintained horizontal, footcandles which are measured at the average point of illumination between brightest and darkest areas, 4' -5' above the ground surface. Source: IES Lighting Handbook - 4th Edition). c) Site lighting should provide consistent levels of illumination, avoiding pockets of very high or low levels of illumination. Subdivision 2. Refuse collection /utilitarian items. Refuse collection and utilitarian elements should be designed into the interior space of buildings. At minimum, all trash handling, delivery and loading operations, HVAC equipment, and other utility and service function shall be grouped and arranged away from the public right -of -way and fully screened from other public areas and adjacent properties utilizing DRAFT Document Page 7 of 15 1 — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 architectural screening consisting of the same exterior facing materials as the principal building. Subdivision 3. Architectural Materials. Development shall comply with the provisions of Section 541.07 and the following standards: a) All structures including parking ramps shall be designed to be architecturally integrated into the overall site and be made of comparable materials and decorative elements (See Subdivision 7). b) Exterior windows shall not be flush with the exterior walls. The windows shall utilize window trim with a minimum relief of 1/4" from the exterior wall or other similar articulation. Subdivision 4. Building Relationship to street. All new commercial, office, and mixed -use buildings shall comply with the following standards for Building Orientation and Primary Entrance: a) All buildings shall have at least one primary entrance facing an abutting street, rather than the parking area. Primary entrance is defined as the principal entry through which people enter the building. A building may have more than one primary entrance. This entrance shall be open to the public during all business hours. b) Primary building entrances shall be architecturally emphasized and visible from the street. c) For building facades over 300 feet in length facing a street, two or more building entrances on the street must be provided. d) Building entrances shall incorporate arcades, roofs, porches, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. e) If the building has frontage on more than one street, the building shall provide a primary entrance oriented to one of the streets, or a single entrance to the corner where two streets intersect. Subdivision 5. Ground Floor Windows, Window Walls, Blank Walls and design for Non - Residential buildings. a) All development shall provide ground floor windows along street facades, parks, plazas or other public outdoor spaces. Required window areas must be either windows that allow views into working area or lobbies or pedestrian entrances or display windows. Required windows shall have a sill no higher than 4 feet above grade, except as follows. Where interior floor levels prohibit such placement, the sill height maybe raised to allow it to be no more that 2 feet above the finished floor level up to a maximum sill height of 6 feet above grade. DRAFT Document Page 8 of 15 1 — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) Section 530 MU District a) Parking drives should be located away from building entrances and designed to minimize pedestrian conflicts and shall not be located between a building entrance and the street; b) Surface parking lots shall be oriented behind or to the side of buildings; c) Driveway access and parking lots shall be shared as much as possible; d) Parking ramps shall be located towards I -494 to provide shielding or buffering of I -494 from other uses on site; e) Parking ramps shall be designed to be architecturally integrated into the overall site and be made of comparable materials and decorative elements; f) For parking lots with pedestrian corridors, refer to Subdivision 8. Subdivision 8. Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrian circulation and access shall comply with Section 541.13 and the following standards: a) Developments shall implement an on -site Pedestrian Circulation system that complies with the Vision Plan for the district as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan or any other redevelopment plan for the district; b) Sidewalks are required along both sides of all public right -of -ways. Subdivision 9. Stormwater management. Stormwater management shall comply with Section 9541.19• Subdivision io. Required Open Space Within the mixed -use districts, the open space is to be the central organizing element that links the different parts of the corridor into a whole. Open space can shape and serve as a transition between different uses and provide focal points and anchors for pedestrian activity. The required open space shall: a) Abut a public sidewalk and shall be accessible to the public during daylight hours; b) Include a combination of public and semi - public gathering spaces, such as plazas, tied together through a linear green corridor along its center. c) Include a buffer of landscape plantings along major transportation corridors or other physical barriers to enhance the community's image and to buffer uses from noise or other nuisances. d) Be used for treatment of storm water, only if it is designed as part of the overall open space system such that the storm water treatment or DRAFT Document Page 10 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) Section 530 MU District storage is used as a decorative element, and has no negative impact on recreation or the enjoyment of the open space. I ) Include Plazas, or patios that are integrally designed to accentuate the architecture on site and to tie off -site elements into an overall theme or character by use of decorative pavers, public art, decorative lighting, seating, planters, or other features. Open space shall be a minimum of l000 sq. ft. in size and a minimum of 20 ft wide in any direction. f) Be designed to have good public visibility to encourage pedestrian use of the on site outdoors amenities, while at the same time enhancing the security of such places by placing public entrances on the open space and ground floor windows along the open space. g) Designed such that, in the City's judgment, the spaces adequately enhance such development and serve as gathering places for visitors customers and employees and are consistent with the Vision Plan for the district as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan or any other redevelopment plan for the district. Subdivision i1. Screening. a) The following shall be screened in accordance with Section 541.03, Subdivision 8 and the requirements of this section: 1. off - street parking facilities shall be screened according to Section 541.03, Subdivision 6; 2. trash storage facilities, when not fully enclosed within a primary structure, shall be screened according to Section 541.03, Subdivision 8 Subdivision 12. Landscaping Requirements. The minimum landscaping requirements will be as follows: a) Landscaping and screening shall meet the performance standards as specified in Section 541.03. Subdivision 13. Use Transitions. The following options should be used as use transitions: a) When multi - family, office, small -scale retail, pedestrian intensive retail, civic or public uses are planned as part of a mixed use development, the lesser intensive uses or the more community serving uses maybe used as transitions to adjacent residential uses. For example, a bank is community serving, pedestrian friendly and typically close in late evenings and could be sited next to an adjacent residential use as 'a transitional use. b) Larger massings of commercial or office uses may be mitigated with building fagade articulation, locate parking lots or structures or other DRAFT Document Page 11 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) Section 530 MU District b) For any wall within 30 feet of a street, at least 20% of the ground floor wall area facing the street shall be display areas, windows, or doorways. Blank walls are prohibited. c) Darkly tinted, frosted windows or any windows that block two way visibility are prohibited as ground floor windows along street facades. d) Buildings shall include changes in relief on 15% of their street facades such as cornices, bases, window treatments, fluted masonry or other designs for pedestrian interest and scale. e) Building facades greater than loo feet in length shall have offset jogs, using elements such as bay windows and recessed entrances or other articulation so as to provide for pedestrian scale to the first floor. Subdivision 6. Upper story setbacks. Upper story setbacks shall be required for nonresidential uses and shall be achieved by one of two methods: a) Floors above the second floor shall be stepped back a minimum of five feet (5') for the first story above two and an additional five feet (5') for floors above three (3). The maximum step back under this method shall not exceed fifteen feet (15'). b) All buildings shall be stepped back by an appropriate amount from the plane of the street so as to maintain an angle not greater than sixty (60) degrees between the top of the building facade fronting on to the street and the back of the sidewalk of the opposite side of the same street. c) Exception. The Planning Director may waive the building step -back requirements of this section provided that the applicant clearly demonstrates the proposed project: 1. Includes window treatments, entry placement, fagade relieve and other architectural treatments to provide visual interest and pedestrian- sensitive design at her street level and to maintain a human scale in the streetscape; and 2. Extends the same architectural features above the ground floor level through variations in design, detail and proportion and by avoiding designs featuring a monolithic street fagade; and 3. Is designed as not to obstruct sunlight from falling on the back of the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street for more than four hours in any given day between March 21 and September 21. Subdivision 7. Vehicular Circulation and Parking. Parking and vehicular circulation shall comply with the standards in Section 541.11 and the following standards: DRAFT Document Page 9 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 potential nuisances away from residential uses, step down building height in the area immediately adjacent residential uses. c) Streets and streetscape can be used as a transition between uses. The distance and separation afforded by the public right -of way, together with streetscape improvements on both sides of the street may be utilized as a transition to adjacent development. d) Green spaces, courts, squares, parks, plazas, etc. may be used located such as to create a meaningful transition between uses. e) In situations where the above do not provide adequate transition, additional landscaping may be required as determined by the Community Development Director. 530.07 Non - conformities Subdivision i. Expansion of non - conforming_ uses. Existing legal non- conforming uses may be maintained according to City Code Section 511.13. The City Council may allow expansion of legal non - conforming uses through issuance of a conditional use permit. Expansion may be allowed up to 10% of the gross floor area provided the expansion meets all other applicable City requirements. Any expansion or modification of a legal non - conforming use should not impede implementation of goals and policies of the Vision Plan district in the Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision 2. Expansion of dimensional or bulk non - conformities. Existing legal conforming uses existing prior to adoption date of this ordinance that do not meet dimensional or bulk standards of the Mixed Use zoning district may be expanded through review and approval of a site plan by the City Council. Expansion or modification of a legal conforming use shall: a) Not increase the degree of non - conformity, b) Result in the building and property being in greater conformance with the goals and policies of the I -494 Corridor Land Use Plan,. c) Not impede implementation of goals and policies of the I -494 Corridor Land Use Plan. 530.08 Site Plan Approval /Process Subdivision 1. Procedures. All proposals shall be reviewed under the site plan approval process as set forth in this subsection. Subd. 2. Approval required. It shall be unlawful to do any of the following within the MU District without first obtaining site plan approval: a) construct a building; DRAFT Document Page 12 of 15 1 — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 7 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District b) move a building to any lot; Section 530 c) expand or change the use of a building or lot or modify a building, accessory structure, or site or land feature in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking; d) grade or take other actions to prepare a lot for development, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan which complies with the City's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary; or (Amended, Bill No. 1998-2) e) remove earth, soils, gravel, or other natural material from or place the same on a lot, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan which complies with the City's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. (Amended, Bill No. 1998-2) Subd. 3. Application. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the following: a) a plat or map of the property; b) evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; c) the fee specified in Appendix D of the City Code; d) information regarding project phasing and timing; e) complete development plans as specified under Subsection 526.45, signed by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other appropriate design professional; f) conveyance of easements to the City to permit completion of screening, landscaping or other improvements required by the City as a condition of site plan approval; and g) such other information as may be required by the City. Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The hearing will be held no less than to days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations to the Council. DRAFT Document I — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code Page 13 of 15 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 Following appropriate review, the Council shall make a decision regarding the application. (Amended, Bill No. 1995-19, Sec. 1) 530.09. General criteria and standards for site plan review. Subdivision 1. General standards. In evaluating a site plan, the Planning Commission and Council shall consider its compliance with the following: a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plans established for the area; b) consistency with this section; c) preservation of the property in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal; d) creation of a design for structures and site features which promotes the following: J) an internal sense of order among the buildings and uses; ii) the adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking; iii) energy conservation through the design of structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; and iv) the minimization of adverse environmental effects on persons using the development and adjacent properties. Subd. 2. Architectural Plan Submittal Requirements a) Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified person and shall show the following: i) elevations of all sides of the building; ii) type and color of exterior building materials; iii) typical floor plans; iv) dimensions of all structures; v) the location of trash containers and of exterior electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment; and vi) utility plans including water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. DRAFT Document Page 14 of 15 1— 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code 22 November 2005 Richfield City Code (Zoning) MU District Section 530 b) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new structures and those which are renovated if renovation costs exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure. DRAFT Document I — 494 Corridor Planning Study — Mixed Use Zoning Code Page 15 of 15 22 November 2005 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 24 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the 1 -494 Corridor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a public hearing and by motion approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would change the designation of properties in the 1- 494 Corridor. II. BACKGROUND The 1 -494 Corridor needs new land use concepts to guide Richfield into the future. The corridor is becoming more market sensitive and a new vision is needed. The Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1997. For this area, the Comprehensive Plan lacks clarity and is not sufficiently forward looking to guide development. On February 8, 2005 the Richfield City Council approved a moratorium for certain properties bounded by Knox Avenue, 77th Street, Cedar Avenue and Interstate 1- 494 (the 1-494 Corridor). The moratorium was intended to provide staff with time to conduct a planning study to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan were in compliance with one another, and to devise a vision for future development along the 1 -494 Corridor. On August 15, 2005, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was hired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to revise the Comprehensive Plan and change the Zoning Ordinance for the 1 -494 Corridor. In order to complete a vision plan that would be widely accepted and would reflect the vision of the community, HKGi relied heavily on active participation form residents and business owners. Three open houses were held on September 15, October 6, and November 3, 2005, at which time there were opportunities for members of the community to provide their input into the plan. On October 3, 2005, HKGi and staff presented the 1 -494 vision plan to the Richfield School Board. The Board was receptive to the proposed changes. The community input process also include Richfield's policymakers: with concurrent study sessions of the HRA, City Council, and Planning Commission on August 31, September 26, October 19, and November 16, 2005. HKGi also wanted to make sure that the Vision of Richfield's residents and policymakers could be implemented, so they held a .meeting with developers and marketing experts to make sure that the concept plan was a practical one. 112805 - 494 CompPlan.doc The Plan is conceptual in nature and is meant to be a "fluid" document that can be further developed and refined as the community moves forward with implementation. Central elements of the plan include making the corridor more unique and identifiable, urban in character - pedestrian friendly, economically sustainable and ultimately more livable. The proposed land use designations are the same as the Comprehensive Plan currently uses, but the proposed plan changes the designation of some of the properties in the corridor. The implementation of the vision plan will take twenty years or more. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY In February 2005, the City Council took action to support a planning process for the area. On August 15, 2005, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was hired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to revise the Comprehensive Plan and change the Zoning Ordinance for the 1 -494 Corridor. After much community input, HKGi has completed the 1 -494 Corridor Land Use Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES Updated land use concepts are needed for this area. The 1 -494 Corridor is a lot different than it was when the freeway was first developed. The 1960's -type development that first occurred along 1 -494 no longer maximizes the opportunities provided by the corridor to help keep Richfield competitive. The concepts need to build on the unique character of the 1 -494 Corridor. 1 -494 is a regional corridor and of the most heavily traveled in the metropolitan area. It also provides an opportunity for Richfield to bolster its tax base. The 1 -494 Corridor Vision anticipates changes in traffic patterns that will occur with the future expansion of 1 -494. Planning Commission support of the land use plan is an important demonstration of community support for the plan. C. FINANCIAL All costs for HKGi's plan for the 1 -494 Corridor were paid by the Richfield HRA, D. LEGAL Zoning: I (Industrial), C -2 (general commercial), MR -3 (Multi - Residential — High Density), PC -2 (Planned General Commercial), C -2 (General Commercial, C -3 (High Density Commercial). Land Use: Multi- family, residential, commercial, church, office. Current Comprehensive Plan: Multi- residential — high density, multi - residential — high density /office, church, regional commercial /office, office, regional commercial, ,neighborhood commercial. Notification: Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current on November 17, 2005, and mailed to property owners and residents within the 1 -494 Corridor as well as those within 350 feet of the moratorium area. Other Actions: Council: Approval of the amendment by the Planning Commission would result in a City Council hearing on the amendment on September 16, 2004 to authorize submission of the amendment to the Met Council. Metropolitan Council: The amendment would be sent to the Met Council. City Council: Once the Met Council accepts the amendment, the City Council will be asked to formally adopt the amendment. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Continue the consideration of the 1 -494 Corridor Land Use Plan in order to further review the plan or to provide suggested changes to the plan. Do not make a motion recommending approval of the 1 -494 Corridor Land Use Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Map of existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan classifications Excerpts from the proposed Comprehensive Plan Table comparing existing and proposed acreage of land uses VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Mark Koegler, President HKGi. Residents and business owners within and adjacent to the planning area may be present. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES IN THE 1-494 CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Guide Plan designates the area from Knox Avenue to Trunk Highway 77 and 771" Street to 1 -494 (1-494 Corridor ") as Multi- Residential — High Density, Multi- residential — High Density /Office, Church, Regional Commercial /Office, Office, Regional Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the City has studied this area and determined that the 1 -494 Corridor needs new land use concepts to guide Richfield into the Future; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to change the classification of this area to as Multi- Residential — High Density, Multi- residential — High Density /Office, Church, Regional Commercial /Office, Office, Regional Commercial, Community Commercial /Office, Public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 28, 2005 concerning modifying the Guide Plan and approved the modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on December 13, 2005; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to change the 1 -494 Corridor from Multi- Residential — High Density, Multi- residential — High Density /Office, Church, Regional Commercial /Office, Office, Regional Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial to as Multi- Residential — High Density, Multi- residential — High Density /Office, Church, Regional Commercial /Office, Office, Regional Commercial, Community Commercial /Office, Public, contingent upon the following: 1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 52 XERXES 25 WASHBURN VINCENT UPTON o THOMAS SHERIDAN RUSSELL 8 Qum PENN OLIVER NEWTON MORGAN LOGAN KNOX JAMES IRVING HUMSCLOT GIRARD 0 PREhIOM EMERSON DUPONT COLFAX 0 BRYAN ALOPoCH `. LYNOALE OARFIELD HARRIET GRAND PLEASANT PILLSBURY Y+t:NrwGRrN BLAISDFII NICOLLET 1•L STEVENS 2nd 3rd CLINTON 4th Sth PORTLAND OAKLAND PARK CCLIMIBUS CHICAGO ELLJOT 1061 1111 12th 13th 14th 1581 BLCCNU40TON 16M 17th 15th CEDAR isa s a cli WASHBURV VINCENT UPTON THOMAS S/LLWWN Qo 1 RUSSELL 0 QUEEN • o PENN OLIVER NEWTON MORGAN A LOGAN KNOX pc-1• JAMIE p IRVING lY muwx*DT A GIRARD = aa PdT EMERSON y DUPORSON MT 1k COLFAX ppp L BRYAN ALDRICH LYNOALE OARPtMD HARRIET GRAND PLEASANT PILLSBURY WENT NORTH BWSDELL NICOU.ET 14 STEVENS 7114 3rd CLINTON 411 5th PORTLAND OAKLAND PARK Cq.UMBUS CHICAGO ELLIO T 10th 11th 12th 1361 14th 15th T— BLOOMINGTON 16th 17th 16th I C1t1]AR G Iu E 9L1Y10 d R La r N 4 FL W L E 0 0 W V L- 0 L 0 V a O IT w W 0 W C d. E 0 U) 4) 3: IL l de`B PF s . : d E m ti m W CL E p® v Mrs i t- o fl L L O j I C E C FL w L E A W IL y a r' ! I 7 I OAV to l I 1 in l.J T y 3 T t 11 ii r' Q m x LU O l.J T y 3 T Q m x LU m CLW W L E O 0 T ce L O a L V O 17 0 W C Om 49 L i E 4m• O f N o CL LM W A W LLL sk?a9a•e om °m lit s• m a.s m iO mOao m a eea oa4•4 -.m ar•.o o• eeaac+ B e a i moo•a.®+ a tl mom 0 -0 lose d o wedtSjp e mt atPCnlm"RLS O r ae4.Awmc,a t4ftwww,a..s r oq mg%o fo C A 1 V a• r. t t> j(f_ . A t 47 v- l 2 t 1 4 t b i 4 4 f t k t±J r 4a g U,I- er, m W L. O V L O Ak V Mimi U) r w W E 0 L w C CL E pO a- W ^ 4) E 0 00000% w m IL Same HOMES LLM T U) 1 iP '.iLf l sir, 7 l p' r a y1 s[ t4 y 1,7110 J A. P 1 i Fig H t GA o FS c 0 i M W 2 W C a as as J CD o L- 0 L L O V i a E as w C i f- E 0 a O V 4) s. AWN L I i d m x w lZichfield Comprehensive Plan Volume Three! Plan Elements 1,494 /Corridor Land Use Plan Purpose The 1-494 Corridor Land Use Plan is founded in the patterns of Richfield's past, an understanding of its current conditions and opportunities, and a look into possible futures. This plan is more a prescription for desired change, than an explicit solution; it recognizes existing assets, qualities and character, and strives to add new features that can fulfill the community's vision for a unique and economically viable place where people live, work, play and shop. This kind of change will not happen overnight and it will not likely happen on its own. The plan envisions a pace of incremental change over a period of twenty years or more. The existing land use pattern did not appear in the corridor overnight; rather, it has taken years or even decades, for those patterns to become evident, and it will likely take years or decades to achieve the vision the community has articulated. To move forward, it is important that the community commit itself to a sense of planned evolution. It will also take a commitment of continued partnerships, without which the vision may not be realized. The vision is aimed at helping the community shape future development in the corridor to be more unique and identifiable, urban in character, pedestrian - friendly, economically sustainable and ultimately, more livable. Central components of this vision plan include the definition of a land use plan and recommendations for future development in the corridor. Elements in the plan should be used to frame regulatory tools, such as zoning overlays or ordinances, to convey what is desired for public improvements, and to convey the community's goals for a desired development pattern to .prospective developers, investors, property owners, architects and planners. Draft 1 - November 23, 2005 Vision The Richfield /1-494 Corridor is envisioned as an exciting and complete community that is self - sufficient, with a diversity of housing types, shops, services, and amenities typical of many traditional "urban villages ". Traditional urban villages have long enjoyed the benefits of having compact, walkable centers that offered resident's places to live, work, shop, and dine. Often, the identity of these neighborhoods was established by the scale, character and set of uses in these centers. Urban villages are typically more densely developed than the surrounding neighborhoods, achieve a greater mix of land uses and tend to draw more pedestrian activity. Some of the benefits of mixed -use urban villages are that they draw new residents and retain current ones, increasing the stability and diversity of the neighborhood. Today, a sizable segment of the population seeks convenient transportation to work, a pedestrian friendly environment, and proximity to entertainment, restaurants and other amenities provided in these mixed -use villages. Similar forces attracting young professionals to these living environments are motivating the empty nester generation of baby boomers. Studies indicate that many will pay a premium to live in a vibrant, attractive mixed -use center. Other benefits these more densely developed villages' offer is that the compact development patterns typical of them consolidates growth and diminishes the effects of sprawl on the metro area. Walkable neighborhoods and urban centers are emerging as socially desirable, environmentally sound, and economically profitable. Once segregated land uses are being connected by strategic mixed -use projects on infill .and redevelopment sites. Located in a first tier suburb, adjacent to millions of square feet of regional shopping, jobs, an international airport, major transportation systems and nearby natural amenities, the Richfield /1 -494 Corridor offers tremendous opportunity to create a vibrant and unique urban village, complete Richfield Comprehensive Plan Volume Three: Plan Elements with diverse housing, shops, services, offices, restaurants, hotels, and park spaces for its residents. Plan Components Several key strategies are promoted to achieve the plan's vision of creating a vibrant urban village environment, including the following: District Identity One of the hallmark strategies of the plan calls for the creation of a unique district identity that will positively distinguish the Richfield 1-494 corridor from its neighboring areas. Where that occurs is primarily along the edges of the corridor and at key nodes, or gateways. The overall goal of the plan is to create a place that is identified by its garden theme and mix of building types, sizes and uses. It should not look like a collection of stand alone, single -use buildings that take advantage of its strategic location, but a real place filled with variety, . vitality and greenery. Few places like this exist in the metro area today. The Interstate -494 edge should read like a rich and green landscaped border with a handsome mix of building types peering above. These buildings should include upper story residences and offices, designed to create a sophisticated skyline with surrounding views for its inhabitants. The plan proposes a landscaped buffer along the south border of the corridor to create the garden edge. The plan anticipates future reconstruction and improvements along 1-494 as proposed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation MnDOT), suggesting mixed -use nodes as gateways into and through the district at key intersections located along the corridor. Lyndale and Portland Avenues will be the primary full intersections under the future MnDOT plans. These intersections are seen as critical sites and gateway opportunities to create a sense of place by encouraging a greater mix of land use and building density that may attract users from the larger metro region for shopping, working and /or living needs. Nicollet and 12th Avenue nodes are also seen as significant places to create district identity on more of a community level. Here, mixed -use buildings with ground level retail serving the local community, with residences and office above are envisioned. Public art can help establish district identity. Compact Mixed -Use Development Patterns Mixed -use development refers to the integration of residential, commercial, retail, employment, civic, recreational, and educational uses; the integration is accomplished in such a way as to reduce traffic congestion and contain urban sprawl. The mix of land uses in a compact area not only supports and enhances each element in the development but also provides residents a rich and diverse environment in which to live, work, shop, play and learn. The recommended land use plan (Exhibits D -7a D -7d) for the Richfield /1-494 Corridor identifies mixed use areas at the primary nodes located at Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland and 12th Avenues. The mixed Use designation supports the idea that these nodes continue to develop in a manner that integrates several uses in a vertical and horizontal pattern, integrating ground level retail with upper story residential and /or office uses. Draft 1 -November 23, 2005 2 mchfield Comprehensive Plan Volume Three: Plan Elements Mixed Use — office and health club over retail uses. Mixed Use — residential over retail and entertainment. Housing Diversity Housing is the cornerstone of developing new residential and promoting existing residential neighborhoods in the corridor. The Richfield community has expressed a desire for a range of housing options to meet the demands of a diverse population and life cycle changes. There are many benefits to including a mix of housing types in any future development scheme in the Richfield /1-494 corridor: One, it provides living options for those of diverse economic and social backgrounds seeking an urban lifestyle with easy access to surrounding amenities such as premier shopping and working environments and major transportation systems such as the adjacent interstate and the Mpls /St. Paul International Airport; Two, a neighborhood that offers a balanced mix of housing types and prices will return more value to the community. A variety of building types, plans, and prices enhances value by broadening the market for development, increasing absorption while creating an attractive, aesthetically diverse neighborhood. Many studies have indicated that broadening the housing stock will increase the value of homes. Many buyers will pay a premium for urban living options set in a diverse community; Three, multiple generations are choosing to live near each other. Instead of being isolated in retirement communities, many older people prefer to live in the same area as their children and grandchildren, creating more demand for multi - family housing, and; Four, offering a diverse mix of housing types and densities can help achieve the goal of containing urban sprawl and providing growth opportunities within the City of Richfield. Draft 1- November 23, 2005 3 Richfield. Comprehensive Plan Volume Three: Plan Elements The future land use plan suggests primarily housing uses located between the mixed use nodes with some housing mixed into those nodes located at Nicollet and 12thAvenues. Many of these sites already contain a mix of multi - family housing. Future development on these sites should continue this trend and incorporate new building technologies and development patterns that utilize courtyards, open space connections and structured parking in order to provide greater densities. Pedestrian - Friendly Environment Promoting future mixed -use development in the corridor is critical to creating a vibrant, urban village because it produces the density, variety and ground level activity needed to encourage a pedestrian - friendly environment. Moreover, mixing residential and commercial uses adds vitality to neighborhoods by extending street activity beyond the typical nine -to -five work day. It's this activity that will create a sense of place within the corridor and provide the interest that will encourage pedestrian use. environment. The presence of people should be the litmus test to determine if the Richfield /1-494 Corridor has been successfully planned and designed. This should' be a hallmark of the district's identity. Shop windows should invite passers by and restaurants and cafes should spill out onto the sidewalks with activity. People of all ages and types should feel comfortable walking, shopping, living, working and playing in the district. To achieve the goal of creating a pedestrian - friendly environment, the plan promotes the following strategies: Promote the design of buildings that vertically mix uses and front streets with entries and interesting shop windows incorporated into the buildings ground level to lure pedestrian activity, particularly at key gateways. Avoid blank spaces along sidewalks that interrupt the level of pedestrian interest such as surface or structured parking facilities or service areas. Instead, promote the continuity of a strong and interesting building edge along key sidewalks. 77th Street should be seen as a district edge and a great street to be addressed with active building uses and a well designed streetscape. Design a streetscape system that incorporates elements designed to encourage pedestrian use such as street trees, wide sidewalks, seating, pedestrian- scaled light fixtures, bike parking, signage, trash receptacles, and transit shelters. Provide pedestrian connections within the corridor, as in the form of a pedestrian - scaled trail or sidewalk system internal to development sites or to destinations off -site by improving the safety and visibility of crosswalks at key intersections, particularly at Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland and 12t Avenues, Public Spaces One of the key features of successful communities is the variety of attractive public and pedestrian spaces they contain. Public spaces consist of parks and open spaces, plazas, trails and streets. These places provide Draft 1 - November 23, 2005 4 I chfeld Comprehensive Plate Volume Three: Plan Elements the public realm for everyday social life. Future development activity in the Richfield /1-494 Corridor will create a need to integrate more open, green space, trails and pedestrian- friendly streets to enhance the livability for workers, residents and visitors. Securing the land for open space and constructing new parks in the corridor may be difficult due to the relatively high cost of land values. The City will need to monitor growth in the corridor and balance increased density with open space needs. As growth in the corridor evolves, sites should be identified for potential open space acquisition or incentives should be considered to ensure open space is developed as a component of increased housing development. A/temative Modes of Transportation Location, location, location" is still the mantra of real estate, but as traffic and congestion erode people's quality of life, the marketplace is reevaluating the definition of what is a premium location. While people still value convenient access to freeways, airports, and regional trail systems, more and more, people are looking to live in places where job opportunities, shops and services are within easy walking distance. Walkability is enhanced by wide sidewalks, convenient and safe pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods. When such an environment is layered with transit options, livability is further enhanced because people are presented with additional choices for mobility. The most successful communities of the future will be those that understand the importance of mobility choices and the premiums that resident's are willing to pay to recapture their commuting time. 77th Street should be seen as a primary transit route, providing east/west access through the corridor. Transit lines along the cross avenues should also be addressed where they intersect with 77th Street. Easy access, visibility, transit identity, signage, shelter and seating should be promoted at each bus stop. In addition, bike Draft 1- November 23, 2005 routes that intersect with transit routes should be provided with safe and accessible bicycle parking facilities and informational signage. Parking While parking is critical to the success of any future development in the corridor, it should not be a dominant land use seen from the public environment. Parking should be configured and located to insure that buildings and pedestrian areas are the focus of the corridor. The following recommendations are made with regards to parking in the corridor: Parking should be located behind or beneath buildings. Minimal parking should be located alongside buildings. Underground or structured parking within each block should be encouraged to achieve greater density and reduce the amount of surface parking seen within the corridor. Parking lots at street corners should be prohibited. An exception to this rule would allow for a parking structure to be located at the intersection with ground level uses within the structure that support pedestrian activity. Parking maximum ratios, rather than minimum ratios, should be applied within the district to encourage more use of transit services and to reduce excess parking. Encourage the development of uses that creatively share parking by time of day amongst a variety of uses in order to reduce the total amount of land dedicated to parking. Surface parking areas should be screened from the sidewalk and /or adjacent residential uses. On- street parking is encouraged whenever feasible. Alongside 77th Street, it may be necessary to create on- street parking by acquiring additional Richfield Comprehensive Plan Volume Three: Plan Elements . right of way and building on- street parallel parking lanes along the south side of the roadway. Land Use Types The Proposed Land Use Plan recommends land -uses and locations that will promote strategies established in the future vision for the corridor. While many of the land use types may include a mix of uses, whether horizontally or vertically mixed, the following land use types promote a primary use type located within specific areas. The following land use types are proposed: Regional Commercial (RC) The Regional Commercial land use.designation implies that the primary land uses located within this area be commercial uses attracting users from.the larger metropolitan region. Examples of uses located in this category might be large - scale anchor retail tenants, mid -sized retailers or a collection of specialty retail tenants fashioned in a lifestyle center. These land use types are located at Lyndale Avenue and where 1-494 and Cedar Avenue intersect. Regional Commercial /Office (RC /0) The Regional Commercial /Office designation would suggest more, of the types of tenants mentioned above for RC plus the presence of office uses, perhaps located above retail uses or situated in stand -alone building developments. These land use types are located at the Lyndale and Portland Avenue nodes. Residential uses are also expected to be part of the RC /O district. Community CommerciaUOffice (CC /0) The Community . Commercial /Office land use category would include shops, services and office uses that cater primarily to the local Draft 1 - November 23, 2005 6 Richfield Comprehensive Plan Volume Three: Plan Elements community. Multi- family residential uses may also be located within this zone as part of a mixed -use development. These 'land use types are located at the Nicollet and ?12th Avenue nodes. Community Commercial example. Office (0) The primary land use envisioned for the Office category would be office uses. An example of this would be an office campus type of land use development. The land use is located at the intersection of 1 -35W ant 1-494. Office example. Multi- Family Residential (MFR) The Multi - Family Residential land use areas are located between the gateway nodes and include primarily residential uses offering a range of residential densities and types, from townhomes to multi -story condominium flats. The MFR zones may also contain small amounts of ground level retail uses at strategic sites where feasible for retail to survive. This retail would most likely serve local residents. Richfield has excellent examples of multi- family housing. Multi - Family Residential /Office (MFR/0) . The Multi - Family Residential /Office land use areas provide transitions between commercial /mixed -use areas and residential areas. The primary use is intended to be multi- family residential use but would incorporate commercial uses such as office and /or ground level retail uses. Public (P) Linear Public land uses are located along the south adjacent to 1-494 to provide a landscaped edge along the freeway. A linear landscaped interior core is also envisioned to connect various land uses east and west throughout the corridor. This greenway is likely to assume a number of forms as it meanders through the area. In some locations, it might be a pedestrian only greenway. In others, it might be a local street while in others; it might actually pass thorough buildings as part of a courtyard area or true galleria. Additionally, two small park areas are envisioned to be incorporated into ' future Draft 1- November 23, 2005 % Iyichfeld Comprehensive Plan Volume Three: Plan Elements development in the corridor to serve the residents in the area. Locations for the parks suggested between Lyndale and Nicollet and near 12th Avenue, however, final locations are to be determined by city officials. Church (CH) Two church sites and a cemetery are located in the corridor and identified for future integration within the land use designations. Land Use Tabulations The following tabulation includes the uses shown on the 1-494 Corridor Land Use Plan. I-494 Corridor Land Use Plan Acres Community Commercial/ Office 74.2 Church 36.1 Multi-Family Residential 65.7 Multi-Family Residential/ Office 74.4 Office 14.6 Park 5.7 Regional Commercial 42.2 Regional Commercial/ Office 51.8 Total Acres (not including ROW) 364.8 Draft 1 - November 23, 2005 8 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Existing Land Use Acres Multi-Family 112.2 Church 54.1 Commercial 171.9 Office 14.6 Public 3.8 Quasi-public I .4 Residential SF 1.11RailroadROW5.7 Total Acres not including ROW 364.8 Existing Comprehensive Plan Acres Neighborhood Commercial 5.6 Regional Commercial 16.3 Regional Commercial/Office 196.8 Office 14.9 Park 5.7 Church 53.9 Multi-Family Residential - High Den. 63.4 Multi-Family Res. - High Dcn. /Office 8.2 Total Acres not including ROW) 364.8 1494 Corridor Lend Use Plan Acres Community Commercial/Office 74.2 Church 36.1 Multi-Family Residential 65.7 Multi- Family Residential/Office 74.4 Office 14.6 Park 5.7 Regional Commercial 42.2 Regional Commercial /Office 51.8 Total Acres not including RO 364.8 Table 4 Land Use Comparison Existing Land Use Comprehensive Plan Designation I-494 Plan Corridor Land Use Commercial/Cdffce 186.5 233.5 182.9 Public/ i- Public 65.0 59.7 41.8 Residential 113.3 63.4 65.7 Mixed -Use res/com 0 8.2 74,4 Totals 364.8 364.8 364.8 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 05- CUP -03 J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street to allow limited sale of automobiles. Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street to allow limited sale of automobiles. II. BACKGROUND Mr. Mohammad Mazhary currently operates Exhaust Pros at 1201 East 66th Street. A temporary conditional use permit (CUP) for use as a "public mechanical garage" was approved by the City Council on June 9th, 1997, and a permanent CUP was approved on January 14th, 2003. Stipulations included limiting the hours of operation to no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 6 p.m., no overnight exterior storage, and no storage of inoperable vehicles with the exception of vehicles left for service or to be picked up within 48 hours. Since the issuance of this permanent CUP, Environmental Health has received one complaint regarding long grass. To supplement this current use, Mr. Mazhary is proposing the limited sale of automobiles. City parking requirements would allow for the sale of up to four vehicles. Mr. Mazhary has also requested that the allowable hours of operation for both businesses be extended to 7 p.m. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Auto sales are classified as a conditional use in the C -2 district. The findings necessary to issue a conditional use permit (546.05, Subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan calls for `Community Commercial' at this location. The sale of four or fewer vehicles will not draw from a large area and is intended to serve the immediate community. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. There are no officially adopted redevelopment or urban design guidelines for this site. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. This requirement is met. City staff have reviewed the site and proposed use for compliance with requirements such as exterior lighting, off - street parking, landscaping and the exterior treatment of buildings, as specified by Section 541, and found the site to be in compliance with this section. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. Public Works and Engineering staff have reviewed the proposal. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement is met. The primary concerns associated with the sale of automobiles are outdoor lighting, signage, parking and traffic. The sale of four or fewer automobiles will not include increased lighting and should not dramatically increase traffic. . Parking is sufficient and in compliance with City standards. An application will need to be submitted for any new signage requests. City staff recommend prohibiting banners, wind devices, and promotional display devises, as defined by Section 416 of the City Code, which are not attached to the principal building, so as to limit the visual impact on the neighboring multi - family housing. f) There is 'a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. There are no other auto sales lots in the vicinity of the site. With only four cars for sale, the use will serve the immediate community. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such Conditional Use Permit. Section 526.27 Subd. 11 of the Zoning Code lists eight conditions for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to sell automobiles. The proposal meets seven of eight requirements. 1, The business shall be licensed under Section 1155 of the City Code. Application has been submitted, but will not be approved until Conditional Use Permit has been approved. 2. The use site shall not abut a lot which is in the R or R -1 District. The site does not abut either R or R -1 zoned properties. 3. A buffer yard of 15 feet is required on all sides. The site does not meet this requirement on either the south or east sides. The buffer yard to the south is six feet deep with a retaining wall, sod and two mature deciduous trees. The buffer yard to the east is eight feet deep. The property to the east of this site is a Sinclair gas station /convenience store. While a 15 -foot buffer yard does not exist, staff recommends that the permit be issued for the following reasons: 1) The portion of the apartment site that abuts this property is a driveway and parking lot, 2) the existing automotive building and the apartment building have both been in their current locations for over three decades, 3) this parcel has been used for automotive uses for over three decades, 4) the Environmental Health Department has not received any noise complaints in the past three years, and 5) the use immediately to the east is a Sinclair gas station /convenience store. 4. Landscape requirements must be met and impervious surface . cannot exceed 85 percent of total site area. This requirement is met. Current pervious surface measures slightly over 17 percent. The mixture of trees, hedges and flowers in the north, south and west buffer yards satisfy landscape requirements. Mr. Mazhary has indicated that he will be adding additional flowers along 66th Street next spring. 5. Inoperable vehicles shall not be stored on the premises. The applicant is aware of this requirement. This has not proved to be a problem in the past. 6. Parking of vehicles on public right -of -way is prohibited. The applicant is aware of this requirement. This has not proved to be a problem in the past. 7. All repair work must be conducted inside the building. This requirement is met. 8. Any exterior speaker must comply with noise limits set by Section 930 of the City Code. This requirement is met. h) Hours of business for a public mechanical garage are limited if the site is not located on a County road. This site is located on County Road 53 (66th Street) and therefore hour limitations do not apply. Because the property abuts an apartment building, limitations were recommended in the past. As there have been no noise complaints in at least three years, staff recommends that the limitations remain in place, but be extended to 7 p.m. as requested by the applicant. B. CRITICAL ISSUES Parking requirements will allow no more than four automobiles to be for sale at one time. The Environmental Health Department has received one complaint regarding this business since the approval of a permanent CUP for a mechanical garage in 2002. This complaint was in regards to long grass. Staff recommends that the applicant be reminded that property maintenance is an important part of doing business in Richfield. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL Zoning: 'C -2', General Commercial Land Use: Current: Exhaust Pros — a Public Mechanical Garage Proposed: Current plus Fine Automotive — auto sales Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial Notification: Neighbors and property- owners within 350 feet Other Actions: Council: Scheduled for City Council review Dec. 13, 2005. H RA: N/A Hearing Examiner: N /A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow limited auto sales at 1201 East 66th Street. Recommend approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow limited auto sales at 1201 East 66th Street with additional stipulations. V. ATTACHMENTS Draft Resolution for City Council Zoning and Land Use Maps Landscape and Parking Plans VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Mr. Mohammad Mazhary, applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AT 1201 EAST 66TH STREET WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which request approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales at 1201 East 66th Street, legally described as: The north 1/z of tracts A and G, Registered Land Survey #589. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street at its November 28, 2005 meeting, and WHEREAS, this requested Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street meets those requirements necessary for issuing a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Sections 526.27, Subdivision 11 and 546.05, Subdivision 6, except as explained in City Council Letter No. ;and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the Conditional Use Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A Conditional Use Permit is issued for an Auto Sales Lot, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 526.27, Subdivision 11 of the City's Zoning Code: That the recipient of the Conditional Use Permit record this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 546.05, Subdivision 7. That the hours of operation be limited to no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 7 p.m. That all new parking stalls be marked in accordance with Richfield Parking Standards on file with the Public Works Department. That no more than four vehicles be available for sale on the premises at one time. Banners, wind devices, and promotional display devices which are not attached to the principal building are prohibited. That.all landscaping be maintained and replaced as necessary in accordance with Richfield Landscape Standards. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the Conditional Use Permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AT 1201 EAST 66TH STREET WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which request approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales at 1201 East 66th Street, legally described as: The north '/z of tracts A and G, Registered Land. Survey #589. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street at its November 28, 2005 meeting, and WHEREAS, this requested Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street meets those requirements necessary for issuing a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Sections 526.27, Subdivision 11 and 546.05, Subdivision 6, except as explained in City Council Letter No. and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the Conditional Use Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A Conditional Use Permit is issued for an Auto Sales Lot, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The Conditional Use Permit at 1201 East 66th Street is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 526.27, Subdivision 11 of the City's Zoning Code: . That the recipient of the Conditional Use Permit record this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 546.05, Subdivision 7. That the hours of operation be limited to no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 7 p.m. That all new parking stalls be marked in accordance with Richfield Parking Standards on file with the Public Works Department. That no more than four vehicles be available for sale on the premises at one time. Banners, wind devices, and promotional display devices which are not attached to the principal building are prohibited. That all landscaping be maintained and replaced as necessary in accordance with Richfield Landscape Standards. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the Conditional Use Permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1201 E 66th Street Conditional Use Permit Application 11/2005 Surrounding Land Uses Legend 1201 E 66th Street RES - Residential APT - Multi - Family COM - Commercial 0 50 100 200 300 400 Feet II Community Development (MP) 11/2005'I RES RES may, RES ES p COM p COM COM a p p RES p p COM COM O 0 Feet 66th Street OM COM COM COM COM APT RESAPTAPTAPT RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RE RES RES S RES RES RES Legend 1201 E 66th Street RES - Residential APT - Multi - Family COM - Commercial 0 50 100 200 300 400 Feet II Community Development (MP) 11/2005'I 1201 E 66th Street Conditional Use Permit Application 11/2005 Surrounding Zoning R R R OOP N W R a a C -2 D C -2 C -2 DD C -2 ( D C -2 C-2 2 0 Feet 66th Street C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C-2 C -2 C-2 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R. R R Legend 0 50 100 200 300 40Feet 1201 E 66th Street R - Single - Family Residential C -2 - General Commerical Community Development (MP) 11/2005 0 Co CV N I/arklnq clan EAST 66TH STREET I 108.58' 22' EXISTING SIDEWALK t o;oo ©000 E= exis +In spo II) N = new Sp (¢) I 0 1 1201 EAST 66TH.-ST 'O tw { 1 EXISTING BUILDING ! 1380 SQ. FT. ' 138.58' SITE AREA - 13,858 SQUARE FEET P ®P®S E Lpjqh ATE PLAN 1201- E. 66TH ST, PLANNING N =ZONING scale V= 25' 0 co v N N 0 is 4 1 1 t. 3 I "lv" *1 EAST 66TH STREET 108.58' 1 22' EXISTING SIDEWALK SOD Adelt -hP ,l POW. I i F v tovs svrfut' required = 15/ ' o}a,l pery jovs swr ce, = I-7 . 'A I I o 0 o 1201 EAST 66TH ...9T i ri EXISTING I BUILDING I 1380 SQ. FT. ' SOP _ X = hc4je,S % Pb -wers PR g um" - P 0 E u un" h Z' "i' 1201 E. 66TH ST. scale V= 25' 138.58' SITE AREA - 13,858 _ SQUARE FEET PLANNING ZONING VZ11 i F v tovs svrfut' required = 15/ ' o}a,l pery jovs swr ce, = I-7 . 'A I I o 0 o 1201 EAST 66TH ...9T i ri EXISTING I BUILDING I 1380 SQ. FT. ' SOP _ X = hc4je,S % Pb -wers PR g um" - P 0 E u un" h Z' "i' 1201 E. 66TH ST. scale V= 25' 138.58' SITE AREA - 13,858 _ SQUARE FEET PLANNING ZONING AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 05- CUP -04 Wd PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 289 2005 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit at 6500 5th Avenue South to allow conversion of a two-family dwelling into separate twin homes. F. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit 6500 5th Avenue South to allow conversion of a two - family dwellinq into separate twin homes. II. BACKGROUND Scott and Denise Carlson own and reside in the two- family dwelling located at 6500 5th Avenue South. The Carlsons are planning to move and would like to sell the two units of this duplex as separate twin homes. The City's Zoning Code allows for the conversion of two- family dwellings in the MR -1 District to twin homes as a conditional use. The Carlsons are seeking both a conditional use permit (CUP) and a subdivision waiver in order to split the property. The Planning Commission is required to review requests for conditional use permits; however, only the City Council is required to review requests for subdivision waivers. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The conversion of two- family dwellings into twin homes is classified as a conditional use in the MR -1 District. The findings necessary to issue a conditional use permit (546.05, Subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan calls for 'Sing le-Family Residential' at this location. The proposal will not effect the density of the neighborhood. No physical changes to the exterior of the building are proposed. The only change will be the addition of a property line. Both lots will exceed minimum lot size requirements for single - family dwellings. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. There are no officially adopted redevelopment or urban design guidelines for this site. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. This requirement is met. City staff have reviewed the site and proposed use for compliance with requirements such as exterior lighting, off - street parking, landscaping and the exterior treatment of buildings, as specified by Section 541, and found the site to be in compliance with this section. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. No physical changes that could impact governmental facilities, etcetera, will be made. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement will be met. Upon approval, the common party wall will be upgraded to meet new construction standards. The individual properties will not pass a point -of -sale inspection and therefore will not be available to sell, until after this upgrade has taken place. f) There is a public need for such use -at the proposed location. This requirement is met. Richfield continues to look for ways to provide a variety of housing options. This proposal advances a type of housing not commonly found in the City. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such Conditional Use Permit. Section 521.43 Subdivision 4 of the Zoning Code lists nine conditions for the issuance of a conditional use permit to convert a two- family dwelling into twin homes. The proposal will meet all nine requirements. 1. Each of the newly created lots should be approximately equal in size. The proposed subdivision will create two lots. The northern parcel will be 10,349 square feet and the southern parcel will be 9,888 square feet. 2. Newly created lots must be at least 40 feet in width and be shown on a survey. The width of the northern parcel will be approximately 61 feet and the width of the southern parcel approximately 57 feet. A copy of the prepared survey is attached. 3. Except for the setback along the common wall, all setbacks and yard requirements for a two- family dwelling must be met. This requirement is met. 4. Separate sewer, water, electric, gas and other utility services shall be provided to each unit. This requirement is met. 5. The units will be situated in a side by side manner. This requirement is met. 6. The common party wall must be brought up to new construction standards, as provided in Section 400 of the City Code. The applicant has been in contact with the Building Inspections Department and is aware of the requirements. This requirement will be met pending approval of the conditional use permit and subdivision waiver. The units will not pass the required point -of- sale inspection until this upgrade is completed. 7. The property owner must. execute and record a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" to protect the rights of individuals sharing a single structure. Prepared declaration is attached and will be recorded pending approvals. 8. Accessory buildings along the common lot line may have a zero setback provided all other setbacks are met, and all building and fire codes are met. This requirement does not apply as there are no accessory buildings along the common lot line. 9. Division of a single lot into two lots is subject to the subdivision regulations specified in Section 500 of the City Code. These requirements are met. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The proposed conversion of the two- family dwelling will not change the physical appearance of the building or any other exterior features on the lot. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL Zoning: MR -1, Two - Family Residential District Land Use: Current: two- family dwelling, single ownership Proposed: twin homes, separate ownership Comprehensive Plan: Single Family Residential Notification: Neighbors and property- owners within 350 feet Other Actions: Council: Scheduled for City Council review Dec. 13; 2005. HRA: N/A Hearing Examiner: N /A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend denial of the requested conditional use permit to allow the conversion of a two- family dwelling into twin homes. Recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow the conversion of a two- family dwelling into twin homes with additional stipulations. V. ATTACHMENTS Zoning and Land Use Maps Certificate of survey, proposed division of property Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Scott and Denise Carlson, applicants N A 6500 5th Avenue South Conditional Use Permit Application 11/2005 Surrounding Zoning 0 50 100 200 300 400 6500 5th Avenue South Feet 350 foot buffer R - Single- family Residential R -1 - Low Density Single- family Residential MR -1 - Two - family Residential MR -2 - Multi- family Residential Community Development (MP) 11/2005 R R R R R R R R R O R 3 R Q J$ R aO eef R C CRR D R MR -1 R R -1 R -1 R R R -1 R R R R 1 R-1 R R -1 R R R R- D R -1 R MR -2 S p R -1 r d c 0 50 100 200 300 400 6500 5th Avenue South Feet 350 foot buffer R - Single- family Residential R -1 - Low Density Single- family Residential MR -1 - Two - family Residential MR -2 - Multi- family Residential Community Development (MP) 11/2005 A 6500 5th Avenue South Conditional Use Permit Application 11/2005 Surrounding Land Use 0 50 100 200 300 400 6500-5th Avenue South Feet 350 foot buffer RES'- Residential DPLX - Duplex APT - Multi- family O CL 7 C D 3 C PRK - Park Community Development (MP) 11/2005 RFS RES RES R RES RES RES RES RES tJ S 11$ 0 RES RES RES PRK D C RES RES D RES ES RES DPLX RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RESRES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES D RES RES APT p RES RES 0 50 100 200 300 400 6500-5th Avenue South Feet 350 foot buffer RES'- Residential DPLX - Duplex APT - Multi- family O CL 7 C D 3 C PRK - Park Community Development (MP) 11/2005 n set cap I" 109 in 4i rr - 00 :b o, a b 0 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FURNISHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 2, Bauman Wheelock Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED NORTH PARCEL LEA DESCRielION: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Bauman Wheelock Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying North of a line described as commencing at the Northeast comer of said Lot 1, thence SOO'4932'W (assumed bearing), 61.65' along the East line of said Lot 1 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. thence N89'23 2511; 170.37' to a point on the West line of said Lot 1 which is S00'4932V,, 59.84' from the Northwest comer of said Lot 1 and there terminating. PROPOSED SOUTH PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Bauman Wheelock Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying South of a line described as commencing at the Northeast comer of said Lot 1, thence SOO'49321W (assumed bearing), 61.65' along the East line of said Lot 1 to the POINT OF i BEGINNING, thence N89'2325 W, 170.37' to a point on the West line of said Lot I which is SOO'4932'W. 59.84' from the Northwest comer of said Lot 1 and there terminating. I I Lot 8 Block 2 Baker Peterson Second Addition I 170.14' (R) I I I I I I LEGEND: I I 0 FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOTED) O SET i/2' IRON PIPE W /CAP #44109 0 SET SURVEY NAIL Q FIRE HYDRANT WATER SHUTOFF VALVE a O- UGHTPOLE Q, POWER POLE /OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES 1 , - -'I Lot 2 Block 2 PREPARED FOR: Scott H. and Denise K. Carlson 6506 5th Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 SIGNED C ERTI FI CATI 0 m V a. 4. 1 A 0e E Jm' O Q) Q L L0 l hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. l/V y DATE: 30 061 11) irevis w. van nesm, minnesow rroress onai surveyor 6895a Michigan Professional Surveyor 4 JOB 1 2005006 SCALE: °' —d11- DATE 30 Oct 2005 R) RECORDED (M) MEASURED DRAWN BY 7WVN LINE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE —,-- VAN NESTE SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES 144 HUNTINGTON AVENUE SOUTH V S WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 gH t of 1PHONE (952) 473 -0109 BAUMAN- WHEELOCK ADDITION DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION is made on this day of , 2005, by Scott Carlson and Denise Carlson (hereinafter collectively "Declarant "), the owners of the following described property: Lot 1, Block 2, Bauman- Wheelock Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Declarant declares that this Declaration shall constitute covenants to run with the Property, and that the Property shall be owned, used, occupied and conveyed subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth herein, all of which shall be binding upon all Persons owning or acquiring any right, title or interest therein, and their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. This Declaration shall apply to the property described above, whether such legal description is subsequently changed or amended. SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS The following words when used in the Governing Documents shall have the following meanings (unless the context indicates otherwise): 1.1 "City" means the City of Richfield. 1.2 "Common Elements" means all of the Property, including the common driveway serving each Unit's garage and the party wall, except the Units and the separate driveway servicing Unit 1 with a property address of 6500 - 5th Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. 1.3 "Dwelling" means a part of a building consisting of one or more floors, designed and intended for occupancy as a residence, and located within the boundaries of a Unit. The Dwelling includes any garage attached thereto or otherwise included within the boundaries of the Unit in which the Dwelling is located. 1.4 "Garage Stall" means a designated garage for each Unit. 1.5 "Governing Documents" means this Declaration. 1.6 "Occupant" means any Person in possession of or residing in a Unit. 1.7 "Owner" means a Person who owns a Unit, but excluding contract for deed vendors, mortgagees and other secured parties. The term "Owner" includes, without limitation, contract for deed vendees and holders of life estates. 1.8 "Party Wall" means the shared wall between two dwellings. 1.9 "Person" means a natural individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trustee, other or legal entity capable of holding title to real property. 1.10 "Property" means all of the real property subject to this Declaration, including the Dwellings and all other structures and improvements located thereon now or in the future. 1.11 "Unit" means any platted lot subject to this Declaration upon which a Dwelling is located or intended to be located, including all improvements thereon, but excluding the Common Elements. There are currently two Units. Each Unit constitutes a separate parcel of real estate. SECTION 2 COMMON ELEMENTS 2.1 Ownership. Each Owner shall own an undivided one -half (1/2) interest in the Common Elements. 2.2 Use. The Common Elements shall be subject to appurtenant easements for services, public and private utilities, access, use and enjoyment in favor of each Unit and its Owners and Occupants. 2.3 Maintenance. Subject to the terms of this Declaration, all maintenance, repair, replacement, management and operation of the Common Elements shall be the joint responsibility of the Unit owners. SECTION 3 COMMON ELEMENT EXPENSES 3.1 General. The expenses for Common Elements shall be based on the need to promote 2 the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the Property and for the improvement and maintenance of the Common Elements and other areas that the Owners are obligated to maintain as provided herein. 3.2 Amounts and Types. Whether to incur such expenses shall be determined in the discretion of the Unit Owners subject to the following qualifications: a. All Common Elements shall be maintained in accordance with State, Federal and local laws and codes. b. If any damage to the Common Elements or another Unit is caused by the act or omission of any Owner or occupant, or their guests, the Unit Owner causing such act or omission (whether by his/her occupant or guest) shall be exclusively responsible for the costs of repairing the damage. 3.3 Special Assessments. Special assessments shall be the joint responsibility of the Unit Owners unless and to the extent such special assessment does not apply to the Common Elements. SECTION 4 RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF PROPERTY All Owners and Occupants, and all secured parties, by their acceptance or assertion of an interest in the Property, or by their occupancy of a Unit, covenant and agree that the occupancy, use, operation, alienation and conveyance of the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions: 4.1 Residential Use. The Units shall be used by Occupants and their guests exclusively as private residential dwellings. 4.2 Leasing. Leasing of Units and Garage Stalls shall be allowed; provided, however, that such leases are in accordance with State, Federal and local laws and codes. 4.3 Driveways and Parking Areas. No use of the Common Elements within the Property shall be made so as to cause a nuisance or to block use by another Owner or such other Owner's occupants or guests. No materials such as engine blocks or vehicle repair equipment may be placed on the driveways or parking areas for any period in excess of 24 hours. 4.4 Alterations. No alterations, changes, improvements, repairs or replacements of any type, temporary or permanent, structural, aesthetic or otherwise (collectively referred to as alterations ") shall be made, or caused or allowed to be made, by any Owner or Occupant, or their guests, to any improvements on the Property, specifically including the exterior and the landscaping surrounding the Unit except to the extent that such improvement, alteration, change, repair or replacement is in compliance with State, Federal and local laws and codes. 3 SECTION 5 MAINTENANCE 5.1 Maintenance. The Owners shall be jointly responsible for the management, control and maintenance of the Common Elements, including without limitation painting, repair, replacement, cleaning and care of roofs, soffits, facia, gutters, downspouts, garage doors and exterior building surfaces, and care and replacement of trees, shrubs, grass, walks, and other exterior improvements. Such exterior maintenance shall not include windows, doors and screens (except exterior painting), exterior air conditioning units, gardens, shrubs and other plantings established separately by an Owner and not by all Owners, private decks or patios. The Owners shall be jointly responsible for removal of snow from common driveways, parking areas and sidewalks. 5.2 Maintenance by Owner. Except as previously set forth, all maintenance of the Dwellings and Units shall be the sole responsibility and expense of the Owners thereof. SECTION 6 EASEMENTS 6.1 Access Easements. Each Unit shall be the beneficiary of an appurtenant easement for access to a public street or highway on or across the Common Elements as shown on the plat, subject to any restrictions set forth in the Declaration. 6.2 Use and Enjoyment Easements. Each Unit shall be the beneficiary of appurtenant easements for use and enjoyment on and across the Common Elements, subject to any restrictions authorized by the Declaration. 6.3 Utilities Easements. The Property shall be subject to non- exclusive, appurtenant easements for all utilities, water and sewer, and similar services, which exist from time to time, as constructed or referred to in the plat of the Property, or as otherwise described in this Declaration or any other duly recorded instrument Each Unit, and the rights of the Owners and Occupants thereof, shall be subject to a non - exclusive easement in favor of the other Units for all such services, including without limitation any sewer or water lines servicing other Units. SECTION 7 COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIES 7.1 Entitlement to Relief. An Owner may commence legal action to recover sums due, for damages, for injunctive relief or in equity. Legal relief may be sought against any Owner by an Owner or by the City to enforce compliance with the Governing Documents. 7.2. Costs of Proceeding and Attorneys' Fees. With respect to any collection measures, or any measures or action, legal, administrative, or otherwise, which an Owner or the City takes to enforce the provisions of this document, whether or not finally determined by a court or arbitrator, 4 the prevailing party shall be entitled to any court costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, and interest. SECTION 8 AMENDMENTS This Declaration may be amended by the unanimous written consent of the Owners to the extent such amendment is in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws and codes and approved by the City. To be effective, such amendment shall then be filed with the appropriate County office. SECTION 9 MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 Severability. If any term, covenant, or provision of this instrument or any exhibit attached hereto is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, such determination shall not be deemed to alter, affect or impair in any manner whatsoever any other portion of this instrument or exhibits. 9.2 Third Party Beneficiary. The City of Richfield is an intended third party beneficiary to this Agreement and of all declarations, covenants and restrictions referring to the City or local laws and codes. 9.3 Arbitration. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement or for enforcement of any provision(s) herein shall be resolved by binding arbitration initiated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and conducted by and through a mutually agreeable arbitrator in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument the day and year set forth below. Scott Carlson Denise Carlson STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by Scott Carlson and Denise Carlson. Prepared by: Paul A. Lindstrom, Esq. Lindstrom Law Offices 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Suite 444 Edina, MN 55435 Notary Public 31 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # NEW BUSINESS 5 25 moAd PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution finding that a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, A -5, B -1, B -2, B -3, B -4, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Districts conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. 11 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution finding that a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A- 1, A -2, A -3, A -4, A -5, B -1, B -2, B -3, B-4, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Districts conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is currently undertaking a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (Modified Redevelopment Plan) for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, A -5, B -1, B -2, B -3, B -4, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Districts (collectively, the Modified TIF Plans). A large package of information has been assembled to: Allow consideration of the modifications by the HRA and City Council; Report on blighting conditions that exist, a required part of the modification documents, Add housing policy goals and objectives to the Modified Redevelopment Plan; and Ensure that boundaries within the Modified Redevelopment Plan serve HRA program clients citywide. The Planning Commission's role is to ensure that the objective of the Modified Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The HRA is responsible for administering the following three housing programs primarily funded by the Housing Fund, which is comprised of tax increment from the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts: 1) Transformation Home Loan Program (Transformation Program) which allows substantial rehabilitation of existing code deficient single family homes; 2) Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program (RR Program) which allows removal of substandard single family homes that are not cost effective to rehabilitate, followed by higher valued new construction; and 3) Kids @ Home Program which provides shallow rent subsidy to lower income families with children in Richfield schools. The housing element of the Comprehensive Plan provides policies that support the Modified Redevelopment Plan in the following ways: Housing policies and plans are intended to enable Richfield to be a "life cycle housing" city. Life cycle housing includes providing sufficient affordable housing, encouraging a diverse stock of housing types, and supporting residential and commercial land uses. Continuing the "Richfield Rediscovered" program scattered site clearance, new construction and remodeling programs to encourage and support rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing housing stock of all types and values. Encouraging development of housing units to serve special populations. Continuing housing assistance programs through the HRA and loans program. As it relates to the Transformation Program and RR Program, housing issues are found on a scattered site basis throughout the City yet the present boundaries for the Project Area do not match the scattered site program experiences to date and future opportunities based on homeowner requests for program participation. (See Attachment A Map of Redevelopment Project Area Boundary with Transformation Home Locations.) The current Redevelopment Plan, if modified, widens the service area of the Transformation and RR Programs. This entails an expansion of the Project Area's boundary to the city's boundary to allow the use of tax increment for the housing programs on a citywide basis. (See Attachment B Map of Redevelopment Project Area.) As it relates to the Kids @ Home Program, the expenditure of increment would occur within the HRA's area of operation (essentially'the entire city), rather than within the confines of a defined redevelopment project area. However, with the proposed boundary expansion, both areas would now be the same. In tandem with the Modified Redevelopment Plan, other actions include establishment of a housing development project for the operation of Kids @ Home, modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing Districts for each of the housing programs; and modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Richfield Rediscovered A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, A -5, B -1, B -2, B -3, B-4, and B -5 for annual tax increment reporting clarification for the State Auditor's Office. The HRA approved the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified TIF Plans at their regular meeting on November 21, 2005. A public hearing and consideration of the modified plans by the City Council is scheduled for December 13, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Comprehensive Plan policies support the modification to the Redevelopment Plan and Project Area. State Statute requires the Planning Commission to make a finding that the modification conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES All of the TIF Districts under consideration were found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when originally (and subsequently modified) established and evaluated by the Planning Commission. No land use changes are being proposed by the undertaking of the modified plans. The HRA approved the proposed modified plans at their regular meeting on November 21, 2005. A public hearing and consideration of the modified plans by the City Council is scheduled for December 13, 2005. C. FINANCIAL Ehlers & Associates, Inc., the HRA's financial consultant, and staff prepared the Modified Redevelopment and TIF Plans and Planning Commission's approving resolution. Staff prepared the summary to the Blight Assessment Report. The housing report portion was prepared for the HRA by Community Partners Research. D. LEGAL Chapter 469 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever the City adopts or modifies a redevelopment plan, the Planning Commission must review the plan for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the modified plans on December 13, 2005. The HRA approved the Modified Redevelopment and TIF Plans at its meeting on November 21, 2005. All plans and resolutions were reviewed by legal counsel. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Reject the resolution and find that the proposed modified plans do not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. V. . ATTACHMENTS Resolution Excerpts from the Richfield Comprehensive Plan Attachment A — Map of Redevelopment Project Area Boundary With Transformation Homes Locations Attachment B — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Boundary Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified TIF Plans Blight Assessment Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A A -5, B -1, B -2, B -3, B-4, and B -5 for annual tax increment reporting clarification for the State Auditor's Office. The HRA approved the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified TIF Plans at their regular meeting on November 21, 2005. A public hearing and consideration of the modified plans by the City Council is scheduled for December 13, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Comprehensive Plan policies support the modification to the Redevelopment Plan and Project Area. State Statute requires the Planning Commission to make a finding that the modification conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES All of the TIF Districts under consideration were found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when originally (and subsequently modified) established and evaluated by the Planning Commission. No land use changes are being proposed by the undertaking of the modified plans. The HRA approved the proposed modified plans at their regular meeting on November 21, 2005. A public hearing and consideration of the modified plans by the City Council is scheduled for December 13, 2005. C. FINANCIAL Ehlers & Associates, Inc., the HRA's financial consultant, and staff prepared the Modified Redevelopment and TIF Plans and Planning Commission's approving resolution. Staff prepared the summary to the Blight Assessment Report. The housing report portion was prepared for the HRA by Community Partners Research. D. LEGAL Chapter 469 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever the City adopts or modifies a redevelopment plan, the Planning Commission must review the plan for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the modified plans on December 13, 2005. The HRA approved the Modified Redevelopment and TIF Plans at its meeting on November 21, 2005. All plans and resolutions were reviewed by legal counsel. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Reject the resolution and find that the proposed. modified plans do not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Excerpts from the Richfield Comprehensive Plan Attachment A — Map of Redevelopment Project Area Boundary With Transformation Homes Locations Attachment B — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Boundary Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified TIF Plans Blight Assessment Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE GRAMERCY, URBAN VILLAGE, CITY BELLA, INTERCHANGE WEST /LYNDALE GATEWAY, RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A -1, A -2, A -3, A-4, A -5, B -1, B -2, B- 3, B-4, AND B -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "HRA ") has proposed and adopted a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, A -5, B -1, B -2, B -3, B -4, and B -5 Tax Increment Financing Districts (collectively, the "Modified Plans "); and WHEREAS, the HRA has submitted the Modified Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.027 and other law; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modified Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modified Plans conform with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: November 28, 2005 Donna Drummond, Chair ATTEST: Kyle Hartnett, Secretary Excerpt from the Richfield Comprehensive Plan z a w rr V) z w x w a V A w U x U ONO W 0) >, o '0 0 0) CY) a (1) a) CD m -0 c (1) '0 c" c -- c c c° v) C: c c o c c co cn - - U) co - r c co -- v o co co 75 70 c , oaoi CCU 0a) V) cn`= c= jc O U Q 0 C c Q) > 0) _ C NN = O C U a)= 0 O C to X C1 = EL U N a 0) 0) C a) O p U U (o C a) 0 co = .0 C O •"- O cn ` M O) O O U a) X 7 v U N O p " O w a) O CD U p "0 cn U C+, 0 C O fl " M C p E a) 0) > O 0 a) 0) — C p 0 N 70 0 O73N ( o 0) N d 0 U R} O M 0 ` C1 U) Q C O a) a) a— U - O N C1 0) Vj O . 0 Q 0) O a) C _ W Q) co j O V) N 0) 7 N L o N '0 «. E :S O O p U 0 E C E c 3 p 0) O O D i O to 0 0 -0 co >' ' cn CD a) > C T3 L a) E m o o `— a) E CD ° c aE c co ° x (D -C c cn a) ' a) > cco 0 , - a) 0 0 c co E 0) .0 O U L ' O 0) ` " O O a) C a) y c Cfl C C` D E . c a) 0- E 0 •0 C O 0OOU) a) a) 0) 7 a) :. ` C __ Q p n cn a) '0 ° co 0) > O C = N > m = — O > > .. C D p O. -0 co o f cn a) E' x p N cII a) E - a) v) cC• c -- _EcmUC =,> v °Q' cn c O O `° N a) cn co 0 ,- C Q) O '. p a O L U CU C7o 0 co c _V Q) O C O a) U U M '° C O pcm V O -- ` a) Q) O C Uo p N Q 0) to QONC ` C1 0) 7 0) E C) _ O o) O C) — Q `p O C Q Q) O 0) :. .F 0) > O 0 co j U "0 D p m cu U U) C Z) (0 0 .0 U "- 3 pU ( n N C a) co O C a) - = in p 0 O_ to C a) a) C C O U O a) a) L C Q -C O c O o N C Q 0 0 E M U U ` d "0 . . — 7 _ C c0 = a) O_ cn = cn . — to o w 0. 0 ' c -0 o 0) Qmm., -D o C 4— cu N _ q) O _ _0 p to O cu C C U OC o V) _ _ 0 a a) Q .L - L .a) = ' U) . cu 0 O ` O U E U (n co ` " C L i U . cu N 0- OU 0 o EO N > W a) O ( O" a) cn = co cA U p• O 0) c C ` p C C C (o E 0 Y a) L a) o -- c C = c- co Gn C c 0 o o u) o v o o a)Q m .r ° cn p > m O OU -0 N w C a u) O Q C Q) Q) t: m = o> L) 7 ° cn a-°) E a) N cz °Q a) °a)a) ` locoOU° > c _ o (n c Q N om. W - o :3 C: 0 0).T °' >., •`-' c rn o cco o " C 0) c o ° C 'C O a to _ io a) ° ` .0 c o z d ° cca E v m _ 0) > -ot0 a) O o a°) co c OQ -co c) o) ° =a) LO 0 a) m °NEE a °'°m E°)c'c.inaa)) a)) = ' E -o ° o C cco . C -6 -6 co — o0) 0- 0..- -0), > O ° > a E n ° Q c a) =3 L- r7 M2 s U)_0 ro w F-- Q U m w 00 r w u 0 O n L- v C: c O0 C n N Q 0) U 7 C 0) c0 _ p c O M M C C VlOV) N N 0 CL c 3 0 4- a)Q C cu E o a) w (D c E cn CD ca En c o g E 3 r ». U o- c t 0 coyT L U 0o a) E E OU 0a) U E co -vVcrnQ) 0. O c6 d E a) N a) a) x p O O E_ a) L co J .- 0) 0) m a) ^` L N m y ; N r V L CD a) E C)- U a .c c U F- > C c - N m c 0f1] n 0) a) 0 p cU O c a) a) C a) 0 to a) O CD0 Q a .o J 0) ca axi E C) CD Q) . E a) -0 L) W O O CCQ co c-C O aci UC c c a) 3C J L a.) co c° E m O O- C O 0 c 0 L c cco U w i C mE v, 0 V1 a,'> ono U) a) O N cB L m p fa . E O a Q c O a 7 J O O CD a) U N o L p ( n Ri Q M Q cv @ p U L' U a L L -0 w.. O a) c a) a 0 Z cn Z a) >. a) E m c0 U o co ca 0 cU Cn cn a) cn W O m > o J J- E a) ED c E E 3 E p0 U a) Q cv p Q) f6 L W L Q O L O C a) 0 3 'o 01-- c F- JW , M F— ca u) a F— .. o U U. tOn Za) C 0 L C O 0 a) "a L C U cn -o w a) C O 0 0 a) L a) E co CO 0 N 0 U m V1 0 cn U a o n O a) Q` a) > 0- V) V) m cB 0 E a L Cp o 0 N a) W 0) a) C: m 0 U. E O cn a) a) U r 0 C > o cn O n rn O m V) 0 o O C O x U m V' IM w.. Q n V M 70 Q OZcucIIQONM U V O s C r 0) O C C 7 + p ` c Q' C O i CL o— c 0 c c L 2 ro a) a W E a aa)) Q E O C 3ZEL N CO N-0 Ep w d ci o a) U ° co a o> a) n a E a) a, . a> > co cn U Ea CIO r7 0 m > a) Q) 0 0) C a) E ` 0EA) U U a x a) a a) n z; E . ` a) a 0) L OV o cn V) O C L « a) 7 U C C O C (U a 0) C C (OdcU00Rfcca O L 0 n D L V C) O vi C N N V) O W E a cn a) cn ca c° cvQ p 0) = a, c O o) c aci 0 m -0 N° 0) Q 0) n a)aV) o a co_°c' a 0) c_o c_, ca,. o MVaUoo o p o U cxO Q o U oUN C O C 4- X U C mMWoNaO• m 1) 00 r w u Attachment A Map of Redevelopment Project Area Boundary with Transformation Homes Locations Attachment B Map of Redevelopment Project Area 0 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Dated: October 17, 2005 Proposed Approval by Richfield HRA on 11/21/2005 Proposed Approval by Planning Commission on 11/28/05 Public Hearing and Proposed Approval by City Council on 12/13/2005 Prepared By: City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Community Development Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 612) 861 -9760 E- Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Housing Programs) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Foreward 1 B. Statement of Public Purpose 1 C. Statutory Authority - Redevelopment Plan Modification 2 D. Statement of Goals and Objectives 2 E. Description of Redevelopment Project Area 5 F. Development Activities and Agreements 5 G. Public Redevelopment Costs; Proceeds; Financing 6 H. Proposed Land Use I. Acquisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 6 J. Environmental Considerations K. Administration of Project Area Appendix A: Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Current and Proposed) Appendix B: Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area As Revised MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A. FOREWARD The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan Modified Plan) for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). The Modified Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as most recently revised on June 14, 2005, and adds new goals and objectives relative to housing programs administered by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (HRA). The Modified Plan also provides for a boundary expansion of the Project Area to widen the service area of said housing programs. The continued operation for the housing programs and expanded service area are further described in the "Blight Assessment Report — Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification — Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement." For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, adopted June 14, 1993, and subsequently revised, is recommended and available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. B. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE A Comprehensive analysis has determined that the aging housing stock throughout the City on a scattered site basis displays blighted conditions within the meaning of Minnesota Statute, Section 469.002, Subd. 11. A copy of the "Blight Assessment Report — Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification — Housing Rehabilitation ", dated October 17, 2005, is on file and available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA ") and the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City ") have determined that public intervention is necessary on scattered sites throughout the residential areas of Richfield to sustain and improve the housing stock and achieve established goals and objectives. These goals and objectives include participation in the 1996 -2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254 which requires the establishment of affordable and life cycle housing goals and objectives. C. STATUTORY AUTHORITY - REDEVLOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to undertake a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, Subd. 6, a redevelopment plan may be modified at any time provided that the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the notice and after the public hearing required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the HRA determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, or do not substantially alter or affect the general land uses established in such plan, then such changes shall not constitute a modification of the Redevelopment Plan nor require approval by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the project is located. D. STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The current Modified Plan adds four (4) additional goals (shown in bold face). To provide a revenue base to meet the needs of Richfield. 2. To develop job opportunities for area residents. 3. To develop strategies to encourage revitalization. 4. To maintain a positive business environment. 5. To enrich the quality of life for residents through planning of the interrelationship of land use. 6. To recognize the needs of all segments of the populace through diversity in housing stock which is a major determinant of the living environment. 7. To protect the community from the adverse affects of the operations of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. 8. To protect the community from the adverse, low frequency noise impacts of the implementation and operation of the new North /South (17/35) Runway at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. 9. More market rate new constructions and remodeled homes for people in all life -cycle stages. 10. Development of low density, attached single family homes. 1 0 11. A greater variety of apartment/condominium choices. 12. Affordable housing opportunities. The current Modified Plan adds six (6) additional objectives to the list (shown in bold face). 1. To achieve a high level of design quality through use of design features such as landscaping to enhance the physical environment. 2. To better utilize vacant or underdeveloped land. 3. To improve vehicular circulation by providing a comprehensive system which provides good, direct access to and from the commercial areas. To the extent practical, eliminate commercial traffic from residential streets and minimize vehicular circulation conflicts or congestion. 4. To achieve a balanced variety of commercial businesses and services appropriate to the market area. 5. To provide increased employment opportunities. 6. To diversify the tax base of the community. 7. To eliminate or reduce the conflicts which result from incompatible land use relationships, especially between residential and non - residential. 8. To protect the single - family residences from the adverse effects of nearby commercial development, roadways, and off - street parking. 9. To utilize landscaping and /or screening between all single - family residential and commercial /office uses. Landscaping and /or screening should also be provided along major thoroughfares which border residential areas. 10. To eliminate unsightly and. blighting elements such as exposed trash storage areas, overhead utility lines, poorly maintained and excessively large billboards or signs, and deteriorated structures. 11. To provide for the elimination of blight which is evidenced by irregular sized lots, inadequate streets, incompatible land uses, physical and functional obsolescence, and inadequate parking. 3 0 12. To encourage the sharing of parking facilities and to generally improve, the parking and circulation in the area. 13. To provide public utilities and other public facilities of sufficient quality and size to support the future development in the area. 14. To provide for an expanded range of housing opportunities in the community, as appropriate. 15. To encourage open lines of communication between all the residents, businesses and city staff. 16. To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city for development by private enterprise. 17. To coordinate elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan with these project objectives. 18. Provide jobs within close proximity of the residential population and concurrently saving energy by reducing trip time to jobs. 19. Provide a retail service level required by the residents of the community. 20. Secure the increase of housing, commercial, and industrial property subject to taxation by the City, Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District No. 287, Hennepin County, City, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for governmental services and programs required to be provided by them. 21. Encourage local business expansion, improvements, rehabilitation, and development, whenever possible and provide financial incentives for same. 22. Combine the elements of other City Plans with these project objectives. 23. To facilitate the acquisition and removal of single - family residential and multi - family residential properties located with the city's airport impact zones. 24. To facilitate the acquisition and removal of single - family residential, multi- family residential, commercial and industrial properties deemed blighted due to a number of factors including low frequency noise levels - associated with the construction and operation of the new North /South 17/35) Runway at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. 25. To facilitate the acquisition of land or space that is vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used or contains incompatible land uses. 0 26. To facilitate the redevelopment of land for the construction of commercial /retail development better suited to withstanding airport noise. 27. To provide modern, transit stop plazas with features such as heated structures, lighting, landscaping, bus pullouts. 28. To provide newer designed, high - volume street intersections able to better control traffic and interface with pedestrian traffic. 29. To provide bikeways, paths, greenways and parkways for non - vehicular traffic. 30. To provide enhanced streetscape features such as decorative concrete, pedestrian lighting, landscaping features. 31. Encourage residential expansion, improvement, rehabilitation and development, whenever possible and provide financial resources for same. 32. Ensure that for each participating property on a scattered site basis, an HRA evaluation be conducted to qualify the use of available financial resources. 33. Increase the ownership ratio of market rate homes to affordable homes. 34. Increase the ratio of higher rent units to affordable rent units. 35. Increase the ratio and variety of ownership choices. 36. Increase housing density. E. DESCRIPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT. PROJECT AREA In order to further guide the development and redevelopment of the Project Area, the HRA has created this Modified Plan. The boundary for the Richfield.. Redevelopment Project Area.is being enlarged. This Modified Plan is intended to address primarily the HRA's housing programs that require a wider service area than the Project Area currently serves. The new Project Area in being extended to include the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. See Appendix A for a map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, in current and proposed, revised format. Appendix B depicts the Project Area as revised. 5 F. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND AGREEMENTS The objectives of the Modified Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by Minnesota Statutes. Contained within the 1993 Richfield Project Area Plan are a list of 11 private development activities, which are consistent with established goals and objectives. It is the intention of the HRA that the majority of activities are directly undertaken by private residential land owners with assistance when and where appropriate from the HRA. To that end, the HRA has additionally established rehabilitation advisor and education services to support initiatives consistent with goals and objectives. G. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COST; PROCEEDS; FINANCING The HRA determines that the primary source of funds related to this Modified Plan is the Housing Fund (tax increment) and Development Account revenues established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Additional resources are. provided from a variety of local, county, metropolitan, state and federal sources, including and not limited to: loans, grants, purchase money mortgages, and equity financing available to private residential landowners separate and independent of HRA resources. Annually, $1.5 million is the estimated amount to be provided by the Housing Fund and Development Account. Historically, this financing has leveraged five fold to six fold ($7 to $9 million) in other resources annually to achieve stated goals and objectives. I. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES Rehabilitation Activities The maintenance of Richfield's housing stock is primarily a private activity. The activity would occur in any established housing area of the city where private residential landowners seek a partnership and financial assistance of the HRA to meet housing stock goals and objectives. Those activities are allowed citywide and the basis for those activities are established by the "Blight Assessment Report — Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification — Housing Rehabilitation" dated October 17, 2005 and on file and available. in the Community Development Department at the City.of Richfield. 1.1 APPENDIX A MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Current and Proposed) I Lo Z O vion N - J L_I ir, ,J_ ._ Jul— I '\ LIUL z' IiY! 1 L - - ip 7 uOwwooia 1 l C - NOIDNlwoo x Q mli I- = i—— 7I..YIL_ j r_ j{ i i wt. m w O!COl i.. _. Y____.,. =..li 1! :_11 -_.J L. I 1- ......._j ( i 4101 LLJ Z ioi'na __. =_i _.__' j' i'__ _ 7__ I I loirt3 Q 2' d OaVO1N0 I' I- I l— J- 1!f...,_... - I1.. I i - iL._( i_ 09VoIMJ 0: O NWd L !1 IL.i t Sf18Wf1100 0 (J j, J i N21Vd m oNYWVP 1 1 L J I C 1 _ I m ' aNYlUJOii ' 1l. _ 1 C C{ L i If I Lj i aNruaoa. Q O. W vis NO1Nn0 ..I' I jl`— iL_...J _ -'': II NOlNi,O z. poc W w+z S3ASISUN riW 13TOOIN I( j ll3aSm9 Z Q USOMWam. )) 1 I ( ! -7' —17 j(__ }I) 'L— JLJ_L J;L_' lr -__J i H1aOMW3M .WC, W . AanSSMld IL— .._... L 1 AanBSTld D a' — ''M— 1NV8V3ld W'"', W pi plaubNl w 31V6Ntl L/ \il `—>• ~` IIC Vii_= _!I ]I l! ) d2ivfl W r i r'_" ;1 • ; %'rte f i mss: a rea7aa v 6 jJ \I, \.:,, - - ---Ir t Noladiv Q;t,' :Lt. 1' _ t` 5(^( IN'Od6d o iNON13Hi L ii' r ._.._ /• IN-on ,w W OMID C G C _ r- 1 if ,I}— 1 ' aav lID idioeevnN `L....._J'`_ '` la%mnN 63WV1` s_vv ' I C, , koepl' r —J± t JL /i "firJ JC_L:I NVDOI Nvoaori i)>, jOr iII:''f`J fL_ 7! ' IL---.- ;, "'MoN ' O! W NO1M3N CJ ! I IU•_IJL_i_ — , NOtM3N W,3MO a3nrio NN3d l _ - _ i.....__J._L'_ Ir .Ji_ L_:_. p. NN3d p,. :o U 3n0 Wano M Nr01 aH8 jj ----^• Dl i L fi .1L... NrOla3N5 0. L— 0 svwbru L_I D i li =-I r i J_ . 8VYiOHI koidn 1 oldn m 1N30HIA L.- -.1 __ .`_. j fl Nansmsvm O' s3xn3x , smca3x gg . pl: i p` o: u: m APPENDIX B MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA As Revised) ME aVO30 4M t Lail I' t DIONI W 0018 4191 4191 Wl 41Z t Wll 4101 Z 1OMR OOVOIHO snsrinioo OXaVd ONVIXVO QONVUkIOd W 41S 41[ NOJNIIO we L+ wa SNRARLS uj m1 O i3T1D IN Il3asnna li2lOMJN3M AH66SMId iNVSV31d ZONYWO J.31aaVH cnaw o 3TmNAl HOIaO'M1' i14rAHB J xvnoo 11 JHDdf10 No6aawa JNOW3ad Oa'1/al0 Lis -mein iY ONIAHI S3WVI' J XONX' 1J Ntl o, NVWJow r NOJJN3N L a3Af10 NN"d N33no musna NVOIa3HS SVwOW NOidn 1N3ONIA N1ln8HSVM SB"3X tJ. I1 S L V L L Z n Z N r C tfv 30 V7Dl LL] S 4iBl V NO10NIw00- Jm 4161 a w.t LL 4til Q 4ln W 4i t't' Q 4xll J 01„3 OOtl01140 snewmoo xatld ONVINVO ONVllkiN 4iS: Q No. Z NO1NM we 0 m P4Z Q SN3n315 w ut 13'I'1001A T30SIN78' U HLaOM1N3N1 W' AF/nSSllld O, iNVSV3ld' LL- a f a3ro" * Z. b- slaays W. 3'riONAI rL m 1i0h10'IY 0 LL irrvAae W c xrzno. W o J.NOSM Q NOSHvs W iNOW3ad p' O oaral cn f . iaioewnH ONl tll OCD fU? S3W1R xoNX NVDOI O S- NtlOHOW tT. NO1M3N Cl, a3AnO O; . i Ol m NN3d 7, N33n0 T35Sna p. NYd1f3HS N' m n SVWOHi ID O NOidn O' NaneHSVM 63Xa3X O MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted By City Council: 6/22/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 10/11/1999 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 6/17/2002 Proposed Modification No. 4 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 4 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Property to be Acquired Page 1 Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District 0 Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project. The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the Gramercy TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. E -- Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Gramercy TIF District HVO3 tu9l tOt l 191 N IDNIW0618 as l a +t aca t at tjt{i ao 1. Qlonla Wo9VOIH6, a.i snewnloo x7ib'd rL' oNVlHVo NO1NII:V AOa Ii 1 SN3A318' UI lantiaiN iL: W O' LL ij•_ llaasei e HRfOAA1N3M.. Aan991lki' I VSV''td ONvlfo W LU' WR( y trirY Olaubwo awmt4 ,I HOIklO'IV L7vA218 Xtlf10O 1NOdn0 NOSN3IN3 L wow3U3 W E 7LVaiD U 1O108rViiN ONVwl S3ww NVOOI NVUHOw NOJM3N a3A1'IO NN3d Naano I13nria NvolaaHs SVVIOHI Noldn 1N33MA Nanawsw 53Ya3Y m n 2S o ' o m ^ ti • 1: w n 3 a 6 Se m bal C) 4) O: LL 0091 191 Co Co 0011 aL1 9091 191 ra91 NOIDNAGOl8 0o91 act oorl Lott C) 00c1 act ° OM, aal t0 mu au 06, 101 006 101113 00 OJYOIHZ) 0 Ou sllewmmi O' N oai xaYo Ors 'oNVixvo OW oNVII.UCd 06s as OCr ak ri0 NDAHIlO p. O- PLC N 002 PUZ izi SN3Aal9 O 061 lit N. O 000 13'T OO W I'13osprIs 001 H1UOA11Nam O o0z ANnBSTId• ODE 1NVS V3'ld 00 ONVHS ON 1HI1iavH 009 0131AM DO1 31VONAI O09 Holkw 006 IMNAa8 am tOV310O 0011 iNOdnO 0021 N031I2W3 C) OOCI Vi w;, 13ava1D fn ooSl 10108Wn34 0091, ONU1al N 00[1 S7WVf C. owl YONH CU C• Owl NVDOI L O99c NVDtlOP ~ Q b6a NO1M3N C U C ii= H3AIl0 , 0 ood NN3d ()• pore w2ano 00,2 11368nk1 x 0 OOW NVOIN3HS - 0. Oo9asrryoHtC1s, (D OOee NOidn a) ODs 1N3ONIA E 0 Cc o= Ntlnsnw " 00/ v lL 001[ S79w" is m 6 r, g c a C H A 6 5 c s S a I MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted By City Council: 11/23/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 10/11/1999 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 0 Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, .as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the .Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project. The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the Urban Village TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Urban Village TIF District MODIFICATION NO. 2 THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CITY BELLA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted By City Council: 6/11/2002 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 2/18/2003 Proposed Modification No. 2 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and City Bella Tax Increment Financing District Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project. The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an,incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the City Bella TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. I--,' Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the City Bella TIF District kmo30 1491 ail 1491 NOIDNIWMIG Vi51 aYl Lot 14ZL att Lao L Q1011'13. W owolHa snawnioo Iii.: V Xa<'d Q•L aNVTNVO. ONVilllOd W 4U. NoINno 0. W^.. V Pali. C SN311315 a 7 l noow W113OSIV18 HlilOMIN3M a AHn6S'n1d 0— d lNvsva w O. E ONVtlO Lu I 0131itlVJ W i 3TdaNAi K HOItlON W. 1NVANB 1(Vd100 INOdna Q- NOSN3W3 J .A\ 1NOw3lLi. W m OiM11O LOIOSWnH. JNW11 UU S3VM YONX N WOO-1 ii NVOtIOW NOIM3N USAM NN3d N33n0 limns NVOIV3HS svworu Nolan 1N3ON1A naNSVM S3)(u3X tllt11 T S 5 5 5 d 5 .o n ° S 5 d d d. .m nnronnn Lo 0 Z N, r a) W61 wvca;J. C5 LL doB1 Lao V m 0141 yt1 W9i Lo91 Z91 NOSON1w0019 om aS1 oml Lot& O' obi l of l M QTI toil ooll an owl apt ow Ionia mB OOVOIHO 0 snownioa N pot XNVd OZ9 ONVUIVO; o¢v ONV,UtlOd tog LOS' 00 14o i[' 'NO1NIi pO p0[' .Pjt N pos 1+!¢ S143A319 OOL 101 tn' p pop l3TOOIN bs, 113091V'18 dot:, HINDMLN3M aq, ALInBSTId WE 1NVSV31d poor i3*11b oos' 131at3VH. 60 Ol31dHVO ou '3lVONAI OOG HOINOIV po6: 1NVAtl8 dolt. INOdnO' oocl Nosmw3 U poet 1NOW3ild y D GmL LcnooNinH pool DNIl1lf1 owl S3WVf m ami XONA m m oo6t Nv!Do1 L 000t NVSHOW C oD1L NOIAYaW V o= U3An0 E O oat NN3dU d N39AD Cpool om 1i3SSIw iC E am Nvam3Hs; .. 9 CL ooa svwotu T O Naca>; Nolan M CD 6= 1N33NIA out NtlnSHSVM D 001E S3n3X U LL ss s 6 C ^. C g ems+ 6 6 g MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST /LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted By City Council: 6/14/1999 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/10/2002 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax.lncrement Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District r Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project. The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a'grant as an incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway TIF District MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A -1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/23/1990 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 8 /24/1992 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A -1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A -1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A -1 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A -1 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A -1 Tax Increment Financing District WOW) ant Loci Look NOLONIW5018 as t art O act aZt N an cot QQ 1Onl3 W 0) 0.evwwo s"wmoo xaVd a aNVlxvo oNVluiad Uas twr lip NO1NI19 O' CtC ESN3A31S Z 13TOOW V 113USlO73 HlaoNUri3M LX Atln33Tld X u+vsv3ia o aNva J.r LaiaagH cnmcldVO W 3NONAi HOIaOIV 1NVAa9 yW L xvnoo LL > LNOdna O --3W3 V 1NOW3ad WOtltltllO ter' lalosWnH TQi oAlnat S3WVI' u tt1r NVOOI W NVONOW NOLK3N a3AnO NN3d N33no llassna Nvala3Hs sVWOHl NOldn LN3ONIA Nanawnm s3xa3x NOUN1iiUN iiiln7 ii °eri m u1111 ii i ii111111111 uu nu1 i Ulu nu uunn u u11 it nu 1 Nun u n1 N to 0Z N N. coot avaeo oO am Lag 7' oo' out au coat Lost tcsL NaLomm O1n Oast task wn wit 4 ooct ask Owi art tO mIt LIM Wo, cot ow lonl3 aa7 DOM'.JIM7 0 ovc Snamicto N I ONVI%VO opD OMl7liiOd an a'0 ar n NOWno pO oai PK N apt our Kt SN3A31S mt tot O; O; app 131 O If os 113OSM9 aot .14140MLN3M o& A!ln3s*ei oo[ .iNVSV31,d opr. ONVaV U pas L' -Wu" w N 00 al3lAb" opt 31Vaw pp/ HOINOIV C Q Loos. umaae G ogpt xv3'too B C mu LNOdnO W OOit. NOSa3W3 C ppc, lNOW3ad 1) ppr, OatlalO n - IM090,MNpM& U on, ONIANI C L N m1t s3WVr X CSS acct xoN1t p 0o/t NVOOI r' Q000ENVOaoW VmKi4oLBNQ% owz a3AnO ll Q ooa NN34 0 0- N33no Uoorr ow 7135sna Q. EoMWOI113HS _ OooasVwoku one Nolen N j Lm6G1N30NIA cam Mtln9NSVM LL i wt[ S3 %tl3x E MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A -2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT), WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 8/24/1992 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A -2 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A -2 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A -2 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A -2 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A -2 Tax Increment Financing District kfYG33 no& WLL Iasi NOLONIWOOlB Iasi all INI, OVVWHO snevqnioo Qav1-AVO ONW-111:10d WS UJ4" 411, ni-- — U N01NI13 0 we C F'Uz CLY/ sNanaLs E f.L 13TO IN It ngSTld INVSV31,1 VallifliVii LIJ Q? lrrv ae NN XV.4100 1NOjhG 0. NqSb3l`13 51 U) ict-iblinnH NvOOi0 if, N 0"." NolmaN lisiAllo NN3d NMno i-T3sisnit NvGIb3KS svwmu NOIdn INBONIA N11M14SW S3)(W3X 1ijz11i InIniflulle Immune UP 11i11i111oilAMIU, lull 1111 Ill nttM moun fllisig l "H e 11mint "in am, , 1 osl I lul N it, In 1121 m ml rit 11111 litilfill is I ioll ll" 1111 11 11 111 - a a mr lilts Itmoiuilio Is Mel I'll 21 Mlillill" I'sEms go In limits1 t ea "In III" , a 11 no to, I 111, u a u uliur lull" I'll"Noltillittillessill niie M loan man,,, ,Kenn in 1 IN I Its B", a 61, 11111109041 RUNnos Qee 11111 loan Ogilvie am allill,,Ull DINNER" ainto" to1111.91111. an P-70111111 loll 1: nicer founsel In IRSIgnuCan, emit in n "I'll 1:1111 eleven Haiti usualoil, 14 Illunt] loll. lull " 1111, fullanuffugolfs "Blooll. llullluffl I III iinuel I R I "' nuff 11111"1 11 lull 1 111111111111 I= MOM limit 1111"Ifill "so mints in "Ifnilln" IIIi10,411,11" nium 'on, WINE Him RIMINI its an Illm 1, in numoitiviiiintivitits B"S IN" all 11 twill, IN In 21,11"llI"I an InlntlllurvT M:, InUIUMIMUNCII 11181111111111118 1lfilglililing 111n.1111:1111111141 Hwu nu inn u 1 uw lea III null 11fullinto4 1111011111 llig.,.Il 1311 1 1fill INI 112.11, W"in HIRE a a 1, "I's 21, low 31 11HIM, I'll" a I M'SN' HUNIIN 11111111 14111, I IlluluillillIn. Kill", Ill113" 11; a IsnosfliAaIin, 'flu S.- UINI n, um 1 n1 moon suit Is UI Inram to It nn,U 1n a lullfiIIIIIII HI 1 11111111 oil it It I I all I $nvul" Is It noni I 111f 111 1 m ,,ME I It rat 91 111 01 III mmm liinmz I IMM– E PaHIasos' imi nl all In I nil Ems I If multuill I Is" is IIs slL lflou 210 H ill no 1111100301 Iasi IN "I I In I I ""HolpintInsulluiMilut Hill I I Run 111111111maul1, slain lnnuilin aluill onsign till 1111111113 Hugui If" u Muni limli Mel 10 Q Woo IN" till," 1111111 2 No n 111 l'l Il MR H i I n too In MIN I MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A -5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A -5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from- the Richfield Rediscovered A -5 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. 0 APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A -5 Tax Increment Financing District MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR*THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B -1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) Ak doff 11il, THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/23/1990 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 8/24/1992 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2123/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B -1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B -1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B -1 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B -1 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. 0 APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B -1 Tax Increment Financing District VY030 aP t w11 Lost NOlONIlY0078 Lost aYl ac I L lazi N v+u. 4101 0 loni3Q. W Im OOYOIH3 N snawnlD3 7lLtlti QONYI"O ONvlluod W' aY NO1N1'73 o PIC f\ PI¢ a SN3A31S L lµ ZZZi J.3TODIN 1130SM8 IuaonrurrinA 1NYSY3id Q ONVtlD J T La+aavH W. • m3liavD r+ 3TYONAI W 0 / 1fNAM8. L/U,/ xvdloa LL > LNodno QO NOSN31N3 LNDY13Md 1 P 1. Yl OtIYLID ii Lolol,1041 i W ONNNI sBww UxoNN N' NYool iii . NYDNON NO1M3N WsIAn0 V jR NN3d Yi /li Na3nb 1135SnL NYOIH3HS smWILL NOldn IMBIMA NuneKsW S3Xtl3X 6 5 5 S g ^ n f ^ 5 5 6 g o 6 6 to Z .N r CI 000, kNO33 p LL poet aft to du! all 0091 Lost LSI NOlONI1040016 0051 41St ap.t Lost O cal Lott o OQzl ar+ fD Don Lott Scot Loot 006 1011'3 C99 ODYOIHO b tOLtSI18Nn103N OZ9 ONYTxYO 009 DNd11HDd Ow 4)S ppY aY tc NO1Nn3 0. CD dot PK 04 000 P„r K, S14RABIS O m, UI 10 Opp L31103IN 0S, 113t1Swe QJt- HIHONUN3M ccz AtlnBsllw cm iNV'Ya1d OM CINYW) Cog 1311RIYH is 009 013IddYO Q 001 3lYONAI 009. H71NO1Y C 006 1NYALB U 000+ xW103 C. 001, LNOdno U- milt NOS2I3n3 G 0001 1NOW3tli Lop„ davalD N pp0i LOlOfiWnH o09t ON"i C out S3NYf x m pop, XONx P- (6 006, wool !'- III= NYOLOW m Q Op10 NOLM3N t 0 cm N1,13d 0 ty 000 N33n0 L Ozz ll3SsI1N 10 Ow M/OUl3HS N Q 00-12 SIINONL - O ow. Noldn Q% 006E 1N33NU1 U owe Nitn9HSYM N Oatt S3Xb3X LL MODIFICATION NO.4 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A -3 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 7110/1995 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 4 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 4 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A -3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A -3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A -3 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform. to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A -3 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A -3 Tax Increment Financing District bVi330 mLt N=DNIVIO016 49$ act tut Lail mot coma snownio3 Nvm- w CWVIUJOd C) WS UJ -at LL NoiNno Pit Pile ia-no3tN LU a. x 5 Uj. cnaiitwo 3WONKI Uj W IWAVO iNodno 0 Nosb3l,44 IL) 1p9yqgIj;j U) awfuloW LL 1010prinw ONMI say.ffr U. xoNA WV01 CD NVONOW NOi&GN 1:13Ano R N33no iiRsSnti NValIONS 6yvloki Noidn 11,13:*IA Nanemsvm SaXIOX Ul) Z p ii III lgglj0001nsi aeu Is I tuns, n I CIO", It Is 11 1 111Z- 1111 to US 11 11 111 Afil 111111 H 0 a, 11 1 UU 111 ItI' ll us 11111, 1 11 I 0111 fill I in NoM!! U.".11,11111 fill In IIII I fin IIIIIIuiuin on 1IlIll1 9. IN4 In, 101111"HIIIII 11 31 111,1 11,%4111, tl iii to, !living,, Irnumail Is it 110 Hill f11i of "I'lu'A rtnnl film It I'm, iimillito !! Illllilnl it lull,, mus 11 MIMUHI= i111n IL tit I's HIS1.111 so all, fressi liggal" nitnii UP a ii ti ngsuetlitimiasti I Mellon 84 ININ IN IIIIIIIII list 0 It nuut of '11111 I'll," It" In USTIRM"I 0 liiiielit.41"119 It 1001111. in It IIII I it 11111111 "Mall intitniti Riling all win# In M 19,111,Mllllilnl 11"I sign Hot lnitsilatill nil Built flulls 1 11 1 Shilln"I" WIII 1" Iloilo tiff 11111411111 to$ sallni, Is IIS, 11 1 im to it Mill 11111 1. I'll gm let n Wus U1,11! IIIIIIR Mill UM IN, ODIIOR BIIRO,_ilnliilmug!lmmgIngRB losim MR kimul aHIM, Islas W Ing II lumip itl"fl Ivan IP4 -all low" "sign. "us Ili .... 4. hhh In 11lltla tr t III, H I stint nttnli 111HOW 1111 ill, ip I'll Nilso1111111111I, IN,, I gill is 1, Neill 101 to Inalin fill I It Instant in 1 12 IHI111115MInjun ant If as I In 1. I 111 awl, 11 ifftwull 1111111, On a, 11ifilitereni'll, Mn it 111111111 in 1111 us :,n,,]=-- ff it" :"in I gas to 'mIn 3—= Min" III 'II ininin 'I, mawI" Hilluill Mill, Iffillill mill 11 II Illl IIIIIiIUnt ww IT, MR, MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-4 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/10/1995 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No.-3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District NV03a met Wtt Wigs, NOLaNIWOOIa Wei WCl L vet lest N blot. Q. Ion'13 W oOVOMc snawmoo. 1NVd Q v aNe^ixvo ONrllaod V = as W a, NO1Ntl0 1. VrrL a E s"A31S ql I/ lanbaw us ii/ Tt3oSM79 C HINOlALNSM G. AtlnaSlllL j LNVSV3ld O ONVHO W 1 m3tl2lVO 3lVONAI W/' NOILaIv y! LNVANa W. A 7cVdloo LNO no Q• NCiSN3W3l V '1NOW3Eli W' =` aWNtO MM Lo109WnH S3WVf S3WW U' woNN NVOOI Rvobovi LNOLM3N N3Ano V NN3d Y/iVr 33n0 113ssnn NVOR13Hs SVWOHl Noldn 1N30NtA NHf19i1SVM f3xki3x HEILI '.iZT_i III IIIiII It 1 ' 11 S n it Ill1t' sense m91I1U11 Oi pmt r -sewminim p pnnnmu iml/ 'nnr nttnn Hills tm —umar 0 Z a opn WC3o OO LL aaar a/r m M, art Won Wet tft NOLONIWOOIa Writ WSt glWi aH WCt aft ' Dart aZi gloss au w6t Laos ow LOn13 Pass gDy3lH0 ou sneWmoo oat 'Atm ply aNvn1VO pap CGNVf" d pp, a, NOLNf1O Wf Pit oat FW Lr SN3A315 Oat Ya1 pop 13TOOIN p9 il3asivie pal HLHONLLN3Y1 opt AUnas111d oaf. 1JJVSV3ld Go, ON"es seas 13NlNVV/ oat alghlvV0 M4 31VONAI Dap Halwiv aoa INVALt3 Ooat xVa100 poll LNodnO owl N08N3w3 oofs. LNOW3HA amt ONVNI'J Nsl lmoawnH ooet ONIANI ooLt S3WVf oopr xON]l glop[ NV!)OI 000t Nvoaow oats NOAM3N o= a3A110 oast NN3d WK N33nD oGR ll3ssntl om NVaiv3Ha ' 000t' NOIdn oote L1,130NIA coot N_.._, VM close S3x213x E Is Is OO Co o v OO C% O O O Y U cal C U C M C' C L N v N C L C 6'' Q 0 U j O O n- C O E O Q O IU 0L N MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B -2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 8124/1992 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B -2 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B -2 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B -2 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B -2 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B -2 Tax Increment Financing District LO 0ZN II.11 11 Ili! 11.1111 111 xq Irll it" M (( 1 111 t tool Hun tri/1 out ., Into m ,ntm. 1 1 naWHINq 1111 won ee tau unto t(ill/- MUSEUM,!, nu r S ieu, e1 tl m Ilona 1 t r'ii 1 wuu11111/ 1 11 11 11 S_ n t1 , /+ t I I elm ii "1 ululnl Illiiu 1 1 I umH r 1 1 li iiin iiiin ii' {11111111111111 ifiitiii uII iiimii ouiiu 11""`i!( nil iiiiinii{ iii i}ni 1 111 111111 i111 c 211111111 a uiu u i_ -_ u 111 a ii uum unnun uu um nuwu- roll tritiu ;urlmur m i t Tim ptgnunwm Timm uxiiiili in nmr mmu uum n Tim n u 11m IxImI u t n nut minww law uu umn1+ :IIiIp111 1111 1, m_ u11uu 11 w ulna 1 uunuu nn t w ton t r n mu e ut,Il,wowumnnunnnmlouummIuaul =alma! mem gllllli . Nllill xmSSi xx/xr m n 1111 It mom me it lino11111111111111m, t eiiili iiuii'110111111111111111111" I ui {„Win iu nil 11 l i 11111111"11li,io= Si, fin i ' iiii i' Oii oui i uiii i n iiin iiuf iiiiiia ti'Hiuli liini iii 1 iii iiiI'll fi iiinl,ii iiMI iiiini nn i li uiii t iiiin 111 m ml tptil nnu ntlHl urn ln S m unu Idlii 11 lx itm s i °lint Ill, iiin ii ri in° iii ill" milli' ioliii,ii iini11 n a ii r 111 n i' iiiiin ittii1 l in nil Itll n,rn "i, mil 1 n u 1 IO it 1 RUN wm u.. ri 11'11 n m u getse ROBINS 1(Uf! III `,ar If I tta /eel /( 1 IT Tit twU In" 111 111111!`11, 9 In ptnli Hllnl ii'rtt,n Iq It 1 Olr 1 n 1 Ilpl/ 111111 n I Intl lt4 y unn lam a Hill u uum Inm a 111111101 mn,il i ulna uum n / l" 1 m n n mum'. u r r 11111 1 riff m r: i uni iiiin a ill%, 4 1 m n ,nut itlmn n`iiC 1112111a I al 1 tt nunil t 11 It1 ilii'ni' 11110° i i t uitu .. awn uu ntnuu to t: m Si mgig 1 q t 1 1 1iuu e n u u xt lu 1 1 t aU a 1 ti 1 1 ts• emurmn m nit m Imt o nuu m I Title I I I n t w 1 ucm 11 I lilini t .k nuuu r/ d , o uumnal m to loan n u n get r u mDORMS"!!, nstfilt r tmm I l n ! 1 NMnuumiiutnr1111 Imuu n/ un triIts uww to nil 11 iiu 1{na 1 f tuuunurn nnnwutt t ...... ifTim numnm m nu wm i 1 ngnm e wuIn1miunIllalniini' I an n fm1 tm tut . u mil nntw r 11,1 n q n n1Rmn u1nu1 nuteum u mtttilt unuo umnm nuuu uuutu Iw1 wt w mown wuuwni 1 Intent Ransil sell uu 1 uut11wQ3tt ux 11 IInU: tWImI will oeiuu IItUt -uurrr n ntrt Ilpt rmtnf 1 rt 1 1 1 Ila m /n UI11UIIU1 II rte III ngr instill 1 mlrin IUIt 9 9l i111uas ut1 l"1 m un n m..`Smre nn t anal Uuli iiiin9 i t IdL.I tot t o ltwn umuwn lultmm Tim m mm 1111 ItnElt II / Mr lmnn to I r It 1 1 1 1 111 n 11 UIWt1 t ° It eitiniii 'iui Haar Inn - I imju 111 IIIiI Llun lane Gauel ill UIII awl UHU1HJII li i i i 11,, uniiii n,iii ng fill „Inun .wi /Illlii l"nou gel ' l 1 nn'n 1 n Halo 1 1'11 nn imnl pp 1 iRUM iin11tnn ii 1'j' (' s in nn nil stills” tutu I/ n it nu' ttt t nwnl In11rt m loss il IIII tU1il 1 Soli IIO tn1 to rltx W litttll It 1 nap Iln t 1pi wt milUlnttmil a wf l I ww 1tlIltl1mil 11 uu uum Tim nw l ru tm nn to u to u sue mm i mil 4i:ei. i i ai° i) I u 1rn'i: i HIS i rll•7t "/' i/ r i ii m w .. H 'iii1 w iiiiiiii w in e1n u uu - t munm1t"ri: fimi w' unn11ntuum lnI,minm t mmaml u in`tiwl 1 uurin - nutttq. iltl l mil 1 f e w mm nn .a Sul Hal 1. un - wwul nnmWO 1 n/ umnna n n,nm Iii,w e gOl mml nn rm= to urnIntel nn moue u Iwtuu uu r a1m 11 muuu 111it a a u1u= u 1 r® Tit r 11Iltr nnu ,II' "'ill{ U IN 411t ! t elm WIU11111/ n a n non 111 wlllu I tltlt t u mmpl all! III 1 Tit I tt a S BID 1 w 1 t 1 i tl I ultl/I I t• tut11M . nu Ir _ II m m t II 1 11 nu m il Seoul 1 r r riu 11 OIIIIO n urrSin auata, nIu nnaIwnIuI m mIillli = u H•• n t! nrmIt muuumm1 Tit Hum mule s ui un {I m noon ; y mmun 11mmlw Non l"1 wmn 1 B 1 11 uwllnu I m mntum unnim mom nu nnm t r 1Emmmnma2011114110111tll n+ an {nn rml l"Im1 unnM! unuwn t namemu mnv oumfi Irn nuuw un Wutluml iHm' , 1/dq uN ee tolltlnt I {rl' 11{'i'1P iiIt (rill I 1 11111 !mull 1Um Iellle /111111111 1 fll 1 1 gee t11I0I1 1 0 nuu nnnlm Iilmn uaill- 1111nu1 #pit it m u u un 611 In tofu '[",' I n11u uuma """, non 11111111 11+ illnonnuwnuuuuBuuun= nnu wm 1111.11 mem o x1UI IIIIIrI t IIIIIIIIlI IIIltI1C OIIIIrI , ! IIIIIIIIIII luli1mueuu,t n limn mil - nmm , Tim n lm uun 1 w Lmp 1111 n ioniui 1111, 1ii'1'n'en= imun • t Iloilo iuuiillii 11111uiii nmu! uumn tlmr^ 1111111111 1 unn unm Hnnw1111 unuu wunii inn,u,l Ilu11= aluunl -• aiwnii n lu noun li /iui milli Iii mum 11tl , InInIH= ono Bu = I nuu I u uu In II aIIIIa11I 1111111, 11 ii {tin' "nulili {nrini {i liie °Tile i {1111111111 {ii iiniiili 1111111111111 iuiiri iiiiiiii inliin tni ii Iii° it Wu ItIN OI u 1 1 , I,1 1111 1IIlllnl r 1 I 1111111 II 41nr11 I t 1 t IUi111 1 Stet m ini a liiilit. unnr. nnuu fin 1' t: I 1 1 tl 1 Hui{ 1 n n utli n uu iui oirr.,'. ii i iliiiiiiii WON, ii'umil ii'(iun " iiiiiuri ii iii° r Ofa utmu nu /unu nuns // nu ling uun! u c Iv. 11unw nanm/ mlrrml UO 1111 a w111Ia n11Ww ling nine r 1In It 11 1 um uuun11m Ulu I i nn1 nunuu nnmm unmml _ Nun nn 1 tl wmnnnwnl tn otmq uuua awl" anmw aeon l e mm u mono Timm mlmml Intelw Siuuu 1111ruunnminunluw 1 1t1, 11I a l" p1 a linlnll tai °iii! Ii l- ani111I11 ill:110 IliOnnlllii iitil 11 Iliii111 Uiii11 Iltn;ii iiiiiiii uununnuw inuu l"1 -umuu nuuu nuuun, nn e. 1 w'itlul uueSn unit uuliu nmrIIIIIIIn111t1r11t11I111 InIn1I II nnanl Otl nmr IN It 11umu lN 1 11 1 1 / I n W Timm tUt11 S room unu NO Ii i1111I1w111111IIII mmolw xmlllm Illll,n11a ya e Ism iii 1 nuu t u m =uun n /nr ii - N /Ittll Illlfllt mom Ill . 1 tI Iwl 111 'lull, at unu 1 nmu1 a Mti' i' nine nww •• uU r 11'n11rE1n1U Inn ununul Till III nu unm Noun nnlnn anunul eIll wmmu ntenul O W, 1 uuum umwm uuwm ,n a eau tW IWnx I r" Ig11n 111E sSnuuu MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B -3 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY.OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 7/10/1995 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 4 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 4 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B -3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B -3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B -3 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B -3 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B -3 Tax Increment Financing District MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B-4 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/10/1995 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B -4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B -5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Originally Adopted by City Council: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B -5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction. Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A — Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B -5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B -5 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B -5 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B -5 Tax Increment Financing District n 11 Imaging J n Utt 1 . iO In 11 Ir11 - man Umin gun 1 arltllltli t1 up Horn t1 i N t alw wrt 1 /tla- oil 1 1 Ilti 1111 1 f 11lIIn111I 111 1 1 11"1111!1 1 to / IrmI ` .. gn1r1I a 11 1 It11t.' r11i I n It l OIa t t tllmlln 11 11f n nn 1 1 It 11 .i tO1n 11n111t u ° r units / 1 I 1°°,11np In IN lI d '1111111 iir%Iwtiilli Onnt °1 InIn /11" 1n1ii nv RII III Rnin' ' 1 IU 11 I1111O= m.,11u iiun0ei n"",Im Ili °nwtll Inll Af °jlt n tt ti ul i -i iiiliut Illusion tuilt im""uuli iim"In n ii1n 1 nail' 9 tOU iniilii iiuiiiu, iuinIn Iilinliill 1 1i' 11 in u , nn Ix mt 111 11 uulutnl 11 m norm mnnm Hum= :m uu! mil t r unEn n11 mm mnn n n n !mmu In u It 1 nnunr wow wuut mm nu r! t t t ,one 1 1 1 t1 1 n1 Il_ c 111 nlllnl r n I u1Wn11 aniu mt11t1 rlw tn1 1 1 t o 11 ill - aw a mi 1 nritii mill to i°u°ii °ti 11111 i iiiiiii °u ° i °in ' iiri °uu i i ° toil iii iiiim, w r pub, 1 t iti{tQlimniiiiu 1 1 i 1°un11 ".ini uenM' lt run u1 ° tll MI of q 21 ii iini °ii ininq 1 °g'i'm a till i! sHoul vemu nit wnl wnr wnnnm m° a nnu uumaultniteinimtitetnrn unit Inu'lulUt,°ru m°IIw ,11trum° i ml [lull ll, in rlml Wllr wn111 Uttllt Inittnl I ew en ,one 'N' w1 1 1 IIn11n1lnnItarnnntnin1tmlrnalumimHummmttut irk unit innn iliiuu eiiiu "iii °° inniii ni wn °"iii Iffln ilii Rtn °ui" in 1 °1i 111,11, iu iiiii°O i i lii"rcili'. e p tun ow,ll ur r 1•nu t ram t u , as t is, t 1. us 1 ' l t10 11 i1 w111 n IIM, n 1 1• .lueeu iO r t u11n All 1111 Itn1111111111 ri e n 4m t ml', to IIII 11 111 tO1 1111[/ nll) n U 141111 l "1 11111 t w e 1 1 n n nI 1 q IIIIn NI[Inu III long 1 11 11 il l wggt eu n ni tq/1 1 m uu m nuu 1 nunul nn again w 11111 I 1 teemtIlntmn,tlll , nUU Bit rill t r Ia11111 Hilt a milli Use innn I rsnut up° "nil t UIIIRP ° =11111 I iiniil niwii iiiio ° iinlin irii111111111110H.111111 mrnml itiiill l' tlr w a n $1 Ulu 1 u n u 1 umw inn wmu ,mow 11111 r 1 - auliulit it some 4198 _ still nun rain min 11 umtu em 111111 11 ttl pill, Innlln n111I 1 1 itl11re' t 1 I 111 11tpt 1 a tl ilgno Iluln 1 gO0 1 9giit {w a1ue. uumt nlnHnn itmm l mtwl unm! qu n t n . U 111 11111 a wilt n r r . Imun m Mail Ifill nano tau m r um1 rr i in a u• en'a ii i ram ,* nm1 uwwml umuum 11i n i r 1iimnrnnoust.° ..t un mm will... niw mllxnul l,n, Hl fill nni 1 It _ tt , u gr au i , wo nunn nom a uul- gt a unlHUw wullw I 1 !nuu r ui n net. mum Itlltl t =...• q nnnii t mm nni nn ne mm i 0111121 u uu u lw urwtlurrtt mum -- u1 tiro t = nunnn -tout- umun a moil nlettl. niw t nni a et t 1 1 1 { ml n un "n untt,.n 111111nI1 !ram rran' tupa n.Un. In wow tt urn 11 Ike n1 It tat 1 rlmttl t 1 t t Ultl imlie now 1n rill 11tneonmnnnlnna t n t i n t r w ue1 Ip unnr Hui r uemt! ailing,, t1in, iwi1rRtammtnmrnumiunow milt InuII 1 un uwm a m t w u rtlw u t t emw 1rnru e n s tl rqtlt m ill 1 ill t mtwl 1f t11n tl 11 /1tn qit li 11gm t t t 1 ,gym t rtu W Hilo l tIlunW r r a ..t. nn t al ..,., _ 9: a 3 -nun WI 1 t 1- q t it lellll Hue 1 It1tt — -- - - 11 dlwl in As 7 1p 11 11 11 Intii immtun Inl Rom aminml nla t 111 n a s trnt{ u rir luwuu nuuuuli H e w 11 11 U11111 li e nu i n Rt Yn nn ntm n to wunm nmrn? n m- , Hai u n uuu nnumu °,[al um am w gai auw i t ,n , ill , _n In 11 nttl ,lilt UUI IIIInti C a r f A n s tu luiu ''mue tuin uwuut uwuw i n I m I 111 /II Jilin I urn m t iuw nom p, w x nom now nuutuu nttli __ lu twml u mom w n ,w t, n 5Ili ulnt' 1' nln j // m nunn"!, nrntln itiw nn _ Q w tiz tai mono moon tuH w m uu = ni= / : lnnnmu mono nn m w u/ ti runupm nni nuu 1 u1 Ili ram 11 1. u m inm Hillniiw nn u 1Qhw1nuuuuuunumuuItmn, nulr t r t .r of fill m u nu raw n nHmH' 1w nn. IIIIII{ 1 sense w 1111111 1 °11 i U { , • ttl 1 I 1 Ix litl, I unt uuumul w 1 swell mea t _ Hilo! 1 Hilo! a ram Alll IN imal0 wall r allplun uR1 - tw nuuw t n nuu I to 1 !!lime! alt 1I III n_ III III t1 n t rata ° ^'• Ilnr tl 1 n Im - mi t n m/ai . u tm m mil maltmI nit ' l e i t 1 n rn m. 11111 1 it em _„ 1111 e im amine t uuw tt owl - t mmm I wwm , umtn uuenl 1211111tumiltmnnmHilo - o nnmil 11m,w1 n enH o yul 1 1111 mrw w t w um Hem_ a now nmuuu nwui I nuuH :Igluuwmn1tow . nano p mru nu nuunn wmu I fit uu u a• swings Iltllllltl Ilium In111 /11 Hillss Illnlll IIII,IIIII Illlllm, Billion rt11 A Itntltll Inmlln noun own- Iwll t In unm /11111111/ nunn 14111111 eI rInnow 111 nil Iwlnln Illllllnr m1q rnr mining Im 111[11 Olnti att1U1 Iatltn w yruitl- 11l 11 11 m Isom{ i IInn1 mnu 1 I= luwwn uiltn all limn! mural I signs nu tqt nii 1 utriiii n ooliiiii iniii1B n n iii! : = n 1111110111 °1i liu,i iiiiiiil nii! ' itlimilli ill t Im,uun m1 ln ii Innr rm !ss nmrn uu murm nHum it m r It ni unun It-Ill m uw m 11 B nom m t n l gggggggR u i ni °i1 Ir Ii Iii 1O1 r'Iii1i iii < w iiinfllw fill m. ii::ii1 °iii{i11i ii i utm"u 01g Ig soon" tilt !mnn t t0 • uuun 1 ntu uu u nnanl In nuuw - unuU ill • ° n 1111 I IIII II I al 1 U -C :mlln 11 IIHnU tllmIII 11 "moon - uuun 1111 IIIIIIIInnuwl ^111 •Intl w" tll 11U 1 a 711! Jill III mm 11111x1 Itll , IIIIn1111 unit Inn - ntt1111 llll11 IIInI11nt tlUllnm ittlntt moor uU 1 all r Illimltlntl lnl of = n1t1lq Illnwlll 11111Ml" Union F11111 up 1 anntl t ru n own 1 Il lllnl 1 I I 1 C t Ila "IllnU nI I mil MIT =1 eat U tntnl/ IrrIt In 1 unto • nuu tl lit mm UII =1UIm11 1 I lInitialvi1111111I11IItlr -- tt111n1 IIIm11 ill II 11 unit 1 nut• ° , emululRmlii u1 a mm won Iunn 1 nn _- _ nn uww raw n nme hur uum+vnnim wnrgll i 9tl nul Iwnnu I un1u, uwuuw tn1 s a mwu _ wlnn morn suuu mnn mnn, on It non I m =owl nmtmin "ttnlllnn n1111111n1 = - _ - in11 1' /IUtm Ittlull unnr mml mat "mmu nn n mil um n t 1 _ ` 1111111 nnu mil u nu u nt m m uuw! uuluuw uwww wmnn un =_ nil u1m wum =fie it „ N i mivrn m : - = "ruuw maw imtn Blight Assessment Report Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement Prepared by the Richfield Community Development Department For the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority October 17, 2005 1. Introduction Purpose of Report and Definition of Blight The purpose of this report is to analyze and report the, conditions of scattered sites where single family homes in Richfield are located and determine if these sites have conditions, which meet the following definition for "Blighted Area" according to the criteria defined in Chapter 469, Section 469.002, Subd. 11, of Minnesota Statues: Blight area" means any area with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other facts, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. 2. Methodology There are two elements to the assessment of blighting conditions. a. A housing inventory completed in October, 2004 which provides a detailed reporting of the age and condition of the existing single family housing stock. The title of the report is "Richfield's Housing Assets ". The following relevant sections of the report are attached: Existing Housing Stock Data Section Single Family Housing Stock Data Neighborhood Single Family Housing Stock Data HRA History and Accomplishments Richfield in Comparison b. Program maps of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority since 1990; housing rehabilitation and replacement programs. Each single family site represents an inspected and blighted location determined prior to the commitment of financial resources to the correction of field verified conditions. The following attached maps show the distribution of single family locations where conditions warranted substantial rehabilitation or housing replacement after site by site evaluation: 112 sites received substantial rehabilitation called "transformation "; more than $50,000 in -repairs and improvements each. 116 sites where buildings were in blighted condition such that existing buildings were removed and new homes built; the New Home and Richfield Rediscovered Programs. 3. Conclusions All future program properties are forecasted to exhibit three of nine criteria of blight that are listed in the statute: 1. Dilapidation: Deferred maintenance Disrepair Building system failure Code deficiency 2. Obsolescence Age Room arrangement Lack of desirability in the residential market place Below average value of home 3. Faulty arrangement or design Lack of bathroom and garage spaces Small lot size that limits expansion to make corrections and improve conditions Size of home limits livability and desirability. It is confirmed through Hennepin County Assessment records that: over 1,000 homes remain with values less than 85 percent of the community average assessed value of $204,000 in 2005. Further: A detailed inspection of each future program property on a scattered site basis would demonstrate similar conditions to those exhibited by program locations to date. The evidence of blighting conditions found on scattered site single family properties provides a strong basis for concluding that each = site that will receive program resources is a "blighted area" as defined in Minnesota Statute. H it1 C4 FAsdng Nousing Stock Data Existing Housing Stock List of Tables Page Overview 2 Section Highlights 3 Housing Inventory by Year of Construction 4 Housing Units by Structure Type - 1990 -2000 Census 5 Census Housing Vacancy 6 Census Housing Vacancy - Change from 1990 to 2000 7 New Housing Construction Activity 8 Median Gross Rent Median Home Value Estimates 9 10 Single Family Detached Houses by Sale Price 11 E 810fleld's Nousino Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 1 Existing Housing StoCk Data 10 Existing Housing Stock Overview This section provides general information about the existing housing stock in the City of Richfield. Later sections of this document provide more detail on specific components of the City's housing inventory, such as single family houses, rental housing, and housing stock by neighborhood. This section is intended to provide a City -wide, summary data. Much of the information used in this section has been taken from the U.S. Census. However, to update this information since 2000, other data sources have been used. These more recent sources include building permit issuance since 2000, a recent rental housing survey, conducted by the Richfield BRA, and residential sales data compiled by Hennepin County. 81chfield's Nousing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 2 Eidsting Housing Stock Data Existing Housing Stock Section Highlights The age of the occupied housing stock in Richfield reflects the City's rapid growth in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. According to the Census, over half of the City's owner occupied housing was built between 1950 and 1959. The biggest decade for rental housing construction was the 1960s, when more than 39% of the rental units were constructed, based on age data in the 2000 Census. Other data sources, such as the Hennepin County property tax database, show an even larger percentage of the City's rental housing constructed in the 1960s. By Hennepin County estimates, over 75% of the City's rental housing was constructed between 1960 and 1969. Between January 2000 and August 2004, the City issued building permits for the construction of 556 new housing units. Most of these units are in multifamily buildings, and are condominium units intended for owner occupancy: New unit construction activity since 2000 already exceeds production of new housing units in the 1990s, based on Census records. Starting in 1999, Richfield began to see the construction of.larger, multifamily housing projects. Generally condominiums, these projects were part of redevelopment efforts that often required the clearance of existing structures. For the five full years between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged 123 new units per year in multifamily structures. Due to limited availability of sites for single family construction, there has been very limited production of this housing type in recent decades. For the five year period between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged approximately 17 single family houses per year. This construction activity was also often tied to redevelopment efforts, that involved the removal of an existing house to facilitate new construction. The 2000 Census recorded very low vacancy rates in the City. Since that time, rental vacancy rates have increased, but there is no evidence that the low vacancy rate in owner - occupancy housing has changed. The HRH's 2004 rental survey indicates that rent levels have increased in recent years, despite an increasing level of vacancy. For 1 bedroom units, approximately 97% of all units had a gross rent between $500 and $750 in 2004. In 2000, approximately 77% of units were in this price range. For two bedroom units, the prevailing rental range in 2004 is between $750 and $1,000 per month, compared to a prevailing range between $500 and $750 per month in 2000. Based on the HRA's survey, nearly 89% of two bedroom units now have a gross rent of $750 or more. Strong demand for home ownership opportunities both within the,City and in the larger Twin Cities region has resulted in a consistent increase in home values. Analysis of a recent 12 month sales sample, indicates that the median home sale price was just under " 200,000. In the 2000 Census, the City's median home value was identified as $128,500. Using recent sales as the best indicator of true market value, a large majority of the City's single family housing is in a price range between $175,000 and $225,000. Only a small percentage of houses have a market value under $150,000 in 2004. Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 Eluting Bousing Stock Data _® Housing Inventory by Year of Construction Table 1 Richfield Occupied Housing Units by Year Built 1939 and Earlier 1940 - 1959 r960 -1979 1980 -1989 1990 -2000 2000 -2004* Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented 611 165 8,234 1311 790 3 031 396 350 143 42 556 0 Source: 2000 Census; U.S. Census Building Permit Data The tenure and occupancy status for units constructed since 2000 is not exactly known. This table assumes tenure based on the best available information. 2004 data is through August. The age of the occupied housing stock in Richfield reflects the City's rapid growth in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Over half of the City's owner occupied housing was built between 1950 and 1959. The biggest decade for rental housing construction was the 1960s, when more than 39% of the rental units were constructed. Hennepin County records show an even larger percentage of rental housing construction in the 1960s, as will be discussed in the Rental Housing section later in this document. Between 2000 and August 2004, the City issued building permits for the construction of 556 new housing units. Most of these units are in multifamily buildings, and are . condominium units intended for owner occupancy. New unit construction activity since 2000 already exceeds production of new housing units in the City in th6 1990s. 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Occupied Housing Units by Year Built - Richfield Pre -1940 1940 -1949 1950 -1959 1960 -1969 1970 - 1979 1980 -1989 1990 -2000 2000 -2004 k::y,1 Owner Occupied WE, Renter occupied HICM8111% Rousing Assets: Opportunity al EYely Door 4 Exlstlnj Rouslnq -Stock Data Housing Units by Structure Type -1990 -2000 Census The following table presents information from the 1990 and 2000 Census on occupied housing units in the City by structure type. Table 2 Richfield Occupied Housing Units By Number of Units in Structure Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 1990 Census 2000 Census Unit Change 1990 -2000 1990 Census 2000 Census Unit Change 1990 -2000 1 Unit Detached 9,837 9,589 248 407 345 62 1 Unit Attached 100 87 13 217 135 82 2 Units 40 62 22 145 123. 22 3 -4 Units 17 19 2 103 107 4 5+ Units 323 347 24 4,223 4,189 34 Mobile Home 43 70 27 13 0 13 Total 10,360 10,174 186 5,108 4,899 209 Source: U.S. Census Since Richfield is a `fully developed' community, there has been only limited change in the number of occupied units in the community. However, there was a slight reduction in number of households between 1990 and 2000. The largest numeric loss in occupied units was in the single family stock, both detached and attached units. According to the Census, there were more than 400 fewer occupied units in 2000 than existed in 1990. Mobile Home 5+ Unit 3.4 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit Attached I Unit Detached Occupied Housing Units - 1990 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1990 l_J 2000 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 5 E*stinp Houslq Stock Data im Census Housing Vacancy The 2000 Census provided information on the occupancy /vacancy status at the time the Census was taken. Table 3 Vacant Housing Units - 2000 Total Vacant Units Vacant For Rent Vacant For Sale Sold/Rented but Not Occupied Seasonal/ Occasional Use Other Vacant Richfield 284 121 39 27 34 63 Henn in Co. 12 695 4,250 1,474 1,573 2L491 2,907 Source; 2000 Census The Census reported that there were 121 vacant rental units in April 2000. The Census also reported 4,889 occupied rental units at that time for an approximate rental housing inventory of 5,010 rental units. The 121 vacant units represented a rental vacancy rate of 2.4 %. For all of Hennepin County, the rental vacancy rate was 2.7 %. The Census reported only 39 units that were vacant and for sale in 2000. This represented an approximate vacancy rate of 0.4 %. For all of_Hennepin County, the vacancy rate was 0.5%. Vacancy surveys completed since 2000 show that rental vacancy rates have increased since the Census was completed. However, strong demand for home ownership opportunities and a steady rise in home sale prices would indicate that the ownership vacancy rate has changed very little from the 2000 level. 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0 Vacant Housing Units - 2000 Vacant For Rent Vacant For Sale 0 Richfield Hennepin County [:] Minnesota Dichilell's Dousing Assets: Opportunity at Even Door 6 W3#gO Nousing Stock Data ig Census Housing Vacancy - Change from 1990 to 2000 The following table compares vacancy information from the 1990 and 2000 Census. Table 4 R chid Vacant Housing Units -1990 to 2000 Total Vacant Units Vacant For Rent Vacant For Sale Sold/Rented but Not Occupied Seasonal/ Occasional Use Other Vacant 2000 284 121 39 27 34 63 1990 543 1 333 1 96 1 49 1 14 1 51 Source: 2000 Census At the time of the 1990 Census, the City had 333 vacant rental units and 5,145 occupied rental units, for a total rental inventory of approximately 5,478 units. In 2000, the City had 4,899 occupied rental units and 121 vacant units, for a total inventory of 5,020. Between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census, it would appear that the City lost as many as 458 rental housing units. There may also have been a decrease in owner occupancy units between the 1990 and 2000 Census. In 1990 there were 10,502 owner occupancy housing units that were either occupied of vacant, compared to 10,223 in 2000, for a net loss of 279 units. 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Vacant Housing Units - 1990 -2000 For Rent For Salc Rcnted/Sold Vacant Seasonal Use Other Vacant U 2000 f; 1990 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Eery Door 1 El "q_Housin0 StockDate W New Housing Construction Activity Table 5 Housing Unit Construction Activity - 2000 to 2004* Housing Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* TOTAL Single Family 12 34 16 4 18 0 84 2 Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -4 Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5+ Unit 138 239 0 0 238 7 622 TOTAL 150 273 16 4 256 7 706 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Building Permits * 2004 is through August Starting in 1999, Richfield began to see the construction of larger, multifamily housing projects. Generally condominiums, these projects were often part of redevelopment efforts that required the clearance of existing structures. For the five full years between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged 123 new units per year in multifamily structures. Due to limited availability of sites for single family construction, there has been very limited production of new houses in-recent decades. For the five year period between 1999 and 2003, the City-averaged approximately 17 single family houses per year. This construction activity was also often tied to redevelopment efforts, that involved the removal of an existing house to facilitate new construction. Annual construction activity has varied greatly, from a high of 273 units in 2000, to a low of only 4 units in 2002. 250 200 150 100 50 0 Housing Unit Construction - 1999 -2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Single Family . Multifamily Richfield's Housing Aoaoto: Opportunity at NOW Door D Existing Housing Stock Data a Estimated Gross Rent - 2004 A 2004 rent survey conducted by the Richfield HRA collected information on current rental rates within the City. The following table compares this information with data from the 2000 Census. It is important to note that the -HRA'ssurvey had limited responses for some unit types. The 2000 Census used wide increments, of up to $250. To allow for comparison, the rent ranges used in the 2000 Census have been utilized in the following Table. Table 6 Gross Unit Rents - 2000 to 2004 Unit Size 2000 Census 2004 HRA Survey Under 500 500- 750 750- 999 1000+ Under 500 500- 750 750- 999 1000+ 0 Bedroom 27.0% 67.2% 4.1% 1.7% 9.1% 90.9% 0% 0% 1 Bedroom 15.9% 77.1% 5.1% 1.9% 0.05% 96.8% 3.0% 0.2% 2 Bedroom 4.8% 58.8% 29.1% 7.3% 0% 11.1% 68.1% 20.8% 3 bedroom 3.9% 1 14.6% 1 41.4% 1 40.1% 0% 0% 1 5.2% 94.8% Source: U.S. Census; Richfield HRA As would be expected, unit rents have continued to increase since 2000: The HRA's 2004 rental survey received the most responses from 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom rental units. For 1 bedroom units, approximately 97% of all units had a gross rent between 500 and $750 in 2004. In 2000, approximately 77% of units were in this price range. For two bedroom units, the prevailing rental range in 2004 is between $750 and $1,000 per month, compared to a prevailing range between $500 and $750 per month in 2000. Based on the HRA's survey, nearly 89% of two bedroom units now have a gross rent of 750 or more. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 Gross Unit Rents - 2004 Under $500 $500 -$750 $75041000 $1000+ One Bedroom Li Two Bedroom Hichileld's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 9 4 1 ngllouslns Stock Data Median Dome Value Estimates The 2000 Census provided information on home values. information from the Census has been compared to more recent data from home sales activity and from County estimated market values. Hennepin County continuallytracks and records residential sales as they occur. The 12 month sales period used in the following table is through April 2004. Sales reports used in some other sections of this document often reflect the State standardized 12 month sales period ending September 30, 2003. Table 7 Median . Owner - occupied Home'Valae Estimates - 2000 to 2004 2000 Census Median Value 2004 Estimated Market Value Median Price of Recent Sales 128,500 188,000 199,900 Source: U.S. Census; Hennepin County; Community Partners Research, Inc. The table above uses three different sources to estimate the median home value in Richfield. These different sources indicate a rapid increase in home values in recent years. The median sale price, for home sales between May 2003 and April 2004, probably provides the best indication of estimated value. At just under $200,000, this indicates an increase in value of nearly 56% since the 2000 Census. L;:J Median Home Value Richfield's Noosing Assets: OppottoultV at Every Door 10 Eldstinp_Housln Stoca DafO_® Single Family Detached Houses by Sale Price The following table looks at sales data from May 2003 to April 2004. The sales information is not limited to "good" sales that are fair market transactions. In an attempt to remove some of the sales that have occurred for less than fair market value, we have only examined sales for 100,000 or more. We have also limited the sales information to homesteaded single family detached houses. Please note that the 12 month sales period used for this table is different from the 12 month period used in the Comparison Section of this Study. able 8 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Median Sale Price - 2004 Sale Price Number of Sales Percent of Sales ss than $150,000 10 1.9% 50,000 - $174,999 37 7.1% 75,000 - $199,999 200,000 220 42.5% 224,999 170 32.8% 25,000 - $249,999 56 10.8% 250,000+ 25 4.8% Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Based on a 12 month sales sample, a large majority of Richfield's houses are valued between $175,000 and $225,000. Houses within this range accounted for more than 75% of recent sales. Only a small percentage of houses appear to remain in the price ranges below $150,000. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Sale Price Under $150,000 $150,000- $174,999 $175,000- $199,999 $200,000 - $224,999 $225,000- $249,999 $250,000+ Richfield's Rousing Assets. Opportunity at Every Door 11 ttOle c ayf f ti AK,I'il iEi (7 1 Sm r m a CA O C CWJ y t r F ayf f ti AK,I'il iEi (7 1 Sm r m a CA O C CWJ y ayf f ti AK,I'il iEi (7 1 Sm r m a CA O C CWJ Single Family Rousing Stock Data Single Family Housing List of Tables Page Single Family Housing Overview 2 Single Family Housing Section Highlights 3 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Structure Type - 2004 5 Single Family Detached Houses by Style - 2004 6 Single Family Detached Houses by Bedrooms - 2004 7 Single Family Detached Houses by Bathrooms - 2004 8 Single Family Detached Houses by Stories - 2004 9 Single Family Detached Houses by Livable Space 10 Single Family Detached Houses by Finished Basement Space 11 Houses by Estimated Market Value Per Square Foot 12 Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Market Value 13 Single Family Detached Houses by Actual Age 14 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective Age 15 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective and Actual Age 16 Single Family Detached Houses by Central Air Conditioning 17 Single Family Detached Houses by Garages 18 Single Family Detached Houses by Garage Parking 19 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Width 20 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Area 21 " Single Family Detached Houses by Overall Condition 22 IN Richfield's Rousing Assets: Opportuniiy at EueryDoor 1 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Housing Overview The section that follows provides detailed information on the City's stock of detached, single family housing. This information for this section has been obtained from the database maintained by Hennepin County for- - property tax assessment purposes. The database was current through the summer of 2004, although there may be a "data lag" for some properties, as the inspection schedule used by Hennepin County does not provide for an annual viewing of all houses within the City. However, a rotating inspection schedule does attempt to view each house at least once in a four year period, and building permits and other records are used to update property information between scheduled inspections. Other than the first table in this section, the following pages focus on a subset of all single family houses in the City, those which appear to be owner occupied. We have elected to use the homestead" tax classification as an indicator of owner - occupancy. We have also focused on detached houses in this section, and have not included other owner - occupancy unit types such as condominiums, townhomes, or other forms of attached single family housing. The City does have an increasing number of condominium units, but many of these have just been constructed, or are still under construction, and are not yet included in the Hennepin County database. This section contains specific references to house styles and terminology used by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office. A short definition of some of the commonly used terms include: Rambler - A rambler is by definition a one story house, generally built in a rectangular or L- shaped pattern. Often referred to as a ranch or California ranch, it has been a common house style since the mid 1930s, but reached its peak popularity in the 1950s and 1960s. Expansion Bungalow - Often referred to as a bungalow or craftsman bungalow, this style dates to the 1870s in the U.S., but is more commonly dated to the 1900s and forward. Most often constructed with a partial second story that has from one - quarter to three- quarters of the usable square footage of the main floor. Split Level and Split Entry - These house styles are an off -shoot of the ranch or rambler style, and are sometimes referred to as a raised ranch. These house styles attempt to provide added living space through use of the lower level. In existence since the mid 1930s, these styles are still popular today, but were very common in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Actual Age - The year the house was actually constructed. Effective Age - This is a somewhat subjective rating determined by the Hennepin County inspector. When significant improvements have been made to a house, the inspector must determine how these improvements have changed the effective age of the structure. For example, a house with an actual age in the 1950s, may have a large -scale kitchen remodeling done in the 1990s. This could potentially raise the effective age of the structure by 1 to 10 years..- - - Changes to effective age are dependent on the number and type of improvements completed, the quality of these improvements, the compatibility of the modifications with the remainder of the structure, functionality of the improvements and other similar factors. Houses that have had no significant improvements over time will generally have an effective age that is very similar to the actual, age of construction. Houses that have not been properly maintained may have an effective age that is older than actual age, in the view of the Assessor. M Rtcht W's Noosing Assets: Opportunitli at Ell ®N Door . 2 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Housing Section Highlights Single family detached houses represent the vast majority of owner occupied units in Richfield. Between 94% and 95% of owner - occupants live in a detached, single family type of housing unit, and between 5% and 6% live in an attached unit, such as a double bungalow, town house or condominium. In recent years, a number of new condominium projects have been constructed, or are under construction in the City. These newer units are generally not included in 2004 property tax data. Much of the City's detached single family housing was constructed in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and reflects the styles that were popular at that time. Nearly 93% of the houses in the City are identified as either a "rambler" or "expansion bungalow" style. Fewer than 4% are identified as "split level" or "split entry" houses. Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, nearly 82% had three or more bedrooms in 2004. Fewer than 1% of the houses had one or fewer bedrooms. Tables in this section showing bedroom count include bedrooms that may exist in basements or second stories of the house, provided they are legal bedrooms, with adequate egress. Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, over 41% had only one bathroom in 2004. Only 7% of houses had three or more bathrooms. This count includes all bathrooms, including basement bathrooms, and counts all bathrooms equally, whether it has fixtures that define it as a half -bath, three- quarter bath or a full bath. With the large number of ramblers and expansion bungalows in the City, the majority of homesteaded single family houses have only 1 or 1 '/a stories. Only 11% of the City's houses have 1 %2 or more stories above grade. With most houses having fewer than 1 '/2 stories, this translates into a limited amount of above -grade living space. Approximately two- thirds of all the homesteaded houses have less than 1,200 square feet of finished, above grade living space, and nearly 28% of all houses have less than 1,000 square feet above - grade. Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished. Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished, and more than 17% of houses have more than 50% of the basement finished. Over 70% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City have an estimated market value between $100 and $125 per square foot. However, 1.1% of the housing stock has a value per finished square foot that is less than $75. It would appear that these 105 houses are the lowest quality units in the City. In 2004, nearly 73% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City had a total estimated market value of $175,000 or more. Only 3.5% of the housing stock had a value of less than $150,000. Over 32% of houses were valued at $200,000 or more. 0 Rlchfleid's Rousing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 Single Family Rousing Stock Data 0 Effective age is a rather subjective term that characterizes changes to a house that effectively makes it older or newer than its actual date of construction. The large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. Although many of these houses have had good maiirtenance and repair work performed over the years, it does not appear that large -scale renovation or remodeling has been completed that would substantially improve the effective age of the home. Comparing effective age to actual age of construction, it is apparent that many houses have made some improvements and changes that have positively impacted the effective age of the structure. However, the improvement in effective age is generally limited to a few years. For example, over 4,000 houses that were built prior to 1960 have an effective age that is after 1960. Yet it appears that most of these have an effective age of less than 1970, and fewer than 50 of these houses have an effective age of 1980 or newer. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City had central air conditioning in 2004. Of the major house styles, expansion bungalows were the least likely to have central air, with nearly 21 % lacking this feature. Split entry houses were the most likely to have central air, with more than 95% having this feature in 2004. In recent years, a sound - proofing effort near the airport has resulted in a program that provides central air conditioning for houses on the eastern side of the City. The eastern neighborhoods have a heavy concentration of ramblers, which probably contributes to this style of house often having central air. The most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses had detached garage parking only. Approximately 33 % of all houses had some attached garage parking. Only 1.4% of houses had no garage on the property in 2004. Nearly 58% of the homesteaded houses in the City have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. However, nearly 3,500 single family homes have garage parking for only 1 vehicle. Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. There are 372 lots that are less than 50 feet in width. Approximately half of the homesteaded houses in the City have a total lot area between 7,500 sq. ft: and 9,999 sq. ft. Just over 26% of residential lots are 10,000 sq. ft. or more in area. There are 351 residential lots in the City that have less than 6,000 total sq. ft. The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on,a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. Over 68% of the homesteaded houses in the City were rated as being in "average' condition in 2004. Average condition is the middle rating on the 5 point scale. Overall, 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. IM RichHeld'S Rousing ASSOM 00OOrtunigl at EYery Door 4 Single Faulily Rousing Stock Data Owner Occupied Dousing Units by Structure Type o 2004 The Hennepin County property database provides detailed information on residential structures with 1 to 3 units. The following table presents information on all such units by structure type and property tax status in 2004. After -this table, this section will focus on owner occupied homesteaded) units only. Table 1 Richfield Housing Units by Structure Type and Homestead status Structure Type Homestead Status Non - Homestead Total Units Single Family Detached 9,477 333 9,780 Half Double Bungalow 8 3 11 Double Bungalow Unit 76 76 152 Townhouse 19 0 19 Condominium 456 15 471 Total 1 10,006 427 1 -10,433 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Homestead status will generally indicate that the owner of the unit is the occupant, and non - homestead status will often indicate that a unit is renter occupied, or vacant for "the specific tax year. Most of the 1 to 3 unit structures in Richfield would appear to be owner occupied in 2004. Single family detached houses represent the vast majority of owner occupied units. Between 94% and 95% of owner - occupancy housing options are in this type of housing unit, with between 5% and 6% in an attached unit. Richfield Units by Structure Type Condominium Townhouse Double Bungalow Unit Half Double Bungalow Single Family Detached 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 Non - Homesteaded El Homesteaded Richfield's NouSing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 5 Single FaniilY Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Douses by Style - 2004 With single family detached houses representing over 94% of the ownership opportunities in the City in 2004, the following tables provide greater detail on this segment of the housing stock. Table 2 Richfield Detached Single Family douses by Style House Style Total Units Percent of Units Rambler 5,497 58.2% Expansion Bungalow 3,238 34.3% Split Level 211 2.2% Split Entry 122 1.3% Colonial 78 0.8% Other 301 3.2% Total 9,447 100% Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Much of the City's detached single family housing was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, and.reflects the styles that were popular at that time. Nearly 93% of the houses in the City are identified as either a "rambler" or "expansion bungalow" style. Fewer than 4% are identified as "split level" or "split entry" houses. The "other" designation represents a number of different house styles, including colonial, contemporary, cape cod and other miscellaneous styles. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Style Other Colonial Split Entry Split Level Expansion Bungalow Rambler 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 Homesteaded Single Family Houses M SIch ON'S HouSing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 6 . Single Family Housing Stock Data iq Single Family Detached Houses by Bedrooms o 2004 The following table looks at total bathroom count for homesteaded, single family detached houses in the City in 2004. Table 3 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Bedrooms House Style 0 Bedroom I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Rambler 0 52 1,293 2,742 1,410 Expansion Bungalow 1 8 335 1,925 969 Split Level 0 0 8 122 81 Split Entry 1 0 9 52 60 Colonial 1 0 2 23 52 Other 0 1 16 99 185 Total 3 61 1,663 4,963 2,757 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The table above counts all bedrooms in the house, including basement bedrooms. Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, nearly 82% had three or more bedrooms in 2004. Fewer than 1 % of the houses had one or fewer bedrooms.. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Total Bedrooms No bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 or more bedrooms 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 E Homesteaded Single Family Houses Richffeld's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 7 Single Family HoUgly Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Bathrooms a 2004 The following table looks at total bathroom count for homesteaded, single family detached houses in the City in 2004. All bathrooms are counted, including those in the basement. This table counts all bathrooms equally, although some may only be half baths, three- quarters baths or master baths accessible through a bedroom. Table 4 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Bathrooms House Style 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 3 or more Bathrooms Rambler 2,373 2,934. 190 Expansion Bungalow 1,461 1,523 254 Split Level 12 163 36 Split Entry 11 93 18 Colonial 1 30 47 Other 36 148 117 Total 3,894 4 891 662 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, over 41% had only one bathroom in 2004. Only 7% of houses had three or more bathrooms. This table includes all bathrooms, including basement bathrooms, and counts a half -bath as equal to a full bath. 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Total Bathrooms 3 or more bathrooms 2 bathrooms 1 bathroom -- Homesteaded Single Family Houses Richfield's Housing Assets: mppoatunitY at Every Door 8 Single F811111y Housing Stod Data Single Family Detached Houses by Stories a 2004 The following table looks at the number of stories above - grade. Split entry and split level houses have not been included in this table. Certain house styles, by definition, have a set number of stories. For example, a.rambler has a single story above - grade. One story houses styles have been included to better define the limitations that exist for above -grade square footage within the existing single family stock. Table 5 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Stories House Style 1 Story 1.25 Stories 1.5 Stories 1.75 Stories 2 or more Stories Rambler 5,497 0 0 0 0 Expansion Bungalow 2 2,525 640 67 4 Colonial 0 0 0 0 78 Other 13 9 29 21 229 Total 5,512 2,534 669 88 311 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. With the large number of ramblers and expansion bungalows in the City, the majority of homesteaded single family houses'have only one or one and a quarter stories. Only 11% of the City's houses have 1.5 or more stories above grade. 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Stories 2 or More Stories 1.75 Stories 1.5 Stories 1.25 Stories 1 Story Homesteaded Single Family Houses Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 9 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Mouses by Livable Space The following table looks at the above -grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. This would include livable square footage on second or third stories, but would not include any basement space, even if this below -grade area is finished. Table 6 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Livable Square Feet House Style Under 800 800 -999 1,000 -1,199 1,200 -1,399 1,400+ Rambler 371 1,632 2,153 936 405 Expansion Bungalow 18 578 1,326 740 576 All Other 7 19 150 147 382 IL Total 396 2,229 3,629 1,823 1,363 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. With the substantial number of ramblers and expansion bungalows in the City, the large majority of homesteaded single family houses have only one or one and a quarter stories. This translates into a limited amount of above -grade living space for most houses. Approximately two- thirds of all the homesteaded houses have less than 1,200 square feet of finished, above grade living space, and nearly 28% of all.houses have less than 1,000 square feet above - grade. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Living Space 1,400 or more feet 1,200 to 1,399 feet 1,000 to 1,199 feet 800 to 999 feet Less than 800 feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 l Ramblers Expansion Bungalows 0 All Other 111c6neld's Housing Assets: OpporiunitV at EVerp Door 10 Single MIN (lousing Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Finished Basement Space The preceding table looked at above -grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. The following table looks at the percentage of basement square footage that is finished space. Hennepin County records this information on a percentage basis only. Table 7 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Finished Basement Space House Style No Finished Space 1% to 30% Finished 31% to 50% Finished More than 50% Finished Rambler 718 802 2,881 1,096 Expansion Bungalow 660 618 1,628 332 All Other 120 150 246 196 Total 1,498 1,570 4,755 1,624 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished. Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished, and more than 17% have more than 50% of the basement finished.. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Finished Basements More than 50% 30% to 50% 1% to 30% No Finished Space 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Ramblers Expansion Bungalows All Other Richfield's N ®using Assets: Opportmit>t at Every Door 11 ng1e Faln11Y Nousln9 Stock Data Houses by Estimated Market Value Per Square Foot While total livable space is an important indicator of the desirability and function of a house, the quality of finished living space can vary greatly. The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for structures -only, divided by the livable, above grade square footage in the house. It is possible that contributory structures, such as a highly valued garage, can skew this calculation, but for most houses, the value per square foot is an indicator of overall quality, condition, and market desirability of the house. Table 8 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Value per Square Foot House Style Under $50 50 -$75 75 -$100 100 -$125 125+ Rambler 1 21 701 4,256 518 Expansion Bungalow 2 31 1,027 2,124 54 All Other 3 47 251 252 159 Total 6 99 1,979 J 6,632 731 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Over 70% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City have an estimated market value between $100 and $125 per square foot. However, 1.1% of the housing stock has a value per finished square foot that is less than $75. It would appear that these 105 houses are the lowest quality units in the City. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Value per Square Foot 125+ loo -$125 75 -$100 50-$75 Less than $50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Ramblers Expansion Bungalows E] All Other RIc1111e111's Noaslug Assets: Opportunity at EupR Door 12 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Total Estimated Market Value The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for the entire tax parcel, including both land and improvements. Estimated Market Value will generally lag behind current market value because annual sales are analyzed and than used to make adjustments. However, collecting, analyzing and applying the sales data results in a delay between sales activity and a reflection of this activity in the County's valuation of similar style houses. Table 9 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Total Value House Style 100,000- 124,999 125,000- 149,999 150,000- 174,999 175,000- 199,999 200,000+ Rambler 18 244 1,536 2,144 1,555 Expansion Bungalow 3 49 679 1,542 965 All Other 0 12 26 124 550 Total 21 305 2,241 3,810 3,070 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. In 2004, nearly 73 % of the homesteaded single family houses in the .City had a total estimated market value of $175,000 or more. Only 3.5% of the housing stock had a value of less than $150,000. Over 32% of houses were valued at $200,000 or more. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Value 200,000+ 175,000- $199,000 150,000- $174,999 125,000- $149,999 Less than $125,000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000. Ramblers Expansion Bungalows All Other Dichlieid's Rousing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 13 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Douses by Actual Age The Hennepin County database includes the "actual age ", or year of construction, for each house in the City. The following table provides a summary of actual age within 10 year increments. Table 10 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Actual Age House Style 1990 -2004 1980 -1989 1970 -1979 1960 -1969 Pre -1960 Rambler 26 7 51 270 5,143 Expansion Bungalow 3 0 4 37 3,194 Split Level 16 8 6 39 142 Split Entry 26 12 42 38 4 Colonial 18 1 6 15 38 Other 39 3 3 18 238 Total 128 31 112 417 8,759 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. According to Hennepin County's records, the large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an actual age of 1959 or earlier. Based on this source, nearly 93% of all houses were constructed prior to 1960. P. Less than 2% of the City's single family stock has an actual age of 1980 or newer. 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Actual Age Pre -1960 1960 -1969 1970 -1979 1980 -1989 1990 -2004 Homesteaded Single Family Houses MONIES Nousing Assts: Opportunity at EVOW Door 14 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Effective Age The Hennepin County database includes an estimate of "effective age" for each house in the City, which reflects renovation and improvement activity completed since the date of construction. The following table provides a summary of effective age ratings within 10 year increments.' Effective age is--w subjective rating, and is determined by the inspector. Table 11 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Effective Age House Style 1990 -2004 1980 -1989 1970 -1979 1960 -1969 Pre -1960 Rambler 27 38 458 2,378 2,596 Expansion Bungalow 5 14 182 1,110 1,927 Split Level 16 13 44 92 46 Split Entry 27 23 48 22 2 Colonial 18 6 22 17 15 Other 39 18 53 83 108 Total 132 112 807 3,702 4,694 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. Although many of these houses have had good maintenance and repair work performed over the years, it does not appear that large -scale renovation or remodeling has been completed that would substantially improve the effective age of the home. 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Effective Age Pre -1960 1960 -1969 1970 -1979 1980 -1989 1990 -2004 Homcsteaded Single Family Houses RichRold's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 15 Single family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached. Houses by Effective and Actual Age The previous page looked at the effective age for each homesteaded single family detached house in the City. The following table compares actual age to effective age. Table 12 Richfield, Detached Single Family Houses by Effective and Actual Age Detached Houses 1990 -2004 1980 -1989 1970 -1979 1960 -1969 Pre -1960 Effective Age 132 112 807 3,702 4,694 Actual Age 128 31 112 417 8,759 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Comparing effective age to actual age of construction, it is apparent that many houses have made some improvements and changes that have positively impacted the effective age of the structure. However, this impact is limited. For example, over 4,000 houses that were built prior to 1960 have an effective age that is after 1960. Yet it appears that most of these have an effective age of less than 1970, and fewer than 50 of these houses have an effective age of 1980 or newer. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Actual and Effective Age 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Pre -1960 1960 -1969 1970 -1979 1980 -1989 1990 -2004 Effective Age Actual Age 11 Richfield's Nousing Assets: OPPOrWnity at EVery Deer 16 Single Famliv Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Central Air Conditioning The following table looks at the number of houses with central air conditioning systems. This has been provided by detailed house style. Table 13 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Central Air Conditioning House Style With Central Air Without Central Air Rambler 4,744 753 Expansion Bungalow 2,564 674 Split Level 195 16 Split Entry 116 6 Colonial 66 12 Other 247 54 Total 7,932 1,515 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City had central air conditioning in 2004. Of the major house styles, expansion bungalows were the least likely to have central air, with nearly 21% lacking this feature. Split entry houses were the most likely to have central air, with more than 95% have this feature in 2004. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Central Air Other Colonial Split Entry Split Level Expansion Bungalow Rambler 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0] Without Central Air U With Central Air 0 Richlleld'S HouSing ASSOM Opportunhy at Every Door 17 Single Femliy dousing Stock Dote Single Family Detached Houses by Garages The following table looks at the number of houses with either attached garages, detached garages, or both. This table does not identify the car parking capacity of garages, but only the presence of a garage on the property..__ Table 14 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Garages House Style Attached Garage Only Detached Garage Only Both Attached and Detached No Garage Rambler 1,778 3,571 73 75 Expansion Bungalow 825 2,317 50 46 Other 421 272 11 8 Total 3,024 6,160 134 129 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses had detached garage parking only. Just over 33% of all houses had some attached garage parking. Only 1.4% of houses had no garage on the property in 2004. 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Type of Garage Attached Garage Detached Garage Both Attached and Detached No Garage Homesteaded Single Family Houses Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunitj at Evers Door 18 Single Faknily Housing Stock Data Single Fancily Detached Houses by Garage Capacity The following table looks at the number of garage parking spaces for each detached single family house. This table counts all available covered parking spaces in either attached garages, detached garages, or a combination.of_b.oth. Table 15 Richfleld Detached Single Family Houses by Garage Parking Capacity House Style Parking for 1 Car Parking for 2 Cars Parking for 3 or More Cars No Garage Rambler 2,061 3,183 178 75 Expansion Bungalow 1,279 1,791 122 46 Other 155 504 45 8 Total 3,495 5,478 345 129 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Nearly 58% of the homesteaded houses in the City have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. However, nearly 3,500 single family homes have garage parking for only 1 vehicle. Only 1.4% of houses have no garage on the property. 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Garage Parking 1 Car 2 Cars 3+ Cars No Garage Rambler Expansion Bungalow Other 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 19 Single Famlly_Rousin Stock Date Single Family Detached Blouses by Lot Width The following table looks at the frontage of lots for each detached single family house. The table on the next page looks at total lot area. Table 16 Richfield Detached Single Family. Houses by Lot Width House Style Less than 50' Frontage 50' to 59' Frontage 60' to 74' Frontage 75' or More Rambler 197 1,061 1,825 2,414 Expansion Bungalow 135 857 789 1,457 Other 40 204 267 201 Total 372 2,122 201 4,072 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. There are only 372 lots that are less than 50 feet in width. Although in compliance with current codes, there are 2,494 lots in the City with a frontage width between 50 feet and 59 feet in width. 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Lot Frontage Less than 50' 50' to 59' 60' to 74' 75' or more Other Expansion Bungalow Rambler Richileld's Nousing Assets:Opporamity of Ever11 Door . 20 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Area The following table looks at the total square feet of lot area for each detached single family house. Table 17 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Lot Area House Style Less than 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 to 7,499 sq. ft. 7,500 to 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 or More sq. ft. Rambler 191 898 3,068 1,340 Expansion Bungalow 126 805 1,332 975 Other 34 191 323 164 Total 351 1,894 4,723 2,479 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Approximately half of the homesteaded houses in the City have a total lot area between 7,500 sq. ft. and 9,999 sq. ft. Just over 26% of residential lots are 10,000 sq. ft. or more in area. There are 351 residential lots in the City that have less than 6,000 total sq. ft. 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Lot Area Less than 6,000 sq.ft. 6,000 to 7,499 sq.ft. 7,500 to 9,999 sq.ft. 10,000+ sq.ft. Other Expansion Bungalow I ., r Rambler 0 BROWN'S Noosing ASSets: MOWN 81 Every 160Y 21 Single Family Housing Stock Data Single Family Detached Rouses by Overall Condition The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. The following table provides this condition rating for each-detached single family house. Table 18 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Overall Condition House Style Excellent Condition Good Condition Average Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Rambler 11 1,688 3,748 46 3 Expansion Bungalow 1 795 2,401 36 3 Other 23 356 313 10 0 Total 45 2,839 6,462 92 6 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Over 68% of the homesteaded houses in the City were rated as being in "average" condition, the middle rating, in 2004. Overall, 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. P. Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. Only 4 of the 45 houses rated as being "excellent" were actually constructed prior to 1990 and only one of these houses was constructed prior to 1980. Rich. field's Single Family Houses by Overall Condition 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Excellent Good Average Fair Poor Other Expansion Bungalow ^ Rambler Riclfield's BouslnD Assets: Opportunity at EVOM Door 22 awn r slim CD Neighborhood Single Family Housing Stock Data 0 Neighborhood Single Family Housing List of Tables Page Overview 2 Section Highlights 3 Single Family Houses by Homestead Tax Status 6 Single Family Detached Houses by Style - 2004 7 Single Family Detached Houses by Bedrooms -2004 8 Single Family Detached Houses by Bathrooms - 2004 9 Single Family Detached Houses by Stories - 2004 10 Single Family Detached Houses by Livable Space 11 Single Family Detached Houses by Finished Basement Space 12 Houses by Estimated Market Value Per Square Foot 13 Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Market Value 14 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective Age 15 Single Family Detached Houses by Actual Age 16 Single Family Detached Houses by Central Air Conditioning 17 Single Family Detached Houses by Garages 18 Single Family Detached Houses by Garage Parking Capacity 19 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot. Width 20 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Area 21 Single Family Detached Houses by Overall Condition 22 - Single Family Detached Houses by Sale Price 23 M Richlield's Housing Assets: Opportunitll at Every Door 1 Meighborbood Single Family Housing Stock Data H Neighborhood Single Family Housing Overview The preceding section provided detailed information on the City's detached, single family housing stock that is owner - occupied. This section provides additional information for three defined neighborhoods in the, City. These neighborhoods, .defined as "East ", "Central "' and West" Richfield, roughly divide the City into thirds along major transportation corridors. East Richfield includes all of the City that lies east of Portland Avenue. Central Richfield includes the area that is west of Portland Avenue and East of Interstate 35 -W. West Richfield is the area of the City that is west of Interstate 35 -W. The boundaries for these three neighborhoods are very similar to the three designated wards within Richfield. The only exception is a portion of Precinct 8 in Ward 3, which lies to the west of Portland Avenue, and south of 74' Street. This area, which covers approximately 10 to 12 City blocks, is part of Central Richfield for this analysis, while the remainder of Ward 3 is included in the East Richfield neighborhood. All of the information used in this section has been taken from the database maintained by Hennepin County for property tax assessment purposes. The database was current through the summer of 2004, although there may be a "data lag" for some properties, as the viewing schedule used by Hennepin County does. not provide for an annual inspection of all houses within the City. However, a rotating inspection schedule does attempt to view each house at least once in a four year period, and building permits and other records are used to provide as much information as possible between scheduled viewings. Hennepin County uses the neighborhood designations only for detached single family houses, as a way to track sales patterns. As a result, this section only provides neighborhood -level data for single family detached houses. There is no similar information on multifamily units, such as apartments, or attached single family housing, such as double bungalows, townhouses and condominiums. EN MONO ROOM Assets: Opportt nHV at Every Door 2 Neighborhood Single Family Rousing Stock Data Neighborhood Single Family Rousing Section Highlights The three neighborhoods are very similar in terms of single family housing stock. Each neighborhood has between 30% and 37% of the City -wide total for homesteaded houses, and between 32% and-35% ofnon- homesteaded single family homes. The highlights that follow focus on the homesteaded detached single family houses. While the neighborhoods are relatively similar for housing unit counts, there is greater variation in the style of construction, which probably reflects the years that most development occurred within each neighborhood. In the East, ramblers represent over 73% of all houses, while this style represents approximately 62% of houses in the West. In Central Richfield, expansion bungalows are the most common style, representing over 50% of this neighborhood's houses. The Central neighborhood has nearly 54% of all the expansion bungalows City-wide. The neighborhoods remain relatively even on the availability of bedrooms in the existing stock. For example, East Richfield has 30.4% of all houses in the City, and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. Central Richfield has 36.7% of all houses, and 36.6% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. West Richfield has 32.9% of all houses, and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. It does not appear that house style has a significant impact on bedroom availability, as the Central neighborhood, which has a majority of expansion bungalows, has similar bedroom distribution patterns to East and West Richfield, which have higher percentages of ramblers. As with bedroom mix, the number of bathrooms per house was relatively consistent across the 3 neighborhoods. The only notable exception was the relatively small number of houses in East Richfield that had 3 or more bathrooms. Only 20.5% of houses with 3 or more bathrooms were in the East neighborhood, although 30.4% of all the City's houses are in this neighborhood. City -wide, over 41% of houses had only one bathroom in 2004. Only 7% of houses had three or more bathrooms. The variation in house styles between neighborhoods does result in differences in the number of stories above - grade. The East and West neighborhoods have a large number of ramblers, which, by style definition, have only 1 story. The Central neighborhood has a majority of the City's expansion bungalows, which typically have one and a quarter stories or more. City -wide, only 11% of the City's houses have 1.5 or more stories above grade. In general, expansion bungalows have the potential for more finished living space since they will often have a partial second story, compared to ramblers which have only one story above - grade. Central Richfield, which has the greatest number of expansion - - bungalows, has over 40% of the houses City -wide with more than 1,200 square feet of living space above - grade. East Richfield, which has the highest number of ramblers, has the smallest percentage of houses with more than 1,200 square feet of living space. Richfield's Nousing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 Neighborhood Single Family Noosing Stock Date IM Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished, Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished, and more than 17% have more than 50% of the basement finished. There are no large differences-between neighborhoods in the use of basements as finished living space. It appears that age of construction and house style may have a slight impact on value per square foot. East Richfield, which has the highest proportion of post -1950 built houses and the largest number of ramblers, has 34% of the houses with a value of $100 or more per square foot. However, it is also possible that this statistic is somewhat misleading, since it is based on a valuation for all above -grade square footage in the house, including second stories, where they exist. It is possible that the average value per square foot is slightly lower in expansion bungalow houses, since the upper floor square footage is viewed as less valuable space, when compared to main level square footage. When looking at total estimated market value for houses, there are some differences between neighborhoods. East Richfield has the smallest distribution of higher valued homes, $200,000 or more, despite the fact that the value per finished square foot is generally above average. This is due to the fact that this neighborhood also tends to have houses with less square footage than other neighborhoods, which limits the total value of the structure. The highest concentrations of lower valued homes, under $150,000 are in East and Central Richfield. There are some differences in the effective age of the housing in Richfield's neighborhoods, which probably reflects the development pattern of the City in the 1950s and 1960s. Central Richfield has nearly 42% of the City's housing with an effective age prior to 1960, although Central Richfield has less than 37% of all houses. East Richfield has nearly 37% of the City's houses with an effective age of 1970 or newer, while this neighborhood has just over 30% of the City's total houses. City -wide, the large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. The actual age of construction patterns show the development of the City during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. As mentioned previously, the timing of development in each neighborhood has had some impact on the style of units that exist. Central Richfield has the largest number of pre -1950 houses and over half of the houses in this neighborhood are expansion bungalow style. East Richfield has the largest number of houses built after 1950 and approximately 73% of the houses in this neighborhood are ramblers. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City have central air conditioning in 2004. City -wide, expansion bungalows are the least likely to have central air among the prevalent house styles, with nearly 21% lacking this feature. With the largest _ concentrations of expansion bungalows in Central and West Richfield, these neighborhoods have a larger number of houses without central air. These two neighborhoods also have a higher percentage of older houses, built prior to 1940. East Richfield has benefitted from airport noise reduction programs that have provided central air conditioning to many houses on the eastern edge of the community. M Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 4 Neighborhood Single famHV Housing Stock Data IN The distribution of garages by type is relatively consistent between the neighborhoods. City -wide, the most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses in Richfield have detached garage parking only. By neighborhood, 66.9% of the houses in East Richfield, 64.8% of houses in Central Richfield, and 64.1 % of houses in West Richfield have detached parking only. City -wide, only 1.4% of houses have no garage on the property in 2004. There are no major differences in the number of covered parking spaces by neighborhood, but some minor differences do exist. West Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with only 1 garage stall, East Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 2 garage stalls, and Central Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 3 or more garage stalls available. City -wide, 58% of the homesteaded houses have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. City -wide, only 372 homesteaded houses have a lot frontage of less than 50 feet. Most of these lots are in the Central and West neighborhoods. City -wide, over 43% of lots are 75 or more feet in width. Lot sizes do show some variation between neighborhoods, and probably reflect the City standards that were in place when most of the construction occurred. In East Richfield, for example, nearly 70% of the residential lots are between 7,500 and 9,999 Square feet in size, and very few lots are smaller than 7,500 square feet. In contrast, over 31% of the lots in Central Richfield are less than 7,500 square feet in size. City -wide, there are 351 residential lots that have less than 6,000 total sq. ft. Most of these lots are in Central and West Richfield. The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. Overall, house condition ratings were very similar between the three neighborhoods. The percentage of houses rated as "good" was slightly higher in the East and West neighborhoods than in the Central Neighborhood, but the percentage difference was small. City -wide, 68% of the homesteaded houses were rated as being in "average" condition, the middle rating, in 2004, and 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. Despite some differences in the median home value for property tax purposes, the sample of recent house sales shows remarkably similar home values between the three neighborhoods. The difference in the median sale price was less than 1 %. 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 5 M ®I hborhood SIlaD1e mlBy Nousln Stoc Date._ Single Family Douses by Homestead Tax Status The Hennepin County property database provides detailed information on single family residential structures within defined neighborhoods in the City. Multiple neighborhoods have been combined to form three-larger Neighborhoods that are very similar to the 3 political wards in Richfield. The following table presents information on all units by property tax status in 2004. Subsequent Tables will focus on the homesteaded, or owner occupied houses only. Table 1 Richfield Single Family Houses by Neighborhood and Homestead status Neighborhood Number Percent of all Houses in City Homestead Non - Homestead Homestead Non - Homestead East 2,874 107 30.4% 32.1% Central 3,464 116 36.7% 34.8% West 3,109 110 32.9% 33.0% Total 9,447 333 100% 100% Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The three neighborhoods are very similar in terms of single family housing stock: Each neighborhood has between 30% and 37% of the City -wide total for homesteaded houses,- and between 32% and 35% of non - homesteaded single family homes. For Homesteaded single family houses only, the Central Richfield neighborhood is the largest, with 3,464 homes, and East Richfield is the smallest, with 2,874 homes. Richfield Houses by Neighborhood West Richfield Central Richfield East Richfield 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 LEI Non - Homesteaded D Homesteaded Richfield's Housing Assets; Opportunity at Every Door 6 Neighborhood Singl ®1 qlqllyHousing Stock OM Single Family Detached Houses by Style ® 2004 With single family detached houses representing over 94% of the ownership opportunities in the City in 2004, the following tables provide greater detail on this segment of the housing stock. Table 2 Richfield Homesteaded Detached Single Family Houses by Style House Style East Central West Total Units Rambler 2,106 1,468 1,923 5,497 Expansion Bungalow 591 1,739 908 3,238 Split Level 85 43 83 211 Split Entry 23 46 53 122 Colonial 11 37 30 78 Other 58 131 112 301 Total 2,874 3,464 3,109 9,447 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. While the neighborhoods are relatively similar for housing unit counts, there is greater variation in. the style of construction, which probably reflects the patterns of development. In the East, ramblers represent over 73% of all houses, while this style represents approximately 62% of houses in the West. In Central Richfield, expansion bungalows are the most common style, representing over 50% of this neighborhood's houses. The Central neighborhood has nearly 54% of all the expansion bungalows in the City. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Style Rambler Expansion Bungalow Other Styles E] Vest. 0 Central [] East 0 Richfield's Rousing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door l E=--- NelAhbor qq Ringle FamilyHousing StpCk Oats 0 Single Family Detached Houses by Bedrooms The table below counts all bedrooms in the house, including basement bedrooms. Table 3 Richfield Detached Single Fancily Houses by Bedrooms House Style 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom East 2 19 405 1,504 944 Central 1 25 616 1,843 979 West 0 17 642 1,616 834 Total 3 61 1,663 4P963 2,757 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The neighborhoods remain relatively even on the availability of bedrooms in the existing stock. For example, East Richfield has 30.4% of all houses in the City and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. Central Richfield has 36.7% of all houses, and 36.6% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. West Richfield has 32.9% of all houses and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. It does not appear that house style has a significant impact on bedroom availability, as the Central neighborhood, which has a majority of expansion bungalows, has similar bedroom distribution patterns to East and West Richfield, which have higher percentages of ramblers. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Bedrooms 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom West M Central L Y East Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity of Eery Door 8 N ®6ghborhood Single Fs mll Ilor sing, 46-0 Date Single Family Detached Houses by Bathrooms The following table looks at total bathroom count for homesteaded, single family detached houses in the City in 2004. All bathrooms are counted, including those in the basement. This table also counts all bathrooms equally, although some may only be half baths, three- quarters baths or master baths only accessible through a bedroom. Table 4 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Bathrooms House Style 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 3 or more Bathrooms East 1,159 1,579 136 Central 1,425 1,748 291 West 1,310 1,564 235 Total 3,894 4,891 662 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. As with bedroom mix, the number of bathrooms per house was relatively consistent across the 3 neighborhoods. The only notable exception was the relatively small number of houses in East Richfield that had 3 or more bathrooms. Only 20.5% of houses with 3 or more bathrooms were in the East neighborhood, although 30.4% of all the City's houses are in this neighborhood. City -wide, only 7 "/o of houses had three or more bathrooms. City -wide, over 41% of houses had only one bathroom in 2004. 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Total Bathrooms 3 or more bathrooms 2 bathrooms 1 bathroom East W Central El West 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 9 0 ReighbgMR Stngi ®FaroiYy Noasing Stock Data_ I. Single Family Detached Rouses by Stories -'2004 The following table looks at the number of building stories above - grade. Split entry and split level houses have not been included in this table. Certain house styles, by definition, have a set number of stories. For example, a fambler has a single story above - grade. One story houses styles have been included to better define the limitations that exist for above -grade square footage within the existing single family stock. Table 5 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Stories House Style 1 Story 1.25 Stories 1.5 Stories 1.75 Stories 2 or more Stories East 2,106 476 115 10 59 Central 1,474 1,367 346 50 139 West 1,932 691 208 28 114 Total 5,512 2,534 669 88 312 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The variation in house styles between neighborhoods does result in differences in the number of stories above - grade. The East and West neighborhoods have a large number of ramblers, which have only 1 story. The Central neighborhood has a majority of the City's expansion bungalows, which typically have one and a quarter stories or more. P. City-wide, only 11 % of the City's houses have 1.5 or more stories above grade. 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Richfield's Single Family Douses by Stories 1 Story 1.25 Stories 1.5 or more Stories 9 East ;' Central F7] West 0 Richfieid'S Noaslrop ASSOM Opportunity of Everk Door NO z NetOhborhood Stngl ®Fam11y Hoasing Stock.Data Single Family Detached Houses by Livable Space The following table looks at the above -grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. This would include livable square footage on second or third stories, but would not include any basement space even if this below -grade area is finished. Table 6 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Livable Square Feet House Style Under 800 800 -999 1,000 -1,199 1,200 -1,399 1,400+ East 91 734 1,228 533 288 Central 135 721 1,322 691 595 West 170 781 1,079 599 480 Total 396 2,236 3,629 1,823 1,363 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. In general, expansion bungalows have the potential for more finished living space since they will often have a partial second story, compared to ramblers which have only one story above - grade. Central Richfield, which has the greatest number of expansion bungalows, has over 40% of the houses City -wide with more than 1,200 square feet of Hying space above - grade. East Richfield, which has the highest number of ramblers, has the smallest percentage of'houses with more than 1,200 square feet of living space. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Living Space 1,400 or more feet 1,200 to 1,399 feet 1,000 to 1,199 feet 800 to 999 feet Less than 800 feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 l___J East 0 Central [:] West Richfield's Nonsing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 11 Ighborhood tngl l~amll_y Housing_Stock Data N Single Family Detached Mouses by Finished Basement Space The preceding table looked at above -grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. The following table looks at the percentage of basement square footage that is finished space. Hennepin County records this information on a percentage basis only. Table 7 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Finished Basement Space House Style No Finished Space 1% to 30% Finished 31% to 50% Finished More than 50% Finished East 400 386 1,606 482 Central 608 633 1,621 602 West 490 551 1,528 540 Total 1,498 1,570 4,755 1,624 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished. Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished. Over 1.7% have more than 50% of the basement finished. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Finished Basements More than 50% 30% to 50% 1% to 30% No Finished Space 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 U East Central [_ West m Richfield's Dousing Assets: Oppor line tp at Eserd Doof 12 Neighborhood Single Fomlly Mousing Stock Deta N Houses by Estimated Market Value Per Square Foot While total livable space is an important indicator of the desirability and function of a house, the quality of finished living space can vary greatly. The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for structures only, divided by the livable, above grade square footage in the house. It is possible that contributory structures, such as a highly valued garage, can skew this calculation, but for most houses, the value per square foot is viewed as an indicator of overall quality, condition, and market desirability. Table 8 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Value per Square Foot House Style Under $50 50 -$75 75 -$100 1004125 125+ East 0 16 354 2,249 255 Central 5 45 976 2,215 223 West 1 38 649 2,168 253 Total 6 99 1,979 6,632 731 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. It appears that age of construction and house style may have a slight impact on value per square foot. East Richfield, which has the highest proportion of post -1950 built houses afnd.the largest number of ramblers, has 34% of the houses with a value of $100 or more per square foot. However, it is also possible that this statistic is somewhat misleading, since it is based on a valuation for all above -grade square footage in the house, including second stories, where they exist. It is possible that the average value per square foot is slightly lower in expansion bungalow houses, since the upper floor square footage is viewed as less valuable space. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Value per Square Foot 125+ loo -$125 75 -$100 50 -$75 Less than $50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 East 0 Central u West Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 13 Ite1g#_kq l000d Single Family Nousin Stock Data u Houses by Total Estimated Market Value The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for the entire tax parcel, including both land and improvements. Estimated Market Value will generally lag behind current market value because annual-sales are analyzed and used to make adjustments. However, collecting, analyzing and applying the sales data results in a delay between sales activity and a reflection of this activity in the County's valuation of similar style houses. Table 9 Richfield Detached Single Family houses by Total Value House Style 100,000- 124,999 125,000- 149,999 150,000- 174,999 175,000- 199,999 200,000+ East 11 119 746 1,310 688 Central 6 117 771 1,421 1,149 West 4 69 724 1,079 1,233 Total 21 305 2,241 3,810 3,070 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. When looking at total estimated market value for houses, there are some differences in the data from previous pages. East Richfield has the smallest distribution of higher valued homes, $200,000 or more, despite the fact that the value per finished square foot is generally above average. This is due to the fact that this neighborhood also tends to have houses with less total square footage than other neighborhoods, which limits the total value of the structure. The highest concentrations of lower valued homes, under 150,000, are in East and Central Richfield. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Value 200,000+ 175,000$199,000 150,000- $174,999 125,000- $149,999 Less than $125,000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 East l -i Central F—] West 0 Rictlfieid's Noosing Assets: Opportunity at Eyely Door 14 Nelg1!6®rhood S1n91® Family Housing Stock k t0 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective Age The Hennepin County database includes an estimate of "effective age" for each house in the City, which reflects renovation and improvement activity completed since the date of construction. The following table provides a summary of effective age ratings within 10 year increments. Effective age is a subjective rating made by an inspector, that changes the value of houses to reflect upgrades that have been made since the date of original construction. Table 10 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Effective Age House Style 1990 -2004 1980 -1989 1970 -1979 1960 -1969 Pre -1960 East 34 25 328 1,378 1,109 Central 49 37 227 1,189 1,962 West 49 50 252 1,135 1,623 Total 132 112 807 3,702 41694 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. 2000 1500 1000 500 0 There are some differences in the effective age of the housing in Richfield's neighborhoods. Since actual age does have an impact on the starting point for effective age, neighborhood development patterns can be reflected in effective age. Central Richfield has nearly 42% of the City's housing with an effective age prior to 1960, although Central Richfield has less than 37% of all houses. East Richfield has nearly 37% of the City's houses with an effective age of 1970 or newer, while this neighborhood has just over 30% of the City's total houses. City -wide, the large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Effective Age Pre -1960 1960 -1969 1970 -2004 East Central West RlchOold °s Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 15 Nelghborhood Single fanllig Housing Stock Data a Single Family Detached Houses by Actual Age The previous page looked at the effective age for each homesteaded single family detached house in the City. The following table examines actual age. Table 11 Richfield Detached Single Fancily Douses by Actual Age Detached Houses 1980 -2004 1970 -1979 1960 -1969 1950 -1959 Pre -1950 East 36 26 87 2,351 374 Central 60 42 162 1,612 1,588 West 63 44 168 - 1,494 1,340 Total 159 112 417 5,457 3,302 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The actual age of construction patterns show the development of the City during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. As mentioned previously, the age of development has had some impact on the style of units that exist in each neighborhood. Central Richfield has the largest number of pre -1950 houses and over half of the houses in this neighborhood are expansion bungalow style. East Richfield has the largest number of houses built after 1950 and approximately 73% of the houses in this neighborhood are•ramblers. 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Actual Age Pre -1950 1950 -1959 1960 -2004 East M Ccntral [] West --7 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 16 Nelghbolll®od Singl ®Fpmll_y N!k Stock Data 0 Single Family Detached Houses by Central Air Conditioning The following table looks at the number of houses with central air conditioning systems. Table 12 Richfield Detached single Family Rouses by Central Air Conditioning House Style With Central Air Without Central Air East 2,574 300 Central 2,797 667 West 2,561 548 Total 7,932 1,515 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City have central air conditioning in 2004. City -wide, expansion bungalows are the least likely to have central air among the prevalent house styles, with nearly 21 % lacking this feature. With the largest concentrations of expansion bungalows in Central and West Richfield, these neighborhoods have a larger number of houses without central air. These two neighborhoods also have a higher percentage of older houses, built prior to 1940. An airport iioise reduction program being implemented in eastern Richfield will provide central air conditioning as part of sound proofing efforts. The smaller number of houses in East Richfield without central air conditioning may be due in part to this program. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Central Air 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% East Central West _. IN Without Central Air LJ With Central Air Rlchflelft Boaslnb Assets. OPPOMM11 81 EV81V Door 17 4Ighborhood Single Feniny Housing Stock Daio Single Family Detached Houses by Garages The following table looks at the number of houses with either attached garages, detached garages, or both. This table does not identify the car capacity of garages, but only the presence of a garage on the property. ., - Table 13 Richfield Detached Single Family Rouses by Garages House Style Attached Garage Only Detached Garage Only Both Attached and Detached No Garage East 892 1,923 29 30 Central 1,109 2,244 55 56 West 1,023 1,993 50 43 Total 3,024 6 160 134 129 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The distribution of garages by type is relatively consistent between the neighborhoods. City -wide, most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses in Richfield had detached garage parking only. By neighborhood, 66.9% of the houses in East Richfield, 64.8% of houses in Central Richfield, and 64.1% of houses in West Richfield had detached parking only. City -wide, only 1.4% of houses had no garage on the property in 2004. 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Type of Garage Attached Garage Detached Garage Both Attached and Detached No Garage a East Central F West Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every boot 18 Nelghd0"ood Single t~amlly_Nousln Sioc_ ®81a_® Single Family Detached Rouses by Garage Parking Capacity The following table looks at the number of garage parking spaces for each detached single family house. This table counts all available covered parking spaces in either attached garages, detached garages, or a combination of both. Table 14 Richfield Detached Single Family Douses by Garage Parldng Capacity House Style Parking for 1 Car Parking for 2 Cars Parking for 3 or More Cars No Garage East 946 1,825 73 30 Central 1,306 1,957 145 56 West 1,243 1,696 127 43 Total 3,495 5,478 345 129 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. There are no major differences in the number of covered parking spaces by neighborhood, although there are some minor differences. West Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with only 1 garage stall, East Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 2 garage stalls, and Central Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 3 or more garage stalls available. City -wide, 58% of the homesteaded houses have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Garage Parking East Central West 3+ Car 2 Car 0 1 Car 0 Car 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Evers Door 19 @I hborhood Sl family g0u ggg Stock ®ot im Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Width The following table looks at the frontage of lots for each detached single family house. The table on the next page looks at total lot area. Table 15 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Lot Width House Style Less than 50' Frontage 50' to 59' Frontage 60' to 74' Frontage 75' or More East 41 395 1,006 1,432 Central 186 963 663 1,652 West 145 764 1,212 988 Total 372 2,122 2 88I 4 072 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. City -wide, only 372 homesteaded houses have a lot frontage of less than 50 feet. Most of these lots are in the Central and West neighborhoods. City -wide, over 43% of lots are 75 or more feet in width. 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Richfield's Single Family Mouses by Lot Frontage East Central West Less than 60" 2 60' to 74' 75' or more Olclltield'S Iloas110 f33e13: OPPOrtalllN at Every Door 20 NeB hborho ®d Sill ®Family Ilousln Stocp Data IN Single Family ]Detached Houses by Lot Area The following table looks at the total square feet of lot area for each detached single family house. Table 16 Richfield Detached Single Family Douses by Lot Area House Style Less than 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 to 7,499 sq. ft. 7,500 to 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 or More sq. ft. East 15 264 2,004 591 Central 169 910 1,176 1,209 West 167 720 1,543 679 Total 351 1,894 4,723 2,47 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Lot sizes do show some variation between neighborhoods, and probably reflect the City standards that were in place at the time of development. In East Richfield, for example, nearly 70% of the residential lots are between 7,500 and 9,999 square feet in size, and very few lots are smaller than 7,500 square feet. In contrast, over 31 % of the lots in Central Richfield are less than 7,500 square feet in size. City -wide, there are 351 residential lots that have less than 6,000 total square feet. Most of these lots are in Central and West Richfield. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 Richfield's Single Family Douses by Lot Area East Central West Lots in Total Sq. Ft. 10,000+ F 7,500 -9,999 6,000 -7,499 Less than 6,000' 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 21 IghboriBOOd Single f m11 Ho ®sing Stock Doin. Single Family Detached Houses by Overall Condition The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. The following table provides this condition rating for each detached single family house. Table 17 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Overall Condition House Style Excellent Condition Good Condition Average Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition East 10 905 1,939 19 1 Central 14 934 2,472 39 3 West 21 1,000 2,051 34 2 Total 45 2,839 6,462 92 6 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Overall house condition ratings were very similar between the three neighborhoods. The percentage of houses rated as "good" was slightly higher in the East and West neighborhoods than in the Central Neighborhood, but the percentage difference was small. City -wide, 68% of the homesteaded houses were rated as being in "average" condition in 2004, and 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Overall Condition 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 East Central West Excellent ® Good Average Fair L : Poor Richfield's Housing Assefs :OPPOMUMV at EV®R Door 22 Neighborhood Slnhle FamIl_y Hoysinp Stock Data Single Family Detached Houses by Sale Price The County Assessor's database includes information on properties that have been sold in recent years. The following table looks at sales data from May 2003 to April 2004. The sales information is not limited to .`_`good "-sales that are fair market transactions. in an attempt to remove some of the sales that have occurred for less than fair market value, we have only examined sales for $100,000 or more. We have also limited the sales information to homesteaded single family detached houses. Please note that the 12 month sales period used for this table is different from the 12 month period used in the Comparison Section of this Study. We have also included 2004 County Estimated Market Value medians for comparison. Table 18 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Median Sale Price Neighborhood Number of Sales Median Sale Price Median Estimated Market Value for All Houses East 162 199,900 1.84,000 Central 189 198,900 188,000 West 167 200,000 192,000 City-Wide 518 192,900---j 188,000 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Despite some differences in the median home value for property tax purposes, the sample of recent house sales shows remarkably similar home values between the three neighborhoods. The difference in the median sale price was less than I%. As mentioned previously, the median home value for tax purposes tends to lag behind actual sales prices, as there is typically a 1 to 2 year adjustment time between sales activity and the application of this sales data to estimated market values for taxes. 200,000 150,000 1 00,000 50,000 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Value East Central West Median Sale Value W Median Estimated Market Value 0 Rlchffeld's Rousing Assets: OPPOM1nitg at Eeerll Door 23 Z ' . e d ) BHA History and Accomplishments History and Accomplishments In 1969, the Richfield Planning Commission prepared a "Central Commercial Area Plan" for the greater HUB shopping area. The community housing characteristics included: 61 acres remained undeveloped -- E A population of 54,678 was forecasted by 1985. As a result of new housing starts since 1962, one out of four dwelling units were primarily apartments. In 1975, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was formed to ensure long- term vitality for Richfield's residential and commercial property. Immediately, the HRA began administering a rent assistance program and declining commercial property was replaced with new businesses in the HUB area. The types of project and program responses by the HRA have varied over time. Here are some examples, with fuller program descriptions following. 1970's and 1980's Loans for the rehab of existing homes (Rehabilitation Deferred Loans) Rehab of problem homes for sale to first time buyers (Hennepin Technical College) Insulating homes (The'Energy Conservation Program; First bemonstration super insulated home) First time buyer mortgages Federal rent assistance provided locally. 1990's Buying small, substandard property (voluntary acquisition program) Building market rate homes (Richfield Rediscovered) First time buyer homes for lower income families. (HTC and Habitat for Humanity) Incentives for people to "stay" in Richfield (Transformation Homes; Remodeling Advisor services, "This Old House" property tax deferral). Annual Remodeling Fair Marketing Richfield! (Parade of Homes, Tour of Remodeled Homes, Realtor Workshop, Landscape Good Neighbor Award, portable displays, "Cape Cods and Ramblers: A Remodeling Planbook for Post WWII Houses ") Apartment Remodeling — pilot project with Metropolitan Council. 2000's Mixed -use developments provide more housing choices (e.g. Oaks on Pleasant, Castelle Place, Penn Place Townhouses) More non = profit developer /housing provider relationships (WHAHLT, GMHC, PPL, Met Council's Holman units). s Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door DDA History and Accomplishments Richfield's Housing Fund: Money for more locally decided housing opportunities More Apartment Remodeling — Minnesota Housing Finance Agency funding More marketing and more ideas-(Health House, land trusts for housing affordability, Twin Cities Remodelers Showcase in 2004) Access to more information on the City's web site In November, 2004 the Richfield HRA has provided housing and redevelopment projects and programs for 30 years. Thirty Years and Three Priorities for the HRA 1. Creating New Homes. The Richfield HRA is able to purchase substandard or blighted property from voluntary sellers, demolish the existing buildings, and build new homes on the sites through its Voluntary Acquisition program. The HRA cooperates with nonprofit developers to rehabilitate or build new homes, available for sale to first time buyers of low to moderate income (less. than 80% of the area median). One or two homes have been developed annually under the New Home Program. From 1978 to 2000, the HRA worked with Hennepin Technical College's building trades program to produce 32 homes. More recently, a home was just competed with Project for Pride in Living, and two homes have become land trusts with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust. Another nonprofit developer, Habitat for Humanity builds decent, safe, affordable homes for very low- income homebuyers (50% of the median income). From the first house in 1993 to the most recent in 2003, nine Habitat homes have been built in the community. The Richfield Rediscovered program provides market rate construction opportunities for builder /buyer teams. From 1990 through 2003, approximately 91 new homes have been built under this program. Ten of those have been in the Building Association "Parade of Homes" event. Twenty more were built as part of the Richfield Rediscovered "affordability initiative ". From 2000 through 2004, 816 units of housing have been added to the housing stock through mixed -use redevelopment projects. Though some units were lost for those projects to occur, the net gain of 784 units is significant. This adds new housing choices for residents and future residents, including condominiums, various type of townhomes and apartment flats, plus some senior congregate dining and assisted living facilities. Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 2 NRA History and Accomplishments 2. Providing and Improving Existing Homes. The energy crisis of the late 70's and early 80's included a focus on energy conservation in the home. Over 3,000 energy audits were coordinated. The Richfield HRA was a leader in demonstrating super insulation in housing design. The federal Section 8 Program provides rental assistance to 350 families in Richfield. Of those, 240 originated in Richfield and 110 have moved to Richfield from other communities. The Rehabilitation Deferred Loan provides interest -free rehabilitation loans to low- income homeowners (income does not exceed 50 of the median). For some, it provides the only means to stay in the home. From 1997 through 2003, approximately 480 loans have been initiated. In 1997, the First Time Advantage Loan was initiated. Loans are for moderate income owners (income does not exceed 80% of the median) who have been in their home for less than a year. Since most first -time buyers have put the majority of their cash into closing costs and down payment the loan provides a new homebuyer the opportunity to do updating and general improvements. The Transformation Program provides incentive loans for large scale remodeling in Richfield to encourage households to stay in the community. From 1993 through 2003, 100 loans have been provided. Over $1 million loaned by the HRA through 2003 has leveraged over $7 million of homeowner remodeling. Most participating households remodeled in excess of $50;000, usually adding square footage which allowed them to stay in the community rather than getting their housing needs met by moving to another community. All funds for the program are local. Remodeling Advisory services are free and available to all Richfield homeowners. The Remodeling Advisor provides technical advice on a particular project, cost estimates, and the information on financing options. The Design Advisor provides advice related to aesthetically blending in an addition from the exterior, or creating better function with interior layouts. Cap Cods & Ramblers: A Remodeling Planbook for Post -World War II Houses was developer by Richfield and 14 other comminutes to develop ideas and vision for homeowners who want to remodel their traditional rambler or cap cod home. The book has received four local and national awards. Apartment Remodeling is a loan for owners of small apartment buildings (usually 4 -12 units) to improve the exterior of the buildings, as well as unit interiors. The loans are zero percent interest, and require both a dollar for dollar match by the owner, and future repayment. 3. Improving the Quality of Life. People interested in purchasing a new home in Richfield are referred to a homebuyer education program, facilitated by Community Action for Suburban Hennepin. Other services provided by Community Action include foreclosure prevention and energy assistance. The City /HRA's CDBG funds help provide those services. Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 HRA History and Accomplishments Reduced interest rate mortgage money has been annually available from MHFA for first -time buyers in Richfield. The City /HRA participates in Hennepin County's application for funds. Eligible buyers' income must be approximately below 80% of the median. Rent Assistance for Family Stabilization (RAFS) is a state program administered by Richfield staff. RAFS is a shallow rent subsidy that is given to families who receive no other rent subsidy and are currently participating in a self- sufficiency program with an employment and education plan. Richfield had 17 participants in RAFS, but the program has been discontinued.. A new shallow rent subsidy program- Kids @ Home will assist households in transition that have kids in school. It is estimated 30 household can be assisted. Staff provides monitoring to owners participating in the 4(d) Property Tax Classification Monitoring program. To benefit from the reduced tax classification rate, participating owners must rent units to households with incomes that do not exceed 60% of the median income. In Richfield, 1,061 units have benefited form the 4(d) program. The program was discontinued in 2003. Developers who cannot create at least 10% of affordable housing in a development can contribute 15 percent of available tax increment from a development to the Richfield Housing Fund. The fund is used for housing initiatives through out the city, presently supporting the single family scatted site housing programs (Richfield Rediscovered and Transformation Homes Loan) and the new Kids @ Home initiative. M Richfield's Housing Assets: Opponity at Every Beer 4 hRA History and Accomplishments m Recognition of Housing Project/Program Efforts Awarding Agency Award Year National Association of Housing 2003 Agency Award of Excellence in Program Innovation- 2003 and Redevelopment Officials Community Revitalization: Woodlake Centre - A New Town Center Begins National Association of Housing 2003 National Award of Merit in Program Innovation-- 2003 and Redevelopment Officials Community Revitalization: Woodlake Centre - A New Towr Center Begins National Association of Housing 2003 Community Development Achievement Award for 2003 and Redevelopment Officials Woodlake Centre Development Project North Central Regional Council 8 state 'region) League of Minnesota Cities City Achievement Award for Housing, Economic 2003 Development & Community Spaces: Best Buy Campus Office of the Legislative Auditor: A Best Practices Review: Preserving Housing 2003 State of Minnesota U.S. Department of Housing and 2003 Section 8 Program High Performer 2003 Urban Development State of Minnesota Odyssey For Long -Range Planning and Resulting Housing and 2002 Award Programs for Seniors, Making Richfield a Model for Others . U.S. Department of Housing and 2002 Section 8 Program High Performer 2002 Urban Development Minnesota Chapter of the Outstanding Planning Award for Implementation: 2001 American Planning Association Woodlake Centre Commercial Builder Magazine Grand Award Division V: A Healing Community, 2001 Mainstreei Village, Richfield, MN U.S. Department of Housing and 2001 Section 8 Program High Performer 2001 Urban Development U.S. Department of Housing and 2000 Section 8 Program High Performer 2000 Urban Development National League of Cities Investing in Communities Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 American Institute of Architects' Special Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 Minnesota Chapter American Planning Association's Public Education Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 Minnesota Chapter Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 Preservation Commission National Association of Housing 1997 Agency Award of Excellence in Community 1997 and Redevelopment Officials Revitalization for the Richfield Rediscovered Project National Association of Housing 1997 National Award of Merit in Program Innovation -- 1997 and Redevelopment Officials Community Revitalization: Richfield Rediscovered Project National Association of Housing Regional Award for Excellence in Community 1997 and Redevelopment Officials Development for Changing Housing Markets: Richfield North Central Regional Council Rediscovered Association of Metropolitan Innovative City Award of Merit in Recognition of 1996 Municipalities Richfield's Efforts to Improve the Housing Inspections Division and Assisting First -Time Buyers Association of Metropolitan Innovative City Award: Richfield Rediscovered 1993 Municipalities State of Minnesota Governor's Certificate of Commendation in Recognition of Efforts to 1991 Office Help First -Time Homebuyers RichReld's housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door HHA History and Accomplishments State of Minnesota Department 11th Annual Energy Saver's Award of Excellence 1987 of Public Service Energy Division Association of Metropolitan Recognition Award for Achievement in the Provision of 1985 Municipalities Affordable Housing Opportunities through Creative Re- Use for Housing /Housing Rehabilitation Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door I l Ncw H ( t 11 1 Hould,n =' ' Mime5Pd5 'r . Richfield In Comparlson IN Richfield in Comparison - List of 'T'ables Overview - Richfield in Comparison Section Highlights Population Change 1990 to 2000 Population Change 2000 to 2003 Household Change 1990 to 2000 Household Change 2000 to 2003 Average Household Size - 2003 Median Age 2000 Median Gross Rent 2000 Median Home Value - 2000 Median Home Value - 2003 Change in Median Home Value -1998 to 2003 Change in Median Home Value - 1993 to 2003 Home Ownership Rate - 2000 Median Household Income - 2000 Percent People in Poverty - 2000 Housing Choice Vouchers Page 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 Richfield's Housing Assets: Dpportunitll at Every Door 1 Richfield In Comparison KA Richfield in Comparison Overview The section that follows provides comparative information for the City of Richfield. A number of different demographic, housing and income variables have been used to compare the City to 11 other communities. Ten of the comparison communities are in Hennepin County, and one is in Ramsey County. The comparison communities range in size from Minneapolis, population 382,295, to Robbinsdale, population 14,268. Most of the communities are fully developed suburbs, but other communities, such as Eden Prairie, still have land available for development. Despite differences in size and state of development, these communities share some common features with the City of Richfield, in terms of geographic location, first ring suburban status, age of housing, or other similarities. The communities used for comparison were selected by staff from the City of Richfield. M Richfleld's Rousing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 2 Richfield in Comparison 1 Richfield in Comparison Section Highlights For most of the comparison items, Richfield is neither the best or worst performer. The following identifies the City's placement for each of the tables that follow: Richfield ranked 101h of the 12 Cities for population growth between 1990 and 2000. Only Crystal and New Hope had larger population losses during the 1990s. For population change from 2000 to 2003, Richfield tied for 9`h with New Hope. Both Minneapolis and Robbinsdale had less population growth over the last 3 years. Richfield ranked last for household growth between 1990 and 2000. The City was the only community to lose households in that decade. The City was 7`h for percentage household growth between 2000 and 2003. Richfield had the 8`h lowest average household size of the comparison communities. Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Roseville and Minneapolis all had fewer people per household. At the time of the 2000 Census, there were 5 comparison communities with an older median age than Richfield. Richfield's median gross rent in 2000 was the third lowest of the. comparison ' communities. Only Minneapolis and Robbinsdale had a lower median rent. Richfield's median home value was the fifth lowest at the time of the 2000 Census. Minneapolis, Hopkins, Robbinsdale and Crystal all had lower median home values. Based on home sales for the 12 month period ending September 2003, Richfield's median home value has increased, but is still the fifth lowest of the comparison communities. The four Cities with lower median values in 2000 had lower median sales prices in 2003. Although Richfield's median home value is in the lower half of the comparison cities, the median value, as gauged by sale price, has been increasing at an above average rate. Between 1998 and 2003, the City's median sale value increased by 72.1%. Only Minneapolis, Robbinsdale and Crystal saw a larger increase in home values during this five year period. Over the longer -term, Richfield's median sale price has increased at an even greater rate. The City's median sale price in 2003 was up 124.7 %. Only the City of Minneapolis had a larger percentage increase over this 10 year time span. The City's home ownership tenure rate was the sixth lowest of the comparison Cities. Hopkins, Minneapolis, New Hope, Roseville and St. Louis Park all had lower rates of home ownership. Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 Richfield In Comparison The City's median household income was the third lowest in 2000. Minneapolis and Hopkins had lower median household incomes. According to the 2000 Census;-Richfield had a large percentage of people living in poverty. Only Minneapolis, Hopkins and New Hope had a larger percentage of the population under the poverty line. Richfield ranked near the middle in the availability of Housing Choice Vouchers as a percentage of all renter households in 2004. K Richfleld's Housing Assets: Opportanitg at EYeri Door 4 Richfield In Comparison 0 Richfield in Comparison ® Population Change 1990 to 2000 The following table presents information on the rate of population change in selected Cities between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. Table 1 .Population Trends - 1990 -2000 City 2000 Population Percentage Change 1990 -2000 Numeric Change 1990 -2000 Richfield 34,439 3.6% 1,271 Bloomington 85,172 1.4% 1,163 Eden Prairie 54,901 39.7% 15,590 Edina 47,425 2.9% 1,355 Roseville 33,690 0.6% 205 St. Louis Park 44,126 0.8% 339 Crystal 22,698 4.6% 1,090 New Hope 20,873 4.5% 980 Robbinsdale' 14,123 1.9% 273 Golden Valley 20,281 3.3% 690 Hopkins 17,145 3.7% 611 Minneapolis 382,618 3.9% 14,235 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Community Partners Research, Inc. Percent -Population Change - 1990 -2000 Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis o 0 0 0 0 10% 0 . 10% 20% 30% 40% 0 Percent Change Richfield's (lousing (assets: 000ortunitY at EderY Door 5 Richfleid in Cemlkq"W im Richfield in Comparison - Population Change 2000 to 2003 The following table presents information on the rate of population change in selected Cities over the last few years, using the Census and 2003 estimates issued by the Metropolitan Council. Table 2 Population Trends - 2000 -2003 City 2000 Population 2003 Population Percent Change Numeric Change Richfield 34,439 34,502 0.2% 63 Bloomington 85,172 85,301 1.5% 129 Eden Prairie 54,901 59,325 8.1% 4,424 Edina 47,425 48,156 1.5% 731 Roseville 33,690 34,080 1.2% 390 St. Louis Park 44,126 44,896 1.7% 770 Crystal 22,698 23,012 1.4% 314 New Hope 20,873 20,910 0.2% 37 Robbinsdale 14,123 14,068 0.4% 55 Golden Valley 20,281 20,736 2.2% 455 Hopkins 17,145 17,643 2.9% 498 Minneapolis 382,618 382,295 0.1% 323 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Metropolitan Council; Community Partners Research, Inc. Percent Population Change - 2000 -2003 Richfield e Bloomington o Eden Prairie Edina r Roseville o St. Louis Park — Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley — - Hopkins — Minneapolis o 2% 0 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% u Percent Change iiichfledd's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Deer 6 Richfield in Comparison 0 Richfield in Comparison e Household Change 1990 to 2000 The following table presents information on the rate of household change in selected Cities between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. Fable 3 Household Trends -1990 -2000 City 2000 Households Percentage Change 1990 -2000 Numeric Change 1990 -2000 Richfield 15,073 3.1% 478 Bloomington 36,400 5.5% 1,912 Eden Prairie 20,457 41.6% 6,010 Edina 20,996 5.7% 1,136 Roseville 14,598 7.6% 1,036 St. Louis Park 20,782 4.3% 857 Crystal 9,389 1.3% 117 New Hope 8,665 1.9% 158 Robbinsdale' 6,097 1.5% 89 Golden Valley 8,449 2.1% 176 Hopkins 8,224 3.2% 251 Minnea olis 162,352 1.0% 1,670 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Community Partners Research, Inc. Percent Household Change - 1990 -2000 Richfield' Bloomington Eden Prairie - Edina o Roseville St. Louis Park o Crystal o New Hope o Robbinsdale o Golden Valley o Hopkins Minneapolis o 10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0 Percent Change 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Eden Door 1 Richfield In CensperBsoal Richlleld in Comparison - Household Change 2000 to 2003 The following table presents information on the rate of household change in selected Cities over the last few years, using the 2000 Census and 2003 estimates issued by the Metropolitan Council. - . Table 4 Household Trends -2000-2003 City 2000 Households 2003 Households Percent Change 2000 -2003 Numeric Change 2000 -2003 Richfield 15,073 15,243 1.1% 170 Bloomington 36,400 36,553 0.4% 153 Eden Prairie 20,457 22,615 10.5% 2,158 Edina 20,996 21,149 0.7% 153 Roseville 14,598 14,790 1.3% 192 St. Louis Park 20,782 21,358 2.8% 576 Crystal 9,389 9,543 1.6% 154 New Hope 8,665 8,691 0.3% 26 Robbinsdale 6,097 6,095 0.03% 2 Golden Valley 8,449 8,776 3.9% 327 Hopkins 8,224 8,498 3.3% 274 . Minneapolis 162,352 162,505 0.09% 153 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Metropolitan Council; Community Partners Research, Inc. Percent Household Change - 2000 -2003 Richfield Bloomington o Eden Prairie - -- - -- Edina r Roseville -- -- St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins - -. _— Minneapolis p 2% 2% 6% 10% Percent Change Richfield's Housino Ilssets: 6999 "unily at Even Boar 8 Richfield In Comparison IN Richfield in Comparison e Average Household Size - 2003 The following table presents information on the average household size in selected Cities as reported in the 2003 estimates from the Metropolitan Council. Table 5 Average Household Size - 2003 City Average Household Size Richfield 2.24 Bloomington 2.29 Eden Prairie 2.61 Edina 2.25 Roseville 2.19 St. Louis Park 2.05 Crystal 2.39 New Hope 2.28 Robbinsdale 2.26 Golden Valley 2.28 Hopkins 2.02 Minneapolis 2.23 Source: Metropolitan Council Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Average Household Size - 2003 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 El Average Household Size Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Ever# Door 9 Richfield In Comparison Richfield in Comparison - Median Age 2000 The following table presents information on the median age of residents in selected Cities as reported in the 2000 Census. Table 6 Median Age - 2000 City Median Age - 2000 Richfield 37.1 Bloomington 40.1 Eden Prairie 34.2 Edina 44.5 Roseville 41.0 St. Louis Park 35.7 Crystal 37.0 New Hope 38.3 Robbinsdale 37.6 Golden Valley 42.7 Hopkins 34.1 Minnea olis 31.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Age - 2000 Census 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ej Median Age Richfield's IBonsing Assets. ®pportanit9 at E9er9 Deer 10 Richfield In CoinpsPison p Richfield in Comparison ® Median Gross Rent 2000 The following table presents information on the median gross rent for each of the selected Cities as reported in the 2000 Census. Table 7 Median Gross Rent - 2000 City Median Rent - 2000 Richfield 638 Bloomington 753 Eden Prairie 883 Edina 864 Roseville 688 St. Louis Park 716 Crystal 671 New Hope 687 Robbinsdale 626 Golden Valley. 669 Hopkins 710 Minneapolis 575 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Gross Rent m 2000 Census 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 Median Gross Rent Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Deer 1 Richfield In Comparison Richfield in Comparis ®n - Median Home Value - 2000 The following table presents information on the median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities as reported. in the 2000 Census. Fable 8 Median Home Value - 2000 City Median Home Value - 2000 Richfield 128,500 Bloomington 144,800 Eden Prairie 193,600 Edina 222,600 Roseville 139,800 St. Louis Park 131,900 Crystal 112,900 New Hope 135,900 Robbinsdale 117,000 Golden Valley 158,2.00. Hopkins 126,100 Minneapolis 113,700 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St, Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Home Value - 2000 Census 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 M Median Home Value m Richfield's Dousing Assets: QpportunHv at Every Door 12 Richfield in Comparison Lichfield in Comparis ®n - Median Home Value - 2003 The following table presents information on the estimated median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities based on sales for the 12 month period ending September 2003 Table 9 Median Home Value Estimate - 2003 City Median Value of Home Sales - 2003 Richfield 191,000 Bloomington 202,500 Eden Prairie 232,700 Edina 285,000 Roseville 205,000 St. Louis Park 196,500 Crystal 171,900 New Hope 198,600 Robbinsdale 177,000 Golden Valley 223,500 Hopkins 165,950 Minneapolis 185,000 Source: MN Department of Revenue Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Home Value - 2003 Sales 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Median Home Value Richfield's liousina Assets: Opportunity at Nam Door 13 tilaohfleid i11 OomporBson Richfield in Comparison - Median Value - 1998 to 2003 The following table presents information on the estimated median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities comparing the median sale pnce.from 1998 to 2003. fable 10 Median Home Sale Price -1998 to 2003, City Median Value of Home Sales - 1998 Median Value of Home Sales - 2003 Percent Change 1998 to 2003 Richfield 1.11,000 191,000 72.1% Bloomington 125,000 202,500 62.0% Eden Prairie 155,981 232,700 49.2% Edina 196,250 285,000 45.2% Roseville 123,000 205,000 66.7% St. Louis Park 125,000 196,500 57.2% Crystal 98,900 171,900 73.8% New Hope 122,300 198,600 62.4% Robbinsdale • 98;900 177,000 79.0% Golden Valley 137,100 223,500 63.0% Hopkins 104,700 165,950 58.5% Minneapolis 90,900 185,000 103.5% Source: MN Department of Revenue; Community Partners Research, Inc. Change in Median Sale Price - Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 1998 t0 2003 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 0 Percent Change in Median Sale Price 0 Richfield °s Housing Assets: Opportunity at Eveiv Door 14 fiichfileld In Comparison Richfield in Comparison - Median Value m 1993 to 2003 The following table presents information on the estimated median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities comparing the median sale price from 1993 to 2003. Table 11 Median Home Sale Price - 1993 to 2003 City Median Value of Home Sales - 1993 Median Value of Home Sales - 2003 Percent Change 1993 to 2003 Richfield 85,000 191,000 124.7% Bloomington 100,000 202,500 102.5% Eden Prairie 123,900 232,700 87.8% Edina 139,950 285,000 103.6% Roseville 93,500 205,000 119.3% St. Louis Park 88,278 196,500 122.6% Crystal 79,000 171,900 117.6% New Hope 96,000 198,600 106.9% Robbinsdale 79,000 177,000 124.1% Golden Valley 114,450 223,500 95.3% Hopkins 82,790 165,950 100.4% Minnea olis 75,000 185,000 146.7% Source: MN Department of Revenue; Community Partners Research, Inc. Over the longer -term, Richfield's median sale price has increased at an even greater rate. The City's median sale price in 2003 was up 124.7 %. Only the City of Minneapolis had a.larger percentage increase over this 10 year time span. Change in Median Sale Price - 1993 to 2003 Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% aPercent Change in Median Sale Price Dichfields (lousing Assets: Opportunity at Even Door 15 Richfield. in g0Mgg"son m Richfield in Comparis ®n - Home Ownership Rate - 2000 The following table presents information on the ownership tenure rate at the time of the 2000 Census. Table 12 Home Ownership Rate - 2000 City Percent Owners Richfield 67.6% Bloomington 70.6% Eden Prairie 78.3% Edina 76.5% Roseville 67.5% St. Louis Park 63.6% Crystal 77.6% New Hope 56.1% Robbinsdale 74.0% Golden Valley 81.5% Hopkins 37.9% Minneapolis 51.4% Source: U.S, Census Bureau Home Ownership Rate - 2000 Census Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% E] Home Ownership Tenure Rate n Richfield's Nousinp Assets: Opportunity of Eseri Dow ' 16 Richfield in Comparison Richfield in Comparison m Median Household Income m 2000 The following table presents information on the median household income at the time of the 2000 Census. Table 13 Median Household Income - 2000 City Census Median Household Income Richfield 45,519 Bloomington 54,628 Eden Prairie 78,328 Edina 66,019 Roseville 51,056 St. Louis Park 49,260 Crystal 48,736 New Hope 46,795 Robbinsdale 48,271 Golden Valley 62,063 Hopkins 39,203 Minnea olis 37,974 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Household Income - 2000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 DMedian Household Income Richfield's Housing Assets: Oppornmitij at Every Door 17 RIC1196111 iaa C0119p8NS010 IN Richfield in Comparison - Percent People in Poverty - 2000 The following table presents information on the percentage of the total population below the poverty level at the time of the 2000 Census. Table 14 Percent of Population in Poverty - 2000 City Percent Richfield 6.3% Bloomington 4.0% Eden Prairie 3.5% Edina 3.3% Roseville 4.2% St. Louis Park 5.2% Crystal 4.4% New Hope 6.5% Robbinsdale 4.7% Golden Valley 3.0% Hopkins 9.3% Minneapolis 16.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Percent of Population in Poverty - 2000 Census Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 5% 10% 15% 20% E] Percent People in Poverty Richfield's Housing Assets: OpR® pity at Eden Beer is Richfield In Colnaartson Richfield in Comparison o Housing Choice Vouchers The following examines the availability of HUD Housing Choice Vouchers in 2004 as a percentage of all rental households at the time of the 2000 Census. fable 15 Vouchers as a Percentage of Renter Households City Percent Richfield 4.6% Bloomington 5.3% Eden Prairie 5.0% Edina 1.4% Roseville 2.8% St. Louis Park 3.5% Crystal 5.8% New Hope 7.1% Robbinsdale 7.6% Golden Valley 1.7% Hopkins 6.2% Minneapolis 3.9% Source: Community Partners Research, Inc. Housing Choice Vouchers Availability Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 1% 2% 3 % 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% Percent of Renter Households With Vouchers 0 Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 19 1 bva30 4191 41L1 419t NOlONIWOOIS asl Lot 4191 4121 tall Loot 101113 0OV31HO Li snamim Q N2Md ONVINVO O 0 ONVIINOd Y0 tas 414 1 NO1NI13 W PI£ 6 PuZ S/ SN3A31S V/ isl 1311001N 113OSM8 V H1210M1N3M EAmnSsllld Ili 1NVSV31d 1O ( 3NVdE) W` E 131HHVH w w! O131d2ib'O Q H01MOTd O1NVAUS C a xvdl0b NIw+ LNOdna W NOSN3W3 TC E 1NOW3kld i. 0 baval0 i laloswnH 3 9NIAat w` S3WVr WSJ XONA L NVOOI NVONOW NO1M9N N3AI10 NN3d N33no il3ssna NVala3HS SVW0H1 NOldn LN30NIA NunSHSVM S3XN3X E 111 11111111 111 . 11 11111111 11.11 1111 //111111 11111 1111 Itltllll 11111 Ilt. 11111//1 1111. 11.1 11111111 It11/ 11.1 M111111111119111- 1uuununit Old'I 1111111 11GI11munnuunum L m 9urmm Q® uw nuum nnuu nnnw ouln nnnm t11t1 111 /11111 1111 1111111111 1111.1.1 IIIIIIIIII 111112111111Ma111111IIIIIIItI 1111111'. .......... IIIIIII.. 11. /1111 l. ....... 111 t11t11t 111. 1.111111 1 111 11111. 111 111111 11 I tll Itl 11° I Film O U S ¢ 5 N S S miw 111/1111 num nano muu loom unuu 11111/11/ 1111111111 111111.11 IIIIIIIIII nnuuu amnm mum nuuu 11111111 11111111 1111.111 11.111.1 tlltitll 1111.111, 111.1111 Illllitl; 0 a ooZ d R7 FF-1 o0s 1NVSV3ld ppa ONV'dO 009 1 N 0131 d131L1V 0 me 3lVONAI Til'Tllllll ® ® ®® ppg - HOiilaltl m 8 1NVANS am _ mot XVdl00 Dort 1NOdnb 002 NOS83P13 D om 1NOW32l3 ILLI ILI IIII III IIII mn OUVWD mst lO108loewnH mLt S3Wtlf t XONX wmet No0 1 1ptZ Nv020 W Q] mtZ NOlM3N aaR 0= NN3dmCZNN3d opal N33nb mss I13ssna mgZ SVala3Ns Il1Al.1W ® ®® ma OIdn 006Z IN30NmeZ1N30NIA mm N21nSHSVM mtE s3Xil3X r Q Z RN CD a m E U- O4-- co N O 2 1 C cm 0 a_ N O Q Z Wet Ntl033 oos Los Wet 4191 ooc PC WLt 41L1 o. PuZ 111111117 ®® 009t 4791 W.1111JJ ® ®® mt laI N010NIW00I8 OOgI 41St mYt 4141 aoet ael L1.II7II ® ®® mLt 4121 mtt 4111 ulot LI1111T ® ®® mpt oce 101113 009 OOtl01H0 07 snewmoO o N2 m ONV- 009 oNtlU110 d 111/1111 num nano muu loom unuu 11111/11/ 1111111111 111111.11 IIIIIIIIII nnuuu amnm mum nuuu 11111111 11111111 1111.111 11.111.1 tlltitll 1111.111, 111.1111 Illllitl; 0 a ooZ d R7 FF-1 o0s 1NVSV3ld ppa ONV'dO 009 1 N 0131 d131L1V 0 me 3lVONAI Til'Tllllll ® ® ®® ppg - HOiilaltl m 8 1NVANS am _ mot XVdl00 Dort 1NOdnb 002 NOS83P13 D om 1NOW32l3 ILLI ILI IIII III IIII mn OUVWD mst lO108 loewnH mLt S3Wtlf t XONX wmet No0 1 1ptZ Nv020 W Q] mtZ NOlM3N aaR 0= NN3dmCZNN3d opal N33nb mss I13ssna mgZ SVala3Ns Il1Al.1W ® ®® ma OIdn 006Z IN30NmeZ1N30NIA mm N21nSHSVM mtE s3Xil3X r Q Z RN CD a m E U- O4-- co N O 2 1 C cm 0 a_ N O Q Z oos Los ooa Lot Kc NO1NI10 ooc PC o. PuZ 111111117 ®® va SN3A31S L1J.111.LIJ ® ®® mt laI oop 1311001N os 1130SIVlB ON HINOM1NEIM AMnSSII 111/1111 num nano muu loom unuu 11111/11/ 1111111111 111111.11 IIIIIIIIII nnuuu amnm mum nuuu 11111111 11111111 1111.111 11.111.1 tlltitll 1111.111, 111.1111 Illllitl; 0 a ooZ d R7 FF-1 o0s 1NVSV3ld ppa ONV'dO 009 1 N 0131 d131L1V 0 me 3lVONAI Til'Tllllll ® ® ®® ppg - HOiilaltl m 8 1NVANS am _ mot XVdl00 Dort 1NOdnb 002 NOS83P13 D om 1NOW32l3 ILLI ILI IIII III IIII mn OUVWD mst lO108loewnH mLt S3Wtlf t XONX wmet No0 1 1ptZ Nv020 W Q] mtZ NOlM3N aaR 0= NN3dmCZNN3d opal N33nb mss I13ssna mgZ SVala3Ns Il1Al.1W ® ®® ma OIdn 006Z IN30NmeZ1N30NIA mm N21nSHSVM mtE s3Xil3X r Q Z RN CD a m E U- O4-- co N O 2 1 C cm 0 a_ N O Q Z AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # NEW BUSINESS 6 26 waM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution regarding the finding that the acquisition of the properties at 6601 16th Avenue, 6600 17th Avenue, 1614 and 1620 66th Street East are consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. F. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 By Motion: Approve the attached resolution finding that the acquisition of the property at 6601 16th Avenue, and 6600 17th Avenue, 1614 and 1620 66th Street East are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. II. BACKGROUND On October 25, 2005, the City Council approved a new roundabout intersection at 17th Avenue and 66th Street East. The design of the roundabout requires the City to purchase four properties along 66th Street East for right -of -way expansion. The Comprehensive Plan identifies 1614 and 1620 66th Street properties as Community Commercial. The properties at 6601 16th Avenue and 6600 17th Avenue are identified as Community Commercial /Office. Currently all the properties are being used as single - family residences; therefore, all the properties are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, after construction of the intersection, staff anticipates the remnant parcels to be used for Community Commercial, which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. As part of the construction of the intersection the Planning Commission previously approved a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for eight properties on the east side of 17th Avenue, at the October 24th meeting. The eight properties previously approved for a finding of consistency will be the southern leg of the roadway coming off of the new intersection at 66th Street and 17th Avenue. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY All the properties are currently zoned C -2 (General Commercial). The properties are being used for single - family residential uses. 112 8 05_66 t h S t re et_ F i n d i n g ofC o n s i st e n cy The Comprehensive Plan map currently identifies 1614 and 1620 66th Street parcels for Community Commercial use. The remaining two (6601 16th Avenue and 6600 17th Avenue) parcels are identified as Community Commercial /Office use. This property is needed for road purposes and to mitigate noise for people living in impacted areas. The adopted Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan envisions the remnant parcels to be developed for Community Commercial uses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The acquisition of these properties is necessary in order for the intersection and roadway work for the Cedar Avenue Corridor. C. FINANCIAL The four properties will be purchased with bond proceeds from a special assessment for the intersection. D. LEGAL Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission must review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Legal counsel has reviewed the proposal and the resolution. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Reject the resolution, finding that the acquisition of 1614, 1620 E. 66th Street, 6601 16th Avenue, 6600 17th Avenue, 1614. and 1620 66th Street East by the City for roadway purposes is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Maps showing the location of the properties VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A PROPOSED PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN 1614, 1620 66th Street East, 6601 16th Avenue, and 6600 17th Avenue) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has proposed to purchase the parcels of land having a street address of 1614, 1620 66th Street East, 6601 16th Avenue, and 6600 17th Avenue, (the "Property ") and located on land legally described as: 1614 66th Street East — Lot 2, Block 5, Iversons 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 1620 66th Street East — Lot 1, Block 5, Iversons 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 6601 16th Avenue — Lot 16, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 6600 17th Avenue — Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City is proposing changes in use of the Property, and has plans to demolish the single family structures presently located on the site for the 66th Avenue and 17th Avenue roadway work; and WHEREAS, the City has requested that the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ") review the proposed acquisition pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.356, Subd. 2; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the proposed acquisition to determine its relationship to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the proposed acquisition is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it has no relationship to said plan. Adopted this 28th day of November, 2005 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Donna Drummond, Chairperson ATTEST: Kyle Hartnett, Secretary Zoning Map Finding of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 11/28/2005 C -2 R R R R R 66th Street East 6 q 1 R C Q C -2 R C -2 Q R R R R N 3 R RR C -2 C -2 R C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 C C -2 CD r N r 4- C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 R R R R R 66th Street East 6 q 1 6600 C -2 C -2 C -2 C -2 R R R R R R R R R R Zoning Legend R - Single - Family Residential C -2 - General Commercial Previously Approved Finding of Consistency Properties -Oct. 24, 2005 C -2 C -2 C -2C -2 C -2 R C -2 R R R R R RR R R C -2 C -2 PC -2 C -2 I C -2 I N 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Feet Comprehensive Plan Map Finding of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 11/28/2005 Comprehensive Plan Legend R - Single- Family Residential C -R /O Regional Commercial /Office R -SFH Single Family Residential QP -S Quasi-Public-School. 6601 6600 c -c /o c -c /o c -c /o c -c/o c -c/o c -c /o R R R R R R R R R R N sigh Density QP -CH Quasi - Public- Church C -C Community Commercial ®previously Approved Finding C -C /O Community Commerical /Office of Consistency Properties -Oct. 24, 2005 O Office 0 65 130 260 390 520 Feet c -c /o C -C R C -C R C -R/O R R C -R/O R QP -S R R R C -R/O R R Q) C C 3 C-C C -C C -R/O C -RIO QP -CH C: j Q C R/O C -C Q C -C C -C QP -CH i•+ 00 QP S G r c/ r 04 C-C C-C c -c c -C C -RIO C -R/O QP -CH W COTMI C -C C -C 66th Street East c -c/0 c -c /0 c -c/o c -c /o c -c c -c c -c/o c -c /o R R R R -SFH R R -SFH O R R -SFH R R -SFH Comprehensive Plan Legend R - Single- Family Residential C -R /O Regional Commercial /Office R -SFH Single Family Residential QP -S Quasi-Public-School. 6601 6600 c -c /o c -c /o c -c /o c -c/o c -c/o c -c /o R R R R R R R R R R N sigh Density QP -CH Quasi - Public- Church C -C Community Commercial ®previously Approved Finding C -C /O Community Commerical /Office of Consistency Properties -Oct. 24, 2005 O Office 0 65 130 260 390 520 Feet c -c /o R R R R R 6601 6600 c -c /o c -c /o c -c /o c -c/o c -c/o c -c /o R R R R R R R R R R N sigh Density QP -CH Quasi - Public- Church C -C Community Commercial ®previously Approved Finding C -C /O Community Commerical /Office of Consistency Properties -Oct. 24, 2005 O Office 0 65 130 260 390 520 Feet N sigh Density QP -CH Quasi - Public- Church C -C Community Commercial ®previously Approved Finding C -C /O Community Commerical /Office of Consistency Properties -Oct. 24, 2005 O Office 0 65 130 260 390 520 Feet