Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 27, 2004 RegularCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci. cohtmbia-heights, mn.us ADMINISTRATION MaFor Julienne Wyckoff Councilmembers Robert A. bVilliams Brztce Nml~/'ocM Tammera Ericson Bruce Kelzenberg CiO~ Manager PYalter R. Fehst The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held immediately following the Economic Development Authority meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN. The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, progrmns, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Deputy City Clerk at 763-706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) Invocation: Pastor Theresa Taylor, Oak Hill Baptist Church 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA (The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forum or items submitted after the agenda preparation deadline.) PROCLAMATIONS~ PRESENTATIONS~ RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS A) Proclamations 1) Polish American Heritage Month 2) Domestic Violence Awareness Month B) Presentations - none C) Introduction of New Employees 1) Bridget Hill, Police Secretary IIA 2) Jesse Davies, Public Works Administrative Assistant D) Recognition - none CONSENT AGENDA (These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as the next order of business.) A) MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Approve City Council Meeting Minutes a) MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2004 special City Council meeting as presented. b) MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2004 regular City Council meeting as presented. c) MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2004 City Council Election Canvas meeting as presented. THE CiTY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Agenda September 27, 2004 Page 2 of 6 2) Accept Boards and Commissions Meeting Minutes a) MOTION: Move to accept the July 28, 2004 minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission b) MOTION: Move to accept the September 8, 2004 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission c) MOTION: Move to accept the August 17, 2004 minutes of the Economic Development Authority d) MOTION: Move to accept the September 7, 2004 minutes of the Library Board 3) Establish Budget Work Session meeting dates MOTION: Move to set budget work session meeting dates to review the 2005 budget for the following Mondays: September 20, October 4, October 18, November 1, November 15, November 29, and December 6. 4) Approve Application for Raffle for the Courage Center of Golden Valley MOTION: Move to direct the City Manager to forward a letter to the State Charitable Gambling Control Board indicating that the City of Columbia Heights has no objection to a raffle event to be conducted by Courage Center of Golden Valley in conjunction with a wheelchair basketball tournament on October 15, 2004 at the Columbia Heights High School, 1440 49th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights; and furthermore, that the City Council hereby waives the remainder of the sixty- day notice to the local governing body. 5) Establishing Amount of Assessments to be Levied MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-57, there being muple copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2004-57 being a Resolution establishing amount of City share and amount of Special Assessments on Projects to be levied. 6) Authorization to seek bids for architectural services for a building maintenance project at the MSC. MOTION: Move to authorize Public Works to seek bids for Architectural Services for plan development and inspection services for the MSC Building Maintenance Project. 7) Adopt Resolution No. 2004-59, being a Resolution supporting MnDOT consideration of a cost sharing municipal agreement for construction of a drainage facili _ty on T.H. 65 south of 49th Avenue MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-59, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2004-59, being a Resolution supporting MnDOT consideration of a cost sharing municipal agreement ~%r construction of a drainage facility on T.H. 65 south of 49th Avenue 8) First Reading of Ordinance No. 1476, being an Ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of approximately $2,045,000 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1476, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to schedule October 11,204 at approximately 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers for the second reading of Ordinance No. 1476 being an ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of approximately $2,045,000 in Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A. 9) Establish a Hearing date of October 11, 2004 for revocation or suspension of rental property license at 4612 Polk Street N.E. City Council Agenda September 27, 2004 Page 3 of 6 MOTION: Move to establish a hearing date of October 11, 2004 for revocation or suspension of a license to operate a rental property within the City o£ Columbia Heights against Marilyn Dalseth at 4612 Polk Street N.E. 10) Approve Rental Housing License Applications MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for September 27, 2004. 11) Approve Business License Applications MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for September 27, 2004 as presented. 12) Approve Payment of Bills MOTION: Move to approve payment of the bills out of the proper funds as listed in the attached check register covering Check Number 109900 through 110067 in the amount of $1,129,467.30. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 1019 37th Ave. MOTION: Move to close the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Erika Thorn regarding rental property at 1019 37t~ Avenue N.E. in that the property owner has corrected a significant number of the deficiencies inside and on the outside ofthe building and has received an extension to complete the work. B) Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 208-10 42nd Ave. MOTION: Move to close the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Tahazib Bacchus regarding rental property at 208-210 42nd Avenue N.E. until such time all interested parties can be properly notified. c) Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 1635 49th Ave. MOTION: Move to close the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Abullahi Elmi regarding rental property at 1635 49th Avenue N.E. in that the property owner has corrected some of the deficiencies inside the building and has received a extension to complete the work on the outside of the building, and as of September 30, 2004 the property will be vacated and no longer be used as rental property. 7. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A) Other Ordinances and Resolutions 1) INDUSTRIAL AREA a) Adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 1474~ an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 1471 ending a moratorium on development in Industrial Park Master Plan area MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Emergency Ordinance No. 1474, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 1471, being an Ordinance repealing Emergency Ordinance No. 1471 and ending the moratorium on the use of property identified in Phase I and II of the Industrial Park Master Plan for the City of Columbia Heights. b) Adopt Resolution 2004-58~ Case #2004-0702 Industrial Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment City Council Agenda September 27, 2004 Page 4 o£ 6 MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-58, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2004-58, being a resolution pertaining to a Comprehensive Plan amendment for certain properties located at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE. c) First Reading of Ordinance No. 1475~ Case #2004-0702~ Industrial Park Rezoning MOTIONS: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance 1475, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to establish a second reading of Ordinance 1475, being an Ordinance pertaining to Zoning and Development Ordinance No. 1428, pertaining to the rezoning of certain properties located at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE for October 11, 2004 at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. d) Resolution 2004-53~ Record of Decision for a Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Industrial Park Redevelopment MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-53, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-53, being a resolution approving a negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement and approving the Record of Decision. e) Adopt Resolution 2004-55~ Adopting a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Proiect and Establishing the Huset Park Area TIF District and TIF Plan MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-55, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and Establishing the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District therein and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore. Adopt Resolution 2004-54~ approving the elimination of parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Pro,iect (MURP) K2 TIF District MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-54, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-54, a Resolution Approving the Elimination of Parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 Tax Increment Financing District within the Central Business District Redevelopment Project in the City of Columbia Heights. g) Adopt Resolution 2004-56, Approving a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Schafer Richardson City Council Agenda September 27, 2004 Page 5 of 6 MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-56, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-56, a Resolution Approving a Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, the City of Columbia Heights and Schafer Richardson, Inc. or a related entity. PLANNING a) Adopt Resolution 2004-51, being a Lot Split, Case #2004-0901, 1813 40th Avenue NE/4041 Hayes Street NE MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-51, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-51, being a resolution approving a lot split of the property at 1813 40th Avenue NE/4041 Hayes St. NE, subject to the stated conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensttre compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. b) Resolution 2004-52, being a Lot Split Case #2004-0902, 1226 43rd Avenue NE MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-52, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-52, a resolution approving a lot split of the property at 1226 43rd Avenue NE subject to the stated conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Bid Considerations 1. Adopt Resolution 2004 -61, being a resolution appropriating and designating fund balances from the Parking Ramp Fund 290 and the Sheffield Fund 410 to the Capital Improvement Development Fund 420. MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-61, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-61, a Resolution appropriating and designating fund balances from the Parking Ramp Fund 290 and the Sheffield Fund 410 to the Capital Improvement Development Fund 420. 2. Adopt Resolution 2004-60, Inter-Fund Loan for acquisition of property at 3939 Central Avenue (Burger King) MOTION: Move to waive the Reading of Resolution 2004-60, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-60, a Resolution approving and specifying terms of inter-fund loan for acquisition of the Burger King property. C. Other Business -none 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A) Report of the City Manager B) Report of the City Attorney 9. CITIZENS FORUM City Council Agenda September 27, 2004 Page 6 ot'6 (At this time, citizens have an opportunity to discuss with the Council items not on the regular agenda. Citizens are requested to limit their comments to five minutes.) 10. COUNCIL CORNER 11. ADJOURNMENT Walter R. Fehst, CI~, Manager WF/pvm PROCLAMATION POLISH-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH OCTOBER 2004 WHEREAS, October is Polish-American Heritage Month, which is a national celebration of Polish Heritage. This observance also recognizes Polish culture and pride in cooperation with the Polish-American Congress and Polonia across America. WHEREAS, the Polish American Heritage Month Committee is celebrating their Twenty-third Anniversary of is founding since being recognized in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The purpose of the Committee is to bring attention to the contributions of Poles and Polish Americans to the United States and world history. WHEREAS, in 2004, the 213th Anniversary of Poland's Constitution is being observed. WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights has many residents who take pride in their Polish heritage, ancestry, and traditions. WHEREAS, our Columbia Heights/Lomianki, Poland, Sister Cities International Committee is celebrating the 13TM anniversary of our special relationship. In 2004 this Committee has provided or sponsored various civic, educational, cultural and , humanitarian activities. WHEREAS, the Sister Cities emblem at our gateway Park is an impressive reminder of our commitment to international friendship. We share the ideals of pride and patriotism with all. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor of the City of Columbia Heights, do hereby designate October as: Polish American Heritage Month in Columbia Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Julienne Wyckoff PROCLAMATION OF OCTOBER 2004 AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, the community problem of domestic violence has become a critical public health and welfare concern in Anoka County; and WHEREAS, domestic violence is a crime, the commission of which will not be tolerated in Anoka County and perpetrators of said crime are subject to prosecution and conviction in accordance with the law; and WHEREAS, over thousands of women and children have and will continue to access assistance bom Alexandra House, Inc., a domestic violence service provider; and WHEREAS, domestic violence will be eliminated through community partnerships of concerned individuals and organizations working together to prevent abuse while at the same time effecting social and legal change; and WHEREAS, October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month; and WHEREAS, during National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Anoka County organizations will inform area residents about domestic violence, its prevalence, consequences and what we, as a concerned community can do to eliminate its existence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Mayor Julienne~ Wyckoff proclaims October to be Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Mayor Julienne Wyckoff OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 The following are the minutes the SPECIAL MEETING of the City Council held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wyckoff, Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Nawrocki, Councilmember Ericson, Councilmember Kelzenberg PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - recited Wyckoff stated that the NEI building demolition would begin Tuesday morning. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Issuance of general obligation bonds and calling a special election thereon Walt Fehst, City Manager, stated during the August 16 meeting discussion on potential construction of a recreational facility there was a request to determine the cost of a recreational facility and set this meeting to decide whether to put the question of a new recreational facility on the November ballot. The numbers presented in the Council letter are based on local construction costs and basic capital operating costs. Included was the suggestion to include an Eagles Nest facility, s~ilar to New Brighton's, as a revenue producer. Staff present were Community Development Director Streetar, Recreation Director Windschitl. Streetar indicated the cost figure given includes the operating budget, 3 gyms, walking/running track, weight equipment, fitness center, locker room, concession area, children's area, community meeting space and storage space. Estimated size would be 40,600 square feet and the cost would range from $5,100,000 to $5,800,000, not including architect and furnishing costs. The operating budget would be estimated at $267,000 to $295,000 with estimated revenues of $250,000 to $276,000; thereby anticipating a yearly deficit of about $17,000. Streetar stated that Krause Anderson estimated capital costs of approximately $7,235,000, including financing. Interest would be anticipated at 5.2 percent on a bond resolution. Streetar read the suggested ballot language. Fehst referred to the past referendum for a community center and the $375,000 that was to be donated for two gyms. The price of inflation is evident and continues to go up. Nawrocki stated that more than inflation, this proposal is considerably more elaborate than in 1999. Fehst stated it has less, other than one additional gym. Nawrocki questioned estimated tournament revenues. including a child's play structure. Streetar indicated that in other communities ten to twenty percent of the operating budget comes from the general fund and costs are shared with the school district. Nawrocki questioned if facility rental would compete with Murzyn Hall. Streetar stated that the three proposed rooms are only about 150 square feet each. Windschitl stated revenue could include the weight room and running track. Nawrocki questioned how membership fees would be determined. Streetar stated that he has spoken with a fin~a that does demand studies to help determine usage, fees and other competitors. Wyckoff stated the need to keep a broad sense on this and discuss whether there should be a referendum. Nawrocki felt the details are necessary and continued to question revenue. Streetar mentioned a family membership fee of $225 per year for residents and $325 per year for non-resident. Wyckoff indicated distaste for doing more studies. Streetar indicated this would allow the construction of amenities that people would use and pay for. The Boosters Club may contribute the $5,000 study cost. City Council Minutes September 9, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Wyckoff stated that at this point she does not feel we should go forward with a referendum, as it is important that the School referendum pass and felt this question would fail. She suggested looking for partners like the Montessori school and the art school in Fridley that needs more space. We are not ready at this point, but need to start the planning right now to take care of our kids and adults that need more exercise. Williams stated that it was wrong to call this meeting, as the cormnunity survey did not indicate a need for gym space and we do not have a location. The EDA owns the NEI site and we cannot decide what to build there. The timing is wrong because of double-digit property tax increase discussions for this year and next year. It would also jeopardize the school referendum. He suggested having fund raisers and getting the community involved. We should find a way to exempt seniors from paying for this. Kelzenberg agreed that now is not the time to do this - twenty years ago was the time to do it. We subsidize Parkview Villa for a small portion of Columbia Heights residents and this facility would help everyone. Kelzenberg agreed to not put forth a referendum to jeopardize the project, but there is a definite need for more gyms. The NEI site is a perfect location and needs to be pursued. Kelzenberg referred to the decision to build Parkview Villa and Councilmember Nawrocki's role, and indicated the desire for that much energy toward this project. Parkview Villa was built with zero coupon bonds, which we are now paying for. Nawrocki suggested he do more research on that project. Ericson stated that most of the necessary comments have been made, but as a community we need to invest in our kids and the future. We need to look at this further and do a high quality project. We need to make it a priority. Sue Genosky, 4851 Jefferson, indicated she was glad to hear this would not be on the ballot, as the schools need the operating levy referendmm to pass. She stated that this community space does need to be a priority. We cannot procrastinate as we have in the past. She stated that she would be at every council meeting to make sure it is on the agenda. Joseph Wolney, 542 Summit Street, stated he has always supported building this facility. He and Kelzenberg have sons that play basketball together. The school district got their levy and built an early child development center. They could have built a facility to accommodate more activities. The community must focus on and build these gym facilities. Jenny Strate, 4141 Monroe Street, stated that her family does not support building gym space. It is important, but the income level of Columbia Heights residents cannot support it. A lot of elderly would not benefit and cannot afford it. If the city grows and becomes more stable, it could be considered. Kay Mayer, 2115 Highland, agreed the elderly could not afford the tax increase, but we must look at our property value and draw in other families to have this community center. She stated her children are out of their home, but is willing to pay because of the need for future generations to have this. We need this gym space "yesterday". Kenny Stumpf, 403 48th Avenue, stated he is a 32 year resident, and his children succeeded quite well with what we have. He stated they walk the streets for exercise. He stated he opposed this building the last time and would oppose it again. He suggested buying participation in other facilities. Wyckoff stated that there has been discussion with the YMCA, which we need to explore further. Aurora Johnston, 3977 Polk, stated she made the initial request that this be placed on the ballot or go out for bonds. She is willing to go out into the community and continue to gain funds for this type of facility. She City Council Minutes September 9, 2004 Page 3 of 3 stated that she has learned there are some fund balances available and that furore consideration could include these monies. Wyckoff stated that we could not use the entire fund balance. Steve Craig, 3868 Tyler Street, indicated that paying membership at other clubs would not would give om' children gym space to practice in. Without this, young families will not continue to move into the community. If you continue to invest in the community, they will come. Williams indicated that when we do this, we should work with the school district. If we care about our children, we will put aside our differences and work together. Nawrocki expressed displeasure at the way this meeting was handled. What is proposed is not in the best interest of everybody. We need to work with the schools. It was wrong to down NEI, which had two gyms. In an era of financial problems, it is time for cooperation of governmental services. He is disappointed that the school district chose not to move forward with this as part of their referendum. People need the opportunity to vote on this. Wyckoff questions preliminary plans for the NEI site. Streetar introduced Richard Milgrom of the Metropolitan Design Center, a free service, with several ideas to enhance development of the NEI site. Milgrom indicated that the University Design group are not architects and have no financial interest in this project, only in how the entire project would benefit the city. He referred to three design posters not tied to the referendum. The first poster addressed existing conditions and challenges of the site. Distance to the commercial area is an asset, and the ponding area is an under used asset. Space for a library, gyms and community center were points of discussion. Parking space could be under the gym. This is about providing better amenities for the present and for others that would move here. There was a request for more outdoor space for the seniors on this site. Discussion included separate funding for two buildings built at different times. He referred to development of housing to gain funds. Fehst asked if the second option had underground parking also. Milgrom stated it does. Streetar stated these concepts would be available to the public. Pat Tollefson, 4210 Polk Street, requested that an indoor pool be included. Wyckoff stated that is a repeated request. Wyckoff indicated the Maxfield analysis would identify what people would be interested in. Nawrocki questioned when the decision was made to have this study done. Wyckoffindicated it would need Council approval before going forward. Fehst stated that an outside group, such as the Boosters, could finance this study. Wyckoff indicated that the City would still have input. Streetar stated that Maxfield would put together a proposal prior to any commitment. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Wyckoff adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 ~,m ~ ~' r'~ r: 7:00 P.M. ~ ~ The invocation was provided by Pastor Peter Law from United Methodist Church CALL TO ORDER/APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY PRO TEM/ROLL CALI~ The meeting was called to order by Mayor Wyckoff at 7:02 p.m. Motion by Councihnember Nawrocki, seconded by Councilmember Williams, to appoint Carole Blowers as Secretary Pro Tem. Motion passed unanimously. Roll Call: Present: Kelzenberg, Williams, Ericson, Nawrocki, Wyckoff PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA (The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forum or items submitted after the agenda preparation deadline,) There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. PROCLAMATIONS~ PRESENTATIONS~ RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS There were no proclamations. There were two presentations 1) Firefighter Roolde of the Year - Charlie Thompson, Fire Chief, announced that they started a new program just this year. All members voted, and there was a tie. Therefore, the recipients of the first Firefighter Rookie of the Year are Brad and Bret Roddy. Their father, Police Captain Bill Roddy, read their nominations. Brad and Bret both gave brief speeches. 2) Firefighter of the Year - Charlie Thompson, Fire Chief, announced this is another new program just this year. Chief Thompson read the nomination for Dan O'Brien, who was chosen for this award. Dan gave a brief speech. Resident Cliff Shedlov, 4630 Fillmore Street N.E., stated that he would not be here today without the fine efforts of our paramedics. There were no new employees introduced. There was no other recognition. CONSENT AGENDA (These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as the next order of business.) MOTION by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Nawrocki, and passed unanimously to approve the Consent Agenda items as follows: City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 2 of 12 Approve City Council Meeting Minutes for August 23, 2004 regular Ci_ty Council meeting MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2004, regular City Council meeting as presented. Note: Councilmember Nawrocki commented on page 11, mid page, that he wants to also work with other governmental agencies. Accept Boards and Commissions Meeting Minutes MOTION: Move to accept the July 15, 2004, minutes of the Charter Commission MOTION: Move to accept the August 3, 2004, minutes of the Columbia Heights Public Library Board of Trustees MOTION: Move to accept the August 25, 2004, minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission. The item regarding the approval of the PMA agreement was removed from the consent agenda and was discussed immediately following all the consent items. Adopt Resolution No. 2004-49, Regarding the Labor Agreement with the International Union of Operating. Engineers (ILIOE), Local 49 RESOLUTION 2004-49 REGARDING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49 WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Intemational Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local No. 49, representing employees of the Public Works Department and members of the City negotiating team, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable contract for calendar years 2004 and 2005. WHEREAS, a copy of said contract is available at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the contract agreement, as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2004 and 2005 for IUOE bargaining unit employees of the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute this agreement. MOTION to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution No. 2004-49, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49, effective January 1, 2004-December 31, 2005. Establish a Hearing Date of September 27, 2004, for Revocation or Suspension of Rental Property License at 1635 49th Avenue N.E., 1019 37th Avenue N.E., and 208-10 42nd Avenue N.E. MOTION to Establish a Hearing Date of September 27, 2004, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Abullahi Elmi at 1635 49th Avenue N.E. MOTION to Establish a Hearing Date of September 27, 2004, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Erika Thom at 1019 37th Avenue City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 3 of 12 N.m. MOTION to Establish a Hearing Date of September 27, 2004, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Tahazib Bacchus at 208-10 42nd Avenue N.E. Adopt Resolution 2004-48, being a Resolution Supporting the Efforts of the Columbia Heights Police Department in Obtaining a Grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management RESOLUTION 2004-48 BEING A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT PARTICIPATION IN THE 2004 LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights Police Department has obtained a grant in the amount of $186,600 to be used for the purchase of 800 MHz portable radios for the Civilian Emergency Response Teams (CERT) and a Reverse 911 phone system; and, WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights CERT Team will use 15 radios, the New Brighton CERT Team will use 15 radios, the St. Anthony CERT Team will use 15 radios, and the Fridley CERT Team will use 15 radios to give us interoperability between each of the CERT Teams in our area; and WHEREAS, the 911 system will have valuable uses to send messages to every household in our city or any part of the city; call groups such as CERT Team members, reserve officers, police officers, fire fighters, public works employees, and neighboring CERT Team members; or alert citizens of water main breaks, hazardous conditions or important meetings in their area; and, WHEREAS, the ability to communicate with volunteers and citizens will save time and money, thereby being valuable assistance to our police department, our city--and most importantly--our citizens; and, WHEREAS, there is no local match required; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights accepts the grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of Police of the Columbia Heights Police Department, or his designee, is hereby authorized to exercise such agreement on behalf of the City of Columbia Heights and the Columbia Heights Police Department. MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-48, there being ample copies available for the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004-48, being a resolution supporting the efforts of the Columbia Heights Police Department in obtaining a grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The grant will be used for the purchase of sixty 800 MHZ handheld radios for use by area CERT Teams and a Reverse 911 system. Further, to authorize the Mayor and the Chief of Police to enter into a contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to accept the grant for $186,600 to pay for this equipment. NOTE: The City Manager and Police Chief referred to an article in the Sunday Star Tribune regarding this City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 4 of 12 item. The Police Chief explained that the grant is for three communities: New Brighton, St. Anthony, and Fridley, with 15 radios going to each city. Nawrocki stated in the agreement it reads that we are responsible to maintain and repair this equipment. Approve Transfer of Funds from General Fund to Police Department Overtime Fund, Line 1020 MOTION to transfer $1,664.06, the total amount of money received from the State of Minnesota for our efforts in the Safe and Sober Program from the General Fund to the Police Department 2004 budget line itl 020, Overtime. Approve Business License Applications MOTION to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for September 13, 2004, as presented. Approve Payment of Bills MOTION to approve payment of the bills out of the proper funds as listed in the attached check register covering Check Number 109710 through 109899 in the amount of $1,509,326.56 The following item was pulled from the consent agenda and discussed at this time: Adopt Resolution 2004-41, Being a Resolution Approving the 2004~2005 Public Managers Association (PMA) Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION 2004-41 BEING A RESOLUTION REGARDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND THE PUBLIC MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that: WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Public Managers' Association, representing Division Heads of the City, and members of the City negotiating team, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable Memorandum of Understanding for calendar years 2004 and 2005; WHEREAS, a copy of said Memorandum of Understanding will be made available for inspection at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Memorandum of Understanding as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2004 and 2005 for the Public Managers' Association bargaining unit employees of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute this agreement. Councilmember Nawrocki stated that the council did not receive all information needed to make a decision on this issue. No salary information on current wages for the members of this union were provided to the council, only what wages were proposed for the next two years. He stated he compared these wages to the Stanton Survey; and comparing these wages to Stanton 6 cities (10,000-25,000 population), we would be paying more. He could not find the Library Director position in the survey. He noted that comparing the IUOE positions with the survey, we were right on. Nawrocki noted the $1,250 in additional compensation for the PMA members. He also asked if the city participated in the Stanton survey last year. City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 5 of 12 Linda Magee, Assistant to the City Manager/Human Resources Director, answered Nawrocki's questions. She stated that 2004 was the first year the city did not participate in the Stanton survey, as no contracts had been settled at the time the survey data was due. She stated that the proposed percentage of raise is the same as what has been granted for other unions/non-union employees. The additional compensation of $1,250 mentioned has been the same amount for several years. It had been a match to deferred compensation, and now it can be taken as that or cash. The insurance is the same granted other unions. Ms. Magee stated that the wage information is presented in the same manner as has been done in the past. We have not shown current wages in the past, but could in the future, if that is desired. She stated the PMA's are an essential employee group; thus, they cannot strike. If they were not satisfied with the results of negotiations, they have the right to go to binding arbitration. Likewise, the Firefighters, Police Officers, and Police Sergeants are essential, and they have the right to binding arbitration. The Public Works 49'ers and AFSCME are non-essential. They have the right to strike over a contract. Nawrocki pointed out that a Maintenance Worker makes $20 an hour, and a division head makes $40 plus an hour. He stated there should be a difference between the managers and workers; however, it appears to be getting out of line. Again Nawrocki stated that from 2001-2003, management made twice as much as the workers. He is not saying the managers are not doing a good job, and he realizes there has to be some difference in pay between the managers and the workers. Ms. Magee stated that the city also has to be concerned with internal equities. When pay equity first came around, it was discovered that mid to higher level managers pay was low. A statistical program determines whether the City is in compliance with pay equity. Ms. Magee stated that the next time the city needs to report pay data to the state is in 2007, reporting 2006 data. We use the Hay system of job evaluation. We do not rely on the Stanton report like we did prior to pay equity. Nawrocki questioned the re-evaluation of the Community Development Director's position that hadn't been taken to the Council. The City Manager stated that he is paid to evaluate and upgrade positions as needed. Ms. Magee stated this is similar to what had been done for several non-union positions in 2001-2003. MOTION by Councilmember Ericson, seconded by Councilmember Kelzenberg, to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION by Councilmember Ericson, seconded by Councilmember Kelzenberg, to adopt Resolution 2004-41, regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Columbia Heights and the Public Managers' Association, effective January 1, 2004-December 31, 2005. Roll call: Ayes: Kelzenberg, Williams, Ericson, Wyckoff; Nays: Nawrocki. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Extend Public Hearing for the Adoption of a Modification to the Downtown Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and the Proposed Adoption of a TIF Plan MOTION by Councilmember Ericson, seconded by Councilmember Williams, to continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 2004, City Council meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Downtown Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City. Motion passed unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Other Ordinances and Resolutions City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 6 of 12 RESOLUTION 2004 - 38 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2005, SETTING THE PROPOSED CITY LEVY, APPROVING THE HRA LEVY, APPROVING A TAX RATE INCREASE, AND ESTABLISHING A BUDGET HEARING DATE FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2005 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA: that the following is hereby adopted by the City of Columbia Heights. Section A. The budget for the City of Columbia Heights for the year 2005 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the funds listed below. General Fund Community Development Fund Economic Development Fund State Aid Cable Television Library DARE Project Infrastructure Capital Improvement Capital Equipment Construction Funds Central Garage Fund Liquor Operating Liquor Capital Improvement Water Utility Fund Sewer Utility Fund Refuse Fund Storm Sewer Fund Data Processing Debt Service Fund Total Expense Including Interfund Transfers Expense 8,232,617 517 420 246 332 163 984 200 643 631 271 5.375 162 560 400 000 394 598 643 000 492 978 6,987,48O 6,210,747 1,951,379 1,420,436 1,540,225 336,037 267,891 2,537,607 33,342,580 Section B. The estimated gross Columbia Heights for ail fund&, Levies and use of fund for the year 2005: General Fund Community Development Fund Economic Development Fund State Aid Cable Television Library DARE Project Infrastructure Capital Improvement Oapitai Equipment Replace- revenue to including Balances, fund the budget of the City of general ad vaiorem tax as hereinafter set forth Reve n u e 8,232,617 517,420 246,332 163,984 200,643 631,271 5,375 162,560 400,000 394,598 City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 7 of 12 ment Funds Construction Funds Central Garage Fund Liquor Operating Liquor Capital Improvement Water Utility Fund Sewer Utility Fund Refuse Fund Storm Sewer Fund Data Processing Debt Service Fund Total Revenue Including Interfund Transfers 643,000 492,978 6,987,48O 6,210,747 1,951,379 1,420,436 1,540,225 336,037 267,891 2,537,607 33,342,580 Section C: The following sums Collectable in 2005, upon the Columbia Heights, for the Estimated General Fund Levy of money taxable following are levied for the current year property in said City of purposes: 2004 Levy 4,928,710 Estimated Library Levy Estimated EDA Fund Levy Total 2004 Levy 433,565 84,985 5,447,26O Lost LGA Levy Increase Cost of Living Levy Increase Total 2005 Proposed Levy 544,726 250,000 6,241,986 Section D. The City Council of the City of Columbia Heights hereby approves the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Levy for the fiscal year 2005 in the amount of $161,366. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA: That the budget meeting is scheduled for December 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF ANOKA, MINNESOTA: That the county auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for taxes payable in the year 2005 that is higher than the tax rate calculated for the city for taxes levied in 2003, collectable in 2004. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the city has adequate fund balances and reserves to pay all 2005 Bond principal and interest payments and the county auditor is authorized to cancel all Bond Levies for taxes payable in 2005. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Anoka County, Minnesota. Walt Fehst, City Manager, reviewed the memo of September 9, 2004 to the Mayor/City Council from the Finance Director. The authority to make up for lost state aid through property tax levies and other sources is within the control of the City Council. One city has lower taxes than Columbia Heights. The second and even more important fact is that the average home in Columbia Heights is paying less taxes in 2004 than they paid in 1997, and a considerable amount of the increase in property taxes over the last five years is due to legislative changes and adjustments to the property class rate structure whereby the state legislature moved a large amount of the commercial-industrial property tax burden to residential property. This resulted in a decrease in commercial-industrial property taxes and an increase in residential property taxes. City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 8 of 12 The City Manager further explained that we could restructure the debt at Parkview Villa South or sell it, and we must explore restructuring of Murzyn Hall operations. In the Truth in Taxation process, the adoption of the preliminary levy is actually the starting point of the budget and levy review process that culminates with the Truth in Taxation hearing in December. The intent of the Truth in Taxation process is to set a preliminary maximum levy. Nawrocki stated the council did not get the budget yet. We don't know what the proposed cuts in persom~el. will be. Many people are of the mindset that you can't beat City Hall. He has sat down with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Finance people. The tax increases will be 5.5 percent statewide average. Mention was made of the Crisis in Government Study- 2004. Columbia Heights is not on the low end. We are under the median for the metropolitan area. Regarding Parkview Villa South, TIF bonds, and refinancing, we built the building because the community wanted it. Years ago, the remodeling ($1,000,000) of Murzyn Hall was done to take care of community activities and be rented out for events. If the city made money, that was OK, but it was not the main thing here. The 14% tax increase last year in reality became 20%. Discussion again focused on the $5 million in local government aid that will be lost from 2003 to 2006. What we set for the preliminary budget and levy cannot be increased, but it can be decreased. Finance Director, Bill Elrite, stated the management of Murzyn Hall is in question. We need to get it to a break-even situation. We need to review all fees. Parkview Villa South operates at the same level; we could sell the structure, restructuring the debt. Franchise fees also need to be looked at. There are lots of ideas to be discussed during the budget process. He encouraged the council to look at the major items--Murzyn Hall, Parkview Villa South, and franchise fees. Again it was reiterated that it was legislative changes that reduced taxes from 1997 to 1999. Now we need to increase taxes. Nawrocki stated the figures on Parkview Villa South given were not accurate--the $900,000. Where is the city going? We have seen major personnel changes. Many officers not replaced. We went from 26 officers to 22. Funding for 24 positions was available, but two were held open due to uncertainty. The Fire Department has one vacancy for a firefighter. Fifteen positions throughout the city have not been filled. Three of the officers were "Clinton cops", who were hired with the understanding if the funding lasted, OK. The Mayor stated people coming into our city are demanding more of our services. She received four or five complaints about blighted properties in the city just today. We are back to the pre-Sheffield days. We have a wonderful town, and we need to keep it up. Williams stated that we have the opportunity to fall back on some fund balances. Social security increased by 1.5%. Staffneeds to come up with creative ways to reinvent our budget. Kelzenberg stated we should set the maximum levy for now. Then look at these things--must restructure Murzyn Hall and Parkview Villa. Elrite stated we made no payment on those bonds for Parkview Villa. It was the choice the council made at that time. Day to day operations are covered. We need to restructure the rents. City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 9 of 12 Nawrocki asked the Mayor what properties she received complaints about. He again mentioned the referendum the people passed several years ago to put $1 million into renovating Murzyn Hall. The City Manager stated we need to look at how it is operated--good and bad. Nawrocki stated the council has always set the maximum levy for the past five years and it always stays there. It never comes down from the original levy amount set. Williams stated user fees are important, i.e., user fees for using the parks, etc. Nawrocki stated that not all residents use the services offered by the city. The Mayor asked if any residents had anything they would like to talk about regarding the budget. Harold Hoium, 4315, 4317-4321 5th Street, stated the city should do a time study of the entire city operation. He questioned the Habitat for Humanity homes and the Sheffield development. Cliff Shedlov, 4630 Fillmore Street, stated he has been watching the mowing, street sweeping, water main, and striping crews and sees no abuse by city employees. He stated the police department should be at full staff; there are instances where back up is hard to get. He stated our Fire Department and paramedics are top notch and the ambulance drivers are happy to come to our city with the fine support from these employees. He also stated the City Manager has been helpful with different issues he has discussed with him. Catherine Vesley, 5135 Matterhorn Drive, supports the maximum levy, and feels the citizens of Columbia Heights will be reasonable about a tax increase to support our services and maintain our communities. She stated she was amazed that her taxes have been going down. Nawrocki asked what by statute is required of the council at this time. The council is to certify the levy and proposed budget to the county. He again asked about the difference between the alternate motion and the recommended motion. The alternate motion is 14% increase in taxes (city portion), and the recommended motion is a 20% increase in taxes (city portion). He questioned how we could justify the 17% increase in the HRA levy. This will be due to all the housing and redevelopment projects. $250,000 was added for cost of living adjustments. In the Police Department, one part time clerical position and one Police Officer position was cut from their budget to offset the cost of living adjustments. MOTION by Councilmember Kelzenberg, seconded by Councilmember Ericson, to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-38, there being ample copies available to the public. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION by Councilmember Kelzenberg, seconded by Councilmember Ericson, to adopt Resolution 2004-38, being a resolution adopting a proposed budget; setting the City, Library, EDA proposed levy at $6,241,986; establishing a budget hearing date for property taxes payable in 2005 for December 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers; approving a tax rate increase; and approving the HRA levy of $161,366. Councilmember Nawrocki stated he would like to make an amendment to the above motion that would read: Propose the total levy for 2005 be set at the levy for 2004, plus 6%. Seconded by Councihnember Williams. Roll call vote to vote on the amendment motion: Ayes: Williams, Nawrocki; Nays: Kelzenberg, Ericson, Wyckoff. Motion on the amendment failed Roll call vote on the original motion setting the City, Library, and EDA proposed levy at $6,241,986 was: Ayes: Kelzenberg, Ericson, Wyckoff; Nays: Williams, Nawrocki. City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 10 of 12 Bid Considerations -none Other Business ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Report of the Ci_ty Manager Thanked all individuals who were running for local office. · Urged everyone to be sure to vote. · The upcoming Work Session will be devoted to the Police Budget. · In Recreation, they will be hiring part time help instead of filling the full time vacant Recreation Program Coordinator position. Report of the Ci_ty Attorney · Prosecuting several hundred cases weekly. CITIZENS FORUM (At this time, citizens have an opportunity to discuss with the Council items not on the regular agenda. Citizens are requested to limit their comments to five minutes.) Lowell Johnson, 4024 Madison Street · asked several questions of the staff recently, and they have all been very courteous and helpful · noted the disagreement among the current conncilmembers; must work together · proposes the council add to the next meeting a discussion on term limits; noted some politicians have over 26 years of experience · noted there were 2000 less registered voters than the last election per the Minnesota state voter registration list · noted a previous Mayor made $26,000 in their last year of their term of office · the city should sell advertisements for revenue; i.e., advertisements on police cars · staff could cut operating costs if people read their e-mail; staff should not have to print out council's e- mail · regarding the Public Works storm sewer project, we should increase the speed of that job so we can get the I & I insurance; put more staff on; never hear about what to do to increase the speed · weed control expenses for 2003 was $13,902--1ess than the previous year; management of noxious weeds is important · low interest grants should be available (no money now); we need grant monies for private homes to improve our community · our city is d_ying; there is a smaller number of people living here than before · need a larger tax base; bring something here to attract people · more creative ideas are needed to get more people here · noted there seems to be a resistance to go out for bids on the garbage contract · noted we are looking for a Building Official and asked if we would be dropping the contract with New Brighton Nawrocki questioned Mr. Johnson who was the Mayor that received $26,000 in their last year in office? Mr. Johnson stated it was Mr. Nawrocki. Nawrocki stated that was incorrect, and wanted to know where Johnson got that information. Johnson stated it was in the blue books at the library, and he would double-check that information. The City is looking for a full time Planner, a full time Building Official, and the part time Building Inspector is under contract with the City of New Brighton. City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 11 of 12 COUNCIL CORNER Kelzenberg: · Thanked Paul from the 500 Club for the golf tournament this past weekend. · The minutes he was referring to in a previous meeting are ones dated March 20, 1990, from a HRA Special Meeting. IfNawrocki had asked him nicely, he would have provided him with those minutes. · If the same energy that was put into Parkview Villa was used towards a community center, we would have a new community center today. · Stated he won't be intimidated by Nawrocki as some people are. Williams: · The council will be working on the budget until December. · Pray for one another and the health and happiness of the city. Ericson: · The primary election is September 14th. · Rising to New Heights will be meeting that evening at Crestview at 7 p.m. · The city is advertising for a Planner and Building Official. We have voted on these positions. We hope to get more Police Officers, as we need them. · On September 22, there will be a 7 p.m. public meeting on the Industrial Park at Murzyn Hall. Nawrocki: · Stated that we can't make decisions at work session; however, the council agreed to a $50 memorial for the St. Anthony Mayor back in August; questioned this action. Thought council members were going to donate money for flowers. · Asked how the Planning and Zoning Commission was doing on the issue of limiting multi-family units in the city. Ericson stated they are looking at it. She also stated they are working with the Fire Department on the costs to maintain rental property in the city. · Nawrocki asked about the K-Mart development and the 1 bedroom units planned--aren't 2 required? He also expressed concern regarding the parking requirements (one space) for one bedroom units. Motion by Nawrocki, seconded by Williams, to have the Planning and Zoning Commission look at the requirements that only one parking space is required for the one bedroom units. Roll call vote: All ayes. Discussion ensued that it was decided previously that no motions would be made during Council Comer. He asked where this action was taken by the council. He stated he would like to be shown this in the minutes. Nawrocki stated that Council Comer took the place of Old Business and New Business in the agenda. · Asked the City Manager for a copy of the minutes that Kelzenberg was referring to about ParkView Villa from several years ago. · There was a construction sign near 37th and Reservoir that had Reservoir misspelled. Wyckoff: · Be sure to get out and vote on the 14th. · Library Board members are needed. They meet on the first Tuesday of the month. · She thanked the 500 Club for sponsoring the golf tournament. The Fire Cadets raised about $1,000. City Council Minutes September 13, 2004 Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 9:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carole J. Blowers, Secretary Pro Tem CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING 2004 PRIMARY ELECTION CANVAS SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 THESE MINUTES HAVE The following are the minutes of the 2004 Primary Municipal Election Canvas meeting of the City Council held at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN. Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Mayor Wycko£f, Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Nawrocki, Councilmember Ericson, Councilmember Kelzenberg Pledge of Allegiance - recited Adopt Resolution No. 2004-50, Canvassing Primary Election Returns of September 14, 2004 Motion by Ericson, second by Kelzenberg, to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-50, there being ample copies available to the general public. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried. Motion by Ericson, second by Kelzenberg, to adopt Resolution 2004-50, being a Resolution Canvassing Municipal Primary Election Returns. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocld, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-50 CANVASSING MUNICIPAL PRIMARY ELECTION RETURNS WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights, did on the 14th day of September, 2004, conduct and hold a Primary Municipal Election for the pta-pose of nominating candidates for two offices of Council Member to be voted on at a General Municipal Election on November 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights at a meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of September 2004, did canvass the returns and results of said Primary Municipal Election; and WHEREAS, the following results were determined by said canvass of said Primary Municipal Election, to wit: TOTAL BALLOTS CAST IN ELECTION: 1,650 Valid Votes Cast for Two 4-Year Council Seats Bob Buboltz 222 Lowell Johnson 167 Carolyn Laine 687 Ted Landwehr 458 Frank Nmneny 79 Bruce Nawrocki 662 Robert A. Williams 759 Overvotes 1 Times voted blank 31 Undervotes 202 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, that Robert A. Williams, Cm'olyn Laine, Bruce Nawrocki, and Ted Landwehr are hereby declared to be the candidates for the two four-year Council Seats at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 2, 2004. Adjourn Mayor Wyckoff adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary City of Columbia Heights Park and Recreation Commission July 28, 2004 The meeting was called to order by Eileen Evans at 6:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Also present: Eileen Evans; Jerry Foss; Tom Greenhalgh; Bruce Kelzenberg; Gary Mayer; Kevin McDonald; Keith Windschitl, Recreation Director; Excused Absent: David Payne; Marsha Stroik; Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Absent: None APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA Motion to approve consent agenda by Mayer, second by Foss. All ayes, motion carried. LETTERS AND REQUESTS REQUEST FOR RENTAL DATE CHANGE Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, informed the Commission of the request by Kristine Bjork to change her rental date from Friday, May 13, 2005 to Saturday, April 23, 2005. Keith Windschitl pointed out that this is her second rental date change that has been brought before the Co~mrdssion. Her original date was Saturday, May 15, 2004, which was cancelled mid-February 2004. Motion by Mayer, second by Foss to allow rental date change to a different Friday in 2005 or lose the initial dow2~ payment of $500 and continue as a brand new rental if requesting a Saturday while also not allowing any further rental changes. All ayes, motion carried. LETTER OF COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS LION'S CLUB Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, reviewed with the Cormnission the letter of complaint against the Columbia Heights Lion's Club regarding a wedding reception held at JPM on Saturday, June 18, 2004. Commission Member, Jerry Foss, pointed out the highlights of the letter, which contained: Lion members going through the buffet line; Lion members informing a customer to talk to the bride about not being allowed to smoke in the LaBelle Lounge; Lion member's being unable to maize drinks. Commission Chairperson, Eileen Evans will send a letter to the Columbia Heights Lion's Club making them aware of the letter of complaint. PAGE TWO OLD BUSINESS MURZYN HALL CATERING POLICY Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, reviewed the attached minutes from previous Park & Recreation Commission meetings where catering has been discussed. He feels that the catering policy that is currently in effect should remain as is. At the present time only licensed caterers are allowed to cook onsite. They must provide the City of Columbia Heights with a current copy of the catering license and a certificate of liability insurance listing the City of Columbia Heights as additional insured. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business at the time. REPORTS RECREATION DIRECTOR Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, informed the Commission of the donations that JPM has received. JPM has received $150.00 from Toastmasters, $225.00 from Women of Today and $5000 in the form of a Grant for Keyes Park from the Minnesota Twins. Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, reviewed a clarification memo with the Commission Members regarding the Taste of Columbia Heights. The expenses were transferred to the general account along with the revenue. Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, infom~ed the Commission that he would be attending an Economic Development Authority meeting regarding NEI. Currently there may be an effort trying to stop the process of demolishing NEI. The outside structure of NEI is in good shape but the interior of the building has major problems, including mold, asbestos, boilers and shape of plumbing. Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, informed the Commission that the summer programs are winding down for the 2004 season. Programs were well attended, another preschool park program was created to meet the demands of that age group, Puppet Wagon saw high numbers and the Event Wagon was a success. Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, informed the Co~umission that the Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters members, Jerry Foss, Aurora Johnston and Sue Genosky presented the Columbia Heights Recreation Department with a check of $25,000 for youth progrm~ming. PAGE THREE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER COMMISSION MEMBERS Commission Member, Tom Greenhalgh, noted before the Commission that if ball field #5 is unplayable for the 2005 adult softball season due to the rerouting of Jefferson Street NE, lights should be put in place at Prestemon Park so to not disrupt the adult softball leagues. Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, informed the Commission that it would cost approximately $55,000 to $60,000 to light Prestemon Park. Opposition may also be met from Prestemon Park neighbors regarding the lights and excess noise. Commission Chairperson, Eileen Evans, asked Council Member, Bruce Kelzenberg is the sale of Huset Park east parking lot is finalized. At this point it is not. Commission Chairperson, Eileen Evans, asked Recreation Director, Keith Windschitl, if the 1st Lutheran Church is adding on a gym to the existing church. Keith Windschitl stated that a full gym would be added on. Commission Chairperson, Eileen Evans, noted that other Commissions participated in the 2004 Columbia Heights Jamboree parade and would like the Park & Recreation Commission to fully participate in the 2005 Columbia Heights Jamboree parade. Commission Member, Jerry Foss, questioned the status of the referendum to build a multi-use facility in regard to the current election year. Jerry Foss believes that if the referendum is not put on the 2004 ballot it will not pass next year as a special referendum. Motion by Foss, second by Mayer for the Park & Recreation Commission to recommend to the City Council to put a referendum vote to build a multi-use facility on the 2004 election ballot and to come up with facility figures. All ayes, motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Tina Foss, Park and Recreation Cormnission Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by the Chair person Gary Peterson. Roll Call: Commission Members present-Peterson, Schmitt, Baker, Szurek and Fiorendino. Also present were Ellen Berkelhamer (City Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), and Tami Ericson (Council Liaison). Motion by Szurek, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 4, 2004. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2004,0901 LOT SPLIT Gladys Wychor 1813 40th Avenue NE/4041 Hayes Street NE Introduction Gladys Wychor, the owner of the property at 18t3 40th Avenue NE, has made an application for a lot split to reconfigure the property line separating her property and an adjacent property at 4041 Hayes Street NE. Ms. Wychor proposes to sell the rear portion of her lot (6,595 sq. ft. of land) to Mark Carlson, the owner of 4041 Hayes St. NE, to create an increased rear lot for his property. Mr. Carlson has also signed off on the lot split application. Section 9.410 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which shall then provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Pian The City Comprehensive Plan designates !his area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance Both of the properties involved in the lot split are zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential. The lot at 1813 40th Avenue NE is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE is surrounded on the north, east, and south by properties zoned R-2. The west side of Hayes St. is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Applicable requirements are as follows: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home. Currently, the lot at 1813 40th Av. NE contains 34,022 sq. ft. and the lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE contains 6,600 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, 1813 40th Av. NE would contain 27,427 sq. ft. and 4041 Hayes St. NE would contain 13,195 sq. ft. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. The lot widths of the both properties remain unchanged as a result of the lot split. 1813 40th Av. NE has a lot width of 80 ft. and 4041 Hayes St. NE has a lot width of 60 ft. · Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of existing structures on both properties will continue to meet these requirements. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. · Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent: Currently, the lot at 1813 40th Av. NE has a lot coverage of 21 percent and the lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE has a lot coverage of 6 percent. After the proposed lot split, 1813 40th Av. NE would have a lot coverage of 8 percent and 4041 Hayes St. NE would have a lot coverage of 10 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will create two reconfigured lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. 3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. 4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public right-of-way. 5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. 7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Staff finds that the proposed lot split is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. Mrs. Wychor was not present, but her Realtor, Mickey Rooney was present to answer questions. Baker asked what the additional lot would be used for? Planner Berkelhamer stated that it will make his backyard area larger. He is limited to what he could do with the lot. The owner could build an accessory structure on it, if all accessory structures do not exceed 1,000 sf. The lot is landlocked at the present time, so without access it is unbuildable. Pat Wieczorek of 4047 Hayes St objects to the lot split. She believes the owner wants to purchase the property for roadway purposes to create a cul de sac to open up lots for building. Planner Berkelhamer reminded the Commission that we can only address whether the proposed lot split meets requirements of the code. If other proposals are submitted in the future for consideration it would require a Public Hearing, with neighbors being notified, which would be the time to address those issues. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Szurek, to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. This wiii go before the City Council at the meeting of September 27, 2004. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- SUBDIVISION REQUEST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 I, Gladys Wychor, hereby request a split of PIN 36-30-24-42-0112 Legally described as: That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 180.00 feet thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PIN 36-30-24-42-0014 Legally described as: The south 60.00 feet front and rear of the north 240.00 feet, front and rear of Lot 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: PIN 36-30-24-42-0112 Legally described as: That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PIN 36-30-24-42-0014 Legally described as: The south 60.00 feet of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines of Lot 4 and 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 SEPT. 8, 2004 Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: This __ day of ,2004 Offered by: Fiorendino Seconded by: Szurek Roll Call: All ayes. Zoning Officer COUNCIL ACTION: Signature of Owner, Notarized Owner's Address Telephone No. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __ day of ,2004 CITY Notary Public This __ day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: ,2004. Secretary to the Council Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 CASE NUMBER: LOT SPLIT Laurie Karnes 1226 43rd Avenue 2004-0902 Introduction Laurie Karnes of LEK Holding Company, the owner of the property at 1226 43ra Avenue NE, has made an application for a lot split of the one parcel at 1226 43rd Avenue NE into one single family lot and two twinhome lots. Ms. Karnes proposes that the existing structure will remain on the single family lot and that she will sell the two twinhome lots to a builder. Section 9.410 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which shall then provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The property involved in the lot split is zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential. The parcel is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Section 9.904 regulates standards for "zero lot line" (twinhome) setbacks. Applicable requirements are as follows: For the proposed sinqle-family lot: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home. One lot will be created to contain the existing single family home on the site. This is referred to as Lot A on the certificate of survey. The total parcel area is currently 18, 850 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, Lot A will be 8, 700 sq. ft. · Minimumlotwidthshallbe60feet. Thetotalparceliscurrently130ft. inwidth. Afterthe proposed lot split, Lot A will be 60 ft. in width. o Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; corner side yard - 10 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of the existing structure on the proposed Lot A will meet these requirements. The front yard setback will be 39.5 ft., the side yard setback will be 8.9 ft., and the corner side setback will be 18.5 ft. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. · Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent. Currently, entire parcel has a lot coverage of 7 percent. After the proposed lot split, Lot A would have a lot coverage of 16 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 For the proposed twinhome lots: A twin home is defined as a single-family residential dwelling on an individual lot, sharing a common wall with another single-family residential dwelling. This is also known as a "zero lot line" development. Each individual lot has a separate PIN number. Combined, the two twinhome lots must contain the minimum required lot area, setbacks and lot coverage for twinhome dwellings in a given zoning district. According to Section 9.904, the yard for a single family attached dwelling may be reduced to zero (0) feet, provided that the following conditions are satisfactorily met: · The wall of the dwelling unit shall be placed upon said property line in a manner that does not encroach upon another property. · The applicant records all required agreements, easements and deed restrictions against all properties that abut the zero lot line. · The minimum front, side and rear building setbacks shall be applied to the structure as a whole, rather than to individual units. Two lots will be created that will each contain one twinhome. These are shown on the certificate of survey as Lots B and C. As required, Lots B and C taken as a whole will have a minimum front yard setback of 25 ft., a side yard setback of 5 ft., and a rear yard setback of 20% of lot depth. Any detached accessory structures must be a minimum of 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. · The minimum lot area requirement shall be applied by dividing the sum of the area of all parcels occupied by the structure by the total number of dwelling units. The minimum lot area needed for development of twinhome dwellings is 9, 000 sq. ft. and the total lot width must be 60 ft. After a lot split, each individual twinhome lot must have a minimum of 4,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and 30 ft of lot width. After the proposed lot split, Lots B and C will each have 5,075 sq. ft. and a lot width of 35 ft. The total property may have a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent (or 3,045 sq. ft. based on the combined area of Lots B and C of lO, 150 sq. ft.). When reviewing twinhome subdivisions, the Planning and Zoning Commission has historically been provided with sample building elevations and footprints to confirm that twinhome development can occur on the property. These samples are not intended to be building permit plans but rather concepts of what will be developed. Therefore, attached to this report is a photograph of a single-family product built by the intended builder of the twinhomes. This product wou!d be modified as shown in the attached elevation sketch to create two zero !ot line twinhomes for the site. Placement would be approximately as shown on the attached building footprint. Each unit would have 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms on the upper level. The lower level of each unit would contain a two-car garage unit and with the remainder of the level unfinished space. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will three lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public right-of-way. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. Records do show that the ~roperty was previously two lots that were combined into one lot in 1998. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff finds that the proposed lot split is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. Fiorendino questioned the percentage of lot coverage on the new lots. He said the drawing that was presented as an example of what could be built there indicates approximately 3,000 sf on each lot. The maximum allowed would be 3,045 sf of structure, therefore if built per the drawing, would be close to the maximum allowed. With that large of a structure, he is concerned with drainage issues from run off. He also questioned the soil conditions and who's responsibility it is to determine whether these are really buildable lots. The City Planner explained that it's the builder's responsibility to submit the necessary information showing how the construction would meet the building code when applying for the building permit, and any expense to correct the soils would also be the builder's/owner's of the property. There was a discussion regarding the soils in that area. Soil tests that were done in the 1970's indicated bad soil at least 70 feet deep in various spots, and properties in the area have had numerous problems. Laurie Karnes, the new owner requesting the lot split for development, stated she didn't know the property had bad soil. She stated she had made several phone calls inquiring about such, but didn't get any indications from anyone she spoke to that this was a bad site. Bob O'Donnell of 1232 43rd Avenue said he has mowed the vacant parcels over the years and has been witness to debris that surfaces occasionally, especially after a rainfall when pools of water form. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Don Hinrichs of 1225 43r~ Avenue said he'bought his home in 1978 which at that time had a fireplace. He said the fireplace literally fell off the house. He also verified that he has shingles coming up in his yard periodically. Dave Ryan of 1215 43r~ Ave said the vacant lots are used by the kids in the area for a play area. He said he's seen actual bundles of shingles with the ties still on them surface in his yard. He was told the area was a swamp at one time that was later used as a dump. He said he's aware of borings that have been done and that they hit water between 3 and 4 feet down. Dave Behun of 1209 43rd Avenue grew up in that neighborhood. He said several parties have been interested in those lots throughout the years until they discover the bad soils at least 60 feet down. He questioned the split entry design shown at the meeting, the size of the structure and the placement of the structure as compared to the other homes in the area. He was concerned about the structure being able to meet the setbacks. Planner Berkelhamer explained the Zoning Ordinance addresses this issue, as well as the square footage requirements and lot coverage. There is a formula used that requires structures to have a front yard setback in keeping with the average setback on a block face so as not to allow a large discrepancy between properties. They may have to re-design the homes pending the soil reports to meet the various requirements. Mike Reichenberger of 1208 43rd Avenue stated an old roofer used to dump his left over materials there. He also felt a twin home of the size proposed would be out of place in the neighborhood. He thought a single family home may be acceptable, but not a twin home. Mary Ryan of 1215 43rd Avenue said the proposed design will stick out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. Why do they have to cram so much onto the vacant lot? They will move out of the area if this is built there. Commission member Szurek stated she had concerns about run off if this site was built on. She said the water ponds there now, and if a large structure such as the one proposed is constructed, it would create more problems for the other homes in the area. She also didn't think the proposed design as shown would fit with the rest of the neighborhood. She doesn't believe this large of a structure is appropriate. Szurek stated although it is financially advantageous for Ms. Karnes to build a twin home versus a single family home, she doesn't feel it's in the best interest of the community. Peterson and Ericson reminded the members they can only make a recommendation about the lot split request. The issues of the soil conditions or any other building issues are not being considered at this time. Peterson said the owner will have one year to file the lot split with Anoka County. He would recommend the owner getting soil tests done and an estimate of what it will add to the cost of building any structures on this property before she proceeds any further. While he appreciates the fact that she's trying to build something that will most likely be owner occupied, it may not be cost effective to do so. He also went on to say he hoped the builder and owner will design something that fits with the rest of the neighborhood. Anne Raymer of 1214 43rd Avenue objects to the lot split on many levels. She owns the property right next door. She is worried about the proposed structure only 5 feet from her property line and is concerned with water runoff. She thinks it is jamming too many people, too much structure, in too little space. Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Baker, to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: The applicant shaft provide required utility and drainage easements for aft newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 2. The appftcant shaft pay parkland dedication fees in the amount of $2,195 per lot for each of the two lots newly created lots. This fee is payable at the time of building permit. 3. Should soft conditions on the property warrant, information as to how soft conditions will be corrected shall be submitted to the Building Official along with the building permit application. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the appficant shaft be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shaft become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Ayes-Fiorendino, Baker, Schmitt, Peterson Nay-Szurek MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- SUBDIVISION REQUEST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 I, Laurie Karnes of LEK Holding Company, hereby request a split of PIN 36 30 24 24 0153 Legally described as: The west 60.00 feet of the North 150.00 feet of Lot 6, and the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, lying north of the south 165.00 feet; All in Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: The west 60.00 feet of the north 150.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. The east 35.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. The west 35.00 feet of the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: Signature of Owner, Notarized This __ day of ,2004 Owner's Address Offered by: Schmitt Telephone No. Seconded by: Baker Roll Call: Ayes- Fiorendino, Baker, Schmitt, Peterson Nay- Szurek Zoning Officer SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __ day of ,2004 COUNCIL ACTION: Notary Public CITY This __ day of Offered by: Roll Call: ,2004. Secretary to the Council Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 CASE NUMBER: 2004-0903 APPEAL OF DECISION NOT TO ISSUE RENTAL LICENSE Greg Lonsky 4232 Madison St. Introduction Greg Lonsky, representing the property owners of 4232 Madison St., has made an application for an appeal of a decision by the Fire Department and Zoning Administrator not to issue a rental license for the subject property. Section 9.402 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council has designated the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, responsible for making decisions on all applications for an appeal of any administrative order, requirement, determination or final decision made by the Zoning Administrator or other official in the administration of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the appeal in accordance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance and after the close of the hearing, render its findings. The decision is then final. Planning Considerations The subject property is located in the R2 One and Two Family Residential District. This District allows for single family and duplex units, if properties meet the minimum required lot, area, and bulk requirements. As described in the attached letter, the owner of the property at 4232 Madison Street, Helen Penicnak, has used her property as a legal, licensed duplex rental unit for over 30 years. In July of 2003, Ms. Penicnak did not renew her rental license because she did not have a tenant. When this property was initially used as duplex, such use was allowed as a legal use on the property. From the time the Fire Department began licensing rental units and keeping records on the same, this property received yearly licenses. Under the most current Zoning OrdinanCe adopted in 2001, however, the property at 4232 Madison Street was made legally nonconforming with respect to duplex use, as it no longer contains the minimum required lot area. The Ordinance currently requires lots in the R2 zoning district to have 8,400 sq. ft. of area for use as a duplex. Ms. Penicnak's property contains only 5,166 Had Ms. Penicnak renewed her license in July 2003, she would have been able to continue using her property for duplex use. The Zoning Ordinance states that legally nonconforming uses have the right to continue, unless certain circumstances occur. The circumstance that applies in this case is that the nonconforming use was discontinued for approximately one year. Section 9.502 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a non-conforming use that has been discontinued for a period of six months shall not be re-established. Because of the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, City Staff is unable to approve the request for the rental license. However, Staff and the City Attorney have consulted on this matter and find it to be a unique case for the following reasons: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 · The property has been legally used as a duplex for over 30 years. · The property has been used as rental units as far back as City records exist. · The two units in the duplex are completely separate; there is no connection between the first and second floors, meaning the building is not suitable for single-family use. · The property owner was over 90 years old when she made the decision not to renew her rental license and it is Staff's understanding from speaking with relatives that she did not understand the consequences of this action. Even though the property has not been used as a rental unit for more than 6 months, because of the unique circumstances of this specific case, Staff and the City Attorney do not object to the Planning Commission making the determination that the property may continue to be used for duplex use. The Planning Commission must consider whether to grant an appeal of the decision not to issue a rental license. A Petition/Letter was received from residents in the neighborhood and passed out at the beginning of the meeting. (A copy of which is attached to these minutes). Baker asked if the property had any code violations. Asst. Fire Chief Gorman stated that it did not, and there has not been any problems in the rental unit of this property. He further explained to the members that she has had a rental license since 1999, when it was discovered the property was a duplex and the upper unit was being rented out. He confirmed that the house was built as a duplex and has been used as such throughout the years. The rental licenses are supposed to be renewed annually. Fiorendino asked if it could be turned into a twin home. It was explained that it must be a side by side to be a twin home and this property is a duplex. And the lot is not large enough for a twin home to be constructed on it. Schmitt asked if the Commission allows it to be used as a duplex again, could it be sold as such, and be allowed to be used as a duplex by a new owner. The answer was yes. Greg Lonsky, Mrs. Penicnak's nephew, explained to the commission that her aunt purchased the property in 1968 and has used it as rental property since that time. She began licensing it when she found out she was required to do so. When she lost her long time renter, she didn't renew the license, not understanding what the consequences would be. He said this property is her nest egg and she is now in an Assisted Living Facility and needs the money for her expenses. It would sell for less if it is sold as a single family home as it would cost something to convert it to a single family home. John Penicnak, son of the owner, addressed the commission. He confirmed that the family wants to sell the property as a duplex to get the most out of their investment as they can to provide for his mother's needs since she is in her 90's and requires more care now. The Public Hearing was opened. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Jerry Szurek of 4233 Madison St has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years. He's related to Helen Penicnak and lives across the street from this property. He feels bad about expressing his opposition to granting the appeal for a rental license, but he feels there's enough rental in the area already. He understands her situation and what they are trying to do to optimize her equity. However, he knows how unkept rental property can be and the problems it brings to a neighborhood. He is the spokesman for the people in the area who are opposed to returning it to duplex status. John Penicnak stated there is no guarantee that if it is sold as a single family home that it won't be rented out. There is no guarantee the new owners or new renters would be desirable. He said the values in the neighborhood has risen and continue to rise even though this has been a duplex for many years. Therefore, he doesn't feel that allowing this property to be used as a duplex will have a negative affect on the area. Bob Streetar, Community Development Director said another option might be to contact Greater Metropolitan Housing Corp. and see if they are interested in purchasing the house for renovation or to possibly rebuild a new single family home on the site. He said he would check into that possibility and contact the present owners to see if something could be worked out. The Public Hearing was closed. Fiorendino asked what legal grounds the Commission had to go against the Ordinance in place. Planner Berkelhamer explained that the Zoning Ordinance gives the Planning Commission power to overturn these type of rules if they see a reason to. The Commission members also expressed concern about allowing the rental license to be re-instated, as it is the City's intent to encourage more owner occupied housing. Peterson stated he felt the request should be denied and to direct staff to contact GMHC to see if a satisfactory solution can be found for all parties concerned. Motion by Szurek, seconded by Schmitt, to deny the request to appeal the decision not to issue a rental ficense for the.l~roDertv. , at 4232 Madison Street and to direct City Staff ,,.,~,~ ,.,,.,,,,,.,,.,, funding could be found for either renovating the home into a single family residence or to re-develop the property with a new single family home. Ayes-Fiorendino, Szurek, Schmitt, Peterson. Nay-Baker. MO TION PA SSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 CASE NUMBER: 2004-0904 SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ALDI's Inc. 4707 Central Avenue (Arby's Site) Introduction An application has been made by ALDI's Inc., the contract purchaser of the subject property, for Site Plan approval and Preliminary/Final Plat approval for a proposed ALDI's grocery store. Nedegaard Construction is the owner of the property and has signed off on the application. Two actions will be taken by the Planning Commission, as follows: A. Motion recommending City Council action on the Preliminary/Final Plat B. Motion on approval of the Site Plan The Preliminary/Final Plat resubdivides "Outlot C" that was created as pad of the Grand Central Lofts subdivision for future commercial use. Outlot C is being resubdivided into Lot 1 and Outlot A. Lot 1 will be used by the ALDI's store. Outlot A, a 20 ft. strip along the north property line, will be sold by Nedegaard Construction to the adjacent property owner. The preliminary and final plat review has been combined into one action because the minor nature of the plat. Planning Considerations Comprehensive Plan 1) The Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Transit Oriented Development. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan states that these areas "will focus on the commuting needs of Columbia Heights residents. As a result, a higher percentage of service-oriented commercial/retail development will be necessary with high-density residential development providing the balance of the development. Mixed-Use pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes will provide -r-~ ................. ~,,~,~,,o,L:~ ,~o,u~,,u,=, ,~,~u I~,yf~uu~uuu commercial deveiopment. Redevelopment of these areas will also provide the opportunity for pedestrian linkages to other pads of the community and improvement of the overall non-motorized circulation system within the community that will help improve the image of Columbia Heights." 2) The proposed ALDI's grocery store complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation: · The development is located along an existing transit route; · It is a continuation of new development in the area begun by the Kmart Redevelopment. New residents in the Grand Central Lofts project, plus existing neighborhood residents, will be able to walk or commute to the grocery store. · Sidewalk connections are provided from the grocery store to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Zoning Ordinance 3) 4) The zoning classification for the property is Mixed-Use District. The purpose of the Mixed-Use District is to promote redevelopment that facilitates linkages and interaction of transit services, housing and neighborhood services. The focus of land use within this district is to ensure a pedestrian friendly environment and pedestrian connections to and from residential development and transit facilities. There is no minimum lot size for redevelopment in this zoning district. The proposed ALDI's redevelopment complies with zoning designation. The size of the subject property is approximately 2.2 acres. The proposed grocery store building is approximately 15,894 sq. ft. 5) The proposed plat is divided into one lot and one outlot. Lot 1 will contain the ALDI's facility. Outlot A will be sold by the property owner to the adjacent property owner. Circulation, Access, Parking and Sidewalks 6) 7) 8) 9) Circulation through the site is provided through one vehicular access off of Central Avenue. The existing Arby's site is served by a full access at Central Avenue that also served the Kmart site. As part of a master plan that City Staff has worked on with MnDOT, as properties along Central Avenue redevelop, access points will be consolidated to provide for more safe ingress and egress to commercial properties. In accordance with discussions with MnDOT, the existing full access will be closed and a new right in/right out access will be created at the north end of Lot 1. The existing median that serves the full access will also be closed and the striping of the adjacent left turn lanes extended as necessary. ALDI's will be responsible for and will pay for the closure of the existing curb cut, creation of the new curb cut, closure of the median, and left lane striping. A Development Contract will be entered into by the City and ALDI's guaranteeing the completion of these actions. ALDI's has reserved an easement for future roadway connection at the northeast corner of Lot 1. As other properties along Central Avenue redevelop, ALDI's will be able to connect through a backage road to a new full access that is planned to be created to serve the remainder of the commercial properties on the east side of Central Avenue, in accordance with discussions between City Staff and MnDOT. The parking requirement for commercial buildings of this size is 48 stalls with dimensions of 9 ft. x 20 ft. ALDI's is providing 83 stalls plus 4 handicap accessible stalls, for a total of 87 parking spaces. The typical size of the standard parking stalls will be 10 ft. x 20 ft. The performance standards for the Mixed-Use District require sensitivity to adjacent usable open space and include pedestrian/bicycle connections to enhance existing circulation patterns. The development will provide approximately 1.6 acres of impervious surface and 0.60 acres of greenspace~ including landscaped islands in the parking lot and landscaping around the building and along Central Avenue. A sidewalk along 47th Avenue will connect to a Central Avenue walkway. Additionally, the 47th Avenue sidewalk will provide a direct, handicap accessible connection to the ALDI's main entrance. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Szurek asked what the drop in elevation would be between the Housing Development and the Aldi's Store. She was told the drop in elevation would be approximately 12 feet and retaining walls will be designed and constructed to address this. Transit 10) The transit stop servicing northbound traffic currently stops just north of 47th Avenue, directly in front of Arby's. The transit stop servicing southbound traffic currently stops on the Hilltop side of Central, on the northwest side of 47th and Central. The development includes a sidewalk connection from 47th Avenue to Central Avenue. City Staff will continue to have discussions with Metro Transit about possible site improvements to the Metro Transit stops along the west side of Central Avenue to enhance transit use from the development. Lot Lines and Setbacks 11) Building setbacks in the zoning district are regulated by the final site plan and development agreement approved by the City Council, based on the following findings: a) the setbacks provide adequate distances from uses in adjacent districts, and b) the setbacks maintain and enhance the character of the neighborhood in which the mixed-use development is located. The setbacks shown on the site plan provide adequate distances to adjacent properties and provide an urban character on the interior of the development appropriate for mixed-use development. The building is setback 20 ft. from the south property line (adjacent to 47th Avenue), 30 ft. from the west property line (adjacent to Central Avenue), and 292.2 ft. from the north property line. Approximately 60 ft. of the southeastern portion of the building will be built adjacent to the east property line. This is in the area of the loading dock and will be buffered from the proposed adjacent street serving the Grand Central Lofts by a retaining wall. All required sight lines and sight triangles will be maintained where the building is adjacent to the intersection of 47th Avenue and the new public roadway. Parking spaces are setback a minimum of 27.8 ft. from property lines. Baker asked why no setbacks are required on the east side. It was explained that setbacks are not required in a mixed use district. It is decided on a case by case basis, depending on design, rather than a set figure for every structure. Landscape Plan 12) The Developer has submitted a Landscape Plan in accordance with the requirements for site plans in the Zoning Ordinance. The Landscape Plan is well done and consistent both with the Zoning Ordinance and with the Highway District Design Guidelines. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Signage Plan 13) The Developer has submitted a Signage Plan in accordance with the requirements for signs in the Mixed-Use District. Section 9.1205 of the Zoning Ordinance states that signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved site plan and development agreement, and reflect the following standards: a) Pylon signs are prohibited; and b) Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal building(s). The signage plan meets these requirements. Two wall signs are proposed, one on the north fa(;;ade above the entry and one on the west faCade above the entry. Each of these signs measures 83 sq. ft. for a total of 166 sq. ft. of wall signage on the building. The monument sign is 9.5 ft. in height and 10.5 ft. in width. The total sign area is less than 100 sq. ft. The monument sign shall be located to the south of the driveway access to the site, shall be two-sided and shall be landscaped at its base. Highway District Design Guidelines The Columbia Heights Design Guidelines were created to guide developers and businesses in the design of expansions, renovations or new construction of buildings or parking within the Central Avenue and 40th Avenue commercial corridors, and to assist City officials and staff in reviewing development proposals. The guidelines are mandatory, but the City may permit alternative approaches that meet the objectives of the design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the ALDI's development is the Highway District. Architectural Guidelines 1) Building Placement Objective: To orient non-residential buildings toward the street in order to improve its walkability, while creating opportunities for more internally-focused residential development. Front facades should be well defined with entrances facing the street. Buildings may be set back a maximum of 85 ft. from the sidewalk in order to allow two rows of parking plus landscape frontage. · The development meets the intent of this objective. The front facade is well defined, although the front of the building is perpendicular to Central Avenue. The front entrance is, however, located immediately adjacent to Central Avenue and is visible and identifiable from ,.,~, ,L, ,=, ,-,v~, ,u~. ,,,~ uu,lu,ny is~ULUUU~ .'U ft. from the south property line (adjacent to 47th Avenue) and 30 ft. from the west property line (adjacent to Central Avenue), which helps add the urban character of the redevelopment area created by the Grand Central Lofts development. Appropriate landscaping is provided. 2) Primary Fa(;ades and Roof Treatment Objective: To encourage attached residential and mixed- use buildings that are compatible with the prevailing single-family residential surroundings. Nonresidential buildings may be designed with pitched or flat roofs. The base or ground floor of the building should include elements that relate to the human scale, including texture, projections, doors and windows, awnings, canopies or ornamentation. · The development meets this objective. The building has a flat roof and the entries, windows, canopies and lighting relate to human scale. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 19 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 3) 4) 5) 6) Building Width and Facade Articulation Objective: To add visual interest and variety to buildings and emphasize the pedestrian scale.' The primary fa~;ades of buildings should be 40 ft. or more in width and should be articulated into-smaller increments by following methods listed in the Design Guidelines to lessen apparent bulk. The building meets this objective. The building facades are predominantly red brick but are articulated both horizontally and vertically by decorative elements. Horizontally, the facades are divided into smaller increments of about 27 ft. by light colored brick piers with stone and tile accents and decorative lighting. Vertically, the building is divided by a combination of awnings and horizontal band of lighter colored brick above the windows, as well as a band of lighter colored brick below the parapet. Building Height Objective: To create increased sense of enclosure, diminish the perceived width of the street, and provide opportunities for upper-story housing, offices or studios. Two and three story buildings are strongly encouraged. All buildings shall have a minimum cornice height of 22 ft. This height is adequate to achieve the building height objective, conveying a multi-story appearance even if the building has only one occupied floor. · The proposed building meets the intent of this objective. The building is one-story with a typical height of 20 ft. Staff finds this meets the intent of the design standards because of the design elements that are included on each facade of the building (see description in item 3 above). The entrance of the building will have a cornice height of 23 ft. Transparency - Window and Door Openings Objective: To reflect the character of existing storefront commercial buildings, enliven the streetscape and enhance security by providing views into and out of buildings. Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor facade fronting Central Avenue and 15 percent of any two side or rear facades shall consist of window and door openings. The design guidelines note that spandrel glass may be used in up to half of the window and door surfaces on any building facade. · The proposed building meets the intent of this objective. The length of the Central facade and the north fa~;ade (the front facade) are lined with windows. The windows of the front entry way allow for visibility into the store. The remaining windows are spandrel glass because these windows are generally located in front of stock, office and storage areas that for security and aesthetic reasons do not need to be visible from the street. Staff believes spandrel glass in these areas is appropriate. The 47th Avenue facade also contains two groups of spandrel glass windows that will be visible from the road. Staff directed the applicant to use landscaping along the remainder of this facade, as elevation changes limit , .~ ~, ~:~ ,-,, -,~ ,~,~,~,~ ,,, ,,,o ,u,.,~,o,,. ,,,~ w,,,uuw ~"'lJ', size~,up~Lu~u u~npnu~ze the organization of the facade and the definition of the building. Entries Objective: To establish the visual importance of the primary street entrance, and to ensure that entries contribute to the visual attractiveness of the building and are readily visible to the customer. Primary building entrances should face the primary abutting public street or walkway or be linked to that street by a clearly defined and visible walkway. Corner buildings shall use the street with the higher classification as the primary entrance. · The proposed building meets this objective. The front facade is located perpendicular to Central Avenue but is visible from this primary street. Additionally, the main entrance is visible and accessible from Central Avenue. The entrance is articulated with a raised roof level and overhang feature, as well as containing vision glass windows. Additionally, the landscaping plan shows landscaped areas in front of the Central Avenue facade. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2O SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Rear Facade and Entries Objective: To improve the appearance of rear facades, orient customers parking or walking to the rear of buildings, and provide safe and convenient access to all building entrances. · Each of the fa~;ades of the proposed buildings is designed to the same high standard and meet this requirement. There is no rear entry. The rear (47th Avenue frontage) of the building includes window treatments, landscaping, and the same architectural and lighting treatments as all other facades. Building Materials Objective: To ensure that high-quality, durable and authentic building materials are used in residential and nonresidential construction. All buildings should be constructed of high-quality materials, including the following: brick; natural stone; precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that the surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a textured material in order to give the wall surface a three-dimensional character; stucco; jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any facade, provided that it is used only on the lower third of the building wall. EIFS may be used as a primary material at a height of at least 3 ft. above grade, limited to a maximum of 60 percent of the fa(;ade when fronting a public street. · The proposed building meets this requirement. The exterior building materials are predominantly face brick, with precast stone sills and accents. Metal flashing will be used on the parapet wall, which is allowed. Aluminum is proposed to be used on the awnings. (See discussion under "Awnings" in item 12 below.) Rooftop Equipment Objective: To ensure that views of rooftop equipment from public streets or pedestrian ways are minimized. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent streets, public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. Preferably, rooftop equipment should be screened by the building parapet, or should be located out of view from the ground. · The proposed building meets this objective. Rooftop equipment will be screened from view of the right of way by the building parapet and from view of the adjacent condominium buildings by a screen around the equipment in a material that is compatible with the building materials. Building Colors Objective: To ensure that building colors are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their surroundings. Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. Principal building colors should consist of subtle, neutral or muted colors with Iow reflectance. Warm-toned colors are encouraged. No more than two principal colors may be used on a facade. Bright or primary colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent of building facades. · The proposed building meets this objective. The building and monument sign will match ..... u ............... ~,,~,,~, ,.~,,~,,o. ,,,~ p,,,,,,~,y u,,ur, uu,u, will befuuu~sn brown and the accent brick will be cream color. Architectural Detailing Objective: To encourage new building design that echoes the design of the few iconic buildings that remain in Columbia Heights - notably the Heights Theater- while enlivening building facades and contributing to a human-scaled environment. Architectural details such as ornamental cornices, arched windows and warm-toned brick with bands of contrasting color are encouraged in new construction. The contemporary adaptation of historic and vernacular residential, institutional and commercial styles found in Columbia Heights and in Northeast Minneapolis is encouraged. · The proposed building meets this objective. Horizontal brick bands will be used throughout the middle of the building and at the roofline. Exterior columns will be located along all building facades approximately every 27 ft. Decorative stone, tile and light treatments will also be located on the columns. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 21 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 12) Awnings Objective: To encourage the use of awnings as a way to shelter customers, reduce glare and conserve energy, and provide additional accent color to building facades. Where awnings are desired, canvas or fabric should be used, rather than wood or metal. · The awnings are proposed to be constructed of metal. Staff believes in this instance that the metal awnings as proposed are appropriate for this location because of their durability and because of their size. The awnings are proposed to be 3 ft. 4 in. long with an angle of 4 ft. 4 ½ inches long, extending 3 ft. from the building. This will provide ample shelter along the side of the buildings (particularly the north and west facades where pedestrians may be walking along the building), as well as provide an appropriate decorative feature for the area. Site Design Guidelines 13) Parking Location Objective: To improve the appearance and convenience of parking lot circulation for vehicles and pedestrians by breaking the parking area up into smaller units. No more than 50 percent of the off-street parking area for the entire site shall be located between the front fa(;ade of the building and primary abutting street. Internal accessways with landscaping and sidewalks are encouraged. · The parking location meets this intent. Approximately 57 percent of the Central Avenue frontage is comprised of parking surface. Although not all of this parking is necessary by City Code, the applicant wants to provide increased parking based upon their market needs. However, this parking area is setback from the property line by 27.8 ft. and will be buffered from Central Avenue by landscaping. The parking lot includes landscaped islands. 14) Parking Area Screening Objective: To soften the appearance of parking areas when viewed from an abutting street or sidewalk and to screen parking areas from residential yards. · The landscape plan for the development illustrates that these requirements are met. 15) Placement and Screening of Service, Loading and Storage Areas Objective: To screen views of service and loading areas, and to ensure that the noise impacts of these functions are fully contained and not audible from surrounding streets and properties. Screening must be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Loading docks, truck parking, trash collection and other service functions shall be incorporated into the design of the building or screened with walls of similar design and materials to the principal building, combined with landscape material to create a screen at least 6 ft. in height. · The site plan for the development illustrates that these requirements are met. The loading area will be screened from the new public road serving the Grand Central Lofts by a retaining wa!!. 16) Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Objective: To ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists have safe and convenient access to all business establishments. Walkways should be at least 5 ft. in width and shall be landscaped for at least 50 percent of their length. · The proposed building meets this objective. A sidewalk will extend from the new public road on the east to Central Avenue, and continue along Central. A walkway will also connect the sidewalk at 47th Avenue to the main entry. Landscaping will be adjacent to the walkways as required. Sidewalks shall be 5 ft. in width. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 17)Signs Objective: Signs should be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors and details of the buildings and with other signs on nearby buildings. Signs should be an integral part of the building design. Signs should have no more than three colors unless part of an illustration. A signage plan has been submitted that meets the design guidelines requirements. The sign contains three colors, yellow, orange and blue, plus a separate color for the ALDI's logo (allowed as part of an illustration). The signage plan includes one two wall signs (for the north fa~;ade and west fa~;ade above the building entry) and one monument sign. All signs are subject to review and approval of sign permit applications, and all signs must comply with required setbacks from property lines and utilities and requirements for intersection clear zones. 18) Lighting Objective: To ensure that safe and attractive lighting levels are provided around all buildings and parking areas, without excessive glare or brightness. Exterior lighting should be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Lighting should be designed to coordinate with building architecture and landscaping. Building mounted fixtures compatible with building faCades are encouraged. · The Developer has submitted a site lighting plan that shows lighting meets the requirements of City Code for glare. · The building mounted fixtures are compatible with the building fa(;ade. Baker questioned the placement of the lights in the parking area. He suggested changes be made to the plan to ensure better lighting in the parking lot. The representatives from AIdi's concurred. Findings of Fact Preliminary/Final Plat Based on the discussion above, the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision is found to meet the following Findings of Fact established in Section 9.411 (6) of the Zoning Ordinance for Preliminary Plats. 1. The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. Site Plan Based on the discussion above, the Site Plan is found to meet the following Findings of Fact established in Section 9.413 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan Review. The Site Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. 2. The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 23 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable area plan. The Site Plan has been designed in accordance with the goals, objectives and concept plan of the Kmart Site Redevelopment Concept Plan. The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. Recommendation The recommendation consists of two separate motions; one for approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat and one for the approval of the site plan. It was noted that all conditions that are met prior to the Council Meeting will be eliminated from the list. Preliminary/Final Plat Motion by Szurek, seconded by Baker, to recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision subject to the following conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: Upon approval of the final plat, the applicant shaft be responsible for filing and recording the final plat with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within one year of the date of City Councft action. In the event that a final plat is not recorded within this time period, the final plat will become void. 2. As part of this subdivision, a sidewalk shaft be installed along 47~h Avenue from the new public roadway at the east end of the property to Central Avenue. Aft construction traffic shaft be directed through the vehicle tracking pad, as indicated on the SWPPP plan. Due to the traffic volume on Central Avenue, frequent street cleaning may be necessary. Due to the height of the proposed retaining waft (exceeds four feet in height) and that it is adjacent *'~ a ",,~'~" D~/ ,~,.. ~..~ .~ ....~'~" '-~"" ..... " ......... by gist gin -' ,..., /~ ....... ~,,, L,,~ ,,,,a~ H,allo ollall IllUlUU~ a W~ll UU3I~[I a re ered en eer. i~e wail shall also have protective fencing at the top where the ve~ical height exceeds 48 inches. 5. Any site grading prior to final plat approval will require an excavation permit, obtained from the Engineering Department. 6. An NPDES permit will be required, at the time of construction. 7. The City reserves the right to require additional erosion control measures during construction, as conditions warrant. 8. Aft erosion control measures shaft be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities beginning. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 24 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 9. All restoration of turf areas in the Public ROW shaft be by sodding. 10. All site utilities serving ALDI's shall be privately owned and operated. All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia Heights SPecifications for materials and installation. 12. The Development shall provide the City of Columbia Heights with as-built drawings of all newly constructed utilities, in both hardcopy and electronic (.dwg) format. 13. The sidewalk shall meet MnDO Trequirements for pedestrian ramps and grade. 14. The developer shall protect the existing sidewalk and provide appropriate construction signage for any work on public sidewalks. 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall be responsible for median work, median closing and left turn lane striping as required by MnDOT and in accordance with a Development Contract to be entered into between the City and ALDI's. 16. The developer shaft provide the City of Columbia Heights with a written copy of the 40-foot drainage and utility easement that crosses the parking lot. The developer shall provide information from the Fire Protection Engineer designing the building sprinkler system that the 6" water main shown coming into the building is adequate for the sprinkler system. Otherwise an increased water main will need to be shown on the plans. 18. Final construction plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 19. Developer will install additional lights in the parking lot on the east side with the location of said lights being approved by staff. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Site Plan Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Szurek, to approve the application for Site Plan Review, based on the ~;...~ .... ~ c~, ~..~ ouOj~.L ,u ,.~ ~u. uw~.Sl uufJuluu[~ of approval that have been found to be necessary ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Development Ordinance: The approval of a Site Plan by the Planning Commission shaft be valid for a period of one year. 2. Final building plans shaft be subject to the review and approval of the City Staff to ensure that the building design meets the requirements of the Urban Design Guidelines for the Highway District, prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. All signs are subject to review and approval of sign permit applications, and all signs must comply with required setbacks from property lines and utilities and requirements for intersection clear zones. The monument sign shall be located a minimum of 10 feet (horizontally) from any pubfic utility. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 25 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Aldi's is hoping to start construction October 1st and be able to open for business in July of 2005. This issue will be considered by the City Council at the September 27, 2004 meeting. NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS Szurek asked staff whether we had an Ordinance in place that regulates which breeds o[ dogs are acceptable within our city limits. Staff will forward a copy of the Pet Ordinance to Szurek for her information. A question was asked about whether any new plans have been received for new construction in the area of 49th and Central Ave for Great Clips. Staff responded they are not aware of being submitted by Great Clips, but will look into it. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 pm. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL President, Murzyn called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m. Present: Don Murzyn Jr., Patricia Jindra, Julienne Wyckoff, Bobby Williams and Bruce Nawrocki, and Bruce Kelzenberg Absent: Tammera Ericson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes Financial Report and Payment of Bills Murzyn stated the Parlcview Villa financial reports weren't ready when the packets were distributed, so that is why they received them tonight. Cher Bakken explained Commissioners have before them the Parkview Villa July report and reports fi'om February through July 31~t for both the North and South buildings, as requested by Commissioner Nawrocki at the last meeting and that Bob Lindigfrom Walker ElderCare is present to answer any questions the board may have on the reports. There were no questions from the board. President Murzyn thanked Lindigfor com#zg. Motion by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to adopt the consent agenda items as listed. All ayes. Motion Carried. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION- None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Kmart Streetar stated the final plat would be presented to the City Council on August 23ra. The total redevelopment site includes 230for sale units, and a minimum of l O, 000 square feet of commercial development. Nedegaard is in the process of acquiring the county required, right-of-way along 49th Avenue for a right turn lane. The remaining 140 condominiums, ] 7 town homes, and the remaining portion of the new road will be presented to City Council for final plat approval later this fall. Nedegaard is worlcing with Walter Scott who is representing the landowner for the property at the corner of 49th and Central were Savers is currently located and may need some assistance from the City if an agreement cannot be reached as he needs 10 to 15 acres of the property for the access onto 49th Avenue. Nawroc/a' asked what if the access isn't approved, could they keep on ~noving ahead with the plating of the property and what amount will the City be responsible for. Streetar stated MNDOT and Anoka County have already approved the access, the sewer and water can be installed and the 17 town ho~nes can be platted, but will not be built until the property has been acquired. The City has agreed to pay up to $ 700, O00Jbr site clearance, which also includes a minimum of] O, 000 square~/ket of commercial development. Fehst felt the agreement was very reasonable, as Nedegaard has to finish the entire project before receiving any tax increment fitnding. Williams asked why the TIF eligibility is lower for the Kmart site than the Industrial Park project. Streetar stated the more blighted the property is the more TIF you receive, or the more clean up necessary to the site the more funding you are eligible for. Schumacher stated the City is receiving 75% assistance from the State for the Industrial Park. Streetar stated Lou Welle owner of Welle Auto stated he needs $1 to i ~ million for his property, which will be negotiated with Nedegaard as part of his agreement with the City. Wyckoff asked if Savers has found a place to relocate in Columbia Heights. Streetar stated they found a location outside of the City. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes August 17, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Aldi's Streetar stated Aldi's is planning to build a 15, 000 square foot grocery store on the Arby's restaurant site, and will be bringing the plan before the Planning & Zoning Commission on September 8th. MNDOT required that 1) the building be placed to the north a little bit; and 2)from Central Avenue the access be changed to a right turn in and right turn out. A focus group of I2O people said they wanted to see restaurants, a drug store and a grocery store within walldng distance, which the Grand Central Lofts will provide. l'Vyckoff stated the management at Arby's said they will be closing on August 2Y'd and asked where is the nearest Aldi's is. Fehst stated there is one in Champlin on Hwy 169. 39th & Central Streetar stated at the last EDA meeting staff was directed to offer the Nath Companies, owners of Burger King $450,000 and a counter offer of $550,000 to acquire the property for redevelopment. At negotiations, Nath stated they wanted $1.2 million. The EDA 's appraisal brdicated the property was worth $810,000 or $9/square foot for tire land and building. Last week Patti from Nath called with a purchase price of $800, 000, with them paying for the demolttion and relocation fees and stated they would be closing the restaurant on September 9th. Streetar suggested offering $6 to $800,000 if they demolish the building and pay relocation fees and asked for direction from the board. Murzyn stated he would suggest buying Burger King, sell the NEI property, and take the money from the NEI building to build a gym somewhere. Williams stated he liked that idea. Fehst stated he would like to see the gym built at the High School, but his main concern is who would run it, it should be contracted out, if the City builds it, somebody will have to pay to use it, this would also free up the NEI site to be sold for redevelopment with possibly some of the things like the Library and City offices the Mayor would ltke to see there and we wouldn't be using up valuable property. Streetar stated Frank Dunbar had an idea were half of the property had some Mnd of public use and on top there was moderate income senior housing and the other half would be sold for private residential housing development for $600,000. The City could put a recreational facility and a library on one part of the NEI site and let the rest of the property be sold for private development and use that money to purchase Burger King. Murzyn asked what is wrong with the west side of Huset Park where there is a run down tennis court, rental property and an unused wave pool. Couldn't that property be used to build a recreational facility and sell NEI. Fehst stated that would be a possibility. After some len~t,hy d,o~uooz~,~ staff was~,~,'u .... ,~,'~'~ ~,~ offer' Nath,~,,,rp~,,u~or' ..... .~ o~,,~,e'~nn ,,~,nnt~ wzth a maxunum ~,~ $ 700, O00for the property. 37th & Central Streetar stated Starbucks is loolcing into the redevelopment site on the corner of 3 7tr' & Central. They are negotiating to purchase the remaining property. 37th & Stinson Streetar stated Len Pratt the developer of the Apache redevelopment project has been worldng with the owner of the Apache Theatre as a potential redevelopment site. Economic Development Authority Meeth~g Minutes August 17, 2004 Page 3 of 3 40th & University Schumacher asked Williams to step down from his com~nission for this discussion, as he is a partner of Williams-Peterson. Williams agreed. Schumacher then stated the Development Agreement with Williams- Peterson is moving ahead with the exception of the voluntary sale of 322 40th, (MGS). The owne~; Mr. Sweat has moved his business to 36ti' and Central, is currently renting out the unit and wants $225, O00 for the property, which is $25,000 higher than the value determined by the City. Williams-Peterson has agreed to pay the $25,000 difference as part of their redevelopment proposal. If the consensus of the EDA is to support this action, staff will go forward with setting up a Development Agreement that allows the EDA to acquire 322 40th Avenue in the amount of $225, 000 and would require the developer to submit a redevelopment proposal acceptable to the EDA and pay the additional $25,000 required by the seller. Wyckoff requested staff notify residents around the area before the access to 40th is shut off, as she has heard from resident, doyce Lillitol that stated she is against the road closure. Staff was directed to move forward with the purchase agreement for 322 40th in the amount of $225, 000 and the Redevelopment Agreement with Williams-Peterson with the additional $25,000 stated in the agreement, and bring them back to the EDA for approval. NEI Schu~nacher stated there was some more asbestos found in the NEI building that was hidden behind door panels, mudded pins, vermiculite in floor panels, transit panels, and 3 additional radiators for an additional $26,000 in removal costs, which is available in our CDBG funds. Therefore, at no cost to the City. Staff will come back with updates as things progress. Wyckoff asked if we build a Community Center on the site would we have to pay back the CDBG funds. Streetar stated we wouldn't. However, if it was sold for housing we would. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williams, second by Jindra to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Bakken Community Development Secretary HSEDAminutes2004LAugust 17, 2004 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES September 7, 2004 The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Miller, at 7:05 p.m. Those members present were Barbara Miller, Nancy Hoium, Patricia Sowada, Audrey Hyatt, Julienne Wyckoff, Catherine Vesley, and Becky Loader. It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2004, Board meeting as mailed. Bill list dated 8/23/04 was reviewed. Bill list dated 9/13/04 was reviewed. The accounting was reviewed. It was moved, seconded, and passed that they be paid. It was moved, seconded, and passed that they also be paid. Old Business: 1. Budget update: No update available at this time. The City Council has until September 15 to set the maximum levy amount. Detail budget is in process. The date for the joint City Council/Library Board budget meeting is currently set for October 18, 7:00 p.m. at the library. Nancy Hoium will not be at the meeting. 2. Three pages have been hired: Amanda Blaise, Peter Hastings, and Monica Johnson. They are being trained; the goal is to have them starting a regular rotation by September 17. The Board discussed the Volunteer recognition celebration that was held August 26th. The Board would like to commend Marsha for her work with the volunteers and her efforts in coordinating the Volunteer Recognition Program. NEI site update was discussed. The building is scheduled to be demolished soon. After much discussion, the City Council has decided to conduct further surveys on recreational facility needs and not to put the gym issue on the November ballot. 5. 2003 audit management letters concerning the Library fund balance was discussed. The fund balance amount is not a State requirement. 6. Jackson street construction was discussed. The street is scheduled to be completed by the middle of next week, barfing any further complications. ILS update: The evaluation committee consisting of Judy Soule, Mary Caven, Heather Hessel and Becky Loader has met to discuss general system requirements. The meeting with the consultant was conducted on 9/1 and 9/2 to discuss the RFP's. The top two vendors will be invited to demo their products in October. Staff will be involved with these demos in appropriate areas New Business: 1. Budget hearing was discussed during the budget update. 2. Crossover statistics were reviewed. 3. Thank you letters for donations in memory of Marie Marquardt were reviewed. Library Foundation Board President, Tom Sherohman, and Marsha Tubbs have been working on writing a grant to the Mn. Regional Arts Council for funds for children's programming. A preliminary fall programming brochure was shared with the Board. o Official resignation letter from Board member, Audrey Hyatt, was received and reviewed by the Board. Audrey is moving from the area and vacating her seat on the Board in November. Names of possible candidates were discussed. 6. Barbara Miller, Board President, shared the information she received concerning the MLA meetings to be held in Duluth this year. Of special interest was the session concerning fundraising for libraries. 7. Staff day reports from attendees will be distributed at the next Board meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Je~nine M. Schmidt Secretary to the Library Board of Trustees. The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights services, programs, and activities. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER NO: ~"-A --22 FINANCE APPROVAL ~ ITEM: Budget Work Session Meeting Dates NO: BY: WILLIAM ELR1TE BY: DATE: DATE: September 20, 2004 Below are the budget work session meeting dates for the 2005 budget. Monday, Monday, Monday, . Monday, Monday, Monday, Monday, September 20 at 7:00 p.m. October 4 at 7:00 p.m. October 4 at 8:30 p.m. October 18 at 7:00 p.m. November 1 at 7:00 p.m. November 1 at 8:00 p.m. November 1 at 9:00 p.m. Monday, November 15 at 7:00 p.m. Monday, November 15 at 8:30 p.m. Monday, November 15 at 9:30 p.m. Monday, November 29 at 7:00 p.m. Monday, December 6 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room: Police Gauvitte Room: Recreation City Hall Conference Room: Public Works Library Activity Room: Library City Hall Conference Room: Community Development City Hall Conference Room: Fire City Hall Conference Room: Liquor City Hall Conference Room: Administration, General Government City Hall Conference Room: Finance and IS City Hall Conference Room: Summary of total budgets. Final Budget Work Session. Decide on final cuts, add- backs, and the final levy. City Council Chambers: Final budget meeting with the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to set budget work session meeting dates to review the 2005 budget for the following Mondays: September 20, October 4, October 18, November 1, November 15, November 29, and December 6. WE:sms 0409201 COUNCIL COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Consent NO. ITEM: Application for Raffle, Courage Center of Golden Valley NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT POLICE BY: DATE: Johnson~ ~<'X Thomas M. 21, September CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: j DATE: BACKGROUND Courage Center of 3915 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota has submitted a Class B license application, which is attached. Courage Center has submitted a request to conduct a raffle on October 15, 2004, in conjunction with a wheelchair basketball tournament at Columbia Heights High School, 1440 49th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota.. While Courage Center is not an organization located in Columbia Heights, they do meet the requirements of Resolution 88-42 and are requesting a one-time exemption. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION Since the organization satisfies the City Council resolutions regarding one-time charitable gambling and has paid the $25 permit fee, the City Manager recommends the following action. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to direct the City Manager to forward a letter to the State Charitable Gambling Control Board indicating that the City of Columbia Heights has no objection to a raffle event to be conducted by Courage Center of Golden Valley in conjunction with a wheelchair basketball tournament on October 15, 2004, at the Columbia Heights High School 1440 49th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights; and furthermore, that the City Council hereby waives the remainder of the sixty- day notice to the local governing body. mld 04-113 Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: Minnesota Lawful Gambling LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Fee $50 Organization Information Page 1 of 2 (web) 12/03 For Board Use Only Fee Paid Check No. Organization name COURAGE CENTER Street3915 Golden Valley Rd{ City Golden Valley Previous lawful gambling exemption number IState/l~ Code C%~npin Name of chief executive officer (CEO) First name Last name Daytime phone number of CEO Eric Stevens 763-520-0242 Name of treasurer First name Last name Larry Johnson Johnson Daytime phone number of treasurer: 763-520-0226 Type of Nonprofit Organization Check the box that best describes your organization: [] Fraternal [] Religious [] Veteran ;:~ Other nonprofit organization Check the box that indicates the type of proof your organization attached to this application: IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status [] Certificate of Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office [] A charter showing you are an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization [] Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gambling Premises Information Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place) Colombia Heights High School Address (do not use PO box) City I State/ZipCode I County 1440 49th Avenue NE Colombia ~eights I MN I Anoka' Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) ~Yl~eelchair basketball tournament and raffle drawing OcS 15, 2004 Check the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting: [] *Bingo E~Raffles (cash prizes may not exceed $12,000) [] *Paddlewheels [] *Puli-Tabs [] *Tipboards *Gambling equipment for pull-tabs, tipboards, paddlewheels, and bingo (bingo paper, hard cards, and bingo ball selection device) must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on List of Licensed Distributors. Or call 651-639-4000. This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used bythe Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to supply the information requested; however, if you refuse to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you a permit. If you supply the information requested, the Board will be able to process your application. Your name and and your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All the other information that you provide will be private data about you until the Board issues your permit. When the Board issues your permit, all of the information that you have provided to the Board in the process of applying for your permit will become public. If the Board does not issue you a permit, all the information you have provided in the process of applying fora permit remains private, with the exception of your name and your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about you are available only to the following: Board members, staff of the Board whose work assignment requires that they have access to the information; the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; the Minnesota Attorney General; the Minnesota Commissioners of Administration, Finance, and Revenue; the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other individuals and agencies that are specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with your consent. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Organization Name Courage Center Page 2 of 2 12/03 Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment If the gambling premises is within city limits, the city must sign this application. On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this application. Check the action that the city is taking on this application. D T he city approves the application with no waiting period. DThe city approves the application with a 30 day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days (60 days for a first class city). DThe city denies the application. Print name of city Colombia Heights (Signature of city personnel receiving application) Title Date / / If the gambling premises is located in a township, both the county and township must sign this application. On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application. Check the action that the county is taking on this application. DThe county approves the application with no waiting period. DThe county the application with a 30 day approves waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days. DThe county denies the application. Print name of county (Signature of county personnel receiving application) Title Date / / TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, 1 acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. [Atownship has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minnesota Statute 349.213, subd. 2).] Print name of township (Signature of township official acknowledging application) Title D a t¢~,,.---'~ / /__ Chief Executive office~,s Signat{are \ j The information provided in Lhis applicaFn~ i~urate to the best Chief executive officer's signature ~ ~ Name (please print) Eric Stevens of my knowledge. Date 9 / 15 / 04 Mail Application and Attachments At least 45 days prior to your scheduled activity date send: · the completed application, · a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and a $50 application fee (make check payable to "State of Minnesota"). Application fees are not prorated, refundable, or transferable. Send to: Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 If your application has not been acknowledged by the local unit of government or has been denied, do not send the application to the Gambling Control Board. Internal Revenue Service District Delaware-Maryland District ' ' Director Department of the Treasury 31 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201 COURAGE CENTE~ 3915 GOLDEN VALL~£ RD GOLDEN VALLEY, M~ 55422 P.O. Box 13163, Room 817 Baltimore, MD 21203 Employer Identification Number: 41-0706118 Person to Contact: EP/EO Tax Examiner Telephone Number: · (4!0) 962-6058 Dear Sir/Madam: This is in response to your in_c3ziry dated JUNE 24, 1998, requesting a copy of the letter which ~crranted tax exempt status to the above named organization. Our records show that the orga~zation was granted exemption from Federal Income Tax under section 50!(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code effective JUNE, 1949. We .have also determined that the organization is not a private foundation because it is described Ln section(s) 509(a).(1) and 170(b) (1) (A) (vi) . Donors may deduct contributions to you under section 170 of the Code. As of January 1, 1984, you are liable for taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (social security taxes) on remuneration of $100 or more you pay to each of your employees during the calendar year. You .are not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). You are required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, only if your gross receipts each year are normally more than $25,000. However, if you receive a Form 990 package in the mail, please file the return even if you do not exceed the gross receipts test. tf you are not required to file, simply attach the label provided, check the box in the head4ng to indicate that your annual gross receipts are normally $25,000 or less, and sign the return. A copy of our letter certifying the status of the organization is-not available., however, this letter may be used to verify your tax-exempt status. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your exempt status, it should be kept in your permanent records. Sincerely yours, Paul M. Harrington District Director RESOLUTION NO. 88- 42 BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN C~ARITABLE GAMBLING EXEMPTIONS IN T~E CITY OF C0LU]!BIA 51EIGHTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Columbia Heights that charitable gambling exemptions will be granted to bona fide charitable organizations provided, however, that the following requirements are met: 1. The organization wishing to gamble obtains the permission of the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board. 2. The organization wishing to gamble obtains the permission of the Columbia Heights City Council. o The organization wishing to conduct gambling has been in existence L~ Columbia Heights for not less than ten (10) years and is a non-profit organization as determined by the Internal Revenue Se~¢ice and/or the Minnesota Secretary of State. Organizations wishing to gamble and have been in existence in Columbia Heights for not less than ten (!0) years will be granted =~ ~_ve (5) exemptions per year. Organizations wishing to aam~o but have not been in existence in Columbia Heights for not less than ten (I0) years will be granted one (I) exemption per year. The organization wishing to conduct gambling must indicate the value of prizes by category to be awarded; such information shall be provided at the time of application. The organization wishing to gamble does not pay, and the proprietor of the licensed premises does not r~ceive, rent in emcees of $I00.00 per event or other remuneration for ~e~m~a~ -~--~-..0 the o-~mb~n~--- = activity or device to be located on the licensed premises. The organization shall remit a non-waivable, non-prorated,non-~==._,mndao_.'~= license fee based upon the follow~_ng schedule: Class A and Class B licenses .... $!00 Class C and Class D licenses $ 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect on July 1, 1988, and shall replace Resolution 88~07. Passed the 9th day of May, ]988. Offered By: Peterson Seconded By: Petkoff Roll Call: AIl ayes o-Anne Student, Council Secretary Dale V. Hadtrath, Mayor CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 9/27/04 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: S- A S'- PUBLIC WORKS~ ~//~/ff/~~X/ ITEM: ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENTS BY: K.Hansen ~r v,~-,.,, BY: TO BE LEVIED DATE: 9/22/04~ DATE: Consistent with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council annually adopts a resolution prior to the Special Assessment Public Heating regarding costs to be borne by the City for public improvement projects. The resolution establishes the amount of the City share and the amount of the special assessments for projects to be levied against benefiting properties in the City of Columbia Heights. The purpose of the resolution is to advise the general public of costs to be incurred by the City versus costs to be incurred by benefiting property owners. Adoption of the resolution is done annually and staff considers this a routine matter in order to comply with State Statutes and the City Code. Staffrecommends adoption of the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution #2004-57, there being ample copies available for the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution #2004-57 being a Resolution establishing amount of City share and amount of Special Assessments on Projects to be levied. KH:jb Attachment: Resolution 2004-57 COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-57 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF CITY SHARE AND AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASESSMENTS ON PROJECTS TO BE LEVIED WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights by motion on the 23rd day of August, 2004, ordered a special assessment heating to levy the cost of improvements and; WHEREAS, the following projects will be specially assessed in October, 2004, and a portion of the costs may be borne by the City, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.061, and City Code 4.103, that the breakdown is as follows: PROJECT ESTIMATED ASSESSED ESTIMATED CITY PORTION TOTAL PORTION Zone 7A Street Construction Project $504,400 $820,400 $1,324,800 0402 Zone 7A-General State Aid, Utility $459,000 $ - 0 - $459,000 Funds Dated this 27th day of September, 2004 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS By: Mayor, Julienne Wyckoff Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 9/27/04 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER ~-- A ~ PUBLIC WORKS.,,^ ~/~/~/:: ITEM: AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR BY: K. Hansen~ BY: ~~~? ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR A BUILDING DATE: 9/23/04TM DATE: MAINTENANCE PROJECT AT THE MSC For the last 5 years, Public Works has been contributing to the Capital Improvement Building Fund (411) to establish funds to provide for various building maintenance needs for the Municipal Services Center (MSC). As previously presented in past budget discussions, it was proposed to set aside approximately one half the estimated cost of the work and then begin planning the necessary work. Staff has estimated the total cost of the project at $750,000, with approximately $375,000 of that now established in the Building Fund. Additionally, with the condition report of the MSC roof detailing a full replacement, staff believes it is appropriate to begin the process hiring an architect for a 2005 construction project. The work plan involves the following items: WORK PLAN: Description - 1. Gender, ADA and Security Needs: a. Add 3-level elevator b. Add Main Floor Women's Restroom/Changing area c. Building security: card reader access control Esti~nated Cost $275,000 2. Complete Roof Replacement: $250,000 3. Replace Rooftop HVAC: $15,000 Building Exterior a. Repair Deteriorated Masonry, cracking: $70,000 b. Repainting of Exterior $45,000 c. Add Wash Bay to Basement (Heavy Equipment): $15,000 5. Interior Repairs/Remodeling/Repainting $30,000 a. Main Floor structural concrete repair/recoating b. Carpeting / Painting c. Reconfigure main entrance lobby 6. Architectural: Plans/Inspections $50,000 Total: $750,000 Consistent with past budget discussions, staffwould Propose to use fimding on hand, using internal borrowing for the balance, and Public Works paying back the internal loan over the next 4-5 years. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize Public Works to seek bids for Architectural Services for plan development and inspection services for the MSC Building Maintenance Project. KH:jb Council Action CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 9/27/04 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER b~ .~ ~'~ PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATION OF A COST SHARING MUNICIPAL DATE: 9/23/04~7-.~~ DATE: AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRAINAGE FACILITY ON T.H. 65, SOUTH OF 49TM AVENUE Background: At the August 23, 2004 meeting, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for storm sewer rehabilitation on Central Avenue, south of49a~ Avenue. Analysis/Conclusions: The Engineer's estimate for the work is $75,000 with State Aid Maintenance previously proposed for funding the work. The Municipal Agreement Program is a statewide, competitive award program by Mn/DOT to assist in funding City managed projects in State right-of-way. By procedure, Mn/DOT requires a resolution approved by the City Council that provides that if municipal agreement funds are awarded, the City will enter into an agreement with the State for a cost sharing municipal agreement. It is then the City's responsibility for project design and contract administration. It is staff's recmmnendation to apply for grant funding through the Municipal Agreements Program as an alternative means of funding. Awards will be made in January of 2005. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-59 there being ample copies available to the public. Recommended Motion: Move to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2004-59 supporting Mn/DOT consideration of a cost sharing municipal agreement for construction of a drainage facility on T.H. 65, south of 49~ Avenue. KH: jb Attactunent: Resolution COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-59 BEING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING Mn/DOT CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING THROUGH THE MUNIC2AL AGREEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILTIES WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights proposes to make certain drainage facility improvements on T.H. 65, south of 49th Avenue. WHEREAS, the improvements will benefit both the City of Columbia Heights and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights is committed to providing the local share of the costs if the project is selected as part of the Municipal Agreement Program. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City shall be responsible for the preliminary engineering, project design, and permitting functions of said improvements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction costs of the improvements be shared between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Columbia Heights; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that following approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plans and specifications for said improvements, and before the contract letting for the construction of said improvements, the Minnesota Department of Transportation shall prepare an agreement to provide for the State to pay its share of the costs of the improvements in accordance with the latest "Procedures for Cooperative Projects with Municipalities". Dated this 27th day of September, 2004. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BY Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk CITY COUNCIL LETTER MEETING OF: SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORiGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER NO: .~- A ~ FINANCE APPROVAL BY: /" ~-~ I TEM:ORD INANCE PROVID IN G FOR THE BY: WILLIAM ELRITE ~/~~~ ISSUANCE AND SALE OF APPROXIMATELY $2,045,000 G.O. TAX INCREMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004A NO: In recent years there have been discussions regarding the refunding of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Capital Appreciation Bonds, Series 1990. These are the bonds that were sold in relationship to the construction of Parkview Villa South. The first call date on these bonds is September 1, 2005. Representatives from Ehlers & Associates, Inc. will be available at Monday night's meeting to explain why they feel this is an appropriate time to sell refunding bonds in order to take advantage of the current low interest rates. This will be the first reading of the ordinance and does not commit the City of Columbia Heights to any specific action. After the first reading we are still required to have a second reading and then an actual bond sale date. Under the proposed schedule, the bond sale date would be November 22, 2004. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive reading of the Ordinance No. 1476 there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to schedule October 11, 2004 at approximately 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers for the second reading of Ordinance No. 1476 being an ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of approximately $2,045,000 in Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A. WE:sms o4o9231 COUNCIL Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 1476 ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF APPROXIMATELY $2,045,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004A THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN: 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "City") is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 475.67, Subdivision 13 of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council of the City (the "City Council") to be necessary and desirable; (b) it is necessary and desirable that the City issue its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A (the "Bonds"), in the approximate original aggregate principal amount of $2,045,000, to refund in advance of maturity and at their redemption date, the certain general obligation bonds previously issued by the City; (c) the outstanding bonds to be refunded by the City (the "Refunded Bonds") consist of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Capital Appreciation Bonds, Series 1990, dated August 23, 1990, originally issued in the principal amount of $2,399,710.75, of which $1,179,703.60 in original principal amount is callable on September 1, 2005. 2. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. is authorized to negotiate the sale of the Bonds in the approximate principal amount specified in Section 1 of this ordinance, in accordance with terms of proposal approved by the Finance Director of the City. The City Council will meet on Monday, November 22, 2004 or such other date specified by the City Manager in accordance with the City Charter, to consider the sale of the Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the Bonds. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its passage. First Reading: September 27, 2004 Second Reading: Offered By: Seconded By: Roll Call: Date of Passage: Mayor Council Secretary Attest: City Clerk-Treasurer City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota Pre-Sale Report September 27, 2004 Proposed Issue: $2,045,000 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A Purpose: Description: Refund, in advance of the call date, the $2,399,000 G.O. Tax Increment Capital Appreciation Bonds, Series 1990. Savings are expected to be over $250,000 per year for fora' years or over $1,000,000 total. The savings are the result of using approximately $730,000 of unused bond proceeds plus over $250,000 of interest savings. The 1990 Bonds had no payments due tmtil September 1, 2006 and matm'e tl~'ough September 1, 2009 with interest rates of over 7%. The 2004A Bonds should have interest rates of under 3%. The 1990 Bonds are callable on September 1, 2005, which means the savings would not start until 2006. The 2004A bond proceeds would be escrowed until the call date at the end of 2005. Term/Call Feature: The term of the debt will remain the same, with final maturity of September 1, 2009. The 2004A Bonds could be pre-paid on March 1, 2007 or any date thereafter. Funding Sources: Tax increments from the City's pre-1979 districts. Discussion Issues: Use of cash to pay down principal Eligible uses of savings Schedule: 1 st Reading of Ordinance/Pre-Sale: 2nd Reading of Ordinance City Publishes Ordinance Distribute Official Statement: Conference with Rating Agency: Bond Sale: Estimated Closing Date: September 27, 2004 October 11, 2004 October 14, 2004 Week of November 8 Week of November 15 November 22, 2004 December 30, 2004 Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisors: Bond Analysts: Bond Sale Coordinator: Mark Ruff (651) 697-8505 Shelly Eldridge (651) 697-8504 Diana Lockard (651) 697-8534 Debbie Hohnes (651) 697-8536 Comfie Kuck (651) 697-8527 The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address,Iht review prior to the sale date. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER SECTION: DEPARTMENT: APPROVAL NO: ~- 'An - q Fire ITEM: Establish Hearing Dates BY: Charlie Thompson BY:f/~~~3' License Revocation, Rental Properties**'~ "/~ '~ ~" ~'/ '~ DATE: September 21, 2004 DATE: NO: Revocation or suspension ora license to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against the following owners regarding their rental property for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes. 1. Marilyn Dalseth ............................................................. 4612 Polk St. N.E. l~r;,.t"~t"~ ID, 1~'~41~ ~Kt~q'~Tt~'T'Move tO ~ +~kl: k ~ ~1~ ~+ ~uMM~N~ of October ~ ~ ~[e ,,e VuGadOu or ~s[~,,s,, a ~,e~,,~ 2004 for ~ ' ~ ~+' ~ IVIU 1 IUI~ · 11} Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental PropeW within the Ci~ of Colmbia Heights against Marilyn Dalseth at 4612 Polk Street N.E. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL NO: ~ .fi`` \ O Fire ITEM: Approval of Rental Housing License BY: Charlie Thompson BY: Applications NO: DATE: September 21, 2004 DATE: Approval of the attached list of rental housing license applications, in that they have met the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Code. MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for September 27, 2004. COUNCIL ACTION: 3ccupanyI.D. 10050 1OO54 20200 30004 30032 3OO73 30115 34049- 10019 10038 12209 12008 20026 34012 30101 30171 20023 10069 12083 12059 10120 12040 20090 30053 30059 20016 20158 20093 10008 20062 12102 12143 12124 20014 12000 20106 12003 10112 30010 12056 12012 Property Owner Name Gilbert-Bradshaw, L.L.C. MDC 2000 Grace & Truth Chapel Intercontinental Marketing Corp. Ashraf LLC Twin City Rent-a-Home, LLC Riverwood Rentals, LLC Nancy Abbott Wilmer Adams Jim Adams Luis Agudo Rolan Anderson Shirley Apollo Alan Avery Haji Azam Richard Berg Gordon Berger Anne Binczik Mildred Bloomer Marietta Bornholdt Dale Boxrud Leslie Burchett Mark Carlson Lester Chies Lester Chies Bryan Clem Dee Coghill Meredith Coleman Heather Collier David Corbin Cindy Cotton Kimberly Dahiine Willam Dankel William Dankel Andrew Danko Ryan Diekow Mark Dostaler Dean Doying Sr. Maria Duran Stephen Dziedzic Rita Egan Property Address 1121 39th Avenue 3820 Tyler Street 4345 2nd Street 543 40th Avenue 940 39th Avenue 3923 Lookout Place 4615 Tyler Street 1429 42nd Avenue 5001 Washington Street 838 41st Avenue 1319 Circle Terrace 1400 Circle Terrace 4801 7th Street 4201 Monroe Street 4655 Pierce Street 4242 3rd Street 4622 7th Street 5055 6th Street 4004 Reservoir Bird 4207 2nd Street 1815 42nd Avenue 3747 2nd Street 5019 Jackson Street 980 44th Avenue 4347 Tyler Place 3976 Van Buren Street 4000 Cleveland Street 4616 Taylor Street 4033 Arthur Street 1013 43-1/2 Avenue 1235 37th Avenue 43i5 fviain Street 660 47-1/2 Avenue 666 47-1/2 Avenue 5037 Madison Street 204 42nd Avenue 5103 6th Street 528 40th Avenue 3819 Main Street 1262 Circle Terrace 607 38th Avenue :)9/21/2004 15:46 Page 1 O¢cupanyI.D. 2O320 20418 30136 12204 30061 20211 20334 12066 20000 20076 20126 30026 10070 20087 20010 12090 10104 20175 34000 30051 30060 30152 12089 30128 20059 20036 20064 20066 12162 37066 20104 10030 20017 12034 12078 20331 30028 30099 30163 30001 12088 Property Owner Name Steven Elie Steven Elie Todd Fairchild Joel Fantle Michelle Ferreira Donald Ferry Donald Findell Willam Franz Karen Frauly Karen Frauly Raymond Fritz Nedim Frlj Lawrence Garner Merlin Garner Vicente Gavilan Gary George Michael Gondek Gerald Grote Greg Guimont Bernard Gulland Paul Haines Paul Haines Anthony Hamrin James Hansen Dennis Hanson Diaa Hassan Kenneth Henke Kenneth Henke Kathryn Hoers Roy Hopf Joe Hoyle Daniel iverson Leo Jackels Angela Johnson Jane Johnson Jason Johnson Douglas Jones Mujtaba Khan Shah Khan Gina Kilgore Dom King Property Address 1301 Circle Terrace 1231 Circle Terrace 4733 University Avenue 3982 Tyler Street 4422 Central Avenue 4536 7th Street 4522 Tyler Street 3830 3rd Street 4622 Johnson Street 4636 Johnson Street 1332 Circle Terrace 3969 5th Street 3740 2nd Street 936 42nd Avenue 4636 Washington Street 952 44-1/2 Avenue 325 Summit Street 4144 Quincy Street 4310 3rd Street 970 43-1/2 Avenue 4225 Central Avenue 4229 Central Avenue 4534 Fillmore Street 4609 University Avenue 3807 Van Buren Street 4317 3rd Street 4415 2-1/2 Street 4433 2-1/2 Street 4303 University Avenue 4233 University Avenue 4645 Taylor Street 4153 4th Street 1212 Circle Terrace 1815 41st Avenue 5033 Jackson Street 4450 Tyler Place 5100 6th Street 1045 Peters Place 981 43-1/2 Avenue 4255 Main Street 4516 Taylor Street )9/21/2004 15:46 Page 2 )ccupanyI.D. 20347 10090 20180 12038 30005 30023 96000 12002 12009 20004 20048 12161 10084 10024 30162 30169 30012 30016 30076 10042 20120 30131 30133 12048 20021 20094 20170 20074 20100 10016 30116 12085 10102 30029 10116 20280 30067 30068 30057 20061 10032 Property Owner Name Bryan Kingsriter Ken Koch Kenneth Koster Peter Kotzer Harvey Kowalzek Harvey Kowalzek Charee Koy Michael Kress Delroy LaFromboise David Lange David Lange Dorothy Langie Jeffrey Larsen Leon Larson Daniel Larson Richard Larson David Lasky David Lasky Jamie Lavanier Howard Law Chienfeng Lee Ruth Lemke Ruth Lemke Richard Levine Mark Lewis Rose Maciaszek Gary Magliato John Majewski John Majewski Marcea Mariani Mary Marth Patrick Masioski Lawrence McCallum John McGovern Mark Mdaka Dale Melberg Samuel Mikre Samuel Mikre Bill Modell Alexander Moseychuk Marlin Moske Property Address 4049 University Avenue 4056 Hayes Street 5152 Washington Street 4203 2nd Street 4220 4th Street 4226 4th Street 4860 Monroe Street 3714 Van Buren Street 3746 3rd Street 1218 Circle Terrace 1307 Circle Terrace 4527 Taylor Street 808 49-1/2 Avenue 1221 43rd Avenue 4556 Tyler Street 4201 3rd Street 4318 3rd Street 4322 3rd Street 4545 Madison Street 1218 Borealis Lane 679 46th Avenue 4643 University Avenue 4655 University Avenue 3939 Tyler Street 1154 Cheery Lane 4357 Washington Street 4606 Fillmore Street 5109 Washington Street 3825 Johnson Street 4007 Main Street 4619 Tyler Street O/'/-O I"l~lt.;~ OLl~el. 4911 Central Avenue 631 37th Avenue 4258 2nd Street 3719 Pierce Street 3709 Jackson Street 3855 Jackson Street 1480 47th Avenue 5043 Jackson Street 1012 Gould Avenue :)9/21/2004 15:46 Page 3 3ccupanyI.D. 12174 10005 20081 12118 12016 20148 10080 12117 20033 20054 20027 20124 30100 30146 30006- 20183 20381 20114 10132 20031 30064 12141 20212 30154 12093 20167 12219 30122 12107 30118 30120 12058 20391 10079 10125 12035 30074 12137 20123 12087 20409- Property Owner Name Kenneth Myhre David Nelson Gilbert Nevils Jr. Janet Nielsen Jean Nixon Daniel Nohr Linnea Nordahl Luis Ochoa Tom Okerstrom Richard Olin Nathan Olson Dean Olson Robert Ostlund Scott Owens Theodore Parker Darwin Peterson Gary Peterson John Pham Lauri Picotte Bhawesh Prabhudail Michael Prokopiuk Ganga Ramnarine Jai Ramnarine Abdul Rashid Barbara Reed Jessie Rudensky Cheri Runke David Rust Cheryl Salchow Thomas Sathre Thomas Sathre Ronald Schloesser Timothy Schubilske Alan Schultz Courtney Schuur Gale Seever Luis Sinchi Dwight Sonnenberg Marvin Sowada Sally Stark Audrey Stauch Property Address 1143 Cheery Lane 3911 Tyler Street 3833 Reservoir Blvd 650 47-1/2 Avenue 4700 Jefferson Street 4512 Washington Street 2106 41st Avenue 5009 Jackson Street 4619 Taylor Street 5218 Washington Street 1222 45-1/2 Avenue 1005 50th Avenue 3940 Peters Place 4032 Van Buren Street 3839 Tyler Street 5228 Washington Street 3713 Buchanan Street 1709 37th Avenue 4409 Arthur Street 3906 Van Buren Street 3853 Edgemoor Place 4526 Tyler Street 4550 7th Street 4341 Tyler Place 4524 Fillmore Street 4534 Washington Street 4201 6th Street 4653 Tyler Street 4660 Taylor Street 4625 Tyler Street 4633 Tyler Street 4217 2nd Street 3922 Ulysses Street 525 38th Avenue 628 38th Avenue 5208 Washington Street 4534 Madison Street 1111 42-1/2 Avenue 1000 50th Avenue 4307 Madison Street 4161 Tyler Street 3ccupanyI.D. 10022 12185 20232 30139 10075 10010 20067- 20050 20056 20274 30054 20333 30063 20070 20071 20073 20032 20007 20168 20008 30065 12004 20022 10011 20277 12187 20065 12057 12101 12122 20169 Property Owner Name Stephen Stuerzinger Joseph Sturdevant Ishola Taofeek Ross Taormina Timothy Taylor Thomas Therrien Willard Thorp Jospeh Tohey Joe Tohey Jeff Tollefson Frank Trisko John Utke Mario Valtierrez Stanley Van Blaricom Stanley Van Blaricom Stanley Van Blaricom Michael Vanderheyden Robert Vandeveer Larry Wakeman Fletcher Wanless Arnold Weckwerth Kimberly Wegener Bret Weiman David Wiger Ronald Wilcox Anthony Wilczek Craig Wilson Rebecca Wilson Holmes Bart Woolsey Joseph Yang Cha Yang Property Address 1415 43rd Avenue 1043 Polk Place 5049 Jackson Street 5025 University Avenue 1010 40th Avenue 4812 4th Street 1411 37th Avenue 4657 5th Street 1207 Circle Terrace 4427 Main Street 950 47th Avenue 3849 Jackson Street 3849 Edgemoor Place 4500 Tyler Street 4507 Taylor Street 4529 Taylor Street 4724 6th Street 4636 Taylor Street 4600 4th Street 4506 Fillmore Street 3857 Edgemoor Place 5250 Washington Street 4610 Washington Street 5045 4th Street 4512 Monroe Street 3935 Tyler Street 1153 Cheery Lane 1739 37th Avenue 3722 Pierce Street 3902 Reservoir Blvd 4518 Washington Street :39/21/2004 15:46 Page 5 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: .~-- ~- / ~ License Department APPROVAL ITEM: License Agenda BY: Shelley Hanson ~-~C~ ~ DATE: NO: DATE: September 23, 2004 BY: BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Attached is the business license agenda for the September 27, 2004 City Council meeting. This agenda consists of applications for Contractor licenses for 2004, a Motor Vehicle Sales License, a Wine/Beer License for h~_maculate Conception Church and a Beer License for Star Central's Oktober£est. At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phrase stating *Signed Waiver Fonrt Accompanied Application. This means that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted, certain information cannot be released to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for September 27, 2004 as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: TO CITY COUNCIL September 27, 2004 *Signed Waiver Fon~ Accompanied Application 2004 BUSINESS LICENSE AGENDA CONTRACTORS LICENSES BLDG *Galaxy Mechanical *Air & Furnace Care *Dependable Indoor Air Alpha Mechanical *LaBelle Plumbing *Gavic & Sons Plumbing *Heins Plumbing/Htg 7317 Lake Dr, Lino Lakes 4101 93rd Ave N, Brooklya~ Park 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd, Coon Rapids 15167 Fillmore St NE, Ham Lake 305 97th Lm~e, Blaine 12725 Nightingale St NW, Coon Rapids ~1124 Horseshoe Trail, Corcoran $50.00 $5O.OO $5O.OO $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 MOTOR VEHICLE SALES David's Auto Inc (Cheung Hui) 573 40th Ave NE $200.00 TEMP BEER/WINE LICENSES *Immaculate Conception Church 4030 Jackson St, Col. Hts Greg Tomala (Wine/Beer) Star Central-Brace Hilsen 4001 Central Ave, Col. Hts (Beer in Pkg Lot fo~ Oct 2-3) pending police approval $100.00 $2OO.OO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 24, 2004 Ms. Shelley Hanson, License/Permit Clerk Thomas M. Johnson, Chief of Police ~ Temporary On Sale Beer License October 2-3 The Columbia Heights Police Department has completed a background investigation of Bruce Hilsen and Associates d.b.a. Star Central, 4005 Central Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota. Mr. Hilsen has applied for a Temporary On Sale Beer License. The department has checked the criminal history of Mr. Hilsen, with the law enforcement agencies in the jurisdictions ~vhere they have resided, and our local records for the past year. We have found nothing that would prevent Mr. Hilson from receiving this Temporary License. We have however noted some concerns as to the layout of the location and the lack of a Security Planfor ' the event. The Police Chief has spoken to Mr. Hilson and advised him that the purchasing and consuming of the beer must take place in a fenced off area only. No alcoholic beverages may be brought from the bar area outside. Mr. Hilson was advised that there must be an inner fence surrounding the beer serving and consuming area of at least four feet in height and an outer fence around this area with at least six feet of space between it and the inner fence to prevent beer being passed to minors or parties that have been refused service attending the event. Mr. Hilson was advised that he needs to submit a security plan as to how many security officers he will have working and where they will be placed. Mr. Hilson was also advised that the fencing plan must have the approval of the Fire Department. Mr. Hilson stated that the event would go from Noon to 7:00 PM. The Chief of Police advised Mr. Hilson that on both days the selling of beer at the Temporary License location must stop at 7:00 PM and that no loitering while consuming beer is to take place in the beer garden area after 7:00 PM. Once it is 7:00 PM the patrons must go inside the bar or leave the area. It is the recommendation of the Police Department that contingent to all requirements listed above being met that a Temporary Beer License be issued for October 2-3, 2004 from Noon to 7:00 PM to Star Central and its owner Mr. Bruce Hilsen. This license would be contingent on all required insurances being current and in place and all taxes being current. We have also attached a copy of the "Rules for Servers of Alcoholic Beverages". These rules are to be shared with all those that serve alcoholic beverages and should be posted in a prominent place in the area where sales are made. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FINANCE DEPARTMENT COUNCIL MEETING OF: ~ ~7~ ~0/9% STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Motion to approve payment of bills out of the proper funds, as Hsted in the attached check register covering Check Number in the amount of $ These checks have been examined and found to be legal charges against the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, and are hereby, recommended for payment. ACS FIN~CI~ SYSTEM CITY OF COL~BIA HEIGHTS 09/23/2004 15:33:45 Check History GL050S-V06.60 COVERPAGE GL540R * *** C 0 U N C I L *** . ~ *** C 0 U N C I L *** . ~ *** C 0 U N C I L *** . * *** C 0 U N C I L *** . Report Selection: Optional Report Title ....... 09/27/2004 COUNCIL LISTING INCLUSIONS: Fund & Account .............. Check Date .................. Source Codes ................ Journal Entry Dates ......... Journal Entry Ids ........... Check Number ................ Project ..................... Vendor ...................... Invoice ..................... Purchase Order .............. Bank ........................ Voucher .................... Released Date ............... Cleared Date ................ thru thru thru thru 109900 thru thru thru thru thru thru thru thru thru 110067 thru Run Instructions: Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI J COUNCIL 02 P4 Y S 6 Lines CPI 066 10 CP SP Y Y ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/23/2004 15 Check History 09/27/2004 COUNCIL LISTING BANK VENDOR BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT AARP CLASS OF ' 54 COCA-COLA BOTTLING MIDWE DINKEL/JEFFREY ENGQUI ST/SANDP~A FARNER-BOCKEN GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO GORMAN/GARY GRIEMAN/JOHN GUZ I K/AN-N JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. JOHNS ON/ANGEL I CA JUTJSOLA TRAILERS, INC KIWI KAI IMPORTS KUETHER DIST. CO. MARK VII DIST. MEDICINE LAKE TOURS MICKELSON/KIM MINNESOTA CROWN DISTRIBU ONVOY PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS POSTAGE BY PHONE REVERSE QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS SANSTAD/JENNIFER SCOTT/LARRY SMERTNECK/TAMR3k WINDSCHITL/KEITH XCEL ENERGY (N S P) WELLS FARGO - PAYROLL AC ARCTIC GLACIER ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFCRS CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING MIDWE COOPER/CHRI STIANA FINE WINES FROM EUROPE G & K SERVICES GARDNER/TRACEY GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GRIGGS-COOPER & CO HOBB INS / TAMMY HOHENSTEINS INC JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. JOHNSON/RICH KUEHN / JEAN KUETHER DIST. CO. MARK VII DIST. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 1 CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT 109901 109902 109903 109904 109905 109906 109907 109908 109909 109910 109911 109912 109913 109914 109915 109916 109917 109918 109919 109920 109921 109922 109923 109924 109925 109926 109927 109928 109929 109930 109931 109932 109933 109934 109935 109936 109937 109938 109939 109940 109941 109942 109943 109944 109945 109946 109947 170.00 243.50 992.10 13 88 10 99 5,625 22 149 17 76 00 160 32 170 97 17,199 66 15.00 600.00 557.77 58,468.85 25,819.02 3,332.00 25.00 445.38 24.95 8,226.96 6,000.00 12,451.49 15.00 79.81 15.00 43.19 9,833.73 225,874.02 707 57 900 00 2,619 00 1,391 90 5 5O 241 00 50 56 50.00 286.08 107.10 21,828.30 248.82 21,743.60 6,253.03 143.81 84.19 682.50 1,402.66 ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 09/23/2004 15 Check History GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 2 09/27/2004 cOLrNCIL LISTING BkNK %FEN]DOR CHECK NUMBER BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT OHIO UNIVERSITY LAW ENFO PETTY CASH - KAREN MOELL PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VAN LITH/DON WINDSCHITL/KEITH ABM EQUIPMENT ACE HARDWARE ADI-A_DEMCO DISTRIBUTION ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPAiqY AMERIPRIDE ANCOM COMFFLFNICATIONS INC ANOKA COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY LIBR3~RY ASPEN EQUIPMENT ASPEN MILLS, INC. BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAIN BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD BATTERIES PLUS BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTE BFI/WOODLAKE SANITARY SE BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC BLUEMELS TREE SERVICE BOOK WHOLESALERS INC BOYER TRUCK PARTS BRODART BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC BUILDING FASTENERS CANADA GOOSE PROJECT CATCO PARTS SERVICE CHERNIN/ALEKSANDR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RENTAL CSC CREDIT SERVICES CULLIGAN DAHLGREN SHARDLOW & UBAN DAVES SPORT SHOP DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT C EBSCO PUBLISHING EHLER & ASSOCIATE-PUBLIC ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTW FMX TLrRF PRODUCTS FP~ATTALONE COMPANIES INC FRED PRYOR SEMINARS GALE GROUP/THE GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO GIS RANGERS 109948 109949 109950 109951 109952 109953 109954 109955 109956 109957 109958 109959 109960 109961 109962 109963 109964 109965 109966 109967 109968 109969 109970 109971 109972 109973 109974 109975 109976 109977 109978 109979 109980 109981 109982 109983 109984 109985 109986 109987 109988 109989 109990 109991 109992 109993 109994 AMOUNT 195.00 198.74 791.28 756.90 50.00 33.93 59.41 50.64 71.20 43,762.00 53.03 228.34 2,390.30 183.96 354.65 12.00 2,273.88 14~.59 14,268.00 71 34 1,602 20 106,699 68 190 83 20,180 25 106 83 57 67 117 44 1 414 67 67.21 875.00 259.57 87.89 118.19 25.00 838.78 10,930.22 21.29 1,169.99 3,224.30 8,062.50 1,829.24 2,098.80 130,295.00 158.00 44.17 428.85 7,171.74 ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/23/2004 15 Check History 09/27/2004 COUNCIL LISTING BANK VENDOR BANK CHECKING ACCOLrNT GOODIN CO. GOPHER HUDSON MAPS IDEAL ADVERTISING INC. INFO USA MARKETING INC INSTRUMENT CONTROL SYSTE INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH IN INVENSYS METERING SYSTEM IPC PRINTING J H LARSON ELECTRIC COMP K & S ENGRAVING KENNEDY & GRAVEN KROMER COMPANY LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS LUBE-TECH MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT CO. MENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-F METRO WELDING SUPPLY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WAS MIDWAY FORD MIDWEST ASPHALT CO. MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO. MINNEAPOLIS SAW CO. MIAiNESOTA PLAYGROUND MN HIGHWAY SAFETY & RESE MORNINGSTAR INC MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAN NATIONAL WATERWORKS, INC NELSON/PAM O'GAP~A/ANDREW OFFICE DEPOT PC SOLUTIONS PEPSI-COLA-7 UP PERFORMANCE LAWN CARE PREMIUM WATERS INC PRO GRAPHICS R R BOWKER RAPID GP_APHICS & MAILING RAPIT PRINTING - NEW BRI SCHMIDTBAUER/SUE SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY P~/BLI SECURITY FENCE & CONSTRU SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON ST ANTHONY SPORTS BOOSTE STANWAY EXCAVATING STAR TRIBUNE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 3 CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT 109995 109996 109997 109998 109999 110000 110001 110002 110003 110004 110005 110006 110007 110008 110009 110010 110011 110012 110013 110014 110015 110016 110017 110018 110019 110020 110021 110022 110023 110024 110025 110026 110027 110028 110029 110030 110031 110032 110033 110034 110035 110036 110037 110038 110039 110040 110041 2,192.06 542.72 170.20 375.00 565.00 111,662.59 140.00 1,000.00 35.15 84.58 36.13 3,680.10 31.91 40,511 O0 507 12 86 33 323 54 184 42 63,721 47 722 11 359 92 62,450 33 11 23 87 27 4,550 29 562.00 795.00 71.74 2,777.76 100.00 55.00 420.62 158.69 568.00 162.49 15.44 10.65 1,384.07 5,677.00 102.24 157.50 136.50 925.00 8,909.50 665.00 766.80 111.80 ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/23/2004 15 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 4 BANK VENDOR BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT Check History 09/27/2004 COUNCIL LISTING STREETAR/ROBERT STREICHER'S GUN'S INC/DO SUBURBAN UTILITIES SUPTS SUN PUBLICATION SWEENEY BROTHERS TOUSLEY FORD TRANS-ALARM INC TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN TUBBS/MARSHA TWIN CITIES NORTH CI-LAMBE TWIN CITY HARDWARE UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY UNITED RENTALS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA VALUE LINE PUBLISHING IN VANCE BROTHERS VERIZON WIRELESS VICTORY CORPS WALL STREET JOURNAL/THE WAYLAND AUDIO VISUAL ENT WELLS FARGO BANK WERNER ELECTRIC SUPPLY C WW GP~AINGER, INC XCEL ENERGY (N S P) ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPAN ZIEGLER INC CHECK NUMBER 110042 110043 110044 110045 110046 110047 110048 110049 110050 110051 110052 110053 110054 110055 110056 110057 110058 110059 110060 110061 110062 110063 110064 110065 110066 110067 AMOUNT 30.93 612.66 90.00 125.13 1,810.50 167.98 835.15 3,952.22 59.19 16.00 255.94 155.93 581.71 135.00 798.00 125.67 6.76 631.47 199.00 135.62 85.84 39.93 170.08 18.98 286.43 170.81 1,129,467.30 *** ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 09/23/2004 15 Check History GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 5 09/27/2004 COUNCIL LISTING BANK VENDOR REPORT TOTALS: CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT 1,129,467.30 RECORDS PRINTED - 001026 ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/23/2004 15:33:48 FUND RECAP: FUND DESCRIPTION ................................ 101 GENEP~AL 201 CO594UNITY DEVELOPMENT FUlqD 204 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTH 225 CABLE TELEVISION 240 LIBRARY 276 LOCAL LAW ENFORCE BLK GRANT 402 STATE AID CONSTRUCTION 412 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PARKS 415 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT - PIR 420 CAP IMPROVEMENT-DEVELOPMENT 431 CAP EQUIP REPLACE-GENERAL 601 WATER UTILITY 602 SEWER UTILITY 603 REFUSE FUND 604 STORM SEWER UTILITY 609 LIQUOR 652 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND 653 STORM SEWER CONSTRUCT. FUND 701 CENTRAL GARAGE 720 DATA PROCESSING 881 CONTRIBUTED PROJECTS-REC 884 INSUP3LNCE 885 ESCROW TOTAL ALL FUNDS Check History DISBURSEMENTS 70,220.58 10,212.63 93.55 23.67 10,652.19 265.00 82.50 807.88 43 940.50 155 192.36 1 810.50 71,360.03 66.157 41 108.796 00 2~870 62 190855 03 111765 78 1 882 14 8 567 38 112 84 325.63 40,511.00 232,962.08 1,129,467.30 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL060S-V06.60 RECAPPAGE GL540R BANK RECAP: BANK NAME BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT TOTAL ALL BANKS DISBURSEMENTS 1,129,467.30 1,129,467.30 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of September 27, 2004 AGENDA Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER SECTION: Fire APPROVAL ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Charlie Thompson Rental License Revocation DATE: September 21, 2004 DATE: NO: The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against Erika Thorn regarding rental property at 1019 37th Avenue N.E. for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Code was scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of September 27, 2004. The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the property owner has corrected a significant number of the deficiencies inside and on the outside of the building and has received an extension to complete the work. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension o£the Rental License Held by Erika Thorn Regarding Rental Property at 1019 37th Avenue N.E. in that the Property Owner has Corrected a Significant Number of the Deficiencies Inside and on the Outside of the Building and Has Received an Extension to Complete the Work. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of September 27. 2004 AGENDA ORIGINATING CITY SECTION: DEPARTMENT: Fire MANAGER APPROVAL NO: ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Chat'lie Thompson B Y'://./'~,~ Rental License Revocation DATE: September 21, 2004 DATE: NO: The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against Tahazib Bacchus regarding rental property at 208-210 42nd Avenue N.E. for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of September 27, 2004. The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner and the tenants were not properly notified of the City Council hearing. The Columbia Heights Fire Department will serve proper notice on all interested parties and schedule a public hearing at the next available date. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License Held by Tahazib Bacchus Regarding Rental Property at 208-210 42na Avenue N.E. until such time all interested parties can be properly notified. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of September 27, 2004 AGENDA Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER SECTION: Fire APPROVAL NO: Hearing BY: Char lie Thompson BY: ITEM: Close Rental License Revocation DATE: September 21, 2004 DATE: NO: The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Colurnbia Heights against Abullahi Elmi regarding rental property at 1635 49th Avenue N.E. for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Code was scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of September 27, 2004. The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the property owner has corrected some of the deficiencies inside the building and has received an extension to complete the work on the outside of the building. As of September 30, 2004 the owner claims the property will be vacant and no longer used as a rental property. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License Held by Abullahi Elmi Regarding Rental Property at 1635 49th Avenue N.E. in that the Property Owner has corrected some of the deficiencies inside the building and has received a extension to complete the work on the outside of the building, and as of September 30, 2004 the property will be vacated and no longer be used as rental property. COUNCIL ACTION: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: S~:ptember 27 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, Other ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER'S Ordinances and Resolutions Community Development APPROVAL NO: 7 A ~ c.~ ITEM: Emergency Ordinance No. 1474, an ordinance BY: Ellen Berkelhamer BY: / //~// /~._ repealing Ordinance No. 1471 ending a moratorium on DATE: September 22, 2004 development in Industrial Park Master Plan area ISSUE STATEMENT: Consideration of Emergency Ordinance No. 1474, an ordinance of the Columbia Heights City Council ending a moratorium for industrial zoned properties identified in Phase I and II of the Industrial Park Master Plan for the City of Columbia Heights. BACKGROUND: The City Council identified as a priority for 2002 and beyond a strategic master planning process for the industrial areas of Columbia Heights. As part of this ongoing redevelopment strategy, the City Council entertained several concept plans of the potential redevelopment of the industrial area. As part of the redevelopment process, the City imposed a moratorium in July 2002 on industrial properties identified in the planning area. The moratorium was extended on June 9, 2003 for the properties in the Light Industrial zoning district generally bounded by University Avenue on the west, 40th Avenue on the north, Jefferson Street on the east, and 37t~ Avenue on the south, excepting the properties at 455 37th Avenue NE, 500 38th Avenue NE, 523 37m Avenue NE, 533 37m Avenue NE, and 545 37m Avenue NE. The moratorium was again extended by the City Council at its meeting of June 14, 2004, effective of July 8, 2004 and for a period of six months, recognizing that the time period may be shortened at any time by the City Council. ANALYSIS: The moratorium was extended to allow protect the strategic planning process and the health, safety and general welfare of the public. As part of this strategic planning process, on July 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public heating to consider a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning for the industrial properties in the planning area. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property. The City Council will consider these items at its September 27 meeting along with a development agreement. Therefore, the strategic planning process has been completed and the moratorium on the industrial properties in the planning area may be terminated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends ending the moratorium as the strategic planning process has been completed. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to waive the reading of Emergency Ordinance No. 1474, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 1474, being an Ordinance repealing Emergency Ordinance No. 1471 and ending the moratorium on the use of property identified in Phase I and II of the Industrial Park Master Plan for the City of Columbia Heights. Attachments: Ordinance No. 1474 COUNCIL ACTION: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1474 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA BEING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE REPEALING EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1471 The City of Columbia Heights does ordaim Section 1: On July 8, 2002, the City of Columbia Heights adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 1449, which was an ordinance that was created in an effort to protect the strategic planning process, health, safety, and the general welfare of the public for the City of Columbia Heights; and Section 2: On June 9, 2003, the City of Columbia Heights adopted Ordinance No. 1457, extending the moratorium for the Light Industrial zoned properties to protect the strategic planning process, health, safety, and the general welfare of the public for the City of Columbia Heights; and Section 3: On June 14, 2004, the City of Columbia Heights adopted Ordinance No. 1471, extending the moratorium as of July 8, 2004 for six months to protect the strategic planning process, health, safety, and the general welfare of the public for the City of Columbia Heights, recognizing that said time period may be shortened at anytime by the City Council; and Section 4: On July 7, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the industrial area as part of the strategic planning process and therefore the strategic planning process is now complete. Section 5: The City Council determines that Emergency Ordinance No. 1471 may be repealed because the strategic planning process to determine the highest and best use for the industrial zone properties has been' completed. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Date of Passage: Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: geptember 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S Other Ordinances and Resolutions Community Development APPROVAL NO: '1 A ~ b ITEM: Resolution 2004-58, Industrial Park BY: Ellen Berkelhamer BY: /, ~ '~~/,~2~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment DATE: September 22, 2004 BACKGROUND: The City has made an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation of properties located at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE in the Industrial Park redevelopment area, from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development. In November 2003, the City adopted the City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan to set a framework for redevelopment options for the greater Industrial Park area with the objectives of providing a catalyst for change in the area, with an emphasis on identifying land uses that could be supported in today' s market place; establishing an improved land use pattern that would be financially feasible; identifying a redevelopment effort that involved immediate implementation and substantial change over the next five years; and establishing a new land use pattern that furthered community objectives. In May 2004, the City entered into a preliminary development agreement with Schafer Richardson, a developer that currently owns a portion of the property in the Industrial Park, calling for Schafer Richardson to redevelop the Industrial Park as a predominantly residential neighborhood with some mixed residential and commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan currently guides the subject area for "Industrial" uses. Since the Comprehensive Plan is the framework for guiding zoning and development decisions, it must be amended to change the land use designation of the Industrial Park to be consistent with the concepts proposed in the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation at a public hearing on July 7 and voted unanimously for the City Council to adopt. Transit Oriented Development allows mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes that will provide new opportunities for high-density residential and neighborhood commercial development. Redevelopment of these areas will also provide the opportunity for pedestrian linkages to other parts of the community. Should the City Council vote to approve the amendment, it would be subject to Metropolitan Council review. The Metropolitan Council would consider whether there will be any impacts to regional systems. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Industrial Park area, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, to change the land use designation from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 58, which is a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the properties at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE in the Industrial Park redevelopment area, from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-58, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to approve Resolution 2004-58, being a resolution pertaining to a Comprehensive Plan amendment for certain properties located at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE. Attachments: Resolution 2004-58; Planning Report to City Council COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 2004-58 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 317 37TH AVENUE NE; 450, 515, AND 517 38TH AVENUE NE; 510, 550, 600 AND 620 39TH AVENUE NE; AND 3700, 3800, 3801 AND 3901 5TH STREET NE WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan to set a framework for redevelopment options for the greater Industrial Park area with the objectives of providing a catalyst for change in the area; and WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights recognizes that the Industrial land use designation of subject properties in the Comprehensive Plan does not allow the flexibility needed to accommodate successful redevelopment in accordance with the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Industrial Park Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the description of the Transit Oriented Mixed Use-District; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's residential density guidelines for "Developed" communities is 5 units plus per acre, with higher densities in locations with convenient access to transportation corridors and the overall residential development proposed for the Industrial Park is approximately 20 units per acre; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment supports other policies of the Metropolitan Council such as reinvestment/redevelopment, providing a mix of uses, planning pedestrian and bicycle connections between workplaces, residences, retail and services, using mixed use development and transit oriented development zoning, increasing density along University Avenue NE to support transit services, providing a mix of residential types and densities to provide the opportunity for lifecycle and affordable housing, and reclaiming contaminated lands for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the City's approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Industrial Park area is contingent on Metropolitan Council review and the amendment will be sent to the Metropolitan Council accordingly; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public heating to review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and recommends approval of the proposed amendment changing the land use designation for the subject properties from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development. Passed this ~ day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Attest: Mayor Julienne Wyckoff Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk CTTY OF COLUMBZA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CASE NUMBER: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2004-0702 September 27, 2004 Columbia Heights City Council City of Columbia Heights Industrial Park Redevelopment Area 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE Comprehensive Plan Amendment Change Land Use Designation from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development PREPARED BY: Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP, City Planner Introduction On July 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the City's own application to consider a change in the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of the properties generally bounded by Huset Park on the north, Jefferson Street NE on the east, 37th Avenue NE on the south and University Avenue NE on the west, referred to here as the Industrial Park (see Figure 1). The property is currently guided and zoned for Industrial use (Figures 2 and 3). The application requests a change in land use designation from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development (Figure 4). Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the city Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Industrial Park area, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, to change the land use designation from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development. Planning Considerations The property is currently used and zoned for industrial purposes, and is surrounded by a variety of land uses including industrial, residential, and parks and open space (Figure 1). University Avenue NE is located to the west of the site, with industrial uses beyond University. Residential uses, industrial uses, and Huset Park are located to the north of the site. Industrial uses are located to the east of the site, with residential uses beyond the City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 :Industrial Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case # 2004-0702 industrial area. Open space and industrial and residential uses are located south of the site. The southernmost portion of the site borders the City of Minneapolis, which includes the Columbia Park Community Gardens. The total size of the redevelopment area is approximately 28 acres. The subject properties are guided and zoned Industrial (Figure 2 and Figure 3). These designations do not provide the flexibility needed to accommodate mixed-use residential/commercial redevelopment projects, given the limited permitted uses allowed under each land use category. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan established three (3) Mixed-Use land use categories: Transit Oriented Mixed-Use, Community Center Mixed-Use, and Transitional Mixed-Use. The purpose of creating the Mixed-Use districts was to "facilitate redevelopment and enhancement efforts in targeted areas of the community." The Industrial Park redevelopment area is a section of the community that has been officially targeted for redevelopment since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Transit Oriented Mixed-Use designation is the most appropriate Mixed-Use designation for the subject properties. Both the Community Center Mixed-Use district and the Transitional Mixed-Use District are tied to specific geographic areas within the community. The Community Center Mixed-Use district is intended to guide the redevelopment of lands in the vicinity of City Hall. The Transitional Mixed-Use District is intended to guide the redevelopment of lands along 40th Avenue from City Hall to Central Avenue. Criteria for the location of Transit Oriented Mixed-Use district only requires that the district be located in areas along existing transit routes. The site is walking distance to University, 40th and Central Avenues. The Comprehensive Plan provides a description of areas guided Transit Oriented Mixed- Use. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan states that "Mixed-Use pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes will provide opportunities for high-density residential and neighborhood commercial development. Redevelopment of these areas will also provide the opportunity for pedestrian linkages to other parts of the community and improvement of the overall non-motorized circulation system within the community that will help improve the image of Columbia Heights." The Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan dated November 2003 provides the framework for determining the most appropriate land use designation. The Plan is consistent with the description of the Transit Oriented Mixed-Use District (see item 5 above): · The study area is located along an existing transit route (University Avenue); New residents will be able to commute to work via the existing transit routes; · Potential patrons will continue to access existing business via transit and likewise, will be able to patronize any new business via transit; · The plan will provide pedestrian connections to and through the subject properties. The concept site plan prepared by Schafer Richardson as part of the City's preliminary development agreement is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's regional policies for "developed" communities, the classification for Columbia Heights. The Metropolitan Council's residential density guidelines for Developed communities are 5 units plus per acre, with higher densities in locations with convenient access to transportation corridors. The overall residential development proposed for the Industrial Park is approximately 20 units per acre. In addition to density guidelines, the redevelopment plan supports other Page 2 City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Tndustrial Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case # 2004-0702 Metropolitan Council policies such as reinvestment/redevelopment, providing a mix of uses, planning pedestrian and bicycle connections between workplaces, residences, retail and services, using mixed use development and transit oriented development zoning, increasing density along University Avenue NE to support transit services, providing a mix of residential types and densities to provide the opportunity for lifecycle and affordable housing, and reclaiming contaminated lands for redevelopment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to: · Goal: Strengthen the image of the community as a desirable place to live and work. The Transit Oriented Mixed-Use designation provides new housing and job opportunities in close proximity to one another. · Goal: Provide opportunities and mechanisms for successful redevelopment of targeted areas within the community. The land use change will support the implementation of the Industrial Park Redevelopment Plan. · Goal: Advocate high quality development and redevelopment within the community. Urban design guidelines and an overall redevelopment plan will help ensure high quality development. · Goal: Provide a variety of life-cycle housing opportunities within the community. A new Mixed-Use District will provide new residential opportunities in areas previously limited to industrial use only. · Goal: Strengthen areas of commercial and civic activity by introducing complementary housing development. The new Mixed-Use District will introduce housing opportunities mixed with commercial activity adjacent to civic activities at Huset Park, Murzyn Hall, and City Hall. · Goal: Increase pedestrian and bicycle safety in residential neighborhoods. The Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City in 2003 proposes streetscape enhancements, which include improved sidewalk/trails and pedestrian level lighting. · Goal: Manage and maintain the investment in the existing roadway system. The Industrial Park Redevelopment Area will be served by the existing roadway system, with enhancements to the reconstructed parkway (currently 5th Street NE and 39th Avenue NE) and will provide a new internal circulation system within the site. Given the description of the Transit Oriented Mixed-Use designation, the consistency of the Industrial Park Redevelopment Plan with the Transit Oriented Mixed-Use description, and the consistency of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment with the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission recommends amending the Comprehensive Plan, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, to change the land use designation of the subject properties from industrial to Transit Oriented Development (Figure 4). Attachments · Figure 1 - Industrial Park Location Map · Figure 2 - Current Future Land Use Plan · Figure 3- Official Zoning · Figure 4- Proposed Future Land Use Plan Page 3 Figure 2: Current Future Land Use Map c~tof COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2-2, FUTURE LAND USE M A P City o£Cohmbm Height~ ~ F~,ngmrau~ityD~evelopro. er~ D~/mxtment n~en~g ~,l::artment (0.I.$. D/vihon) LEGEND Future Landl3'se: Acres: % of Total: I I LowDe~ Re~deniial 1,029.202 zH.3O yo I { M~ cl. hrra Desitv i~ si&n~al 59.538 2.56Yo I ~;"~-~ t Hi~ h I~ mjb' Re-°id*nti~l 69.970 3.01% ~ In,,~itutional 48.191 2.0'7% ~ ~.eligious I mt itutions 16.092 0.69*/, ~ t.,ommezcial 90.026 3.87% [----I Indu~tml 87.831 3.78*/0 ~ Communitv Csnt~ t D/strk t 7.641 0.33%  Tramit Onent*d D~etolxt~ nt 59.431 236% Transitional DeveBpme nt 10.675 0.46*/0 ~ Vacant 0.316 0.01./o ~ Path 123.~g3 5.31% Public: I I R/ght-of-Way 517.569 lq-on-Cit7 Land: F//.,1 Cityof Hilltvp 69.317 2.98*/° ¢TZg Cityof MmaeaFohs 74.845 3.22% TOTALS: 22E3.443 100.00% I I WaterFeatmes 54.091 Acres ,~CityLimi~ ~ ~el~es O ~d~eB~ent Ama Subject Property Figure 4: Proposed Future Land Use Map COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2-2, FUTURE LAND USE M A P IT LEGEND Future Land TJ~e: Acres: % of Tottt:  Low D endty ResidentiaI 1,029.202 4430% Ivle dium Desitv P,~ d d~ntial 59.538 2.56% .Hg h De n.cigr Residential 69.970 3.01% ~ .bmilulional 48.191 2.07% I I R~li~iou~ I mtitufions lg.0~2 0.g9%  Cornme~cial 90.026 Indu~trhl 87.831 3.78% Community Cant~ x DL,'trlc t ?.641 0530/° I I Transit Onen'~d Develat:me nt 59.431 236% ~ Trar~itional DeveloDme nt 10.675 0.46% ~ Vacant 0.316 0.010/o ~ Pa.rh 123.433 5.310/o l~ublic: I I Right-of-Way 517.569 Non-City Land: K//,,I Ci~ of Hilltop 69.317 2.98% 177~ City o f IVlinne arabs 74.845 3.22% TOTALS: 2323.443 100.00% 1'---'3 WaterFe~tures 54.0Pl Acres ,~CitvLi.mi~ /~X,/ParcelLines ORedevelot:mentAma City of Columb/a Hei~ht~ - I eagmeemg Del:artn~nt Subject Property COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27. 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S Other Ordinances and Resolutions Conm~unity Development APPROVAL NO: ITEM: Ordinance No. 1475, an Ordinance BY: Ellen Berkelhamer Pertaining to the Industrial Park Rezoning DATE: September 22, 2004 BACKGROIJND: The City of Columbia Heights has made an application for the rezoning of prOPerties located at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE in the Industrial Park redevelopment area. The application requests a change in zoning from I-1 Industrial to MXD Mixed Use District. Immediately prior to considering this rezoning request, the City is considering a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development, subject to the review of the Metropolitan Council. Therefore, the rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 9 of the City Code requires that the Planning Commission prepare recommendations to the City Council regarding changes to the Official Zoning Map to redesignate zoning boundaries of property. The Planning Cormnission held such public hearing on July 7, 2004 and made its findings of fact in support of the zoning change. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recormx~ends that the City Council approve the rezoning of the Industrial Park properties from I-1 Industrial to MXD Mixed Use District (Transit Oriented Mixed Use). RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1475, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to establish a second reading of Ordinance No. 1475, being an ordinance pertaining to Zoning and Development Ordinance No. 1428, Pertaining to the rezoning of certain properties located at 317 37TH Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38TH Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 AND 620 39TH Avenue NE; AND 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5TH Street NE, for October 11, 2004, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Attachme~ts: Ordinance No. /475; Planning Report to City Comzcil COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE 1475 CITY OF COLUM~BIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA BEING AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1428, PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 317 37TH AVENUE NE; 450, 515, AND 517 38TH AVENUE NE; 510, 550, 600 AND 620 39TH AVENUE NE; AND 3700, 3800, 3801 AND 3901 5TH STREET NE SECTION 1: WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan to set a framework for redevelopment options for the greater Industrial Park area; and WtW~REAS, the City of Columbia Heights recognizes that the I-1 Industrial zoning does not allow the flexibility needed to accommodate successful redevelopment in accordance with the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan; and Wl:IEREAS, rezoning from I-1 Industrial District to MXD, Mixed-Use District provides flexibility in the project redevelopment, and allows for mixed residential and commercial components as part of the redevelopment project area; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Resolution 2004-59, and is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a single property owner; and Wl:IEREAS, the zoning classification of the property within the general area of the Industrial Park Redevelopment area compatible with the proposed Mixed-Use zoning classification, and WHEREAS, the objective of the 2003 Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan was to provide a catalyst for change in the area and the proposed rezoning will be the genesis for transformation of the area, which necessitates the need to consider rezoning for a more appropriate use; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from I-1, Industrial to MXD, Mixed-Use District. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: September 27, 2004 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Julienne Wyckoff Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CASE NUMBER: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PREPARED BY: 2004-0702 September 27, 2004 Columbia Heights City Council City of Columbia Heights Industrial Park Redevelopment Area 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and 620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE Rezoning of Property from I-1 Industrial to MXD Mixed Use District Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP, City Planner Introduction On July 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing, on the City's own application, to consider the rezoning of the properties generally bounded by Huset Park on the north, Jefferson Street NE on the east, 37th Avenue NE on the south and University Avenue NE on the west, referred to here as the Industrial Park (see Figure 1). The property is currently zoned for Industrial use (Figures 2). The application requests a change in land use designation from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development (Figure 3). Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of the Industrial Park properties from I-1 Industrial to MXD Mixed Use District (Transit Oriented Mixed Use). Planning Considerations When evaluating a rezoning request it is important to consider how the proposed zoning change fits in with the surrounding area. The. property is currently used and zoned for industrial purposes, and is surrounded by a variety of land uses including industrial, residential, and parks and open space. University Ave NE, a major arterial roadway, and industrial uses across University Ave NE are located to the west of the site. Residential uses, industrial uses, and Huset Park are located to the north of the site. Industrial uses are located to the east of the site with residential uses beyond the industrial area. Open space and industrial and residential uses are located south of the site. The southernmost portion of the site borders the City of Minneapolis, which includes the Columbia Park Community City of Columbia Heights City Council Industrial Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment September 27, 2004 Case # 2004-0702 Gardens. The rezoning would make existing industrial uses within the subject property boundaries non-conforming uses. However, it is anticipated that all of the subject property will ultimately be redeveloped as residential or mixed residential/commercial uses. In the meantime, if properties are not redeveloped until later phases, they will have legal non-conforming status. According to Section 9.502 of the Zoning Ordinance, legal non-conforming uses have the right to continue, but may not be enlarged, increased or expanded. Minor repairs and routine maintenance of a structure containing or related to a non-conforming use are permitted. Recent legislation also allows nonconforming uses that have been destroyed by more than 50 percent of market value to be rebuilt within 180 days. A rezoning cannot be adopted until after a Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been adopted. On September 27, prior to action on the rezoning, the City Council will vote on approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which will be contingent on Metropolitan Council review. Therefore, the rezoning of the Industrial Area would be consistent with a new Comprehensive Plan designation of Transit Oriented Development. Although no application has been made at this time for Site Plan Review or subdivision approval, a concept site plan has been prepared by the anticipated developer of the subject area as part of the preliminary development agreement entered into with the City.. The concept plan is compatible with the provisions of the Transit Oriented Mixed Use District. This district calls for a flexible mix of uses with a minimum residential density of 12 units per acre and a maximum density of 20 units per acre, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. At this time, the concept site plan shows a density of just under 20 units per acre. The subject property is located adjacent to a transit corridor (University Avenue NE) and will include a trail connection linking the new residential and mixed use neighborhood to and through Huset Park. The trail will be constructed as part of the parkway along 39th Ave NE. The City Staff is in the process of preparing Design Guidelines to be applied to the redevelopment of the subject property. These guidelines are directly based on the existing City Design Guidelines adopted in 2003 so that the guidelines for the Industrial Park redevelopment area will be consistent, to the extent relevant, with the city's adopted design principles. The guidelines will include characteristics that are appropriate to the residential and mixed use character of the Industrial Park redevelopment area. The purpose of the Mixed-Use District is to promote efficient use of existing City infrastructure; ensure sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods, create linkages between compatible areas of the City; provide appropriate transitions between uses; ensure high quality design and architecture; create good pedestrian circulation and safety; promote alternative modes of transportation; and increase the quality of life and community image of Columbia Heights. The proposed Industrial Park redevelopment will be designed as a pedestrian friendly mixed-use project that will accomplish these goals. Rezoning these properties to the MXD Mixed-Use District will allow for the creation of a neighborhood in-fill residential urban style development project. Properties will be redeveloped into a traditional community development pattern allowing for pedestrian connections and creating linkages and enhancing accessibility to the site. 8. The proposed Industrial Area Plan will enhance the tax base as a result of the future Page 2 City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Industrial Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case # 2004-0702 assessed values of the site. The Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use District requires that the mix of land use include two or more of the following uses: residential, commercial and industrial. The proposed Industrial Park redevelopment will meet this requirement by including predominantly residential uses with some mixed use commercial/residential uses. Findings of Fact Section 9.406 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City must make certain findings before granting approval of a rezoning request to change district boundaries on the official zoning map. The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property, changing the land use designation of the subject property from Industrial to Transit Oriented Development. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The rezoning is in the interest of the general public for several reasons. It will allow for redevelopment that will expand the City's tax capacity, diversify its tax base, and attract subsequent development. Rezoning will also allow for redevelopment that encourages the use and leads to the enhancement of Huset Park, with new trails leading from the new residential/mixed use neighborhood to the park. Additionally, the rezoning will lead to the clean up of contaminated soils and existing pollutants on the site, prior to its redevelopment as the new residential/mixed-use neighborhood. Finally, residents of the community will also benefit because the rezoning will allow for redevelopment that provides significant housing along a major existing transit corridor (University Avenue). Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. The existing use of the property is Industrial It is currently surrounding by industrial, residential and open space uses. Once rezoned, development may occur that will greatly enhance both adjacent and nearby land uses by bringing the redevelopment area into compatibility with those uses. Historically, the industrial area and its uses have operated side-by-side with the City's existing residential neighborhoods without any meaningful buffer. As a consequence, there is the need to eliminate incompatible land uses. New residential and mixed-use residential/commercial development will achieve this goal by creating a separation through new parkway/landscaping improvements and the location of a mixed use building serving as a buffer between residential and industrial uses to the east of the Industrial Park. Page 3 City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 :Industrial Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case # 2004-0702 Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in its current zoning classification. The proposed rezoning is the genesis for the transformation of the area. In November 2003, the City adopted the City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan to establish a framework for redevelopment options for the greater industrial area. The objective of the 2003 Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan was to provide a catalyst for change in the area, with an emphasis on identifying land uses that could be supported in today's market place; establishing an improved land use pattern that would be financially feasible; identifying a redevelopment effort that involved immediate implementation and substantial change over the next five years; and establishing a new land use pattern that furthered community objectives. The proposed rezoning will allow for development to occur within such a framework. Other land use changes or improvements are taking place in the general area, to which the proposed zoning would be consistent. To the south of the property in Minneapolis is a former Cargill processing plant, formerly considered a heavy industrial use. The plant was removed and is now being used as public open space. Also, the City of Columbia Heights is currently preparing a plan for the expansion and improvement of Huset Park. Attachments Figure 1 - Industrial Park Location Map Figure 2 - Existing Zoning Figure 3 - Proposed Zoning Page 4 I J~ll J I I I~l~!ll I Il J JI IIII Ill fir ill I) [ I II IIdJJlIIIIIIILLL~ IIIJIJIIJII --]1 IIIIllllllllll 1111111 Jllllllllllllll ~1111 II] __ IIIIIIIIIIIIIitl tillllHI I I __ I IIIIIIIIll ILl II IIIIIIII I ~ 0 r~ COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: Sc >tember 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, Other ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S Ordinances and Resolutions Community Development APPROVAL No: o1 ITEM: Resolution 2004-53, Record of Decision for a BY: Ellen Berkelhamer BY: .~~///~ Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental DATE: September 22, 2004 Impact Statement for the Industrial Park Redevelopment BACKGROUND: The size and scope of the proposed redevelopment of the Columbia Heights Industrial Park required that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared. The State of Minnesota's Environmental Quality Board (EQB) provides the guidelines for the preparation and review of EAWs. An EAW outlines and describes a potential project and assesses its potential impacts on a wide variety of environmental issues. An EAW is then required to be distributed to approximately 30 reviewing agencies for comments. Once comments are received by the City, the City makes a determination based on those comments as to whether there is any potential for significant environmental impacts from the development and whether a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Minnesota Rules provide the following criteria for deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects: Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; · Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; · The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and · The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. On August 9, 2004, the City Council authorized the distribution of the Industrial Park Redevelopment EAW to reviewing agencies. The agencies received the EAW by the required deadline of August 16, 2004. The comment period for the EAW ran from August 16, 2004 to September 15, 2004. The City received four comment letters from reviewing agencies, none of which identified the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The agency comments have been addressed or will be addressed as part of the City' s development plan design and approval process. Based on the comment letters and the analysis contained in the EAW, Staff has prepared the attached draft Record of Decision for the City Council's review. The Record of Decision is meant to serve as the City's Findings of Fact in support of a decision that an EIS does not need to be prepared for the Industrial Park Redevelopment. It should be noted that the City is not making any approvals of the proposed redevelopment at this time. The only action the City Council is taking is making a determination, based on the Record of Decision and Response to Comments, as to whether a need has been shown for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The specifics of the proposed Industrial Park redevelopment will be brought forward to the City for review and approval as part of the City' s processes for site plan review, subdivision review, etc. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 2004-53 approving f'mdings that the preparation of an EIS is not necessary for the Industrial Park redevelopment; making a negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement and approving the Record of Decision. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-53, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to approve Resolution 2004-53, being a resolution approving a negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement and approving the Record of Decision. Attach~nents: Resolution 2004-53, Record of Decision COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-53 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RECORD OF DECISION REGARDING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 contains the requirements for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("EQB') Environmental Review Program; and WHEREAS, the scope of the Industrial Park Redevelopment required a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW") pursuant to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.4300 subp. 14; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2004, the City of Columbia Heights, as the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") for preparation of the Industrial Park Redevelopment EAW approved the EAW for distribution to the Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") distribution list and interested parties; and WHEREAS, the EAW was published in the August 16, 2004, edition of the EQB Monitor, which started the required 30-day public comment period that commenced on August 16 2004 and ended on September 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, the RGU received four comment letters that are provided in Appendix B to the Record of Decision and the comments received do not support a need for an EIS on the proposed project; and WHEREAS, responses were prepared for comment letters received and these responses to comments are provided in Appendix C to the Record of Decision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Section 4410.1700, the RGU shall base its decision regarding the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the EAW process, the comments received on the EAW, and the criteria established by the EQB to determine whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects as provided in Appendix D to the Record of Decision; and WHEREAS, the RGU has prepared a Record of Decision (Attachment 1) that has been considered and reviewed by the City Council documenting the findings of fact and decision regarding the negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the Industrial Park Redevelopment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of City of Columbia Heights hereby approves the negative declaration of the need for an EIS and approves the Record of Decision. Passed this __ day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Attest: Mayor Julienne Wyckoff Patficia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Attachment I RECORD OF DECISION Industrial Park Redevelopment, Environmental Assessment Worksheet City of Columbia Heights City Council, September 27, 2004 1. Applicant, RGU, Citizen Petition, Consultants Schafer Richardson is the proposer of the Industrial Park Redevelopment EAW. The residential and mixed use redevelopment is proposed in the City of Columbia Heights (City). The City, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this project in accordance with the Environmental Review Program of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The Industrial Park required a mandatory EAW under Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.4300, Subp. 14. The City authorized the distribution of the EAW at its August 9, 2004 City Council meeting. The EAW has been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to this Record of Decision. The City completed the data portions of the EAW with the assistance of its technical consultants, including the firms of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. (DSU), ProSource Technologies, Inc. (ProSource), and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). 2. Project Description Proposed is the redevelopment of 28 acres currently used for industrial purposes into a residential and mixed use residential commercial neighborhood. The developer proposes to create a community comprised of approximately 183 townhomes, 296 condominium and 80 co-operative units. There will also be a mixed use residential/commercial structure with approximately 11,650 sq. ft. of first floor commercial' and 40 upper level residential uses. The overall density will be approximately 19.96 units per acre. The proposed development site is presently served by existing public utilities and roads. The existing utilities are adequately sized to serve the new redevelopment uses. The water main and sanitary sewer are in need of repair and in some cases, rehabilitation. Roads will be reconstructed and realigned to better serve the redeveloped property, with access to the development being through 5th Street and the new Huset Parkway (reconfigured 39th Avenue). 3. Administrative Process The City Council approved the EAW for distribution to the EQB mailing list and other interested parties on August 9, 2004. The EAW was distributed for comrnent on August 12, 2004. The EAW was published in the August 16, 2004 edition of the EQB Monitor. The public comment period for the EAW began on August 16, 2004, and ended on September 15, 2004. The City of Columbia Heights received four comment letters. Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated as Appendix B to this Record of Decision. Reponses to comments were prepared for comments letters received. The responses to comments received are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix C to this Record of Decision. 4. Findings After considering the EAW, the comments on the EAW and the responses to the comments, the Columbia Heights City Council makes the following Findings with regard to the potential for significant environmental effects as a result of the Industrial Park Redevelopment. 4.1 Land Use and Compatibility with City Plans 4.1.1 Comprehensive Plan The proposed Industrial Park Redevelopment is compatible with the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. The City is currently processing a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the redevelopment site. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application at its July 7, 2004 meeting and unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, contingent on Metropolitan Council review. It is anticipated that the City Council will consider this item on September 27, 2004. The amendment will then be sent to the Metropolitan Council for review. The existing Future Land Use Map shows the area as "Industrial" with the majority of the site indicated as "Redevelopment Area." The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes to designate the site as "Transit Oriented Development." The purpose of the land use designation is to promote development and redevelopment that facilitates linkages and interaction of transit services, housing and neighborhood services. This land use designation allows for the mix and intensity of residential and commercial uses proposed for the site. The Comprehensive Plan also includes a water and sanitary sewer component, with which the proposed project is consistent. 4.1.2 Zoning Ordinance The present zoning of the site is currently Industrial. The City is currently processing a Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment (rezoning) for the Site. Subsequent to considering a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered an application to rezone the property from Industrial to the Transit Oriented Mixed Use District at its July 7, 2004 meeting. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning. It is anticipated that the City Council will consider this item on September 27, 2004. The rezoning will be consistent with the comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed site plan is compatible with the provisions of the Transit Oriented Mixed Use District. This district calls for a flexible mix of uses, a minimum residential density of 12 units per acre and a location adjacent to a transit corridor (in this case, University Avenue NE). 4.1.3 Water Resource Management Plan and Stormwater Management Ordinance The City has adopted a Water Resource Management Plan and a Stormwater Management Ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with these documents. 4.1.4 Impacts to Existing Properties The City's existing land use inventory identifies the site as Industrial. The entire site is a large industrial park with local roads serving the industrial uses. The site is comprised of several industrial buildings, outdoor storage areas, and parking lots. Since the early 1900s, foundries have been in operation in the western portion of the Site. During the 1940s and 1950s, additional industrial type operations began across the Site. These operations primarily included, but were/are not limited to machine shops~ plating operations, automotive repair and chemical manufacturers. The site is surrounded by a variety of land uses including industrial, residential, and parks and open space. University Ave NE, a major arterial roadway, and industrial uses across University Ave NE are located to the west of the site. Residential uses, industrial uses, and Huset Park are located to the north of the site. The 40th Ave NE commercial corridor, including City Hall, is located beyond Huset Park. Industrial uses are located to the east of the Site with residential uses beyond the industrial area. Open space and industrial and residential uses are located south of the site. The southernmost portion of the site borders the City of Minneapolis, which includes the Columbia Park Community Gardens. The project is consistent with the goals of the City for the Site. In November 2003, the City adopted the City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan to establish a framework for redevelopment options for the greater industrial area. The objective of the 2003 Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan was to provide a catalyst for change in the area, with an emphasis on identifying land uses that could be supported in today's market place; establishing an improved land use pattern that would be financially feasible; identifying a redevelopment effort that involved immediate implementation and substantial change over the next five years; and establishing a new land use pattern that furthered community objectives. Once implemented, the Project promises to greatly enhance both adjacent and nearby land uses by bringing the redevelopment area into harmony with those uses. Historically, the preexisting industrial area and its uses have operated side-by-side with the City's existing residential neighborhoods without any meaningful buffer. As a consequence of this odd juxtaposition, the City has long recognized the need to redevelop this area in order to eliminate incompatible land uses and has articulated this goal as part of its planning process. The Project will achieve that goal. 4.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources There are no state-listed species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources on the site. The site provides minimal (1 acre) of lawn and tree rows for urban wildlife habitat. These areas may provide habitat for wildlife adapted to intense urbanization. These scrubby tree and lawn areas will be removed and additional lawn and landscaped areas (overstory and understory trees, ornamental plantings) will be provided with the redevelopment of this industrial site. A stormwater management facility will be located within the site, adjacent to Huset Park. The stormwater pond edges can be planted with native vegetation to increase wildlife habitat. 4.3 Physical Impacts on Water Resources National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping was used to identify wetlands on the site. There are no wetlands or surface waters on the Site. 4.4 Water Use - Public Water Supply The development area is currently connected to the City of Columbia Heights water supply system. The proposed development will be served by the existing municipal water supply and will not require installation of any wells. Providing the quantity of water necessary for the development is within the City's water capacity plans. 4.5 Erosion and Sedimentation There are not any highly erodible soils at the Site. As necessary, silt fence will be used to control areas in which significant erosion may occur while conducting soil Response Actions (i.e. excavation). ProSource prepared a Phase II Investigation Report, Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and Response Action Plan (RAP) for the Site. This document was submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program on October 9, 2003. Subsequently, the MPCA approved the RAP on November 3, 2003. All materials excavated will be hauled off-site and disposed of at an approved solid waste facility (landfill). BMPs will minimize erosion and manage sedimentation as required by the City of Columbia Heights and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination system permitting requirements. 4.6 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff The redeveloped area will be less impervious than the existing land use. In addition, the project will include water quality ponding in an area that currently does not have any existing pond sites. Runoff from the site currently drains to the south into existing storm sewer in the City of Minneapolis and ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River. According to the comprehensive plan, downstream pipes are undersized for peak runoffs. This project will maintain similar drainage patterns, but the proposed ponds will provide a benefit to the downstream system by reducing peak discharge and treating the water prior to discharge into the storm sewer system. This will provide a positive impact on the quality of water leaving the site. Additionally, the post-redevelopment land uses (residential and commercial) will have a positive effect on the quality of runoff compared to the pre-development land use (industrial). Ultimately, this project will require an NPDES and SWPPP permit. 4.7 Water Quality - Wastewaters Normal Domestic wastewater/sewage will be generated from the site. Some commercial developments may result in flows of waste associated with restaurants or other eatery type uses. All wastewater will be discharged into the City's collection system, thereby avoiding direct discharge into receiving water bodies. The sanitary sewer flows generated by the proposed development will not exceed available reserve capacity of the City of Columbia Heights and Metropolitan Council' s sanitary sewer system. Improvements that will be necessary include the repair of the existing gravity sewer lines and manholes and reconstruction of services. The waste will be treated at the Metro Plant in St. Paul. 4.8 Ground Water and Soils - Potential for Contamination The majority of near surface soils across the site are typically characterized as lower permeability (e.g. clay). A comprehensive Phase II Investigation has been completed by ProSource to define the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination. Soil and/or groundwater remediation will be done in accordance with the approved Response Action Plan. The future land uses in the proposed project will pose no threat of ground water contamination. 4.9 Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes~ Storage Tanks Solid waste will be generated during the construction process. The contractor will be responsible for providing storage of the materials and arr_anging for pe_ri_odic pick up of the waste in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. The excavation of the site will include petroleum and/or VOC impacted soil, foundry waste, and debris and potential contaminants from roadway soils. These materials will be excavated, hauled off-site and disposed of at an approved solid waste facility (landfill). Impacted materials will be directly loaded into trucks and source separation and/or recycling will not be conducted. Based on the results of several soil samples which were analyzed using toxicity characteristic leaching procedures (TCLP), none of the materials being hauled off-site are deemed as hazardous. During demolition/excavation activities there are at least three underground storage tanks (USTs) which will require removal. These three known USTs will be removed during demolition/excavation activities and disposed of properly. Upon removal, each UST will be observed for pits, holes, cracks and/or leaks. Confirmatory sampling will be conducted in accordance with MPCA Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) guidance. 4.10 Traffic The traffic analysis in the EAW identified no roadway or intersection deficiencies for the study area for existing or future (2025) conditions, either with or without the proposed Industrial Redevelopment. The traffic analysis indicates that the overall impact of the project on the roadway system will not be significant assuming the following transportation system improvements will be made as part of the development: The elimination of two existing roadways was included in the Traffic Study. These were a) 38th Avenue as a public street from the Service Road that is immediately parallel to the east side of University Avenue to 5th Street, and b) the Service Road on' the east side of TH 47 between 37th Avenue and 40th Avenue. If these roadway eliminations are implemented, it is recommended that all access to the westerly portion of the Industrial Redevelopment area should be directed only to the new parkway or 5th Street. 5th Street north of 39th Avenue should be connected to the new parkway. Traffic at this T- intersection should be controlled by a stop sign on the 5th Street approach, and there should be no control on the new parkway approaches. o Two alternatives were explored for the new parkway in the vicinity of the 39th Avenue/Jefferson Street intersection. One alternative replaces the existing 4-leg intersection with two closely spaced T- intersections, while the other replaces this intersection with a roundabout. Either alternative provides excellent LOS at this intersection. The two closely spaced T-intersections alternative results in some awkward turning maneuvers, especially for large trucks, and will probably not be as safe as the roundabout. For these reasons, the roundabout is the recommended alternative for this location. It is recommended that no control be used on the 37th Avenue approaches to the new parkway or to 5th Street. It should be noted that the analyses indicate both of these intersections could operate adequately as all-way stops, without any queue spill-backs to adjacent intersections. However, having all-way stops at both intersections would be very frustrating to motorists on 37th Avenue, since these intersections will only be about 230 feet apart. Certain turning movements at the intersections along 37th Avenue from TH 47 to 5th Street are expected to be significant during the peak hours under 2025 conditions. These movements are the westbound 37th Avenue fight turn at TH 47, the westbound 37th Avenue fight turn at Huset Parkway, the eastbound 37th Avenue left turn at Huset Parkway, and the eastbound 37th Avenue fight turn at 5th Street. For safety and convenience, it is desirable to have an additional lane for these movements so that through traffic can bypass the turning traffic. Due to the relatively short distance between intersections, the best way to provide these turn lanes/bypass lanes is to have a 4-lane undivided roadway for this segment of 37th Avenue. Since existing 37th Avenue is a 2-lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides, a possible alternative to the 4-lane section is to simply prohibit on- street parking along this segment of 37th Avenue. 4.11 Vehicle Related Air Emissions The proposed project is not anticipated to have substantial air quality impacts or cause air quality related concerns. The forecasted traffic volumes generated by the site are lower than the volumes of traffic typically associated with carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations approaching state air quality standards. 4.12 Odors, noise, and dust No significant odors will be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed developmenL Development construction noise should be considered average in both intensity and duration with no intrusive impulsive noise sources (such as blasting) expected. A slight decrease in noise is expected post construction of the development in terms of eliminating heavy truck traffic through the development and those roads bordering it as well as eliminating noise generated from manufacturing. Earthmoving equipment and vehicles driving on unpaved surfaces will generate dust during construction. Dust control measures will be implemented by the contractor. Operation of the proposed project will not generate significant dust. 4.13 Archaeological Resources The State Historical Preservation Office indicated that there are no known or recorded archaeological sites or historic properties in the SHPO databases. Based on the lack of archaeological resources in the project area, no significant effects are anticipated. 5. Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement The City Council has determined that the Industrial Park Redevelopment does not have the potential for significant effects and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the project is not required, based on the City Council's consideration of the following criteria: 5.1. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; The EAW and the Findings summarize the type and extent of impacts to the natural environment. The proposed project is consistent with a proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance; the project is compatible with surrounding urban development; and the project would be in compliance with local land use controls. The proposed project includes measures to mitigate impacts to the environment as described in the EAW and Findings. Design features such as erosion control measures, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and water systems are planned to minimize impacts on water quality. Planned roadway improvements associated with the project will minimize impacts on air quality or traffic. Any potential effects that are reasonably likely to occur from this project would not be irreversible. The expected effects as a result of the ongoing operation of the residential and mixed use development are minimal. There is no reason to believe that the ongoing operations of the development will cause a significant negative environmental effect. The potential impacts of ongoing operations that are reasonably expected to occur have been considered during the environmental review process and design feat,roes to mitigate these impacts have been developed. The project will result in a very positive cumulative impact on properties within and adjacent to the site resulting from the clean up of contaminated land. The City of Colulnbia Heights finds that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. 5.2. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; The EAW and public comments did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this project in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur. The only currently anticipated future project in the area is the public improvement of Huset ParL including the reconfiguration of athletic fields. All future development in the surrounding areas will be subject to appropriate environmental review and to the adopted Comprehensive Plan and land use controls. In considering the cumulative potential effects of anticipated future projects, the City of Columbia Heights finds that the reasonably expected effects from this project will not be significant. 5.3 The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and The mitigation of potential environmental effects will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to plan approval and permitting processes. Permits and approvals that may be required include: UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS Minnesota Pollution Control Response Action Plan Approved Agency NPDES SWPPP Permit To be applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Dewatering Permit To be applied for, if Natural Resources necessary Minnesota Department of Watermain Extension Permit To be applied for Health Monitoring Well Permit Approved Minnesota Department of State Aid Office To be applied for Transportation State Historic Preservation Cultural Resource Review Completed Office Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for Anoka County Final Plat Recording To be applied for City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applied for and in process Rezoning Applied for and in process Environmental Assessment Worksheet In process Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for Development Agreement To be applied for Drainage, Grading, Engineering, and To be applied for Erosion Control Plans Construction Permits To be applied for The City of Columbia Heights finds that the ongoing public regulatory authority will suffice to ensure that any potential environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur will not be significant. 5.4 The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The following documents were reviewed by the City as part of the environmental review for the proposed Industrial Park Redevelopment. This list is not exhaustive. The City also relies on information provided by the project proposer~ commenters, staff, and other available information. · City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance · Industrial Park Redevelopment concept plan · Minnesota Department of Natural Resources correspondence · Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office correspondence · Feasibility Report for Huset Parkway · Phase I Environmental Site Assessment · Phase II Investigation Report, Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and Response Action Plan (RAP) There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by local plans. Based on the environmental review, the City of Columbia Heights finds that the environmental effects of the proposed project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSION The environmental review requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program have been met by the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for this project (see Appendix D). The potential for environmental effects is not considered significant, and, therefore~ an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. Appendix A Industrial Park Redevelopment Environmental Assessment Worksheet Authorized for Distribution by the City Council on August 9, 2004 (Incor ~orated By Reference) Appendix B Comment Letters Received by Responding Agencies (See Following Pages) l0 Metropolitan Council September 9, 2004 Walter Fehst, City Manager City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 City of Columbia Heights Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) h~dustrial Park Redevelopment Metropolitan Council District 2 Metropolitan Council Review No. 19296-1 Dear Mr. Fehst: The Columbia Heights h~dustl-ial Park Redevelopment Environme~tal AssessmeJ~t Worksheet (EAW) proposes redevelopment of a 28-acre industrial park to create 27.73 acres of residential and 0.27 acres of mixed use development in the City of Columbia Heights. The proposed redevelopment includes 559 new homes and approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial space. The project is located at the northeast area of Ulfiversity and 37th Avenues NE. Metropolitan Council staffreviexv finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency xvith Council policies. Am Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. However, staff offers the following conm~ents for your consideration: Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff The EAW indicates that two new stonnwater detention and treatment basins are proposed for the site, as well as a third basin immediately north of the site. With the close proximity of the Mississippi River, and anticipated continued presence of contaminants in the site subsoil, Council staff reconmaends that infiltration of runoff not be promoted on-site due to the risk that it would promote n~ovement of contalrfinants toward the river. Additionally, it is recommended that the proposed stormwater basins be constructed with liners (that will acconm~odate periodic maintenance to remove sediment) to prevent encouraging movement of any underground contalninant plumes that might exist below the site. If you have any questions or need fm'ther information, please contact Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1410. Planning & Teclmical Assistance cc: Jack Jackson, MultiFamily Market Analyst, MHFA Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, M~zDOT - Metro Division Tony Pistilli, Metropolitan Council District 2 Keith Buttleman, Environmental Services Robin Caufman, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Chmyl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator V \¢,1 \,' EWS"( ~' n ] ] cs"',( o :,.:b. Ik'i2)~Is",,i,[~.lc:~;',(?, hlr ib...i i..l~:ighls 2()0,.I E,'\W Ind Park r)296-! .&' c www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street · St. Paul, Minnesota55101-1626 · (651)602-1000 · Fax 602-1550 · TTY291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 September 14, 2004 Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP City Plmmer - City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 SUBJECT: Amended Industrial Park Redevelopment Review letter REPLACES LETTER DATED September 10, 2004 Mn/DOT Review EAW04-022 NE Quad TH 47 & 37th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, Anoka County Control Section 0205 Note: Item that has changed sittce letter dated September 09, 2004, is itt italics font. Dear Ms. Berkelhamer: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced site plan/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Please address the following issues before any further development: Please send two copies of the existing, no build 2025 and build 2025 turning movements for TH 47 at 37th Avenue and 40a Avenue for Mn/DOT's Traffic Section to review. The cross streets cun'ently do not have turn lanes, but they may be needed for this development. The frontage road is cun'ently too close to TH 47 on the east side. Additionally, the existing frontage road connection and Lookout Place connection to 40d' Avenue are too close to each other. For questions regarding these co~mnents, please contact Nicole Rosen (651-634-2145), Mn/DOT's North Area Traffic Suppm~ Engineer. ( nicole.rosen(¢dot.state.mn.us ) Figure 5.3, "Site Plan" shows very many closely spaced accesses to the fi'ontage road. Please review this area for opportunities to combine access points. For questions regarding design standards, please contact Ken Ljtmg (651-634-2113), of Mn/DOT's Design Section. Any work within or affecting Mn/DOT's right of way requires a permit. Any utility com~ections within Mn/DOT right of way also require a penriit. Permit information can be fotmd at www.dot.state.nm.us/tecsup/utility. This letter represents only the transportation concerns of Mn/DOT Metro Division. Other environmental issues raised by a wider Mn/DOT review may be forwarded to you in a separate letter. An equal opportunity employer As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Mim~esota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review docun~ents including site plans. Failm'e to provide tln'ee (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay M~DOT's 30-day review mxd response process to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us fi'om having to delay and/or retnrn incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel fi'ee to contact me at (651) 634-2083. Sincerely, /,ff ___.~.- Jualfita Voigt Transportation Plmmer Copy: Kate Garwood / A2~oka County Plmming Department Doug Fisher / Anoka County Engineer Minnesota Pollution Control Agency September 15, 2004 Mr. Walter R. Fehst City Manager City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue Northeast Columbia Heights, MN 55421 RE: Comments on the Industrial Park Redevelopment Area Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Fehst: The EAW for the Industrial Park Redevelopment Project (Project) has been reviewed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff. This comment letter addresses matters of concern to MPCA staff reviewing the EAW and is submitted for consideration by the city of Columbia Heights (City). This letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. We have attempted to identify and consult with interested program staff to identify the MPCA permits that may be required. Additional comments or requests for information maybe submitted in the future to address specific issues related to the development of such permit(s). Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The MPCA is providing you with the following comments: Stormwater In addition to the dewatering that may be required for the installation of underground infrastructure; a dewatering plan will need to be implemented to address the runoff from exposed contaminated soils during the excavation. Due to the large amount of material that is proposed to be removed, there is a high potential for these contaminated soils to be picked up in stormwater runoff and released off site or into surface waters located on site. This may require a large temporary holding pond with no discharge up to the two-year storm event while the excavation is being performed to prevent this from occurring. It is also important to keep the site graded in such a way that all potential runoff is directed to pond areas or kept on site in some way. The runoff may need to be treated prior to discharge to surface waters or may need to be directed to the sanitary sewer after the necessm~y approvals are in place. It is very important to do a detailed analysis of the soils in the areas of the permanent stormwater treatment ponds. The ponds must be created in such a way that either the entire area around the ponds is cleaned up, or that the ponds have an impervious liner or compacted clay layer to prevent migration of stormwater through any contaminated soils that has potential to reach ground or surface water. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www. pca.state.mn.us St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Mr. Walter R. Fehst Page 2 September 15, 2004 Soil and Structure Contamination As discussed in the EAW, a number of properties have been impacted with a variety of petroleum and petroleum-related pollutants. The pollutants are related to heavy industry either through processing and production or tlu'ough the use of underground storage tanks. Several properties identified in the EAW have initiated various levels of investigation (e.g., Phase I and Phase II) in an effort to identify and delineate contaminated areas. It is important that the MPCA be involved in these ongoing efforts, pmnticularly in light of the ultimate use of this prope~y af¢er the Project is completed. Please contact Mike Connelly, MPCA Superfund and Voluntary Cleannp Program, Saint Paul Office, at (651)297-8279. A review of the EAW indicated the use of asbestos for various auto pal~ construction activities. The project proposers should conduct a thorough review of existing structures, as well as, a soils investigation, to determine the existence and, if applicable, the extent of asbestos contamination. In the event that asbestos is found in either soils or existing structures, please contact Jackie Deneen, MPCA Asbestos Program Coordinator, at (651) 297-5847. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the EAW. Please note that as the Responsible Governmental Unit for the EAW you are required to provide specific responses to these comments, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 4. Along with the responses to our comments, please include the City's Findings on the need for an EIS. Should you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at (651) 296-8643. Sincerely, Enviromnental Review Unit Regional Environmental Management Division Saint Paul Office JES:mln cc: Beth Lockwood, MPCA/Saint Paul Office Jackie Deneen, MPCA/Saint Paul Office Mike Connelly, MPCA/Saint Paul Office Todd Smith, P.E., MPCA/Saint Paul Office COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304-4005 (763) 862-4200 FAX (763) 862-4201 September 14, 2004 Walter R. Fehst, City Manager City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 RE: INDUSTRIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT AREA (EAW') Dear Walter, We appreciate the opportunity in allowing us to provide comments on the Industrial Park Redevelopment Area, EAW. We have reviewed the doctm~ent with highway, transit and park staff. Our connnents are as followed: The project developer and City should be aware of the "Anoka Cotmty Highway Department Development Review Process Manual," dated December 2003. The manual can be accessed through the County's website at www.co.anoka.~m~.us, under the highway department link. Design guidelines and access requirements are key sections of this manual and may be of help to the developer. The trends we see occurring in the region have made us question the trip generation numbers produced by the ITE manual. Based on the Metropolitan Council's Travel Behavior Inventory, we have been estimating residential units at an average of 10 trips per day. This would result in an additional 5,590 trips per day in the Industrial Redevelopment Area. Adding approximately 1,796 trips more then the stated 3,794 trips. Access into the proposed development should take into consideration current and future transit services in the area. Access should provide adequate turn lanes for busses, possible pullover lanes, and bus shelters. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved with projects, such as the Industrial Park Redevelopment. Please feel fi-ee to contact us if you have any further questions on any of Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer the above comments. We look forward to continuing to work together as your community plans for future developments. Sincerely, .,/ Lance Bernard Transportation Planner Cc: Doug Fischer, County Engineer Kate Garwood, Multimodal Transportation Manager Jane Rose, Traffic Engineering Manager Mark Schermerhorn, Transit Planning Assistant Appendix C Response to Responding Agency Comments The City of Columbia Heights Indus~al Park Redevelopment Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and persons and agencies on the official EQB distribution list in accordance with EQB rules on August 16, 2004. The 30-day comment period ended on September 15, 2004. The City of Columbia Heights received four EAW comment letters. The letters are on file at the City of Columbia Heights. The following comments letters were sent to the City of Columbia Heights: Metropolitan Council - Letter dated September 9, 2004 from Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council, to Walter Fehst, City of Columbia Heights. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) - Letter dated September 14, 2004 from Juanita Voigt, MN/DOT, to Ellen Berkelhamer, City of Columbia Heights [] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Letter dated September 15, 2004 from James E. Sullivan, MPCA~ to Walter Fehst, City of Columbia Heights [] Anoka County Highway Department- Letter dated September 14, 2004 from Lance Bernard, Anoka County, to Walter Fehst, City of Columbia Heights The following information and clarifications are provided in response to all EAW comments received during the 30-day comment period. Please take these comments under consideration for determining the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Agency comments are provided in italicized text. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Letter dated September 9, 2004 from Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council, to Walter Fehst, City of Columbia Heights Comment: Item 17- Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff: The EA W indicates that two new stormwater detention at~ treatment basins are proposed for the site, as well as a third basin immediately north of the site. With the close proximity of the Mississippi River, and anticipated continued presence of contaminants #~ the site subsoil, Council staff recommends that infiltration of runoff not be promoted on-site due to the risk that it wouM promote movement of contaminants toward the river. Additionally, it is recommencled that the proposed stonnwater bas#ss be constructed with l#zers (that will accommodate periodic maintenance to remove sediment) to prevent encouraging movement of any underground contaminant plumes that might exist below the site. Response: The area of the permanent treatment ponds and the surrounding area are expected to be cleaned up prior to construction. The risk that contaminants remain after the clean up and could potentially affect groundwater or off-site surface waters should be evaluated prior to final design of the ponds so that a liner can be included if required. 18 MINNESOTA DE~'ARTMENT O~' TRANSPORTATION (MN/DOT) Letter dated September 14, 2004 from Juanita Voigt, MN/DOT, to Ellen Berkelhamer, City of Columbia Heights Comment: Please send two copies of the existing, no build 2025 and build 2025 turning movements for TH 47 at 37~h Avenue aad 4t~h Avenue for Mn/DOT's Traffic Section to review. The cross streets do not currently have turn lanes, but they may be needed for this development. The frontage road is currently too close to TH 47 on the east side. Additio~mlly, the existing frontage road connection and Lookout Place connection to 40th Avenue are too close to each other. For questions regarding these comments, please contact Nicole Rosen (651-634- 2145), Mn/DOT's North Area Traffic Support Engineer. Response: On September 21, 2004, two copies of the traffic study for Huset Parkway were mailed to Mn/DOT and the Synchro traffic analysis files from the traffic study were e-mailed to Mn/DOT. Though there are no separate mm lanes on the 40t~ Avenue approaches to TH 47, 40~ Avenue is a 4-lane undivided roadway, so that there is a thru/left lane and thru/right lane on the 40th Avenue approaches to TH 47. The traffic study indicates that the TH 47/40th Avenue intersection can operate adequately with its existing lane configuration under expected 2025 Build conditions. Currently, 37th Avenue is marked as a 2-lane roadway and has sufficient width to allow on-street parking. On- street parking is infrequent on 37~ Avenue near TH 47, and the parking lane is currently used as a de facto fight mm lane. The traffic study recommends that this existing practice be formalized and that an additional lane be added to the 37th Avenue approaches to TH 47. The traffic study indicates that there is very little existing traffic on the east frontage road along TH 47 near the redevelopment area and recommends that the frontage road be eliminated if the proposed redevelopment occurs. The traffic study recommends that, with the elimination of the frontage road, all access from the redevelopment area should be directed toward 5t~ Street and the new parkway; there should be no direct access from the redevelopment area onto 37th Avenue between TH 47 and the new parkway. Though the City recognizes the problems with the frontage road connection and Lookout Place connection to 40t~ Avenue, the scheduling of the reconfiguration of these connections will depend on the timing of redevelopment of the properties near these connections. Preliminary discussions about redevelopment these properties have occurred, but no formal plans have been submitted to the City yet. Comment: Figure 5.3, "Site Plan," shows very many closely spaced accesses to the frontage road. Please review this area for opportunities to combine access points. For questions regarding design standards, please contact Ken Ljung (651-634-2113), of Mn~DOT's Design Section. Response: The City concurs with this comment (see also response to comment above). The City will consider alternatives as pa,~ of its development plan design and approval process. Conunent: Any work within or affecting Mn/DOT's right of way requires a permit. Any utility connections within Mn/DOT right of way also require a permit. Permit information can be found at www. dot. state, mn. us/tecsup/utility. Response: Comment noted. Comment: This letter represents only the transportation concerns of Mn/DOT Metro Division. Other environmental issues raised by a wider Mn/DOT review may be forwarded to you in a separate letter. Response: Comment noted. No other letters from Mn/DOT have been received to date. 19 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Letter dated September 15, 2004 from James E. Sullivan, MPCA, to Walter Fehst, City of Columbia Heights Comment: In addition to &e dewatering that may be required for the installation of underground infrastructure, a dewatering plan will need to be implemented to address the runoff from exposed contam#~ated soils during the excavation. Due to the large amount of nmterial that is proposed to be removed, there is a high potential for these contaminated soils to be picked up in stormwater runoff and released off site or into surface waters located on site. This may require a large temporary holding pond with no discharge up to the two-year storm event while the excavation is being performed to prevent this from occurring. It is also #nportant to keep the site graded in such a way that all potential runoff is directed to pond areas or kept on site in some way. The runoff may need to be treated prior to discharge to Surface waters of may need to be directed to the sanitary sewer after the necessary approvals are in place. It is very important to do a detailed analysis of the soils in the areas of the permanent stormwater treatment ponds. The ponds must be created in such a way that either the entire area around the ponds is cleaned up, or that the ponds have an impervious liner or compacted clay layer to prevent migration of stormwater through any contaminated soils that has potential to reach grou~wI or surface water. Response: It is anticipated that each Contract for clean up will be required to prepare a SWPPP and will address the plan for the runoff from the exposed contaminated soils as they are removed. Existing storm sewer systems will need to be protected so that the runoff from the clean up or other constmction activity in potentially contaminated soils will not enter them during this phase. The various phases of construction from clean up to utility repair will have provisions that address temporary surface water systems if necessary to address the concern for contamination being released off-site. Traditional BMPs will also be included. The area of the permanent treatment ponds are expected to be cleaned up prior to construction. Comment: As discussed in the EA W, a number of properties have been impacted with a variety of petroleum and petroleum-related pollutants. The pollutants are related to heavy industry either through processing and production or through the use of underground storage tanks. Several properties identified in the EA W have initiated various levels of investigation (e.g. Phase I and Phase II) in an effort to identify and delineate contaminated areas. It is important that the MPCA be involved in these ongoing efforts, particularly in light of the ultimate use of this property after the Project is completed. Please contact Mike Connelly, MPCA Superfund and Voluntary Cleanup Program, Saint Paul Office, at (651) 297-8279. Response: Since the inception of the project, the City and ProSource have been working with Wayne Sarappo (Project Manager) and Mike Connolly (Hyrdrogeologist/Technical Advisor) in the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program. Liaison with MPCA staff will continue through completion of this project. Comment: A review of the EA W indicated the use of asbestos for variious auto par~ construction activities. The project proposers shouM cotIduct a thorough review of existing structures, as well as a soils investigation, to determine the existence and, if applicable, the extent of asbestos contamination. In the event that asbestos is found in either soils or existing structures, please contact Jackie Deneen, MPCA Asbestos Program Coordinator, at (651) 297-5847. Response: Prior to the start of any demolition activities, ProSource will be conducting pre-demolition surveys for each building. The purpose of the surveys is to identify any hazardous or regulated wastes (including asbestos) that will require abatement and/or removal prior to the start of demolition. As part of the Phase II Investigation, ProSource collected several surficial soil samples from areas where asbestos may have been used as part of the manufacturing process and been present within site soils. The results 20 Transit Oriented Mixed Use. The main criteria for the Transit Oriented Mixed Use designation is that the district be located in areas along existing transit routes. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of this land use designation is to allow mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes and to provide the opportunity for pedestrian linkages to other parts of the community and improvement of the overall non-motorized circulation system within the community. The residents of and employees within the proposed development would be in close proximity to existing transit service provided by Routes 18 and 824. Nearby transit stops are currently located at University/37th Avenues, 40th Avenue/5th Street, and 40th Avenue/Jefferson Street. 22 Appendix D Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 - EQB Environmental Review Program 4410.1760 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS~ Subpart 1. Standard for decision on need for EIS. An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. Subp. 2. Decision-making process. The decision on the need for an EIS shall be made in compliance with one of the following time schedules: A. if the decision is to be made by a board, council, or other body which meets only on a periodic basis, the decision shall be made between three and 30 days after the close of the review period; or B. for all other RGU's the decision shall be made no later than 15 days after the close of the 30-day review period. This 15-day period shall be extended by the EQB chair by no more than 15 additional days upon request of the RGU. Subp. 2a. Insufficient information. If the RGU determines that information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained, the RGU shall either: A. make a positive declaration and include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information; or B. postpone the decision on the need for an EIS, for not more than 30 days, in order to obtain the lacking information. If the RGU postpones the decision, it shall provide written notice of its action, including a brief description of the lacking information, within five days to the project proposer, the EQB staff, and any person who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. Subp. 3. Form and basis for decision. The RGU's decision shall be either a negative declaration or a positive declaration. If a positive declaration, the decision shall include the RGU's proposed scope for the EIS. The RGU shall base its decision regarding the need for an EIS and the proposed scope on the information gathered during the EAW process and the comments received on the EAW. Subp. 4. Record of findings supporting decision. The RGU shall maintain a record, including specific findings of fact, supporting its decision. The record must include specific responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW. This record shall either be a separately prepared document or contained within the records of the governmental unit. Subp. 5. Distribution of decision. The RGU's decision shall be provided, within five days, to all persons on the EAW distribution list pursuant to part 4410.1500, to all persons that commented in writing during the 30-day review period, and to any person upon written request. All persons who submitted timely and substantive comments on the EAW shall be sent a copy of the RGU's response to those comments prepared under subpart 4. Upon notification, the EQB staff shall publish the RGU's decision in the EQB Monitor. If the decision is a positive declaration, the RGU shall also indicate in the decision the date, time, and place of the scoping i:eview meeting. 23 Subp. 6. Standard. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects the RGU shall compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria in this part. Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. Subp. 8. [Repealed, 13 SR 1437] Subp. 9. Connected actions and phased actions. Connected actions and phased actions shall be considered a single project for purposes of the determination of need for an EIS. 24 COLUMBIA HEIGItTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: -~ - /-k- ~. - ~, Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting BY: Randy Schumacher BY:~~/ a Modification to the Do writ own Central D ATE:S eptemb er 21, 2004 Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and Establishing the Huset Park Area TIF District and TII~ Plan BACKGROUND: This is a continuation of a public hearing held on August 9, 2004. The purpose of this hearing is to take public input on the proposed modification to the Dov, mtown Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment project mad establislnnent of the Huset Park Tax Increment Financing Plan. The increment created would be used for the purpose of encouraging the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Adoption of Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a Modification to the Downtown Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and Establishment of the Huset Park Area TI]F District and T~ Plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-55, there being an mnple amount of copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project m-id Establishing the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District therein mad Adopting a Tax hacrement Financing Plan therefore. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: h:~CL Consent2004\CL Res.2004-55 Huset Pk TIF and Plan CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR THE CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ESTABLISHING THE HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THERE~ AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established the CBD Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") and adopted the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the Project (the "Project Plan Modification") and establish the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Project Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has. caused the Plans to be prepared. 1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Anoka County and Independent School District No. 13 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written cormnent on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project, but makes specific findings as further described in this resolution regarding the conditions of the area within the Project that are the boundaries of the proposed TI~ District. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption of the Prqject Plan Modification. SJB-253434vI CL205-23 2.01. The Council finds that the portion of the Project Area encompassed by the boundaries of the TIF District constitute a "blighted area" within the meaning of Minnesota Statues, Section 469.002, subd. 11. 2.02. The Council further finds that acquisition, clearance, and related activities to redevelop the TIF District portion of the Project Area, all in accordance with the Project Plan and the TIF Plan, constitute a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of Mirmesota Statues, Section 469.002, subd. 14. 2.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section based on the supporting facts described in Exhibit B. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd 10(a)(1). 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TI1~ Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.04. The City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from outside the District. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The Council finds that adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to redevelop a portion of the Project Area that is characterized by blight, occupied by substandard buildings, and contaminated with pollutants; and that the financial assistance described in the TIF Plan will revitalize this area, significantly expand the amount and variety of housing stock in the City, and expand the tax base; and that, because these benefits would not accrue without the assistance provided, any benefits received by private redevelopers are incidental to the broader benefits achieved by the overall redevelopment of the T~ District. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans. 5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the EDA. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to SJB-253434vl CL205-23 proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor of Anoka County (the "Auditor") is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building pmxnits have been issued during the 18 months irmuediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The Executive Director of the EDA is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Dated this Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: __ day of September, 2004. ATTEST: Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary (Seal) SJB-253434vl CL205-23 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: Finding that the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. lO(a)(O. The District consists of 12 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for a mixed-use development consisting of housing and a neighborhood retail office development. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting tire present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan: The proposed development consists of a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 units of owner- occupied housing and a neighborhood retail office development in the City of Columbia Heights. This area is occupied by 15 parcels, which requires acquisition, environmental remediation, and demolition and relocation to permit the proposed development. Current estimates for environmental clean-up of the area are over $4,650,000. It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasible without significant environmental remediation. A grant of $1,300,000 of State and Metropolitan funds has been secured for the project, but it is not known if future grants will be awarded. The grant was awarded only because of a comprehensive redevelopment plan, which is feasible only with further assistance of tax increment. In addition to the costs of remediation, the land acquisition costs and site preparation is expected to be over $13,000,000. Without any public assistance, the cost of raw land (prior to internal streets, utilities, SAC/WAC, landscaping, etc) per unit of housing is estimated to be over $31,000. The proposed sales prices of the units are expected to be $200,000 to $275,000, which is too low to support significant raw land prices. The hrcreased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracthzg the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by tire TIF Plan: It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasible without significant environmental remediation. Only small portions of the site are not affected by soil contamination and the new development on the site would be sporadic and less than $10,000,000. For taxes payable in 2005, the County assessors has decreased the estimated market value on the parcels in the District by approximately $2,300,000 due to the environmental conditions. The site had previously been in a TIF district since 1989 and has seen only one piece of property develop, even with public assistance. Therefore, the City SJB-253434vl CL205-23 o concludes as follows: The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is less than $10,000,000. b° If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $121,351,950. (See Appendix G in the TIF Plan.) The present value of tax increments bom the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $13,937,075. (See Appendix G in the TIF Plan.) Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $107,414,875 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. Finding that the Tax h$crement Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax hzcrement Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the T~ Plan conforms to the general development plan, as amended by the City Council on August 9, 2004, of the City. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the CBD Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base, the redevelopment of substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. SJB-253434vl CL205-23 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55 The findings described in Section 2 of the Resolution regarding blighted conditions are supported by the following analysis and studies: 1. City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan, November 2003. See especially Chapter 8, describing blighted conditions. 2. Letter from Rusty Fiefield, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. to City of Columbia Heights dated September 21, 2004, summarizing blight findings. Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment prepared by Short Elliot Hendrickson, summarized in Appendix F of the TIF Plan. This report concludes that all the buildings in the TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, for the purposes of qualification of the area as a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The analysis in the SEH reports also supports the conclusion that most of the buildings in this portion of the Project Area are dilapidated and obsolete, which are elements of blight. SJB-253434vl CL205-23 MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT and the TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of THE HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) within THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hear/ng: Public Hear/rig Continued: Public Hearing Continued: Adopted: August 9, 2004 September 13, 2004 September 27, 2004 Prepared by:. EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 65.1-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www. ehlers-inc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purpoSes only) SECTION I MODIFICA T/ON TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS D/STRICT REVITALIZA T/ON PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS D/STRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1-1 Foreword ' · · · Overview 1-1 Findings 1-1 1-1 SECTION II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING D/STRICT 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword ................. Subsection 2-2. StatutoryA~Jil~r'it~'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill ........... 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objective~ ........................ iiiiiiiiiii 2-1 2-1 SubSection 2-4. Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan Overview 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Prop;;-~,"l:~ i'e'~,~i;-;~' i 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District ................................ 2-2 Subsection 2-8. OriginaI Tax Capacity, ' ................................... 2-4 Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 2-5 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ...................... Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election .................... 2-6 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies ' ' ............................... 2-7 ...................................... 2-7 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ...................................... 2-8 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................ 2-9 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ~ ............................... 2-9 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment evenues ....................... 2L10 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the Distdct ............................... 2-10 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses ................................. 2-11 Subjection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-11 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments .................................... 2-12 ...................................... 2-13 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ................... 2-14 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ............ 2-i4 Subsebtion 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ............................. ....................... 2-14 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ......... Subsection 2-28. Summary ................ 2-14 2-15 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPENDIX B MAPS OF THE CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE HUSET PARK AREA TIF DISTRICT ............................... B-1 APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO B E INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ............. C-1 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT .............................. D-1 APPENDI,~ E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... E-1 APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT .................... F-1 APPENDIX G BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS ' G-1 SECTION I MODIFICA T/ON TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REVITALIZA T/ON PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Red~elopment Project. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishmeut of Huset Park Area Tax Incrcmaent Financing District. For further infuimation, a review of the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopmtmt Project is recom-,euded. It is available from the Com,,,mity Development Director at the City of Columbia Heights. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Incrmnent Financing Districts located within the Central Business District (CBD) Redevelopment Project. Overview The Central Business District ("CDB") Redevelopmeut Project/s administered by the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"). Previously, the CBD Redevelopment Project was establ/shed and administered by the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") and the Columbia Heights Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"). The CBD Redevelopment Project previously/ncluded property in the downtown area. On July 18, 1994, the Sheffield Neighborhood Redevelopment and Housing Development Project was consol/dated with the CBD Redevelopment Project by the HRA. On January 8, 1996, the HRA transferred its authority to the EDA, which currently adm/nisters the CDB Redevelopment Project. On May 27, 1997, the CBD Redevelopment Project was modified to expand the project area to include the entire City. Concurrently, Housing Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 ("District No. 1") within the CBD Redevelopment Project was established. As District No. 1 is a scattered site redevelopment tax increment financing d/strict, the property to be included in District No. 1 is found throughout the City, thus necessitating the expansion of the boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project. The boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project are coterminous with the corporate limits of the City. A map of the boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project can be found in Appendix B. Findinos Upon approval of this Modification, the EDA and City will find that the portion of the Redevelopment Project to be designated as the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District is characterized by blight, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Columbia Helghts Econom/c Development Authorlty Modificatlon to the Downtown CBD Revitallzatlon Plan for the CBD Redevelopmeat project 1-1 SECTION II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1, Foreword The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of Col]rmhia Heights (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following.information to expedite the establishment of the Hnset ParkArea Tax Increment Financing District (the 'District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Central Business District Redevelopment Project. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S.'9, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.17,09, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TI2F Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "T~ Plan") for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District. Other relevant information is conta/ned in the Modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of 12 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way and abutting roadways. The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the Col-mbia Heights Industrial- Park into a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 un/ts of owner-occupied housing and a neighborhood retail office development in the City of Columbia He/ghts. In order to establish the District for this project, certain parcels of land must be eliminated from Coh]mbia Heights MURP T~ District County Identifier K2. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this T[F Plan, but development is likely to occur in the spring of 2005. This TIF Plan/s expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Downtown CBD Revital/zafion Plan and the T~ Plan do not preclude the undertaldng of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anfieipated to occur over the life of the CBD Redevelopment Project and the District. Subsection 2-4. Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requ/rements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. Columbia He/ghts Economic Development AUthority Tax Increment Financ/ng Plan for the ttuset Park Ama Tax Increment Financ/ng District 2-i The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acqu/sition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the D/strict. Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The D/strict' encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels* listed below. See the map in Append/x B for further information on the location of the D/strict. Parcel N~rmhers* 35-30-24-34-0013 35-30-24-34-0014 35-30-24-34-0040 35-30-24-43-0060 35-30-24-43-0047 35-30-24-34-0035 35-30-24-34-0039 35-30-24-34-0024 35-30-24-34-0041 35-30-24-34-0003 35-30-24-34-0004 35-30-24-34-0002 *All parcels are "Knocked Down" parcels being removed from Col~rmhia Heights TIF 4 Mu/ti Plan Cargill (MURP) TIF District County Identifier 1(2. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the D/strict including interior and adjacent street rights of way, or reimburse developers for the cost of such acquisition. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only/n order to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan, The EDA or City may acquire propm-y by gift, dedication, condetm~ation or direct purchase from willing sellers irt order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acqu/sitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determ/ning the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S.', Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ! 74, Subd. l O(a)([_) as defined below: (a) ~Redevel~pment district~~ means a type ~f tax increment~nancing district c~nsisting ~f a pr~ject~ or pora'ons of a project, within which the authority.finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: l~arcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the rlt,t~i~ ......... ;.,.4/,,, ~...;~.,,; .......... utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility.. Columbia Heights Econom/e Development Authority Tax Increment Fintmclng Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing Distr/ct 2-2 (i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; (ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or fi'ii) have been removed, or are unused, under'used, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) .a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. lOb. For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interiorpartitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard buildingfor purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met: the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building a,~l tl,,~ after de'-~!;tion ~,n~ ~ c~a,~ ..... ,,,,c~ ~,,~'- authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and upon filing the request for cerafication of the tax capacity of the parcel as part ora district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by 3~ 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph 09. (e) For purposes of this subdivisdon, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parla'ng lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. Colttmbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for thc Httmt Park Area Tax hcrmnent Financing District 2-3 For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the distn'ct, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: [] The Dis~ct consists of 12 parcels. [] An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. [] An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the building.q are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). Pursuant to M.S. 469.176Subd. 7, the Distr/ct does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions ofM. S 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapte[; 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District Pursuant toM. S, Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District rrn]st be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is esfirmted that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2032, or when the TtF Plan is satisfied, ff increment is received in 2006, the term of the District will be 2031. The EDA or City reserves the right to decerfify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax CaPacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1.75, Subd. 4(e) and M.S., Section 469.177, &~bd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor for taxes payable in 2005. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2005) the mount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic hnunda,qes of the district; 3. C~ange due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change/n state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2005, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2005. The esl~mated ONTC and the es~rnated Original Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ltuset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 Local Tax Rate for the District appear iu the table below. (The Original Local Tax Rate shown is for Pay 2004, as the rate for Pay 2005 was tmavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the est/mated CapturedNet Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, w/th/n the CBD Redevelopment Project, upon completion of the project, will annually approximat.e tax increment revenues as shown tn the table below. The EDA and City request'100 percent of the available tncrease tn tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, be~nning tn the tax year payable 2007. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) Ested is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) · Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Original Local Tax Rate Estimated Annual Tax Increment(CTC x Local Tax Rate) Percent Retained by the EDA $1~570~073 $42~345 $1,527,728 1.09926 $1,679,370 100% Pay2004 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177,'Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, w/th a listing of all properties within the District'or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months imi;,ediately prececting approval of the TtF Plan by the rrnmicipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3..The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of irr9, rovements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined that no building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness All costs outlined tn Subsection 2-10, the Uses of Funds, will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the fight to use other sources of revenue legally ap- plicable to the EDA or City and the T[F Plan, including, but not lira/ted to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other conm'butions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The EDA 'or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by pr/marily by a pay-as-you-go note where the developer will up-fi:ont the costs and be re/mhursed over time. The City and EDA may issue general obligation (GO) TIF Bonds or inter-fund loans for public improvements assoc/ated with the project. Additional indebtedness may be requ/red to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a GO TIF bond, pay-as-you-go note, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financ/ng will not exceed $15,000,000 without a modification to the TIF Planpursnant to applicable statutory requirements. It is est/mated that $315,000 in interest income will be financed with tax increment revenues. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hmset Park Ama Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determ/nation that such action is in the best interest of the City. The est/mated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below. ' SOURCES OF FUNDS" Tax hcrement Interest PROJECT RE~v~ENUES Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds TOTAL $36,185,00O $315,000 $36?500?000 Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of the Columbia Heights Industrial Park into a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 units of owner-occupied housing and a neighborhood retail office development. The EDA and City have detei~-,~ined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The EDA has studied the feas~'bil/ty of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment fmancSng to pay for the cost of certain eligt"ole expenses. The est/mate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Distr/ct, and expected to be paid with tax increments, is outlined in the following table. USES OF FUNDS ' TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition Site Improvements/Preparation/Environmental Public Utilities Streets and Sidewalks Interest Administrative Costs (up to 10%) $5,4OO, OOO $6,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $19,500,000 $3,600,000 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $36,500,000 The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms. It ~ estimated tha~ ~h~ cost ~,f i.m?rov~menB, 4,,~.~,,a;,,. ,d ....... ~tr,~vc ex-pe-'-~ses wmcn will financed with tax increments, will equal $36,500,000 as is presented in the budget above. be paid or Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District)' subject to the limitations as described in this TH Plan. Columbia Hc/ghts Economic Development Authority Tax Increment F/nanc/ng Plan for tho Huset Park Area Tax lncrmnent Fimucing D/strict 2-6 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M..S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: The'original net tax capacity and'the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financingplan' to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a. According toM. S, Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a districtpursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J. 993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general ela~ t~fsimilar ~uch as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public/mprovements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not pr/ncipally benefit a single business or defined group ofbnsinesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S. Section 116J..552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building s~ock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services ff the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; Columbia Hdgrht~ Economlo Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for tho Hu~t Park Area Tax Increment Fimmcing District 2-7 (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S. Section 4.69.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) W. orkers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived fromregulafien;' (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization descn'bed in section 501 (c) (3) of the'Internal Kevenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Mmesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's cuizent year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested b}, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Co,,,,,erce, Economic Development Adm/ni.~trafion. The EDA will comply with M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J. 994 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant toM. S., Section 469.175, Subd. Ia, the county boardmay requ/re the EDA or City topay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements ff the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiting construction of road improvements or other road costs and ff the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to ia?rove county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed deve!oDment, ,, outlined ~_ ~ TI~_ Pla~ ,x~ll hn,r~. N~-I, v~r no~rm.~-+., .... '~'~"~v"~ county roads, '~-utc~ctol~--'' -- ~'-u_t~- ~'~'~w Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for th* Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 . · Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The est/mated h-npact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City ha~q deteJ i~i,ied that such development or redevelopment would not occur '~ut for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The est/mated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows ff the %ut for" test was not met: " IMPACT ON TAX BASE Anoka County City of Columbia Heights Columbia Heights ISD No. 13 2003/2004 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity .Upon Completion to Entity Total 200,134,542 1,527,728 0.7634% 9,231,5~[7 1,527,728 16.5490% 13,316,873 1,527,728 11.4721% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Anoka County City of Columbia. Heights Columbia Heights ISD No. 13 Other (Met, I-IR& Raft, Radio) Total 2003/2004 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC. Taxes 0.327220 29.77% ~,527,728 499~903 0.478880 43.56% 1,527,728 731~598 0.229160 20.85% 1,527,728 350~094 0.064000 5.82% !,527,728 .97~775 1.099260 100.00% 1~679~370 The est/mates listed above d/splay the captured tax capac/ty when all Construction is complete& The tax rate used for calculations is the actual 2003/Pay 2004 rate. The total net capacity for the entities Listed above are based on actual Pay 2004 figures. The District will be. certified under the actual 2004/Pay 2005 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the T~ Plan ..~.mt contain id~&ficafion and description of studies'md analyses used to make the deteJmination set forth in M.S. SeCtion 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2) and the findings are requ/red in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the Authority's finding: 1. City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan, Hoisington Koegler Group, Nov. 2003 2. Phase II Investigation Report/Focus Feasibility Study/Response Action Plan prepared by ProSource and dated October 9, 2003 Columbia H~/ghts Economic Development AuthOrity Tax lnemmant Financing Plan for tho Husot Park Area Tax Increment Financing D/stzlct 2-9 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived froma tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Tax.es pa.id by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M. S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the Authority 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority w/th tax 4. Interest or other investment earn/ngs on or from tax increments. Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4; any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the CBD Redevelopment Project or the D/strict, ffthe reduction does not meet the requirements ofM. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(0; 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt ff that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capital/zed; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the est/rmte of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the D/strict; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469. ! 75 Subd. 409, the geographic area of the D/strict may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria ofM. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply (1) the only modification is el/m/nation of parcel(s) from the CBD Redevelopment Project or the D/strict and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the D/strict equals or exceeds the net tax capacity o~ those parcel(s) in the D/strict's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. I, the original net tax cal~acity will beredncedbyna mnr~. the curren~'net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the D/striCt. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the CBD Redevelopment Project or the D/strict. Modifications to the D/strict in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the T1F Plar~ Columbie Heights Economic Development .~tthority Tex tucmment Financhag Plan for the Husot Park Area Tax Increment Finane/ng D/strict 2-I0 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, adm/nistrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, includ/ng architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the project; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons resid/ng or businesses located in the project; or 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds/ssued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obl/gations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, administrative expenses also include amounts pMd for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the D/strict up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total est/mated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the D/strict, whichever/s less. Pursuant to M.S., Seca'on 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the D/strict. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any incrmaent distn~outed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of exam/ning and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. Ia, no tax increment shall be paid to the EDA or City for the r,: .~, [,,ee ~oj years me uatc m cox m~cauon of the Orig/nal Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the D/strict by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period: (1) Bonds have been/ssued in aid of the project containing the D/strict pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or (2) The EDA or City has acquired property with/n the District, or (3) The EDA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the D/strict. Columbia Heights Bconomic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for thc Husct Park Ama Tax Increment Financing District 2-i 1 The bonds rr~.~t be issued, or the EDA or City rrm~t acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately August, 2007 and report such actions to the County Auditor. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the Distr/ct may be term/hated ff sufficient funds have been/rrevocably deposited in the debt service fired or other escrow account held in trust for ail outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing districtpursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financihg district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for eachparcel in the district. The evidence for aparcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifih year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a newstreet, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street The EDA or City or a property owner must irr~ rove parcels within the District by approxirmtely Augmt, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determ/nes that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property 1Qcated in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the CBD Redevelopment Project pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M. S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of the CBD Redevelopment Project by a developer; 6. To finance or othenvise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to Columbla Heights Economlc Development Authority Ta× Increment Financing Plan for the Huset Park Ama Tax Increment Finmaclng Distfic t 2-12 M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M. S., Sections 469.178; and To accurrm!ate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds/ssued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to ckctm~ent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other pm-poses protn'bited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the D/strict will be paid by Anoka County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said D/strict. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to re/mburse the costs of land acquisition, public h,,2rovernents, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and adm/nistration. Remainhag increment funds w/Il be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent).and the costs of public/mprovcmant activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the follov~g: 1. Pr~ay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstand/ng bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistn~bution to the respective tamg jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the T[F Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the CBD Redevelopment Project or the District. Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conforrmnce with the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To fac/litate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant ~o M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acqu/red in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds/ssued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments frompropcrty acqu/red is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acqu/red and wh/ch provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completer[ Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax hcmment Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax lncremant F/nancing D/str/c ~ 2-13 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant toMS., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer ofpropcu-ty within the District which establishes a n',i,,~T, rru market value of the land and comtAeted improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the h,.2rovcments to be constructed, review the market value Previously assigned to the land upon which the/mprovements are to be constructed and, so long as the mh,/m~rm market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable est/mate, the County Assessor shall also certify the rn/n/rmnn market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the EDA. Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City rt,]st undertake financfal reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.$., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be pubEshed in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report contain/ng the information requ/red by M.S. Section 469.! 75 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distn'bufion of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2.26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the proposed development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value est/mated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the max/m~lm duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan, The factual basis for this finding is sm;~n-arized in Appendix G, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. SHb.~_cfinn 2-27_ Other I imifnfinn¢ nn fh,- Use n~c T,~v I ....... · General Lim/tations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan, The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the CBD Redevelopment Project pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circtmavent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acqtrisifion, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal gows'n,,ent. This provision does not protffbit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financ/ng Plan for thc Huset Park Ama Tax Increment Financ/ng Dis~ct 2-14 .Poolin~ Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance actim'ties within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt so, vice on credit ~nhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or othcmSse, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt so, ice on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all a~trative expenses ~st be treated as ff they were solely for activities outside of theDistrict. Five Year Limitation on Co.,m/tment of Tax lncrm-nentn. Tax increrntmts derived from the District shall be decmaed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been sat/stied; and beg/nning with the sixth year following certification of the D/strict, 75 percent of said tax increments that r~rmin after expenditures permitted under said five year rule rrn~st be used only to PaY previously COh,,,;t-ted expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M. S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. Redevelopment D/str/ct. At least 90 percenf of the revenues derived from tax incrmnent from a redevelopment district m]~t be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow desi~tmafion of redevelopment andrenewal andrenovafion d/stricts under M. S., Section 4 69.17 6 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties contain/ng structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acqu/r/ng adjacent parcels necessary to provide a Site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development act/on response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28. Summary The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority is establ/shing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, provide life-cycle housing, redevelop substandard areas, and provide emplo~t opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the D/strict was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, M/nnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Columbia tt~/ght~ Econom/c Dcvelopmmt Authority T~x Increment Financing Plan for th~ Hu~t Park Am~ Tax Increment Financ/ng D/str/c t 2-15 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION The T~ District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the Columbia Heights Industrial Park into a mixed-use.development consisting of up to 559 units of owner-occupied hons/ng and a neighborhood retail office developmemt in the City of Columhia'Heights. In order to establish the District for this project, certain parcels of land m~.qt be removed from Columbia Heights TI~ District County Identifier K2. The City did conduct a public participation planning process in 2003, led by the planning firm Hoisington Koegler. The study detex-,incd that there was more than adequate demand and public acceptance of higher density owner-occupied housing as a replacement for the form~ industrial park uses. The redevelopment would only be feasible with public assistance for both the si~ificant environmental costs and high costs of acquisition and demolition. The City also commissioned Pro-Source, an envir6nmental engineering firm, to conduct an assessment of the cost of remediation of polluted soils, buildings, and groundwater. The estimate from Pro Source is $4,652,000. The City applied and did receive a grant of $1,300,000 in 2004 from the Metropolitan Council and the State of Miunesota for the pollution clean-up associated with the first phase of development. The est/mated cost of environmental remed/ation for the first phase is $1,900,000. The developer of the project is expected to be Schafer-Richardson, which currently owns one of the large commercial buildings on site. Schafer-R_ichardson is experienced in the construction of condominium buildings in the Minneapolis area. Portion of the project may be sold to a townhome developer and senior housing developer. The project is expected to be financed with a pay-as-you-go note to be financed by the developer. The City may cover a portion of adjacent public/mprovements with tax increments, depending upon final cost est/mates. APPENDIX A-1 APPENDIX B MAPS OF THE CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE HUSET PARK AREA TIF DISTRICT APPENDIX Huset Piark A:ma~ City Legend Central Business District Redevelopment ProjeCt ~ Huset Park Area The boundaries of the Central: Business District Redevelopment Project,are coterminous with the corporate limits of the City of Columbia Heights. APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The D/strict encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels* listed below. Parcel Numbers* 35-30-24-34-0013 35-30-24-34-0014 35-30-24-34-0040 35-30-24-43-0060 35-30-24-43-0047 35-30-24-34-0035 35-30-24-34-0039 35-30-24-34-0024 35-30-24-34-0041 35-30-24-34-0003 35-30-24-34-0004 35-30-24-34-0002 *All parcels are "Knocked Address 519 38th Ave NE 515 38th Ave NE : 550 39thAve NE 600 39th Ave NE 620 39th Ave NE 3901 5th St. 510 39th Ave NE 3801 5th Street NE 3800 5th St. NE 3700 5th St. NE 317 37th Ave NE 450 38th Ave NE Down" parcels being removed from Columbia Heights TIF 4 Multi Plan Cargill (MURP) TIF District County Identifier I42. APPENDIX c-1 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT D-I 8/912004 Huset Park Area Redevelopment - Phase I + II + III Columbia Heights EDA Diet.ct Redevelopment Dlsalct # Inflation Rate - Evmy Year t.0000% Pay-As-You-Go Interest Rata: Note I.~ued Date (Present Value Date): 01..Aug-.04 Local Tax Rate - Ma~dmum t09.9260'/. Pay 2004 Fiscal Dlspentfea EIecUon (A - out.fide or B - inside) A Year DL~trict was carUfled Pay 2004 Assumes First Tax Inca'~ment For Dis~tc~ 2007 Year D[striM was Modified Development located in medlfled ama Yea Assumes Flint Tax Inc~ment For Day2007 years o1Tax Inca'emeat 26 Assumes Last Year of Tax increment2032 Fiscal Disparities Ratio 20.9297% Pay 2004 Fiscal DIsparfflea Metro Wlde Tax Rate 137.1070% Pay 2004 Local Tax Rate - Current 109,9260% Pay 2004 State W*~da Property Tax Rata (Used far total taxes) 54.1090% Pay 2004 Eb-Umate Mad~nt Value Tax Rate (used [or total taxes) 0.1020% Pay 2004 Estimate Commercial Industrial Class Rate 1.5%-.2.0% Pay 2003 First 150,000 1.50% Over 150,000 : 2.00% Rental Class Rate 125% Pay 2004 RestdentaJ Class - Ueder $500,000 1.00% Over S500,0OO 1.25% Page I of 2 Pz~perty Prelim. 05Values u After Ortginat Map ID FID Description Estimates for MURP Conversion Tax Capacity New 05 35-30-24-34-0014 s~s ~am ~,v. NE 25,200 42,200 1.00% 422 100 35-30-24-34~040 ~5o :L~ Ave NE 1,939,000 see 0039 1.00% 0 1,742,900 35-30-24-43-0060 ~.NE 232,900 see 0039 1.00% 0 216,900 35-30-24-43-0047 ~O~,~v. NE 108.700 121,000 1.00% 1,210 100 35-30-24-34-0035 ~e~ses~ 273,900 241,300 0.00% 0 Futura Pond 100 35-30-24-34-0039 slo~w.~e 153,800 1,914,3001.00% 19,143 138,g00 35-30-24-34-0024 ~aols~s~ 225,800 171,900 1.00% 1,719 82,700 35-30-24-34-0041 =aoo s~ si NE 1,163,700 975,500 1.00% 9,755 195,800 35-30-24-34-0003 ;]71~ ~1 SL NE 555,900 030,200 1.00% 6,302 259,500 35-30-24-34-0004 3~7 ~7~*.,NE 189,500 251,100 1.00% 2,511 100 35-30-24-34-0092 4so:~ ~,J ~E 127.900 53,200 1.00% 532 150,300 Totals 0 5,156,900 4,475,900 Note: 42~345 2,814,500 OHginat values are not based upon payable 2005 values but are based upon odginal value as certified in the previous MURP district, pursuant to M.S, 490.175, subd. 4(e) OLIEC~INEORMAT~ONTotal Market Value Taxes Per Total Market Class New Use Phase Sq. FtJUnitsSq. FL/Unite Sq. FL/Un/taTaxes Tow'ahorflea 2005 I&ll 88 Towlnhomea 2006 I&ll 88 Cooperative 2005 I&ll 80 Flats 2005 I&ll 40 Commercial J&ll 11,050 Townhomea 2007 Itl 7 Flats 2007 Ill 85 Flats 2008 Ill 85 Flats 2009 III 86 TOTAL 559 Value Rate Tax Capacity 230,000.00 2.597.54228,584 20,240,000 1.00% 202.400 230,000.00 2,59~.54228,584 20,240,000 1.00% 202,400 120,000.00 1.177.1494,171 9,600,000 1.00% 96,000 230,000.00 2,597.54103,902 9,200,000 1.00% g2,OO0 135.00 4.72 54,991 1,572,750 2.00% 31,455 200,000.90 2,210.18 15,471 1,400,000 1.00% 14,000 245,000.00 2,791.24 237,255 20,825,000 1.00% 208,250 250,000.90 2,855.80 242,743 21,250,000 1.00% 212,500 250,000.00 2,955.90 245,599 21,500,000 1.00% 215,000 1,45t,:300 125,827,750 1,274,005 Note: Assumes buiJdout over five yearn (2005 to 2008) Tax Tax Dis~dti~ ~ T~ DIspaHfi~ Prope~ T~ Disparities Pro~ Home~ead Value To~l Use Capac[~ Capac~ T~ ~paci~ ~ Rate T~ Rate Tax Rate T~es T .... Cmd~ Ta~ Tax~ Coopemfl~ 2005 98,000 96,~0 0 1.09926 t 05~529 0 0 -21,152 9,794 94,171 Com~mial 31,455 24,872 6,583 1,~ 1.37107 0.54109 27,~0 9,026 17,020 ~,~5 54,991 Townhom~ 2007 14,000 14,000 o 1.099~ 15,390 0 0 -1,~7 1,4~ 15,471 Fla~ 2007 208,250 208,250 0 1.~26 ~8,921 0 0 -t2,912 237,255 FI~ 2008 212,500 212,500 0 1.0~ 233,593 0 0 -12,529 FI~ 2009 215,000 2t S,O00 0 1.0~26 2=6,34~ 0 0 -t 2,676 Note: 1. Residential do not pay State-wide property tax or Fiscal Disparities. Prepared by Ehrers plan run ? 804 r~vtsed COLUMBIA HEIGHTS EDA Page 2 of 2 Base Project Captured SemJ-A~lnual PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Yf~ Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity O.O 02-012005 42,345 42,345 0 0.0 08-012005 42,345 42,345 0 0 0.0 02-012006 42,~45 42.345 0 0 0.0 0801 2006 42,345 42,345 0 0 0.0 02-012007 42,345 421.855 379,510 0 208,590 0.5 08-012007 42,345 421,855 379.510 0 208,590 1.0 02-012008 42,345 624,255 581,910 0 319,835 1.5 08-012008 .42,345 624,255 581,910 .' 0 319,835 2.0 02-012009 42,345 846,505 804,160 0 441.990 2-5 0801 2009 42,345 846,505 804,180 0 441,960 3.0 02-012010 42.345 1,059,005 1,018,(~0 0 5.58,787 3.5 08-012010 42,345 1,059.005 1,016,550 0 558,787 4.0 02-012011 42,345 1,274,005 1,231,660 0 576,957 4.5 0801 2011 42,345 1,274,005 1,231,660 0 678,957 5.0 02-012012 42,345 1,286,745 1.244,400 0 683,960 5.5 08-012012 42,345 1,296,745 1,244,400 0 583,960 5.0 02-012013 42,345 t,2.99,813 1,257,268 0 691.032 5.5 08-0t2013 42,345 1,269,013 1,257,266 0 691~032 7.0 02-012014 42.345 1.312,809 1,270,204 0 698,175 7.5 08-012014 42,345 1,312,609 1,270,264 0 698,175 8.0 02-012015 42,345 1,325,735 1,283,390 0 705,369 8.5 08-012015 42,345 1,325,735 1,283.390 0 705,389 9.0 02-012016 42,345 1,338,992 1,296,647 0 712,676 9.5 08-012016 42,345 1.338,692 1,296,647 0 712,876 I0.0 02-012017 42,345 1,852.382 1,310,037 9 720.036 10.5 08-012017 42,345 1,352,382 1,310,037 0 720,036 11.0 02-012018 42,345 1,385,006 1,023,561 0 727,469 11.5 08-012018 42,345 1,365,906 1,323,561 0 727,469 17-0 02-012019 42,345 1,379,565 1,337,220 0 734,970 12-5 0801 2019 42,345 1,379,565 1,337,220 0 734.976 13.0 02-012020 42,345 1,393,061 1,351,016 0 742,559 13.5 08-012020 42,345 1,393,36t 1,351,018 0 742,559 14.0 02-012021 42`845 1,407,294 1,364,949 0 750,217 14.5 08-012021 42,345 1.407,294 1,364,949 0 750,217 15.0 02-012022 42.345 1,421,367 1,379,022 0 757,952 15.5 08-012022 42,345 1,421,867 1,379,022 0 757,952 16.0 02-012023 42.345 1,435,581 1,393,235 0 765,764 t6.5 08-012023 42,345 1,435,581 1,393,236 0 765,764 17.0 02-012024 42,845 1,449,937 1,407,592 0 772,655 17.5 08-012024 42,345 1,449,637 1,407,592 0 773,655 18.0 02-012025 42,345 1.464,400 1,422.091 0 781,624 16.5 08-012025 42,345 1,464,436 1,422,091 0 761,624 19.0 02-012026 42.345 1.479,080 1,436,735 0 789,673 19.5 08-012026 42,345 1,479,080 1,436,735 0 789,873 20.0 02-012027 42,345 1,403,671 1.451,526 0 797,802 20.5 08-0t2027 42,345 1,493,571 1,451,526 0 797,802 21.0 02-012028 42,345 1,508,810 1,465,465 0 606,013 21.5 08-012028 42,345 1,508,610 1,46~,465 0 806.013 22.0 02-012029 42.345 1,523,598 1,481,553 0 614,306 22.5 08-012029 42,345 1,523,698 t,481,553 0 614,306 23.0 02-012030 42.345 1,539,137 1,496,792 9 822,682 23.5 0801 2030 42,345 1.539,137 1.496,792 0 822,682 24.0 02-012031 42,345 1.554,526 1,512,163 0 631,141 24.5 08-012031 42,345 1,554,528 1.512,183 0 831,141 25.0 02-012032 42,345 1,570,073 1,527,728 0 839.685 25.5 08-012032 42 845 I 570 073__ 1 527 728 0 839 685 Present Value 2/1/.___._~05 NOTES: state Coverage$emI-A~nuaJ Seml..~Jm~a] PAYMENT DATE Auditor at Net Tax Pres~lt PERJOD ENDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (751) (51,96o) (751) (5t,96o) (1,151)(79,571) (I,181)(79,871) (1,561)(11O, lOO) (1,591)(110, t00) (2,012)(139,194) (2,012)(109,164) 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 t58,879 132,84: 0.5 155,879 261,504 1.0 239,013 452,574 1.5 239,013 637,629 ·7__0 330,299 885,312 2.5 330,299 1,125,1993.0 417,581 1,418,9313.5 417.581 1.703.4174.0 (2,437)(168,830) 505,890 2,037,210 4.5 (2,437)(168,630) 505,890 2,960,E08 5.0 (2,402)(170,374) 511,123 2,876,863 5.5 516,408 3,283,081 6.5 518,408 3.573.485 7.0 521,746 3,857,015 7.5 521,746 4,132,821 8.0 527,138 4,402,119 8.5 527,138 4.662,940 9.0 532.583 4,918,161 9.5 532,583 5,165,348 10.0 538,083 5,407,225 10.5 538,083 5,041,491 11.0 543,637 5.870,725 11.5 543,837 6,092,742 12.0 549,248 6,309,991 12,5 .549,2486,520,401 13.0 554,914 6,726,290 13.5 554,914 6,925,699 14.0 560,637 7,120.622 14,6 560,637 7,309,804 15.0 566,417 7,494,724 15.5 596,417 7,673.824 16.0 572,256 7,849,074 16.5 572,256 8,018.807 17.0 578,152 8,184,892 17.5 576,162 8,345,749 18.0 564,1078,655,591 19.0 590,1226,504,757 19.5 590,1225,949,228 20,0 596,1969,096,591 20.5 596,1669~27.505 21.0 602,3349.861,474 21.5 602.3349.491,226 22-0 608,5319,618,187 22.5 608,5319.741,151 23.0 614,7909.861.470 23.5 614,7909,978,002 24.0 621,11210,092,02624.5 621,11210,202,46125.0 027.49710,310,51925.5 26.0 (2,482)(170.374) (2,488)(172,136 ('2,488) (172,136 (2,513)(173,91! (2.513)(173.91~ (2,539)(175,71: (2,539)(175,71: (2,566 (177,52~ (2.568 (177,52~ (2,592 (179,381 (2,592 (179,361 (2,819 (181,212 (2,01! (181,212 (2.64,~(183,083 (2,64( (183,08: (2,67:'(1IH,g7' (2,6~ (184,97' (2,701 (186,87.~ (2,701 (188,87~. (2,729 (188,8i~ (2,729 (188,80E (2,757 (190,752 (2,757 (196,752 (2,78~ (192,717 (2,78~ (192,717 (2,814 (194,702 (2.81~ (194,70; (2,84-~(196,70; (2.843 (196,7o; (2,872 (198,73: (2,872 (196,732 (2,902 (2oo,77e (2,902 (200,"/78 (2.932 (2O2,844 (2,93: (202,844 (2,96; (204,930 (2,96; (204,930 (2,99; (207,03; (2,992)(207,03; ~,02~) (2o9,15~ 08-01 2O05 02-01 2O06 08-01 2006 02-01 2007 08-01 2O07 02-01 2OO8 0801 2066 02-01 2OO9 08-01 2009 02-01 2010 08-01 2010 02-01 2011 08-01 2011 02-01 2012 08-01 2012 02-01 2014 08-01 2014 02-01 2015 08-01 2015 02-01 2016 08-01 2016 02-01 2017 08-01 2017 02-01 2018 0801 2018 02-01 2019 08-01 2019 02-01 2O2O 0801 2O2O 02-01 2021 08-01 2021 02-01 2022 08-01 2022 02-01 2023 0801 2023 02-01 2024 08-01 2024 02-01 2025 08-01 2025 02-01 2028 08-01 2026 02-01 2027 08-01 2027 02-01 2026 0801 2028 02-01 2029 08-01 2029 02-01 2030 08-01 2030 02-01 2031 08-01 2031 02-01 2032 08-01 2032 O2-01 2033 0 36305860__ 130 T01 9043797 27131391 0 13 937.075 50 173 3 471 72510 415 176 4. inflation on tax rates cartllot be captured. 5. '~F does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes. 6. If TIF is received in 2006, the district will be shortened by one year. 7. MV Homestead credit is assumed to be paid by the State in futura years. 1. State Auditor payment is based upon 1st hall', pay 2002 actual and may increase over term of district. 2. Assumes development in constl'Ucted in 2008, assessed in 2006 and first increment is paid in 2607. 3. A.mount of increment will va~' depending upon market value, tax rates~ ctass rates, construction schedule and inflation on Market Value. New Market Value. ESL 25 827750 Difference 121'351 '95~ PmuM Value of Tax Frx:mment ! 3 937 075 APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FOR~ (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOIq~ENT AND ECO1WO~IC DEVELOPMENT) APPENDIX Eq Please fill in date agreement signed (same as question 21) Minnesota Business Assistance Form [] The Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Nfl3AF) is used to report each business subsidy and financial assistance agreement signed fromA~.gust 1, 1999 through December $1, 2005 unless goals have been achieved and reported in a MBAF per Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 to § 116J.995. The following government agencies must submit a MBAF: 1) any local government/agency that signed a business subsidy agreement since January 1, 1999, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government agencies authorized to prov/de business subsidies. [] If a local or state government agency that is required to report has not done so by April i, DEED will mail a warning. If it fails to report by June 1, it may not award any business subsidies until a report has been filed. [] Questions? Ca11(651)296-0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is onpage4. Section 1 Grantor Information i. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing this form 3. Street address 4. City 5. ZI/~ code 6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address I0. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the MBAF if different from the person in Question 2. Name/Title Phone number Street address City ZIP code I 1. Classification of grantor (Mark one. If grantor is entity 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and created by gov 't agency, please indicate affilian'on. For adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies in example, a city EDA would check "City government. ") compliance with Minn. Stat. § I 16J. 9947 (Mark one.) [] City government CI Yes, in 2004 (attach criteria) [] Yes, in 2004 but have not yet adopted criteria [] County government CI Yes, prior to 2004 Cl Regional government If Yes: Hearing Date: Y'ear Criteria Submitted: [3 State government [] No [] Other (Please specify.) [] Other (Please attach explanation.) 13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August i, 1999 through December 3 i, 2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported in a previous filed MBAF? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Complete the remainder of the form unless goals have been achieved and [] No (.Stop here, go to section 5 on page 4.) reporte, d in a previously filed MBAF per Minn. Stat.._~116~.993 and 3~116J. 994..) Section 2 Recipient Information 14. Name of business or organization receiving subsidy or financial assistance 15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance will be used Street address City State ZIP code 16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate owner.) [3 No Name of parent corporation Street address City State ZIP code Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14/04) Page l of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development 17. Industry ofrecipient's facility (Mark One..): [21 Manufacturing [21 Services [] Retail Trade [] Wholesale Trade [] Finance, Insurance, Real Estate [] Construction [] Other (please specify) 18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient did not complete this project at that address.,) [] No (Go to Question 19.) City/State of previous address Reason project not completed at previous address 19. Would the recipient have remained in previous location or relocated elsewhere if not awarded this business subsidy or financial assistance? (Markone.) [] Remained at previous location [] Relocated to different Minnesota location (21 Relocated outside Minnesota Section 3 Agreement Information 20. Total dollar value of business subsidy or financial assistance (Please separate value by type in Questions 24 an d 25.) 21. Date agreement signed (In addition to the agreement date, indicate any dates the agreement was amended.) 22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipient will benefit from the business subsidy or financial assistance. For example, indicate the date improvements were finished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the properO~, whichever is earlier.) 23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to be reported? (Mark one.) [] business subsidy [] financial assistance 24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please indicate the type(s) and total dollar value for each type. [] not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance [] loan (only principal) $ [] grant (i.e., forgivable loan) [] tax abatement S [21TIF or other tax reduction or deferral $ [] guarantee of payment $ [] contribution of property or infrastructure [] preferential use of governmental facilities [3 land contribution $ [3 other (Specify subsidy type.) $ 25. If the assistance was one of the four types of financial assistance, please indicate the type(s). [] not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy [] assistance for property polluted $ by contaminants [] assistance for renovating building $ stock or bringing it up to code, and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, when 50% or less of total cost [] assistance for pollution control or $ abatement [] assistance for a TIF soils condition district $ 26. If the assistance included tax increment financing, please indicate,the ~,pe of T!F district? ~rar,~ one.) [] not applicable, assistance was not in the form of TIF [] redevelopment [] renewal and renovation [] soils condition [] economic development [] mined underground space [] hazardous substance subdistrict 27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or financial assistance to the same project? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Specify each grantor and the value of their assistance below; attach an additional sheet if necessary.,) [] No Grantor(s) and value of the agreement(s): Grantor Value ($) Grantor. Value ($) Minnesota Business Assistance Form (I/14/04) Page 2 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development Section 4 Goals and Public Purpose Identified in the Agreement 28. Minn. Stat. § 116J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Markall that apply.) O Enhancing economic diversity O Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose) O Creating high-quality job growth O Other (please specify) O Job retention 0 Stabilizing ~he community ,. 31. 32. 29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals at the time of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.) A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years B) Other job-creation .and/or retention goals C) Other wage goals D) Other goals other than wage and job goals Goals Target attainment All goals established? dates (month'& year) attained? OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo (Please attach descriptions of goals and progress toward attainment if not documented in Questions 30 and 31.) 30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retention goals stated in the agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance goals for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation goals in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by full- and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time/ FTE ~ if goals not Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT,rpT) Job Retention Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance no hourly wage-level goal s.~ less than $7.00 $7.00 to $8.99 s.__ $9.00 to $10.99 s $11.00 to $12.99 s.~ $13.00 to $14.99 $.~ $15.00 a~d higher s.__ For each of the following wage categories, indicate the number of actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit date and the actual hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance for those jobs. (.Only indicate job creation in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate job creation into full- and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time/ FTE ~ if unable to Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. separate F'F/PT) Job Retention Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance less than $7.00 s.__ $7.0'0 to $8.99 $9.00 to $10.99 $11.00 to $12.99 $13.00 to $14.99 $15.00 and higher s.__ Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Questions 29, 30 and 3 I) and fulfilled all obligations stipulated in the agreement? (Mark one.) O Yes 0 No Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14/04) Page 3 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development Section 5 Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations Do not complete this section if ?ou completed it on another MBAF submitted to DEED.) 33. During the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, did your organization have any recipients who failed to report as required by Minn. Stat. § 116J. 993 and § 116J.9947 (Mark one.) [] Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value of subsidy or financial assistance awarded to that recipient. Attach additional pages if necessary.) [21 No Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 and 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance 34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an agreement signed on or after August 1, 1999, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.) Yes (Complete the remainder of this section.) [] No ~Stop here and submit form to DEED .) 35. - 39. Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additionalpages if necessary.) 35. Information on recipient and agreement: Name of recipient in default Type of subsidy or assistance Initial value of subsidy or assistance S~:eet address of recipient City/ZIP code of recipient Outstanding value of subsidy or assistance 36. Reason(s) for default'(Mark all that apply.): [] recipient ceased operation [] recipient was unable to fill vacant positions [] recipient relocated to a different community [3 other (Specify reason.) 37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one.) [] Yes [] No, recipient has begun to repay the assistance. ,[] No, recipient has not begun to repay the assistance. 38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for fulfilling its obligations? (Mark one.) [] Yes [] No 39. Describe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy: Return your completed MBAF(s) by April 1, 2004, to: Minnesota Business Assistance Form Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic DeVelopment - AEO 500 Metro Square, 121 East 7th Place St. Paul, MN 55101-2146 Or fax to: (651) 215-3841 Minnesota Business Assistance Form (I/14/04) Page 4 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT APPENDIX F-~ Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment Proposed Columbia Heights Industrial Park TIF District' Columbia Heights, MN September 9, 2004 Prepared by: Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) Butler Square Building, Suite 710C 100 North 6~ Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 SEH No. A-COLHT0402.00 City of Columbia Heights Proposed TIF District September 9, 2004 PURPOSE Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) was hired by the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, to survey and evaluate the properties within the proposed Columbia Heights Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The proposed district is generally located south of 39th Avenue NE, north of 38th Avenue NE, east of University Avenue NE and west of Jefferson Street. The purpose of our work was to independently ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility, as required under Minnesota Statute, could be met. The findings and conclusions drawn herein are solely for the purpose of tax increment eligibility and are not intended to be used outside the scope of this assessment. SCOPE OF WORK The proposed district consists of 12 parcels comprised of the following types of improvements: 9 commercial structures on 7 parcels, and 5 vacant parcels with only parking improvements. Within the district are also several accessory structures - for the purposes of this assessment, these are considered 'outbuildings' and are not included in the Condition of Buildings Test. EVALUATIONS Interior inspections were completed for all buildings except 2. An exterior inspection was completed for all buildings. FINDINGS Coverage Test - 12 of the 12 properties met the coverage test with a 100% area coverage. This exceeds the 70% area coverage requirement. Condition of Buildings Test- 100 percent of the buildings - 9 of the 9 buildings - were found to be "structurally substandard" when considering code deficiencies and other deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance (see definition of"stmcturally substandard" as follows). This exceeds the Co_n_d/t/on of B/tlldings Test whereby over 50% of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found "structurally substandard." CONCLUSION Our surveying and evaluating of the properties within this proposed Redevelopment District render results that in our professional opinion qualify the district eligible under the statutory criteria and formulas for a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (State Statute 469.174 Subd. 10). SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Site Occupied/Building Substandard Determination table TIF Assessment maps: Buildings Under Study, Occupied Surfaces, Percent Occupied , - Report on Building Cohdition (one per building) - Individual Building Summary Report (one per building) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS The properties were surveyed and evaluated in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) which states: , Interior Inspection - "The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..." Exterior Inspection and Other Means - "An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property; and after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard." Documentation - "Written documentation of the building findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3, clause (1)." Refer to attached Exhibit A - Documentation of Contacts/Evaluations for documentation for these purposes. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS The City of Columbia Heights sent letters to all property owners located in the district requesting that an inspection and evaluation be made of their property. SEH conducted assessments between March and August 2004. Requests for evaluation appointments were made with the building owner or building tenants. An interior inspection and evaluation was completed if consented to by the owner. An exterior inspection and evaluation was made where the owner refused interior access to their property. In all cases, an exterior evaluation was completed. F& all subject buildings, SEH reviewed the information provided by the City of Columbia Heights. This information provided a basic descriPtion of type of work completed for each building (Building, Electrical, or Plumbing, scope of work) and, in some cases, approximate value of work to be completed. Some buildings had no available information. Additional building data was collected from public taxpayer information available fi:om Anoka County. Building data from these public records was combined with and reviewed against information gathered in the field. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The properties were surveyed and evaluated to ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility for a redevelopment district, required under the following Minnesota Statutes, could be met. Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: 1. Coverage Test- "parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or similar structures. " Note: The coverage required by the parcel to be 'considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (e) which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15% of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures." 2. Condition of Buildings Test- "... and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;" The term 'structurally substandard', as used in the preceding paragraph, is defined by a two-step test: Conditions Test: Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (b), a building is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, frre protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of inter/or partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Code Test: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) also provides that a building may not be considered structurally substandard if it: "... is in compliance with building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site." Based on the above requirements, the substandard determination of a particular building is a two-step process; therefore, the findings of each step are independent of each other and both steps must be satisfied in order for a building to be found structurally substandard. It is not sufficient to conclude that a building is structurally substandard solely because the Code Test is satisfied. It is theoretically possible for a building to require extensive renovation in order to meet current building codes but still not meet the main test of the Conditions Test. 4 Furthermore, deficiencies included in the Conditions Test may or may not include specific code deficiencies as listed in the Code Test. In many cases, specific building code deficiencies may well .contribute to the data which supports satisfying the Conditions Test; conversely, it is certainly possible that identified hazards or other deficiencies which could be included in the Conditions Test do not necessarily constitute current building code deficiencies. By defmition, the nature of the two steps is slightly different. The Conditions Test is more subjective, whereas the Code Test is an objective test. Conditions Test deficiencies are less technical and not necessarily measurable to the same e/(tent of the code deficiencies in the Code Test. To the end that technical, measurable building code deficiencies support the satisfaction of the less technical Conditions Test; the following code requirements are defined in terms that go beyond the technical requirements of the code and demonstrate their relevance in terms of".., deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, etc..." International Building Code (IBC): The purpose of the IBC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from frre and other hazards attributed to the built environment (IBC 101.3). A deficiency in the building code (insufficient number of building exits, insufficient door landing area, etc.) adversely affects one or more of the above standards to safeguard 'public health...and safety to life'; therefore, a deficiency in the building code is considered a deficiency in one or more "essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, etc.". Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341: This chapter sets the requirements for accessibility all building occupancies. The Minnesota Accessibility Code closely follows the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which sets the guidelines for accessibility to places of public accommodations and commercial facilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is a federal anti-discrimination statute designed to remove barriers that prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same opportunities that are available to persons without disabilities (ADA Handbook). Essentially, a deficiency in the accessibility code (lack of handrail extension at stairs or ramp, lack of clearance at a toilet fixture, etc.) results in a discrimination against disabled individuals; therefore, a deficiency in the accessibility code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". Minnesota Food Code, Chapter 4626: This chapter is enforced by the Minnesota Depathnent of Health and is similar to the IBC in that it provides minimum standards to safeguard public health in areas of public/commercial food preparation. A deficiency in the food code (lack of non-absorbent wall or ceiling · finishes, lack of hand sink, etc.) causes a condition for potential contamination of food; therefore, a deficiency in the food code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". National Electric Code (NEC): The purpose of the NEC is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising fi:om the use of electricity. The NEC contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety (NEC 90-1 (a) and (b)). A, deficiency in the electric code (insufficient electrical service capacity, improper wiring, etc.) causes a hazard fi:om the use of electricity; therefore, a deficiency in the electric code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". International Mechanical Code (IMC): The purpose of the IMC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation, quality of materials, location, operation, and maintenance or use of mechanical systems (IMC 101.3). The IMC sets specific requirements for building ventilation, exhaust, intake and relief. These requirements translate into a specified number of complete clean air exchanges for a building based on its occupancy type and occupant load. A deficiency in the mechanical code adversely affects the 'health. ·. and public welfare' ora building's occupants; therefore, a deficiency in the mechanical code is considered a deficiency in "light and ventilation". Note: The above list represents some of the more common potential code deficiencies considered in the assessment of the buildings in the proposed district. This list does not necessarily include every factor included in the data used to satisfy the conditions test for a particular building. Refer to individual building reports for specific fmdings. Finally, the tax increment law provides that the municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the Code Test on the basis of "reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence. Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is structurally substandard] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence." MEASUREMENTS AGAINST TECHNICAL TEST REQUIREMENTS Coverage Test SEH utilized a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) system database, available through Anoka County and the City of Columbia Heights, to obtain individual parcel information. The GIS system contains graphic information (parcel shapes) and numerical data based on county tax records. This information was used by SEH for the purposes of this assessment· The total square foot area of each property parcel was obtained fi:om county records (GIS) and general site verification. The total extent of site improvements on each property parcel was digitized from recent aerial photography (Spring, 2003). The total square footage of site improvements was then digitally measured and confmued by general site verification. The total percentage of coverage of each property parcel was computed to determine if the 15% requirement was met. Refer to attached maps: Occupied Surfaces map and Percent Occupied map. The total area of all qualifying property parcels was compared to the total area of all parcels to determine if the 70% requirement was met. The area occupied by public rights-of-way has not been considered in the coverage test calculations. All of the public rights-of-way are improved. If all of the public rights-of-way were treated as a parcel for the purpose of coverage test calculations, the 70% requirement of the coverage test would still be met. Condition of Building Test Replacement Cost - the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type on site: R. S. Means Square Foot Costs (2004) was used as the industry standard for base cost calculations. R. S. Means is a nationally published reference tool for construction cost data. The book is updated yearly and establishes a "national average" for materials and labor prices for all types of building construction. The base costs derived from R. S. Means were reviewed, and modified if applicable, against our professional judgment and experience. A base cost was calculated by f'n:st establishing building type, building construction type, and construction quality level (residential construction) to obtain the appropriate Means cost per square foot. This cost was multiplied times the building square footage to obtain the total replacement cost for an individual building. Additionally, to account for regional/local pricing, a cost factor was added to the total cost according to R.S. Means tables. Using R. S. Means, consideration is made for building occupancy, building size, and construction type; therefore, the cost per square foot used to construct a new structure will vary accordingly. Building Deficiencies: Conditions Test (Condition Deficiencies] - determining the combination of defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.. On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. Deficiencies in structural elements, essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, were noted by the evaluator. Condition Deficiencies may or may not include Code Deficiencies as defined below. Energy code compliance was not considered for the purposes of determining Condition Deficiencies. Deficiencies were combined and summarized for each building in order to determine their total significance. Building Deficiencies: Code T~st (Code Deficiencies) - determining technical conditions that are not in compliance with current building code applicable to new buildings and the cost to correct the deficiencies: On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. On-site evaluations were completed using a standard checklist format. The standard checklist was derived from several standard building code plan review checklists and was intended to address the most common, easily identifiable code deficiencies. Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, and Building Code Officials were also consulted in the development of the checklist. Deficiencies were generally grouped into the following categories (category names are followed by its applicable building code): · Building accessibility- Minnesota Accessibility Code · Building egress, building construction - International Building Code · Fire protection systems - International Building Code · Food service- Minnesota Food Code · HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) - International Mechanical Code · Electrical systems - National Electric Code and Minnesota Energy Code · Energy code compliance - Minnesota Energy Code For the purposes of determining the Code Test (Code Deficiencies), Energy code compliance is relevant because its criteria affect the design of integral parts of a majority ora building's systems. The intent of these criteria is to provide a means for assuring building durability, and permitting energy efficient operation (7676.0100). The energy code addresses general building construction (all forms of energy transmission in an exterior building envelope - walls, roofs, doors and windows, etc.) and energy usage by lighting and mechanical systems. A deficiency in the energy code (inadequate insulation, non-insulated window systems, improper air infiltration protection, etc.) reduces energy efficient oPeration and adversely affects building system durability; therefore, a deficiency in the energy code is considered to contribute to a condition requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Office evaluations - Following the on-site evaluation, each building was then reviewed, based on on-site data, age of construction, building usage and occupancy, square footage, and known improvements (from building permit data), and an assessment was made regarding compliance with cun'ent mechanical, electrical, and energy codes. A basic code review was also completed regarding the potential need for additional egress (basement stairways, for example), sprinkler systems, or elevators. Deficiency Cost - Costs to correct identified deficiencies were determined by using R. S. Means Cost Data and our professional judgment and experience. In general, where several items of varying quality were available for selection to correct a deficiency, an item of average cost was used, as appropriate for typical commercial or residential applications. Actual construction costs are affected by many factors (bidding climate, size of project, etc.). Due to the nature of this assessment, we were only able to generalize the scope of work for each correction; that is to say that detailed plans, quantifies, and qualifies of materials were not possible to be known. Our approach to this matter was to determine a preliminary cost projection suitable to the level of detail that is known. This process was similar to our typical approach for a cost projection that may be given to an owner during a schematic design stage of a project. Costs to correct deficiencies were computed for each building and compared to the building replacement cost to determine if the 15% requirement was met. The total number of buildings determined to be "structurally substandard" by satisfying both the Conditions Test and the Code Test in this manner was compared to the total number of buildings in the proposed district to determine if the 50% requirement was met. Reports on Building Conditions and Individual Building Summary Reports are available for review at the offices of SEH, the City of Columbia Heights. Technical Conditions Resources - the following list represents the current building codes applicable to new buildings used in the Building Deficiency review: 2003 Minnesota State Building Code 2000 International Building Code 2000 International Housing Code MN 1341 -Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341 (1999) 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Chapters 7672, 7674, or 7676 1999 National Electric Code 2000 International Mechanical Code PROJECT TEAM: Leon A. Grothe, AIA, Project Architect Jason P. Zemke, AIA, Project Architect Ron Seymour, Community Development Manager 9 ~ITE OOCUPIED/BUlLDINB ~IIB~TANDAED DETERMINATION CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIE~HTS REDEVELOPMENT ELIBIBILITY A-~5~-ESS~MENT MAp TYPE OF ID FULL NAME OCCUPATION 11 3755 UNIVERCITY AVE BUILDING/PAVED SITE AREA (s,f.) COVERAGE SITE COVERAGE TOTAL # # % COVERAGE (s.~) QUANTITY BUILDINGS SUBSTANDARD 75,396 98.51 74269 75,396 I 1 353,818 90.90 321636 353,818 3 3 43,218 99.93 43188 43,218 1 1 106,621 71.80 76551 106,621 0 0 169,111 71.17 120361 169,111 0 0 11,385 100.00 11385 11,383 1 1 6,480 99.94 6476 6,480 0 0 14,175 99.93 14165 14,175 I ~ 1 33,029 99.93 33006 33,029 0.. 0 260,684 74.76 194877 260,684 1 1 104,162 84.88 88409 104,162 1 1 12 3800 5TH STREET BUILDINGS/PAVED 13 3801 5TH STREET BUILDING/PAVED 14 Not given in data set PAVED 15 Not given in data set PAVED 21 450 38TH AVE BUILDING/PAVED 23 Not given in data set PAVED 24 515-517 38TH AVE BUILDING/PAVED 27. Not given in data set PAVED 28 550-600 39TH AVE BUILDING/PAVED 30 Not given in data set PAVED 31 3900 JEFFerSON ST BU LD NG/PAVED 27,203 i -':? '~,":,"~ ~'~-~,:,~' ...................... ,,~.~,, .......................... 99.93 27 APPENDIX G BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS Current Market Value - Est. 4,475,800 New Market Value - Est. Difference Present Value of Tax Increment Difference Value Likely to Occur Without Tax Increment is Less Than: 125~8277750 121,351,950 1379377075 107~4147875 107,414,875 The proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment ftnancing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present vah~e of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Huset Park Area TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The proposed development consists of a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 units of owner- occupied hous/ng and a neighborhood retail office development in the City of Columbia Heights. This area is occupied by 15 parcels, which requ/res acquisition, environmental remediation, and demolition and relocation to permit the proposed development. Current est/mates for environmental clean-up of the area are over $4,650,000. It is not likely that any new development on this site is least'hie without si~ificant environmental remed/ation. A grant of $1,300,000 of State and Metropolitan funds has been secured for the project, but it is not known if future grants w/Il be awarde& The grant was awarded only because of a comprehensive redevelopment plan, which is feasible only with further assistance of tax increment. In addition to the costs of remediation, the land acquisition costs and site preparation is expected to be over $13,000,000. Without any public assistance, the cost of raw land (prior to internal streets, utilities, SAC/WAC, landscaping, etc) per unit of housing is estimated to be over $31,000. The proposed sales prices of the units are expected to be $200,000 to $275,000, which is too low to support significant raw land prices. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment ftnancing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the T£F, ~District permitted by the TIF Plan: It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasible without sienificant environmental remediation. Only small portions of the site are not affected by soil contamination a~d the new development on the site would be sporadic and less than $10,000,000. For taxes payable in 2005, the County assessors has decreased the estimated market value on the parcels in the District by approximately $2,300,000 due to the envSronmental conditions. The site had previously been in a TIF district since 1989 and has seen only one piece of property develop, even with public assistance. APPENDIX o-t Therefore, the City concludes as follows: The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire D/strict will increase without the use of tax increment financing is less than $10,000,000. If all development which/s proposed to be ass/sted with tax increment were to occur in the D/strict, the total increase in market value would be up to $121,351,950 (see table on previous page). c. The present walue of tax incrcrmnts fi:om the D/strict for the rmx/mrm dm'ation of/he d/strict p~tmitted by the TIF Plan/s es~rmted to be $13,937,075. (see table on previous page). Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Coun~ finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $107,414,875 (the armunt in clause b less the armunt in clause c) without tax incrccnent assistance. APPENDIX COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: ~- A ~ ['- .~C Colllmunity Development APPROVAL / / BY: ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-54, BY: Randy Schumacher Approving the Elimination of Parcels from DATE: September 21, 2004 the T~ 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 TIF District BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Resolution is to eliminate 12 parcels that are presently located in a previously established Tax Increment Financing District (MURP) K2, thereby, qualifying them to be designated in a new Tax Increment Financing District. The original net tax capacity of the Tax Increment Financing District will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Staffreco~muends Adoption of Resolution 2004-54, a resolution removing parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Plan Cargill (MURP) K2 TIF District. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-54, there being an mnple mnom~t of copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-54, a Resolution Approving the Elimination of Parcels from the TW 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 Tax Increment Financing District within the Central Business District Redevelopment Project in the City of Columbia Heights. Attacluuents COUNCIL ACTION: h:\CL Consent2004\CL Res.2004-54 Elim. Parcels in K2 TIF CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004-54 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM THE TIF 4 MULTI USE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ~URP) K2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS. WHEREAS, on September 28, 1989, the City of Columbia Heights City Council (the "City) established TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TI~ District") within its Central Business District Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") is the administrative authority for the TIF District; and WHEREAS, the TIF District, in part, included the following parcel numbers, which were previously certified in the TIF District (the "Parcels"): 35-30-24-34-0013 35-30-24-34-0014 35-30-24-34-0040 35-30-24-43-0060 35-30-24-43-0047 35-30-24-34-0035 35-30-24-34-0039 35-30-24-34-0024 35-30-24-34-0041 35-30-24-34-0003 35-30-24-34-0004 35-30-24-34-0002 WHEREAS, the Parcels have been excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 469.176, subd. 6 (the so-called "knock-down rule"); and WHEREAS, the City desires by this resolution to cause the elimination of the Parcels from the District thereby reducing the size of the TIF District; and WHEREAS, the City and EDA are authorized to modify the TIF District by eliminating one or more parcels without the notice and hearing required for approval of an initial plan if they agree that, notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 1, the original net tax capacity of the TIF District will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the TIF District; and WHEREAS, while the Parcels have been "knocked down," their current net tax capacity is less than the original net tax capacity of those Parcels when originally certified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The tax increment financing plan ("TIF Plan") for the TIF District is hereby modified to remove the Parcels from the T~ District, effective for taxes payable in 2005. 2. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 4(e)(2)(B), the City elects that the original net tax capacity of the TIF District will be reduced by no more than the current net capacity of the Parcels. SJB-253421 vl CL205-23 3. Upon approval of a similar resolution by the EDA, staff are authorized and directed to attach a copy of this resolution to the TIF Plan for the TIF District in City files, file a copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Anoka County along with instructions to adjust the records for the TIF District accordingly, and file a copy of the resolution with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue. Dated this 27a~ day of September, 2004 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: ATTEST: Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary (Seal) SJB-253421vl CL205-23 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: ~T~ [J~ Commmfity Development APPROVAL IT EM: Adopt Re so lution 20U4-56, BY:Ran dy Sc hum acher BY:~~~~ Approving a Contract for Private DATE: September 21, 2004 Redevelopment with Schafer Richardson BACKGROUND: The purpose for the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the City of Columbia Heights and Schafer Richardson is to set forth the terms and conditions of redevelopment within the redevelopment project area. Due to the length of the contract, City staff will use the attached summary to review the general project, timing and proposed phases, financing, and related issues. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Adoption of Resolution 2004-56 approving the contract for Private Redevelopment with Schafer Richardson. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-56, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-56, a Resolution Approving a Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Colmnbia Heights Economic Development Authority, the City of Columbia Heights and Schafer Richardson, hdc. or a related entity. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: h:~Consent2004~CL Res.2004-56 Contract for Private Redev. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION NO. 2004-56 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND SCHAFER RICHARDSON, INC OR A RELATED ENTITY BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority ("Authority") has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing, and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"), and is currently administering the Downtown CBD Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Project")pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"). 1.02. The Authority, the City and Schafer Richardson, Inc. or a related entity (the "Redeveloper") have proposed to enter into a into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract"), setting forth the terms and conditions of redevelopment of certain property within the Redevelopment Project, generally located east of University Avenue and south and west of Huset Park. 1.03. The Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the execution thereof and performance of the City's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Ci_ty Approval; Further Proceedings. 2.01. The Contract as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry out, on behalf of the City its obligations thereunder. Dated th~s __ day of September, 2004. Offered By: Seconded By: Roll Call: ATTEST: Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary SJB-253352vl CL205-23 Mayor-Julienne Wyckoff SUMMARY OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVEOPMENT BETWEEN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, CH LAND, LLC (AN AFFILIATE OF SCHAFER RICHARDSON, INC.) gm General Project Description. A. The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") have proposed to undertake an area wide redevelopment of the approximately twenty-eight acre outdated and polluted industrial area located generally east of University Avenue, south and west of Huset Park to the City's southern boundary and north of 38th Avenue N.E., as depicted on Exhibit A. This area is referred to as the "Redevelopment Area" or "Redevelopment Property" and is proposed to be redeveloped into approximately 555 housing units (in a variety of types) and approximately 11,600 sq. ft. of convenience commercial space (collectively, the "Project"), generally in accordance with the site plan attached as Exhibit B. B. As part of the Project, the City has agreed to commit city funds to construct a new parkway connection through the Redevelopment Area fi:om 37th Avenue NE to Jefferson Avenue ("Hnset Parkway") and to construct or cause to be constructed certain necessary new infrastructure, including storm water holding ponds and public park facilities in the vicinity of the storm water ponds. C. The EDA has selected CH Land, LLC (an affiliate of Schafer Richardson, Inc.) to act as the overall master developer of the Project (the "Redeveloper"). In addition the EDA has obtained various grants for pollution abatement and overall Project planning, and anticipates successfully obtaining additional grant funds for additional pollution remediation and various other Project purposes, all in furtherance of the contemplated Project. The currently anticipated overall Redeveloper Project Development Budget is attached as Exhibit C (the "Development Budget"). D. In addition, the EDA has completed: (i) a "blight analysis" of the Redevelopment Area; (ii) a tax increment "substandard building analysis" of all structures in the area; and (iii) a tax increment "but for analysis." Based on such analyses, the EDA and City will take all necessary and appropriate actions to create a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") encompassing the Redevelopment Area. The EDA will expend agreed upon amounts of resulting available tax increment to finance "TIF Eligible Costs" (as defined in Section IX below) in accordance with the terms set forth herein and in a detailed TIF budget (the "TIF Budget") that shall be incorporated into the Contract (as defined below). SJB-250856v7 CL205-23 II. E. Further the EDA has determined it is necessary and in the public interest to assist in the assembly of the Redevelopment Property by utilization of its power of eminent domain, if necessary, in order to acquire the road right of way for Huset Parkway and eliminate blight, create a suitable redevelopment parcel, eliminate vacant, outdated and inappropriate land uses and otherwise generally make this area-wide redevelopment feasible. F. Upon the approval by the City and EDA of the terms set forth herein, the City, EDA and Redeveloper will promptly proceed to enter into a Redevelopment Contract (the "Contract") in all material regards in accordance with the terms set forth in this summary. Timing and Proposed Phases, Minimum Improvements. A. Phase I: Consisting of approximately 179 owner occupied townhomes and condominium or cooperative units and approximately 11,650 square feet of commercial space. Must commence improvements for Phase I within 1 year after date of entry into the Contract, and must complete all internal Phase I site improvements and 80% of the housing units in the Phase within 3 years. The Phases are shown on Exhibit B. B. Phase II: Consisting of approximately 120 owner occupied townhomes. Must commence site improvements for Phase II within 3 years after date of entry into the Contract, and must complete all internal Phase 1I site improvements and 80% of the housing units in the Phase within 4.5 years. In addition, all land for Phase II must be acquired within 2 years after the date of agreement. C. Phase 1II: Consisting of approximately 256 owner occupied condominium or cooperative units. Must commence site improvements for Phase 1II within 4 years after date of entry into the Contract, and must complete all internal Phase 1II site improvements and 80% of the housing units in the Phase within 5 years. In addition, all land for Phase Ill must be acquired within 2 years after the date of agreement. D. Unit sizes and types, the amount of commercial space and the Phase commencement and completion deadlines may be adjusted with approval of EDA. E. As its remedy for failure to meet any Phase schedule for commencement or completions of a Phase (or parcel within a Phase), the EDA may suspend payment of tax ihcrement from defaulting parcels until the required Minimum Improvements are complete. Defaults as to one Phase, or parcel therein, will not be defaults as to other Phases or individual parcels. F. To meet DEED pollution grant unit price requirements, at least 20% of the units in Phase I (i.e. approximately 36 units) must be sold initially at a purchase price not to exceed 110% of the maximum affordable price under Metropolitan Council guidelines in effect in the year of sale (110% is approximately $215,000 in 2004). If the EDA receives DEED grants for Phases I1 and/or 1II, and the grant imposes a similar requirement, the same sale SJB-250856v7 2 CL205-23 price restrictions will apply for those phases. Means testing of prospective buyers is not required by the grant. G. All construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by EDA as to conformity with the overall Redevelopment Plan and Project design standards approved by EDA (the "Design Standards"): This review shall be in addition to all normal building permit reviews and inspections. H. Any condominium or common-interest-community elements of the Project shall be subject to appropriate owners' association documents, and such documents shall be subject to the initial review and approval of the EDA. III. Land Use and Zoning Approvals. A. Redeveloper shall re-plat the entire Redevelopment Property in accordance with applicable City ordinances, which may be done as property is acquired and consistent with the Phases or parcels proposed for redevelopment. The City and EDA will cooperate in all replatting. The Redeveloper will dedicate all land needed for Huset Parkway, the storm water ponding area and utility easerhents at no cost. In connection with each plat/replat, City and Redeveloper will enter into the usual and customary planning development agreement (a "Planning Contract"). B. The Redeveloper will receive all existing SAC/WAC credits and shall pay all additional SAC/WAC fees and park dedication fees in accordance with applicable City policies or ordinances. The City will give the Redeveloper credit against the park dedication fees for the portion of the storm water pond dedication area not used for the storm water pond in an amount equal to the fair market value of that portion of land. The details of SAC/WAC fees and park dedication fees will be specified in each Planning Contract. C. The City has commenced the process of Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Redevelopment Property to "Transit Oriented Residential," which is consistent with the City's previously approved Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Area. The City shall complete the rezoning process promptly after approval of the Contract terms, however nothing herein shall limit the City's governmental rights. EDA will cooperate in the rezoning. IV. Land acquisition. A. As a condition to requesting condemnation, Redeveloper must utilize commercially reasonable efforts to acquire all parcels by voluntary purchase. Such efforts shall include written offers to all owners by September 30, 2004, and an offer to mediate if the negotiations are not successful (such mediation to occur by October 31, 2004). If Redeveloper provides written notice on or after November 1, 2004, that it has been ur;successful in accomplishing any acquisition voluntarily, EDA (and City, 'for road right of way parcels) will use eminent domain to acquire any parcels for which Redeveloper hasn't obtained purchase agreements or options. Redeveloper shall pay (subject to reimbursement SJB-250856v7 3 CL205-23 as a TIF Eligible Cost, to the extent consistent with the TIF Budget) all costs to acquire parcels by voluntary purchase (exclusive of the SR Parcel hereafter defined), including all carrying costs on such parcels, and all condemnation costs, including legal, appraisal, court costs, quick take deposit and £mal payments, and relocation expenses. The City or EDA will utilize its power of "quick take" to the extent needed or desirable to allow the Project to proceed in accordance with the overall Project schedule. The Redeveloper and City and EDA will cooperate and consult on any condemnation actions and specifically on the final price to be paid in settlement of any condemnation action. The EDA shall be consulted on any price to be paid for a voluntary acquisition and no voluntary acquisition shall be undertaken except at a price approved by the EDA as reasonable. B. Redeveloper has previously retained Evergreen Land Services as relocation consultant on behalf of Authority and City. Redeveloper will pay all relocation costs or secure waivers in form acceptable to EDA for all property acquired, whether voluntarily or by condemnation consistent with the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act. Redeveloper will also indemnify EDA against relocation claims should it proceed with any terminations of tenancy prior to the entry into the Contract. Relocation costs are a TIF Eligible Cost in accordance with the TIF Budget. C. An independent affiliate of Schafer Richardson, Inc., owns one parcel in the Redevelopment Area (the "SR Parcel") and has agreed to transfer the SR Parcel to the Redeveloper for inclusion in the Redevelopment at its fair market value. If the EDA and Redeveloper cannot agree on the fair market value of the SR Parcel, the parties shall obtain an appraisal by the same appraiser conducting the appraisals for the EDA on Other Redevelopment Property. Both the EDA and the Redeveloper shall meet with the appraiser and advise of their view of value. If, upon completion of the final appraisal, the EDA and Redeveloper still cannot agree on value, then the Redeveloper shall obtain a separate appraisal by an MAI appraiser of its choice. Following this appraisal, the two parties will further negotiate regarding value. If no agreement is then reached, the EDA and Redeveloper shall submit the matter to arbitration, which determination shall be final. Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary herein, no tax increment shall be paid to Redeveloper for the acquisition cost of the SR Parcel. V. Pollution Cleanup, Other Grant Funds. A. EDA will promptly undertake clean-up for Phase I upon entry into the Contract, uiilizing DEED and Met Council grant proceeds and local match for the DEED grant (the "DEED Local Match"). B. The budget for the anticipated DEED Local Match of $572,949 for Phase I will be paid as follows: $232,000 from Met Council grant $340,949 by Redeveloper (with credit for any part of roadway costs paid by Redeveloper that include grant-eligible contamination cleanup costs). SJB-250856v7 4 CL205-23 Redeveloper will be responsible for any clean-up costs in excess of grant proceeds and Redeveloper's share of DEED Local Match. EDA will apply for additional grant funds if additional contamination is found during demolition and cleanup of Phase I, and if awarded will be used to offset the Redeveloper's obligations under this section. The Redeveloper's portion of the DEED Local Match will be a TIF Eligible Cost, to extent permitted by law, with any excess funded by Redeveloper from private sources. C. Redeveloper shall grant immediate access to all parcels owned by Redeveloper within the Redevelopment Property for clean up-work at no cost. D. Redeveloper and EDA will cooperate to obtain all necessary and desirable VIC and VPIC approvals from the Pollution Control Agency to assure no liability for Redeveloper and EDA from acquisition and clean-up. Costs of any VIC or VPIC approvals shall be a TIF Eligible Cost. E. Phases II and 1II cleanup. 1. EDA will timely apply in fall 2004 for a cleanup grant for Phase ll; if unsuccessful, EDA will re-apply in spring 2005 grant cycle. 2. EDA will timely apply in spring 2005 for a cleanup grant for Phase Ill; if unsuccessful, EDA will re-apply in fall 2005 grant cycle. 3. Redeveloper will cooperate and assist with all grant applications. For any grants awarded, Redeveloper will pay the unfunded portion of any DEED Local Match, subject to reimbursement as a T~ Eligible Cost to the extent permitted by law. 4. To the extent grants are obtained for Phases II and llI, the terms and conditions of subsections A to D above shall apply. 5. If, after two grant cycles, the EDA does not receive grants as requested in the amounts required for the Phases II and III cleanup, the EDA and Redeveloper will each be responsible for half of any unfunded cleanup costs, provided in no event shall the EDA's obligation hereunder exceed $1,000,000. This arrangement does not affect the Redeveloper's share of the DEED Local Match, which shall be funded by the Redeveloper. a. The EDA may finance its share with an internal loan or TIF bonds (referred to an "EDA Subordinate Note"), secured on a subordinate basis by the tax increment from the TIF District, subordinate to the Initial TIF Notes and Bonds (described in Section IX, below). b. The Redeveloper must pay its share up-front, and shall receive as potential repayment for its share a subordinated additional pay as you go TIF SJB-250856v7 5 CL205-23 Note (the "Redeveloper Subordinate Note") subordinate to the Initial Notes, the Bonds, and any EDA Subordinate Note. c. To the extent tax increment will support a greater mount of take-out financing (See Section IX below) than needed to prepay the Initial Notes, the excess proceeds Will be used to prepay, first the EDA Subordinate Note, and second the Redeveloper Subordinate Note. F. The EDA, City and Redeveloper will cooperate to obtain other grants to fund costs of the Redevelopment, including Metropolitan Council Liveable Communities Funds. To the extent obtained such funds shall provide enhanced Project amenities or offset other public costs. Vii Transfer/Partners. There shall be no assignment or other transfer of the rights and obligations of Redeveloper under the Contract without the EDA's prior consent in writing. However, it is anticipated that the Redeveloper will sell portions of the Redevelopment Property to subdevelopers (each a "Subdeveloper") and transfer certain rights and obligations under the Contract to other parties to undertake certain portions of the Project. It is agreed that EDA must approve the Subdeveloper and the terms of the transfer in writing in each such case. EDA will review and approve any Subdevelopers identified by Redeveloper within thirty (30) days of the request for approval. No approval shall be required if the Subdeveloper is an affiliate of Schafer Richardson, Inc. Land Sales for Development. The Redeveloper shall not sell the land in the Redevelopment Area to any Subdeveloper or to itself (or any affiliated entity), for any portion of the Project retained by and developed by the Redeveloper, at a price less than the following: > $38,500 per townhome > $18,000 per condominium/cooperative > $300,000 for the commercial parcel The EDA has determined these land sale prices reflect "fair reuse value." In addition, each Subdeveloper shall pay to the Master Developer at the time of land sale the present value of the tax increment related to the Subdeveloper's portion of the overall Project, determined as provided in section IX, such amount to be approved by the EDA. VIII. public Improvements. A. The City will construct Huset Parkway (south and west of Jefferson only), and all sewer and water in the Huset Parkway right of way and the storm sewer improvements and the open space improvements in the vicinity of the storm water ponds, in a time frame consistent with the Redeveloper's Project phasing. The Redeveloper will construct and pay for all interior roads and all associated infrasm~cture, subject to reimbursement as a TIF Eligible Cost as provided in the TIF Budget. Huset Parkway will be a public road; City and Redeveloper will negotiate whether other interior roads are private or dedicated to public at the time of each plat approval, to be reflected in the Planning Contract. SJB-250856v7 6 CL205-23 IX. B. Financing: 1. Sewer and water: City will pay for all, except connections from Huset Parkway. 2. Storm sewer and ponding: Allocated between City and Redeveloper, based on SEH benefit analysis. 3. Huset Parkway: Redeveloper pays all costs of south end; City and Redeveloper equally share all costs of middle section. Landscaping and lighting shared by City and Redeveloper based on front footage. 4. Park Improvements: Park dedication fees and other city park funding (ponding area only). 5. Redeveloper's share for all costs will be assessed; Redeveloper signs waivers. 6. Amount of public expenditures will be set in the project feasibility process for the parkway and utilities and park design process. The amount of special assessments is estimated at $1,677,460, see Exhibit C. TIF Assistance and Profit Look-Back. A. Initial Notes. EDA issues taxable pay as you go notes in one or more series at Redeveloper's request (the "Initial Notes"), secured by pledge of 90% of the increment from specified portions of the Redevelopment Property (either an entire Phase or portion thereof). Tax increment will be calculated using an assumed original market value for the T~ District of $5,200,000 (reflecting the value before the recent environmental reduction). Notes will be issued under following terms: · The maximum aggregate principal amount of all Initial Notes will be determined through analysis of Redeveloper's pro forma, and will be the amount that is estimated to provide Redeveloper a 15% remm as master developer of the Redevelopment Property (currently estimated to be $7,955,400). The maximum aggregate phncipal amount shall be subject to adjustment as described in part E below. In no event shall the principal amount of any Initial Note exceed the present value of 80% of the increment projected from the pledged property for the life of the TIF District, discounted at the interest rate of 6.5%. · Interest rate on Initial Notes shall be (a) the market rate, for Initial Notes transferred to a third party, subject to EDA approval of underwriting assumptions; and (b) 6% for Initial Notes held by the Redeveloper. Interest shall accrue from the date each Initial Note is issued (provided that all TIF Eligible Costs have been incurred as of that date). SJB-250856v7 7 CL205-23 B. TIF Eligible Costs are the following, in each case subject to final cost certification by EDA. The Site Improvements shall be the first priority for payment. Site improvements for internal streets, utilities, lighting, monumentation or other signage and decorative fencing and other structural improvements, but not landscaping (paid to Subdeveloper or Redeveloper as applicable); Preparatory site work, demolition and soil correction; Environmental remediation, including DEED Local Match, costs of VIC and VPIC approvals, costs of environmental consultants; Costs of acquiring parcels specified in Exhibit C (excluding SR Property), and including the costs of condemnation or voluntary acquisition (legal, title, appraisal, court costs and similar); Demolition; · Relocation; and Costs of EDA and City Consultants with regard to the Project, but not including costs paid by any grants or dedicated highway or utility funds. C. TIF Accounting. The EDA and Redeveloper shall develop a suitable accounting system to track tax increment expenditures to assure that all tax increment funds are being properly utilized for TIF Eligible Costs in accordance with the Contract. D. Take-out Financing. When improvements providing the tax increment stream securing any one or several Initial Note(s) are complete, EDA will issue tax-exempt revenue bonds (the "Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds" or the "Bonds") in one or more series to refinance the Initial Note, at Redeveloper's request. Revenue bonds will be secured by all increment from relevant parcels, less $5,000 aggregate annual holdback for EDA administration. Issuance is subject to: · Market/legal constrahnts. · Pledged tax increment is estimated to provide not less than 120% coverage for the revenue bonds (subject to revision if the market requires less with the approval of EDA) and tax increment is projected to increase by 1% per annum. -- EDA approval of under,..,~.2ing assmmptions and reruns of issue, but conse_n_t cannot be unreasonably withheld. · If the net proceeds of the Bonds is less than the amount needed to prepay the Initial Notes, as a condition of the Bonds' issuance, the Redeveloper shall (a) pay the shortfall and (b) accept a subordinate pay-go note in the amount of the outstanding balance of the Initial Notes, payable from excess tax increment over the amount needed to pay the Bonds and the EDA Administration costs. E. Lookback. There are two forms of "lookback" that adjust the amount of tax increment assistance to reflect the Redeveloper's actual return. When any Phase is SJB-250856v7 8 CL205-23 Summit $' NE z --> 38th Ave. NE 38th Ave. NE -- i .-~ 37th Ave. Project Redevelopment Area Fxhibit A Industrial ~ark RedeYelopment Area Columbia Hei§hts, Minnesota 300 0 300 Feet /~ $~pt~mber 23, 2004 ff I ~ K:lactiveworl'Jgisserver14388.61proj3.apr 12 A 28x48 84 B 24x36 28 C 16x38 124 Townhomes 4 Stor 104 Units 4 104 Units 3 Story Fiats 48 Units 11 June 2004 39 A 28x48 20 C 16x38 ! 83 Townhouses 80 Co-op Units 296 Total Flats 55g Total Units - 19.96 DU/acre 59 Townhomes 80 Co-op Units Schafer Richardson CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Columbia Heights, Minnesota 3 story Flats 40 Units w/Commercial 11,650 SF NORTH $CAI~ IN FEET 0 25~0 lO0 ~lO0 300 Master Plan Exhibit C Analysis of Schafer Richardson Land Development Budget Revenues Units Price Sales Proceeds - Townhome Pads 186 38,500 Sales Proceeds - Condos/Unit 376 18,000 TIF Sales Proceeds - Commercial Total Revenues Expenses Grading and Onsite Roads and Utilities Parkway Assessments Relocation Environmental Remediation Match Demolition Soft Costs Legal and Financing SR Land Acquisition Other Land Development Fee and Overhead Contingency Total Expenses 7,161,000 6,768,000 7,955,400 300,000 22,184,400 3,480,000 1,680,000 840,000 600,000 1,100,000 726,000 1,815,000 2,090,000 6,425,000 3,328,400 100,000 22,184,400 Third Draft September 23, 2004 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT By and Between COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA and CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS and CH LAND, LLC Dated as of: ~2004 This document was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered 470 Pillsbm-y Center Milmeapolis, Milmesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 337-9300 SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 PREAMBLE Section 1.1. Section 2.1. Section 2.2. Section 3.1. Section 3.2. Section 3.3. Section 3.4. Section 3.5. Section 3.6. Section 3.7. Section 3.8. Section 3.9. Section 3.10. Section 3.11. Section 3.12. Section 3.13. Section 4.1. Section 4.2. Section 4.3. Section 4.4. Section 4.5. Section 4.6. Section 4.7. Section 4.8. Section 4.9. Section 4.10. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I Definitions Definitions ............................................................................................................ ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Representations by the Authority and City .......................................................... Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper ........................................... ARTICLE III Property Acquisition, Conveyance mhd Financing Status of the Property ........................................................................................... Authority Parcels ................................................................................................. Relocation ............................................................................................................ Platting ................................................................................................................. Contamination Cleanup--Phase I ........................................................................ Contamination Cleanup--Phases II and III ......................................................... Enviromnental Warranties mhd Indemnities ......................................................... Issuance of Initial Notes ....................................................................................... TIF Lookback ....................................................................................................... Authority Refinancing of Initial Notes ................................................................ Payment of Authority Costs ................................................................................. Business Subsidy ................................................................................................. Other Grants ......................................................................................................... ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements and Public hnprovements Construction of Minimum Improvements ........................................................... Master Site Plan and Construction Plans ............................................................. Completion of Construction ................................................................................. Certificate of Completion .................................................................................... Grant Covenants ................................................................................................... Association Covenants ......................................................................................... Records ................................................................................................................ Reports ................................................................................................................. Aclmowledgments ................................................................................................ Public Improvements ........................................................................................... SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 Section 5.1. Section 5.2. Section 5.3. ARTICLE V Insurance Insurance .............................................................................................................. Subordination ....................................................................................................... Qualifications ....................................................................................................... Section 6.1. Section 6.2. Section 6.3. Section 7.1. Section 8.1. Section 8.2. Section 8.3. Section 9.1. Section 9.2. Section 9.3. Section 9.4. Section 10.1. Section 10.2. Section 10.3. Section 10.4. Section 10.5. Section 10.6. Section 10.7. ARTICLE VI Tax Increment; Taxes Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes ....................................................................... Review of Taxes .................................................................................................. Qualifications ....................................................................................................... ARTICLE VII Financing Mortgage Financing ............................................................................................. ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Representation as to Redevelopment ................................................................... Prohibition Against Redeveloper's Transfer of Property mid Assigmuent of Agreement ................................................................................... Release and Indemnification Covenants .............................................................. ARTICLE IX Events of Default Events of Default Defined ................................................................................... Remedies on Default ............................................................................................ No Remedy Exclusive .......................................................................................... No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ................................................... ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Conflict of Interests; Authority Representatives Not Individually Liable ........... Equal Employment Oppommity .......................................................................... Restrictions on Use .............................................................................................. Provisions Not Merged With Deed ...................................................................... Titles of Articles and Sections ............................................................................. Notices and Demands .......................................................................................... Counterparts ......................................................................................................... SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 Section 10.8. Section 10.9. Section 10.10. Section 10.11. Recording ............................................................................................................. Amendment .......................................................................................................... Authority or City Approvals ................................................................................ Termination .......................................................................................................... SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C SCHEDULE D SCHEDULE E SCHEDULE F SCHEDULE G SCHEDULE H SCHEDULE I Description of Redevelopment Property Master Site Plan Design Guidelines Authorizing Resolution Certification of Completion Public Improvements Budget Public Redevelopment Costs Development Budget Form of Master Redeveloper Pro Fonria SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the __ day of 2004, by and between COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, a public body corporate and politic (the "Authority"), established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (hereinafter refelTed to as the "Act"), the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") and CH LAND, LLC, a Mim~esota limited liability company (the "Redeveloper"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights ("City"); and WHEREAS, the City and the Authority (as successor to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights) have tmdertaken a progrmr~ to promote redevelopment of land that is characterized by blight and blighting factors within the City, and in this com~ection the Authority achni~tisters a redevelopment project lmown as the Downtown CDB Redevelopment Project ("Project") pursuant to Mhmesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority is authorized to acquire real property, or interests therein, and to undertake certain activities to facilitate the redevelopment of real property by private enterprise; and WHEREAS, within the Project, the City and Authority have created the Huset Park Area Tax h~crement Financing District ("TIF District") in order to facilitate redevelopment of certain property in the Project; and WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper have previously entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement dated as of May 10, 2004 regarding redevelopment of the property described in Schedule A hereto, desigmated as the Redevelopment Property; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is intended to supersede and replace the Preliminary Agreement in all respects; and WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfilhnent generally of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: SJB-249272v3 1 CL205-23 ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act" means the Economic Development Authority Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.108, as amended. "Affiliate" means with respect to the Redeveloper (a) any corporation, pam~ership, limited liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Redeveloper, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words "controlling", "controlled by" and "under common control with" shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such entity possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management policies of such entity, whether ownership of voting securities or by contract or otherwise. "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "Authority" means the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, or any successor or assign. "Authority Representative" means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of this Agreement. "Authorizing Resolution" means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form of attached Schedule D to authorize the issuance of the Notes. "Available Tax Increment" has the meaning provided in Section 3.8(a) hereof. "Business Day" means any day except a Saturday, Stmday, legal holiday, a day on which the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close. "Business Subsidy Act" means Minnesota Statues, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended. SJB-249272v3 2 CL205-23 "Certificate of Completion" means the certification provided to the Redeveloper, or the purchaser of any part, parcel or unit of the Redevelopment Property, pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement. "City" means the City of Colurnbia Heights, Minnesota. "Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following for each building: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) basement plans; (4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the Authority may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work. "County" means the County of Anoka, Mi~mesota. "DEED" means the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. "DEED Grant Agreement" means the Contmxtination Cleanup Program Grant Agreement between DEED and the City dated as of December 31, 2003. "Design Guidelines" means the Design Guidelines for the Redevelopment Property attached as Schedule "Development Budget" means the Development Budget attached as Schedule __ "Event of Default" means an action by a party described in Section 9.1 of this Agreement. "HRA Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047. "Holder" means the owner of a Mortgage. "Initial Note" or "Initial Notes" means Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Notes, substantially in the form contained in the Authorizing Resolution, to be delivered by the Authority to the Redeveloper in accordance with Section 3.8 hereof. "Master Site Plan" means the plan for development of the Redevelopment Property, attached as Schedule __ as it may be revised from time to time under Section 4.2. "Met Council" means the Metropolitan Council. "Met Council Grant Agreement" means the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Tax Base Revitalization Account Grant Agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City dated as of SJB-249272v3 3 CL205-23 "Minimum huprovements" means the construction on the Phase I Property of approximately 179 units of owner occupied townhomes, condominiums or cooperative housing mtits, and approximately 11,650 square feet of conuuercial facilities (together, "Phase I"); and the construction on the Phase II Property of approximately 120 units of owner-occupied townhomes ("Phase II"), and the construction on the Phase III Property of approximately 256 owner occupied condominium or cooperative housing units ("Phase III"). "MURA" means the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 117.50 to 117.56, as amended. "Mortgage" means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper which is secured, in whole or in part, with the Redevelopment Property and which is a pennitted encumbrance pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement. "Parcel" means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property. "Parkwaf' means the parkway running through the Redevelopment Property from Jefferson Street NE to 38th Street, as shown on the Master Site Plan. "Phase I", Phase II" and "Phase 1II" have the meaning provided in the definition of Minhnmu Improvements. "Phase I Property," "Phase II Property" and "Phase III Property" mean the respective portions of the Redevelopment Property so designated in the Master Site Plan. "Planning Contract" has the meaning provided in Section 3.1 (b) hereof. "Preliminary Development Agreement" means the Preliminary Development Agreement between the Authority and the Redeveloper dated as of May 10, 2004. "Public Improvements" has the meaning provided in Section 4.10 hereof. "Public Redevelopment Costs" means the costs described in Schedule __ "Redeveloper" means CH Land, LLC or its permitted successors and assigns. "Redevelopment Project" means the Authority's Downtown CDB Redevelopment Project. "Redevelopment Property" means the property so described on Schedule A. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Authority's Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project, as amended. "Refinancing Available Tax Increment" has the meaning provided in Section 3.10(a) hereof. SJB-249272v3 4 CL205-23 "Refinancing Notes" has the metaling provided in Section 3.8(a). "Subdeveloper" has the meaning provided in Section 8.2(a). "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect to the Redevelopment Property and which is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the Tax Increment Act; provided that notwithstanding the original tax capacity of the TIF District certified by the County, Tax Increment will be calculated for the purposes of this Agreement by assuming an original tax capacity for the TIF District based on a market value of $5,200,000. Such market value and resulting original tax capacity will be allocated to specific parcels on a square footage basis. The term Tax Increment does not include any amounts retained by or payable to the State auditor under Section 469.177, subd. 11 of the Tax Increment Act, or any amounts described in Section 469.174, subd. 25, clauses (2) through (4) of the Tax Increment Act. "Tax Increment Act" or "TIF Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended. "Tax Increment District" or "TIF District" means the Authority's Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District. "Tax Increment Plan" or "TIF Plan" means the Authority's Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District, as approved by the Authority and City on ., 2004, and as it may be amended fi:om time to time. "Tax Official" means any County assessor; County auditor; County or State board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court. "Termination Date" means the date the Authority receives the last installment of Tax Increment fi:om the County. "Transfer" has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof. "Unavoidable Delays" means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of war, terrorism, strikes, other labor troubles, fire or other casualty to the Minimum hr~provements, litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local govermxtental unit (other than the Authority in exercising its rights under this Agreement) which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays in the Redeveloper's obtaining of permits or goven~nental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, unless (a) Developer has timely filed any apphcation and materials requh'ed by the City for such permit or approvals, m~d (b) the delay is beyond the reasonable control of the Redeveloper. SJB-249272v3 5 CL205-23 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations and Covenants by the Authority and City. (a) The Authority is an economic development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The Authority and City will use their best efforts to facilitate development of the Minimum Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in obtainh~g necessary administrative and land use approvals and construction and/or permanent financing pursuant to Section 7.1 hereof. (c) The activities of the Authority are undertaken for the purpose of fostering the redevelopment of certain real property that is or was occupied primarily by substandard and obsolete buildings, which will revitalize this portion of the Redevelopment Project, increase tax base, and increase housing and employment opportunities. (d) The City is a home rule charter city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State, and is a state public body under Section 469.041 of the HRA Act. Under the provisions of its charter and the HRA Act, the City has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (e) The City and Authority have taken or will take all actions necessary to establish the T~ District as a redevelopment district as defined in the TIF Act, except for filing the request for certification of the district with the County. Before issuance of any Initial Note, the Authority will file the request for certification of the TIF District. (f) The City and Authority will take no action, nor omit to take any action, regarding the TIF District that materially impairs the collection or payment of Tax Increment. (g) As of the date of this Agreement, the Mhfirnum Improvements constructed in accordance with the Master Site Plan are allowed uses under the City zoning ordinance and are consistent with the City comprehensive Plan. (h) EAW]. As of the date of this Agreement, the City and Authority have [describe status of Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a) The Redeveloper is a limited liability company organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its article of organization or the laws of the State, is duly authorized to transact business within the State, has SJB-249272v3 6 CL205-23 power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body. (b) Upon acquisition of the Redevelopment Property, the Redeveloper will construct, operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the tenns of this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable local, state and federal laws m~d regulations (including, but not limited.to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). (c) The Redeveloper will obtain, in a timely mmmer, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum Improvements may be lawfully constructed. (d) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of any partnership or company restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. (e) The Redeveloper shall promptly advise City in writing of all litigation or claims affecting any part of the Minimum Improvements and all written complaints and charges made by any governmental authority materially affecting the Minimum Improvements or materially affecting Redeveloper or its business which may delay or require changes in construction of the Minimum Improvements. (f) The proposed redevelopment by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for the tax increment financing assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder. (g) As of the date of this Agreement, the Minimum Improvements constructed in accordance with the Master Site Plan are allowed uses under the City zoning ordinance and are consistent with the City comprehensive Plan. (h) As of the date of this Agreement, Redeveloper acknowledges that the City and Authority have [describe status ofEAW]. SJB-249272v3 7 CL205-23 ARTICLE III ProperW, Acquisition~ Conveyance~ Public Redevelopment Cost FinancinR Section 3.1. Status of the Property. (a) As of the date of this Agreement, an Affiliate of the Redeveloper owns Parcel A of the Redevelopment Property (also referred to as the "SR Parcel"). During the term of the Preliminary Development Agreement, an Affiliate also acquired Parcel B and entered into a purchase agreement to acquire Parcel C, in each case for a price the Authority has determined is reasonable. Parcels D, E, F and G are owned by third parties and Redeveloper has not secured purchase agreements for those Parcels as of the date of tlfis Agreement. The Redeveloper must use commercially reasonable efforts to acquire Parcels D, E, F and G through voluntary negotiation, subject to the terms of Section 3.2. As of the date of this Agreement, Redeveloper or an Affiliate has made written offers to owners of all such Parcels. Further commercially reasonable efforts to acquire must include, at a minimum, an offer to mediate if the negotiations are not successful, and any such mediation must occur by October 31, 2004. The Redeveloper must consult with the Authority on any price to be paid for a voluntary acquisition and no voluntary acquisition shall be undertaken except at a price approved by the Authority as reasonable. (b) Redeveloper shall pay all costs to acquire Parcels by vokmtary purchase, and all carry/ng costs on such Parcels (in each case, excluding the SR Parcel). All such costs are subject to reimbursement as a Public Redevelopment Cost in accordance with Section 3.8, provided that interest costs will be reimbursable only to the extent such cost represents interest on any valid evidence of indebtedness under general federal income tax principles. (c) The Redeveloper will acquire the SR Parcel fi:om its Affiliate for a price equal to that Parcel's fair market value (approved by the Authority), which amount will be incorporated in the final Development Budget and used to calculate Redeveloper's net return on costs as described in Section 3.9. For purpose of the Development Budget, Redeveloper's cost of carry on the value of such Parcel (as agreed upon under this paragraph) will be treated as a project cost fi:om November 1, 2004. If the Authority and Redeveloper cannot agree on the fair market value, the parties shall obtain an appraisal by the appraiser conducting the appraisals for the Authority on other Redevelopment Property. Both the Authority and the Redeveloper shall meet with the appraiser and advise of their view of value. If upon completion of the final appraisal the Authority and Redeveloper still cannot agree on value, the Redeveloper shall obtain a separate appraisal by an MAI appraiser of its choice. Following this appraisal, the two parties will further negotiate regarding value. If no agreement is then reached, the Authority and Redeveloper shall submit the matter to arbitration, which determination shall be final. Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary in this Agreement, no Tax Increment shall be paid to Redeveloper as reimbursement for the acquisition cost of the SR Parcel. (d) The Redeveloper shall not Transfer any portion of the Redevelopment Property to any Subdeveloper (or to itself or an Affiliate for any Phase or portion thereof retained and constructed by Redeveloper) at price less than the following: $ 38,500 per townhome SJB-249272v3 8 CL205-23 $ 18,000 $300,000 per condomilfium or cooperative unit for the commercial portion of Phase I The above mnounts are payable at closing on may such Transfer, provided that if the Subdeveloper undertakes site improvements, any portion of such payment attributable to the cost of site improvements on the transferred Parcel may be deducted and paid by the Subdeveloper as those costs are incurred. In addition, each Subdeveloper shall pay to the Redeveloper at closing on such land sale the net present value of Projected Tax Increment from the transferred Parcel (calculated as described in Section 3.8(b) hereof). Section 3.2. Authori _ty Parcels. (a) If the Redeveloper notifies the Authority in writing on or after November 1, 2004 that it has been unsuccessful in accomplishing acquisition of Parcels D, E, G and G voluntarily after commercially reasonable efforts (such notice to include a detailed description of the Redeveloper's acquisition efforts), then the Authority (and City, for any Parcels or portions thereof needed for Parkway right of way) will proceed to acquire all such Parcels (hereinafter referred to as "Authority Parcels") through negotiation or the exercise of its powers of eminent domain to the extent permissible under law. The Authority and City will utilize so-called "quick take" powers under Minnesota Statutes Ch. 117 to the extent needed or desirable to allow the redevelopment described ha this Agreement to proceed in accordance with the overall schedule. The parties will cooperate and consult with one another on any condemnation actions and specifically on the final price to be paid in settlement of any condemnation action. (b) During the pendency of any Authority actions to acquire any Authority Parcel, the Redeveloper shall be required to promptly pay all expenses incurred by the Authority in connection with the prosecution thereof, including legal, survey, title, appraisal, relocation, process service, court costs, and similar expenses (subject to reimbursement as a Public Redevelopment Cost in accordance with Section 3.8). The Authority shall, not more often than monthly during the pendency of the action, furnish the Redeveloper with a written itemized statement of all such expenditures. Redeveloper shall have two weeks from the receipt of such statement to pay its share of the same. (c) Not later than five days prior to any date on which the Authority is required to deposit any amount into court to obtain title and possession to any Authority Parcel, Redeveloper shall deliver to the Authority 100 percent of the amount of any such deposit or payment. The Authority shall then have the right, and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the obligation to use such funds to make such deposit or such payments. The Authority shall have no obligation to repay such funds received deposited or paid pursuant to this Agreement should the redevelopment covered by this Agreement not be completed for any reason, except to the extent provided otherwise in Section 3.2(e) hereof. (d) The Authority will not make the deposit and obtain title to and possession of any Authority Parcel unless: (i) Redeveloper is not in default of any provisions of this Agreement; (ii) The Redeveloper has provided the Authority with an undertaldng in the form of a written agreement and security reasonably acceptable to the Authority (including but not SJB-249272v3 9 CL205-23 limited to a letter of credit, escrow deposit, or lien) that will assure payment by the Redeveloper of: (1) 100 percent of any condemnation award for the Authority Parcel or Parcels in excess of the previously deposited stuns; (2) any relocation benefits for which are not yet paid; (3) the obligation of the Redeveloper under Section 3.2(e) hereof; and (4) the obligation of the Redeveloper under Section 3.2(g ) hereof. Such security shall be in the mnount adequate to ensure performance of the above-described obligations outstanding from time to time and shall remain in effect according to its terms, and in any event, until suitable and adequate substitute security is agreed to by the parties, or until the obligations secured thereby are fully performed. (iii) The Authority is satisfied that the Redeveloper has obtained, or will be obtaining, fee simple title to all other Parcels of the Redevelopment Property required for the relevant Phase (including any property needed for Public Improvements related to that Phase). (e) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if at any time before the Authority takes title or is legally required to take title to all interest in any Authority Parcel, the Redeveloper elects to discontinue the condemnation action, then upon written notice from the Redeveloper, the Authority shall immediately discontinue its acquisition activities, and thereafter the Redeveloper's sole obligation shall be (i) to reimburse the Authority for all costs and expenses incurred by the Authority in connection with the acquisition activities mhd all costs payable by the Redeveloper under Section 3.9, and (ii) to indemnify and save harmless the Authority and the City and their officers, agents and employees and to defend the same from any claim or cause arising out of or occasioned by the discontinuance of such acquisition activities, and the City's mhd Authority's sole remedy shall be to obtain such reimbursement and indemnity from the Redeveloper. Any amounts deposited by the Redeveloper with the Authority under Section 3.2(c) hereof that remain within the control of the Authority shall be applied toward the Redeveloper's obligations hereunder, and the balance of such amounts returned to the Redeveloper upon determination by the Authority in its reasonable discretion that such balance exceeds the amount reasonably expected to be necessary to satisfy the Redeveloper's obligations under this Section 3.2(e); provided that retum of any such balance shall not affect or diminish the Redeveloper's continuing obligations under clause (ii) of this Section 3.2(e). (f) The Authority will execute and deliver to the Redeveloper a quit claim deed for each Authority Parcels on the date the Authority has acquired such Parcel, or on such date as the Authority and Redeveloper mutually agree in writing, subject in any case to the Authority having held a public hearing regarding such conveyance in accordance with Section 429.029 of the HRA Act. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the Authority and the Redeveloper, the execution and delivery of all deeds, documents shall be made at the offices of the Authority. The deed shall be in recordable form and shall be promptly recorded in the proper office for the recordation of deeds and other instruments SJB-249272v3 1 0 CL205-23 pertaining to the Redevelopment Property. At closing on acquisition and conveyance of the Authority Parcels the Redeveloper shall pay: (i) all recording costs, including state deed tax, in connection with acquisition of the Parcel by the Authority and the conveyance thereof to the Redeveloper, including costs of recording any instruments needed to remove title encumbrances; (ii) all property taxes due and payable in the year of closing; (iii) any title company closing fees and any other fees related to the transaction. (g) The purchase price to be paid to the Authority by the Redeveloper in exchange for conveyance of the Authority Parcels is the Authority's actual cost of acquisition of such Parcels together with all costs of condemnation including relocation and attorney fees, provided that any amounts paid or deposited by the Redeveloper under Section 3.2 shall be credited against the purchase price, and further provided that in the event the Authority takes title and possession of Authority Parcels under Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.042 before final determination of the damage award, the Redeveloper shall remain obligated to pay to the Authority, within five days after written notice thereof, any additional costs of acquisition through final determination of the damage award under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117, to the extent such costs exceed amonnts paid or deposited under Section 3.2. Section 3.3. Relocation. (a) The Redeveloper shall pay all relocation costs (unless properly waived as described in paragraph (b) below) in accordance with MURA, arising fi:om acquisition of all Parcels of the Redevelopment Property, whether acquired voluntarily or by condemnation. The parties agree and understand that prior to the date of this Agreement, Redeveloper retained Evergreen Land Services ("Relocation Consultant") as a relocation consultant on behalf of the Authority, regarding the relocation benefits and payments to be provided to owners and tenants of the Redevelopment Property. Redeveloper and Authority agree and understand that they will continue to work with the Relocation Consultant (or any successor appointed by the Authority) regarding relocation matters under this Agreement. Any relocation costs paid by Redeveloper are a reimbursable Public Redevelopment Cost in accordance with Section 3.8. (b) For each Parcel the Redeveloper acquires by voluntary acquisition, before closing the Redeveloper must deliver to the Authority either (i) certification fi:om the Relocation Consultant describing in detail the relocation services, payments and benefits to be provided; or (ii) a written relocation waiver agreement, in a form approved by the Authority and which includes the Authority as an express third-party beneficiary, specifically describing the type and amounts of relocation assistance services, payments and benefits for which eligible, separately listing those services being waived. In addition, the Redeveloper shall furnish to the Authority a written certification fi:om the Relocation Consultant that prior to execution of any relocation waiver agreement, the Relocation Consultant explained the contents thereof to the owner-occupant. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, the waiver option under clause (ii) may not be used for tenants of any Parcel (unless the tenant is also an owner of the Parcel or an Affiliate of the Owner); instead, the Redeveloper must comply with the provisions of clause (i). SJB-249272v3 1 1 CL205-23 (c) Without limiting the Redeveloper's obligations under Section 8.3 hereof, the Redeveloper will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City, and their governing body members, employees, agents, and contractors from any and all claims for benefits or payments arising out of the relocation or displacement of any person from the Redevelopment Property (whether from any Authority Parcel or otherwise) as a result of the implementation of this Agreement. Section 3.4. Platting. (a) Before commencing construction of each Phase, the Redeveloper shall prepare and obtain City approval of a plat of the relevant portion of the Redevelopment Property at Redeveloper's cost and subject to all City ordinances and procedures. The plat must be consistent with the Master Site Plan, provided that nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the City's authority in reviewing any preliminary or final plat, or to preclude revisions requested or required by the City. The City and Authority will cooperate in all replatting. The relationship between the Master Site Plan and the plat is further described in Section 4.2(a) hereof. The Redeveloper must dedicate to the City, at no cost, all public rights of way needed for the Parkway, storm water ponding area and any necessary utility easements. (b) In cmmection with each plat, the parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper and City will enter into a development agreement (the "Planning Contract") that addresses planning and land use requirements and is consistent with the covenants regarding the Minimum Improvements and Public Improvements described in Article IV hereof. (c) The City will vacate existing streets and rights of way as needed to effectuate each plat. The Redeveloper will cooperate with the City in this effort, including without limitation filing any requests or consents required under City ordinances or State law. (d) The Redeveloper shall pay all SAC and WAC fees and park dedication fees in accordance with applicable City policies and ordinances. The Redeveloper will receive SAC/WAC credits applicable to the Redevelopment Property, and a credit against park dedication fees for the portion of the storm water pond dedication area not used for the storm water pond (such credit being in the amount of the fair market value of that land area). The details of SAC,WAC and park dedication fees, including amounts and timing of payment, will be specified in each Planning Contract. Section 3.5. Contamination Cleanup Phase I. (a) The City will promptly undertake all contm2ination cleanup activities (the "Cleanup Costs") on the Phase I Property specified in the DEED Grant Agreement and the Met Council Grant Agreement. The DEED Grant Agreement requires tliat a portion of the Cleanup Costs must be paid with a local match. The City, Authority and Redeveloper agree that the required local match will be made from (1) the amount of the Met Council grant, together with (2) the amount deposited by the Redeveloper in accordance with Section 3.5(b) hereof. (b) On or before the first disbursement of DEED grant proceeds to pay Cleanup Costs after the date of this Agreement, the Redeveloper must deposit with the Authority the Redeveloper's share of the local match required under the DEED Grant Agreement (currently estimated to be $340,949), together with any additional amounts needed to cover cost overruns as described in paragraph (c) below (collectively the "Redeveloper Escrow"). The Redeveloper Escrow shall be held and applied by the City solely for the purposes described in this Section. Interest earnings on the Redeveloper Escrow shall be credited to that account. Upon the final SJB-249272v3 12 CL205-23 disbursement for Cleanup Costs under this Section, any balance in the Redeveloper Escrow shall be returned to the Redeveloper. The amounts deposited in the Redeveloper Escrow will be reimbursable Public Redevelopment Costs to the extent permitted by law. (c) If Cleanup Costs for Phase I exceed the aggregate amount of the DEED grant, Met Council grant and the Redeveloper Escrow, such excess shall be the sole responsibility of the Redeveloper. Redeveloper shall deposit such additional amounts in the Redeveloper Escrow within 30 days after Authority determines such costs with reasonable certainty and notifies Redeveloper in writing. However, if additional contamination is found in buildings on the Phase I property during the course of cleanup activities, the Authority or City will apply for additional DEED grant funds for Phase I, which, if awarded, will be applied to offset Redeveloper's obligation under this paragraph. (d) The Redeveloper hereby grants to the Authority and City a temporary right of access over, under and across any portion of the Phase I Property now or hereafter owned by Redeveloper, for the purpose of undertaldng the Cleanup Costs. Such right of access is in effect for the time deemed reasonably necessary by the Authority or City to carry out the Cleanup Costs. (e) The City will commence the Cleanup Costs on Parcels of the Phase I Property owned by Redeveloper as soon as reasonably practicable after the date of this Agreement, and will use its best efforts to complete Cleanup Costs on all the Phase I Property in a timely fashion that accommodates the construction schedule for Phase I, subject to Redeveloper (or the Authority, under Section 3.2) having acquired title to such property. (f) Redeveloper and the Authority will cooperate to obtain all necessary and desirable VIC and VPIC approvals from the Pollution Control Agency to assure no liability for Redeveloper, the Authority and the City from acquisition and clean-up of Phase I. Costs of any VIC or VPIC approvals paid by Redeveloper shall be a Public Redevelopment Cost. Section 3.6. Contamination Cleanup Phases II and m. (a) The City or Authority, as appropriate, will timely apply with DEED and the Met Council for contamil~ation cleanup grants for Phases 11 and III according to the following schedule: For Phase II, apply in fall 2004; if unsuccessful, re-apply in spring 2005 grant cycle. For Phase III, apply in spring 2005; if unsuccessful, reply in fall 2005 grant cycle. (b) Redeveloper will cooperate and assist with all grant applications. For any grants awarded, the Redeveloper will pay any DEED Local Match (to the extend not satisfied by a Met Council grant), subject to reimbursement as a Public Redevelopment Cost to the extent permitted by law. To the extent grants are obtained for Phases II and III, the terms of Section 3.5 shall apply. The parties further agree to amend this Agreement as needed to CalTy out the terms of the future grant agreements or otherwise implement the contamination cleanup on the Phase II and 11I Property. (c) If, after the two grant cycles for each Phase described in paragraph (a) above, the City or Authority does not receive DEED and Met Council grant funds in at least the amount of 87.5 percent of the projected Cleanup Costs for such Phase (excluding demolition costs), the Authority and Redeveloper will each be responsible for half of any unfunded Cleanup Costs for the respective SJB-249272v3 13 CL205-23 Phases, provided that in no event shall the Authority's obligation under this paragraph for Phases II and III combined exceed $1,000,000. The parties acknowledge to each other that the grant amounts estimated to be needed are $791,512 for Phase II and $1,069,737 for Phase III. This arrangement does not affect the Redeveloper's share of the DEED local match for each Phase, wlfich shall be funded by the Redeveloper. Each party must provide its share of unfunded Cleanup Costs at the times required to commence Phases II and III, subject to financing under the following terms: (i) The Authority may finance its share with an internal loan, revenue bonds or City-issued general obligation bonds (collectively referred to an "Authority Subordinate Note"), secured by Tax Increment subordinate to the Initial Notes and any Refinancing Notes. Any internal loan will carry interest at the maximum rate permitted under Section 469.178, subd. 7 of the TIF Act (which rate may be adjusted annually); and any bonds will be subject to market interest rates. (ii) The Redeveloper will receive as potential repayment for its share a tax increment revenue note (the "Redeveloper Subordinate Note") secured by Tax Increment subordinate to the Initial Notes, any Refinancing Notes, and any Authority Subordinate Note. The Redeveloper Subordinate Note will carry interest at the same rate as any outstanding Initial Notes, and if none are outstanding, at the rate of any outstanding Refinancing Notes. (iii) To the extent Refinancing Available Tax Increment will support a greater principal amount of Refinancing Notes than needed to prepay the Initial Notes, the excess proceeds will be used to prepay the Authority Subordinate Note and the Redeveloper Subordinate Note pro rata based on the outstanding principal amounts of such notes, subject to all the terms and conditions of Section 3.10. Section 3.7. Environmental Warranties and Indemnities. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of such property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement neither imphes any responsibility by the Authority or the City for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of such property except as expressly provided otherwise in Section 3.5. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02. Section 3.8. Issuance of Initial Notes. (a) Generally. In order to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible, the Authority will reimburse the Redeveloper for Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper through issuance of one or more Initial Notes in accordance with the terms of this Section. The Authority will issue the Initial Notes in series, with each Initial Note secured by the Available Tax Increment from a specified parcel of the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The term "Available Tax Increment" means, on any hfitial Note payment date, 90 percent of the Tax Increment from such Parcel received by the Authority in the six-month period before such payment date; provided that SJB-249272v3 14 CL205-23 while any Authority Subordinate Note described in Section 3.6(c) is outstanding, "80 percent" is substituted for "90 percent" in this sentence. (b) Principal Amount. The maximum aggregate principal mnount of all htitial Notes is $7,955,400, which represents the mrtount of assistance needed to provide Redeveloper a 15 percent rettm~ on costs as master Redeveloper, as shown in the Development Budget attached as Schedule __ The aggregate principal mount of Initial Notes is subject to adjustment as described in Section 3.9. The principal amount of any individual Initial Note will be the net present value of the Projected Tax Increment attributable to the specified Parcel and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, assuming the interest rate specified in paragraph (c). The term "Projected Tax Increment" means 80 percent of the Tax Increment fi:om the subject Parcel for the maxhmur~ duration of the TIF District under law, assuming market values for the subject Minimum hnprovements as estimated by the Authority in consultation with the Redeveloper as of issuance of the Initial Note, and class rates mad tax rates applicable in the year of issuance. (c) Terms. Each Initial Note will bear interest (a) the market rate, for Initial Notes transferred to a third party, subject to Authority approval of underwriting assumptions; and (b) at a rate of 6 per annum for Initial Notes owned by the Redeveloper. Initial Notes will be paid in semi-mmual installments on each February 1 mad August 1, cormnencing with the first August 1 after Available Tax Increment is anticipated to be received fi:om the subject Parcel and concluding no later than February 1 of the year following the last calendar year in which the Authority receives Tax Increment fi:om the TI1:? District. Interest on each Initial Note will accrue fi:om the date of delivery of the Initial Note in accordance with paragraph (d) below. The payment schedule for each Note will be calculated by assuming that interest accruing fi'om the date of original issue through and including the February 1 before first payment date is compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal. (d) Certification of Public Redevelopment Costs. The Initial Notes will be issued in consideration of payment by Redeveloper of Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper and not paid with any other public financing source under this Agreement, and subject to the priorities of application described ha Schedule __ Before issuance and delivery of any Initial Note, Redeveloper must submit to the Authority one or more certificates signed by the Redeveloper's duly authorized representative, contain/ng the following: (i) a statement that each cost identified in the certificate is a Public Redevelopment Cost as defined in this Agreement and that no part of such cost has been included in any previous certification or any disbursement fi:om any other public financing source described in Article VII hereof, (ii) evidence that each identified Public Redevelopment Cost has been paid or incurred by or on behalf of the Redeveloper, and (iii) a statement that no uncured Event of Default by the Redeveloper has occurred and is continuing under the Agreement. The Authority may, if not satisfied that the conditions described herein have been met, return any certificate with a statement of the reasons why the it is not acceptable and requesting such further documentation or clarification as the Authority may reasonably require. The Redeveloper may apply Public Redevelopment Costs incm-red anywhere within the Redevelopment Property toward the principal amount of any htitial Note. The Authority and Redeveloper agree to develop a suitable accounting system to track Public Redevelopment Costs and othelwvise comply with the terms of this Section and the TIF Act. SJB-249272v3 1 5 CL205-23 (e) Authorization and Delivery. Each Initial Note will be issued in substantially the form set forth in the Authorizing Resolution attached as Schedule __ Each Authorizing Resolution will be approved upon mutual detenuination by the Authority and Redeveloper of the principal amounts of and payment schedule for each Initial Note in accordance with the terms of this Section. The obligation to deliver each Initial Note is conditioned upon (i) the Redeveloper having delivered to the Authority an investment letter for the Initial Note in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority; and (ii) the Redeveloper having delivered to the Authority, and the Authority having accepted, certification of Public Redevelopment Costs in accordance with paragraph (d) in at least the principal amount of the Initial Note; and (iii) there being no uncured Event of Default by Redeveloper under this Agreement with respect to the relevant Phase. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if the conditions for delivery of the any Initial Note are not met with/n five years after the date of certification of the TIF District by the County, the Redeveloper's riglits and interest to receive such Initial Note terminate. 09 No representations. The Redeveloper m~derstands and acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the mnount of Projected Tax Increment or Available Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to any Initial Note will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on such Initial Note. Any estimates of Tax Increment prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF District or this Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as representations on which the Redeveloper may rely. If the Public Redevelopment Costs exceed the principal amount of the Initial Notes, such excess is the sole responsibiliy of Redeveloper. Section 3.9 TIF Lookback. (a) Generally. The financial assistance to Redeveloper trader this Agreement is based on certain assumptions regarding likely costs and expenses affecting the Minimum Improvements and proceeds to be derived by the Redeveloper from the sale of the Redevelopment Property. Specifically, the maximum aggregate principal amount of the Initial Notes has been determined based on the amotmt of assistance needed to provide Redeveloper a 15 percent return on costs, as shown in the current Development Budget attached as Schedule __ The Authority and Redeveloper agree that those assmnptions will be reviewed at the times described in this Section, and that the amount of Tax Increment assistance under Section 3.8 will be adjusted accordingly. (b) Master Redeveloper. For all portions of the Redevelopment Property where Redeveloper acts as master Redeveloper (i.e., assembles land but Transfers to Subdevelopers who construct the Phase or portions thereof), the Redeveloper shall submit certified cost and revenue analysis to the Authority's financial advisor in the form of the Development Budget and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As shown in Schedule __, the Development Budget shall include a contingency for increases in cost of $100,000. Further, the following costs will be excluded fi'om calculation of remm on costs: (1) a monthly administration fee for Redeveloper's activities as the master Redeveloper equal to $10,000 per month from January 1, 2004 through the date of sale of the last housing unit for all Phases (but not exceed 50 months); (2) special assessments paid by Redeveloper; (3) cost overruns for Cleanup Costs as described in Section 3.6(c); and (4) any increase in the value of the SR Parcel determined under Section 3.1(c) over the value of such Parcel reflected in the original Development Budget. The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the Authority's consultant any background documentation related SJB-249272v3 16 CL205-23 to the financial data, upon request. The Authority may retain an accountant to audit the submitted Development Budget, at Redeveloper's cost. The Development Budget must be submitted (i) within 60 days after substantial completion of each Phase in which Redeveloper acted as master Redeveloper for all or any portion of the property; and (ii) before issuance of the final Initial Note that will bring the aggregate principal amount of all Initial Notes to the maximum specified in Section 3.8(b). At the time of final review under clause (ii) above, the Authority will determine whether the aggregate return on net costs is higher or lower than shown in Schedule __ If the net costs are higher, the maximum aggregate principal amount of Initial Notes will be increased by 80 percent of such next excess figure. This increase will be added to the final Initial Note, subject to compliance with all other terms and conditions of Section 3.8. If the net costs are lower than shown in Schedule __., the maximum aggregate principal amount of Initial Notes will be reduced by 50 percent of such net savings figure. The reduction will be applied to reduce the principal amount of the final Initial Note, or, if the reduction exceeds the potential amount of final Initial Note, will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of any outstanding Initial Note. Such prepayment will be effective upon delivery to Redeveloper of a written notice stating the amount of required prepayment determined by the Authority in accordance with this Section. (c) Redeveloper as full developer. For all portions of the Redevelopment Property where Redeveloper constructs the Phase or portions thereof, before commencement of construction the Authority and Redeveloper shall mutually agree in writing on a development pro forma for that Phase or portion thereof allowing for 12 percent net profit to Redeveloper. The pro forma must be in substantially the form of the Master Redeveloper Pro Forma attached as Schedule __., and net profit will be calculated substantially as described in that schedule. The parties agree and understand that the pro forma will permit administrative costs and overhead costs in the amount of $5,000 per month for up to 20 months, which amounts are excluded from net profit. Within 60 days after substantial completion of the relevant Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit certified cost and revenue analysis to the Authority's financial advisor in the form of the final Master Redeveloper Pro Forma and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the Authority's consultant any background documentation related to the financial data, upon request. The Authority may retain an accountant to audit the submitted pro forma, at Redeveloper's cost. At the time of final review under this paragraph, the Authority will determine whether the net profit is higher or lower than shown in the pro forma. If the net profits exceed 12.0 percent but are less than 15.0 percent, then 25 percent of the excess profit will be applied to reduce the principal amount the Initial Note related to that Phase or portion thereof. If the net profits exceed 15.0 percent, then 50 percent of the excess profit will be applied to reduce the principal amount of the Initial Note related to that Phase or portion thereof. In each case, the reduction will be applied to reduce the principal amount of the relevant Initial Note if it has not been issued at the time of this calculation, or will be applied to prepayment if the relevant Initial Note is outstanding. Such prepayment will be effective upon delivery to Redeveloper of a written notice stating the amount of required prepayment determined by the Authority in accordance with this Section. Any prepayment or reduction under tlfis paragraph is in addition to the prepayment and reduction described in paragraph (b). SJB-249272v3 17 CL205-23 Section3.10. Authority Refinancing of Initial Notes. (a) Generally. Upon Redeveloper's request, the Authority will refinance the outstanding principal mr~ount of any Initial Note by issuing one or more tax-exempt tax increment revenue notes or bonds (the "Refinancing Notes") to one or more third parties, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. The Refinancing Notes may be issued in one or more series, or in series over time. Refinancing Notes will be secured solely by "Refinancing Available Tax Increment," which means, in any tax- payable year, all the Tax Increment from the relevant Parcels in that year less $10,000 retainage for Authority administration (such retainage to be allocated among all Refinancing Notes on a pro rata basis). Redeveloper and the Authority will reasonably and timely cooperate with the refinancing efforts, including providing requested information and attorney opinions and signing documents. Redeveloper shall be solely responsible for securing buyer(s) for the Refinancing Notes. (b) Principal Amount, Terms. Issuance of any Refinancing Note is subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The revenue stream for Refinancing Notes will be based on estimates of Refinancing Available Tax Increment fi.om the relevant Minimum Improvements for the duration of the TIF District based on the actual estimated market value (as determined by the County Assessor's Office) of the relevant Parcel and portion of the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon, including a 1 percent annual inflation factor; (2) Estimates of Refinancing Available Tax Increment (reviewed and approved by the Authority) must provide at least 120 percent debt service coverage on the Refinancing Notes, subject to adjustment if market conditions permit less and the Authority approves. (3) The Authority must approve of all underwriting terms and assumptions, provided that the Authority's consent will not be unreasonably withheld; (4) No Refinancing Note will be issued later than 18 months after the later of (i) the date the expenditures for Public Redevelopment Costs allocated to the relevant Initial Note were paid, or (ii) the date the facilities financed by the Initial Note are placed in service but no later than 3 years after the date of the original expenditure of the Public eligible for the small-issuer rebate exception ~der Section 148(0(0(D) of the ~temal Revenue Code of 1986 as mended, the "18 month" limitation above is changed to "3 years" ~d the "3-year" maximum period in clause (ii) is disreg~ded. Tlfis p~a~aph does not apply if (1) the Refin~cing Note is issued on a taxable basis, or (2) the Authority receives an opinion of a nationally-reco~ized bond co~sel selected by the Authority to the effect that the Refinancing Note represents re~mding of ~ "obligation" as defined in Treasury Regulations 1.150-1 (b). (5) Issuance of any Refinancing Note is subject to market, legal and timing constraints described in paragraph (c) below. SJB-249272v3 1 8 CL205-23 (c) Timing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority shall have the option to delay issuance of any Refinancing Note temporarily or for as long as the following conditions exist: (1) The Authority is prohibited fi:om issuing any Refinancing Note pursuant to changes in federal law enacted after the date of this Agreement; (2) Substantial adverse changes in the market conditions have occurred that make it infeasible to refinance a Initial Note on a reasonable basis, as confirmed by a bond underwriter to the Redeveloper and Authority in writing; or (3) Delay is necessary to ensure that either the Authority or City will issue less than $10,000,000 of "qualified exempt obligations" (as defined in Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) in the year of issuance of the Refinancing Notes; provided that the Authority may not delay issuance under this clause if such delay would extend issuance past the time required for issuance of a Refinancing Note under Section 3.10(b)(4). (d) Redeveloper Responsibility Upon Refinancing. If the Authority determines that the net proceeds of a series of Refinancing Notes will be insufficient to prepay the entire principal amount of the relevant outstanding Initial Note or that the Refinancing Notes can not be issued, the Redeveloper shall: either: (1) upon issuance of the Refinancing Notes, return the relevant Initial Note to the Authority along with an unconditional release fi:om the Redeveloper an any assignee owner of the Initial Note, which tenrtinates the Authority's obligations with respect to the unpaid principal of and accrued interest on the Initial Note, (2) provide written assurances to the Authority, deemed acceptable to the Authority, that the Redeveloper will deliver to the Authority on or before the date of issuance of the Refinancing Notes an amount which, along with the net proceeds of the Refinancing Notes, will be sufficient to prepay the relevant outstanding Initial Note (the "Cash Requirement"); and deliver the Cash Requirement to the Authority, in immediately available funds, no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes or, if the Refinancing Notes are not issued, no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the final maturity date of the Initial Note; or (3) provide a written notice to the Authority that Redeveloper waives its right to request issuance of the relevant Refinancing Notes, in which event the relevant Initial Note will not be prepaid but will remain in full force and effect; or, if Redeveloper requests issuance of the Refinancing Note such that the Initial Note will be prepaid on part but not in whole, the Redeveloper accepts a subordinate tax increment revenue note in the amount of the remaining balance of the Initial Note, secured by Available Tax Increment subordinate to the Refinancing Notes and any outstanding Authority Subordinate Note. SJB-249272v3 19 CL205-23 (e) Excess Proceeds of Refinancing Notes. If the Authority determines that the net proceeds of a series of Refinancing Notes will exceed the amount needed to prepay the relevant outstanding Initial Note, such excess proceeds will be applied to prepay to the Authority Subordinate Note and the Redeveloper Subordinate Note under the terms described in Section 3.6(c). 09 Redeveloper Representations. The Redeveloper makes the following representations to the Authority with respect to the Refinancing Notes: (1) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action, the effect of which will be to cause any Refinancing Note to be determined to be a "private activity bond" (as such term is defined in Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and in applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated pursuant to applicable provisions of the Code (the "Regulations") (2) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action, the effect of which will be to cause the "private security or payment test" (as such term is defined in Section 141 of the Code and in applicable Regulations) or the "private loan financing test (as such term is defined in Section 141 of the Code and in applicable Regulations to be satisfied with respect to the Refinancing Notes. (3) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action, the effect of which will be to cause any Refinancing Note to be determined to be an "arbitrage bond"(as such term is defined in Section 148 of the Code and in applicable Regulations). (4) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action, the effect of which will be to cause interest on any Refinancing Note to be includable in gross income for federal income tax pm-poses. (g) Other Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, from and after the date of issuance of any Refinancing Note, the Authority shall have no right to enforce, and the Redeveloper shall have no obligations under Sections 6.1 and 8.3 of this Agreement, unless and to the extent that the Authority shall have received an opinion of a nationally-recognized bond counsel selected by the Authority to the effect that the receipt by the Authority of such payment will not cause the interest on the Refinancing Notes to become includable in gross income of the holder thereof for pm-poses of federal income taxation. Section 3.11. Payment of Authority Costs. The Redeveloper is responsible to pay "Authority Costs," which term means out-of pocket-costs incurred by the City or Authority after December 1, 2003 for: (i) the Authority's financial advisor in connection with the Authority's financial participation in redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property, including without limitation all costs related to establishment of any development or tax increment financing districts, (ii) the City or Authority's legal counsel in connection with negotiation and drafting of the Preliminary Agreement, this Agreement and any related agreements or documents, and any legal services related to the Authority's financial participation in redevelopment of the Property; (iii) any consultants retained in connection with analysis of the Redevelopment Property for eligibility for designation as a redevelopment project or as a redevelopment tax increment financing district; (iv) SJB-249272v3 20 CL205-23 any consultants retained in connection with the preparation and approval of an EAW and any other state or federal approval for the Redevelopment; and (v) consultants retained by the City and Authority for planning, environmental review, and engineering for the Redevelopment, including the zoning and land use approvals and Public Improvements feasibility studies and approvals and applications for any additional grant funding. Costs in connection with the environmental remediation of Phase I shall not be Authority Costs and shall be funded by the grants obtained for such purpose. In addition City and Authority staff costs and costs and expenses shall not be Authority Costs. (b) At any time, but not more often than monthly, the City or Authority may request payment of Authority Costs, and the Developer agrees to pay all Authority Costs (in excess of the initial deposit made under the Preliminary Development Agreement), within ten days of the City or Authority's written request, supported by suitable billings, receipts or other evidence of the amount and nature of Authority Costs incurred. At Redeveloper's request, but no more often than monthly, the Authority will provide Developer with a written report on current and anticipated expenditures for Authority Costs, including invoices or other comparable evidence. Any Authority Costs paid by Redeveloper are a Public Redevelopment Cost reimbursable under Section 3.8 to the extent permitted by law. Section 3.12. Business Subsidy. (a) The parties agree and understand that any assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement with respect to Phases I is not a "business subsidy" under the Business Subsidy Act because the Tax Increment assistance is primarily for housing and entirely for redevelopment property polluted by contamh~ants as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.552, subd. 3; and the DEED and Met Council grant assistance is entirely for pollution control and abatement. In addition, any assistance provided with respect to Phases II and llI is entirely for housing and for redevelopment property polluted by contaminants. (b) Notwithstanding the exclusion of the assistance under this Agreement from the definition of business subsidy, Redeveloper shall file the reports required under Section 116J.994, subd. 7 (c) of the Business Subsidy Act by March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2005 and continuing until issuance of the final Certificate of Completion for all three Phases. For the purposes of such reports, the parties agree and understand that the goals of the assistance are to accomphsh the cleanup of contaminants on the Redevelopment Property, and to achieve redevelopment of the property as evidence by completion of the Minknum Improvements according to the phasing schedule described in Article IV. The form of the report is further described in Section 4.8 hereof. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the Authority will mail the Developer a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper must pay to the Authority a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section $1,000. (c) The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the Authority and the City and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any claim that the Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement. SJB-249272v3 21 CL205-23 Section 3.13. Other Grants. The Authority, City and Redeveloper will cooperate to obtain other grants to fund costs of the redevelopment described in this Agreement, including without limitation Metropolitan Council Liveable Communities Funds. To the extent obtained, such funds shall provide enhanced amenities or offset other public costs. SJB-249272v3 22 CL205-23 ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements and Public Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Minimum hr~provements. (a) The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property, in accordance with approved Construction Plans and at all times while Redeveloper owns the Redevelopment Property, will operate and maintain, preserve and keep the respective components of the Minimum Improvements or cause such components be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition. Section 4.2. Master Site Plan and Construction Plans. (a) Master Site Plan. The initial Master Site Plan for the Redevelopment Property is attached hereto as Schedule __ The parties agree and understand that the Master Site Plan may be refined and modified as part of the review and approval process for each plat, subject to approval by the Authority. (b) Construction Plans. Before commencing construction of each Phase, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the subject Phase. The City's chief building official and community development director will review and approve all Construction Plans on behalf of the Authority, and for the purposes of this Section the term "Authority" means those named officials. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the subject Phase and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Master Site Plan as it may be revised, the Design Guidelines, the T~ Plan, the relevant Planning Contract and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction Plans in writing or by issuance of a permit if (i) the Construction Plans conform to all terms and conditions of the Master Site Plan, the Design Guidelines, this Agreement, the final plat for the relevant Phase and the relevant Planning Contract; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the T~ Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the subject Phase; and (v) there is no uncured Event of Default. No approval by the Authority shall relieve the Redeveloper of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct the subject Phase in accordance therewith. No approval by the Authority shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default, or waiver of any State or City building or other code requirements that may apply. Within 30 days after receipt of complete Construction Plans and permit applications for a building within any Phase, the Authority will dehver to the Redeveloper an initial review letter describing any comments or changes requested by Authority staff. Thereafter, the parties shall negotiate in good faith regarding £mal approval of Construction Plans for that building. The Authority's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the subject Phase, constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the Authority's satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto. The Redeveloper hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever resulting fi:om the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the Construction Plans requested by the Authority, except for any failure by Authority to perform its obligations under SJB-249272v3 23 CL205-23 this Section. Neither the Authority, the City, nor any employee or official of the Authority or City shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect in the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including changes requested by the Authority. (c) Construction Plan Changes. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans or any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the Authority for its approval. If the Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the Authority shall approve the proposed change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the Authority to the Redeveloper, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made as soon as reasonably practicable but in any event within 30 days after receipt of the notice of such change. The Authority's approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be um'easonably withheld. Section 4.3. Completion of Construction. (a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays and the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) below, the Minimum Improvements must be constructed in accordance with the following schedule: Phase I: Must commence site improvements within 1 year after the date of this Agreement, and must substantially complete all internal site improvements, including roads, together with all the commercial improvements mad at least 80 percent of required number of housing units, within 3 years after the date of this Agreement. Phase II: Must commence internal site improvements within 3 years after the date of this Agreement, and must substantially complete all internal site improvements, including roads, together with at least 80 percent of required number of housing units, within 3 years after the date of this Agreement. In addition, all Parcels required for Phase II must be acquired within 2 years after the date of this Agreement. Phase III: Must commence internal site improvements commenced within 4 years after the date of this Agreement, and must complete all internal site improvements, including roads, together with at least 80 percent of required number of housing units, within 3 years after the date of this Agreement. In addition, all Parcels required for Phase III must be acquired within 2 years after the date of this Agreement. (b) The parties agree and understand that the number and type of units and construction schedule for each Phase may be adjusted, subject to approval by the Authority Representative, except that if the total number of units for any Phase is reduced by 10 percent or more, such change must be approved by the Authority's board of commissioners. The parties also acknowledge that the final numbers and types of units will be specified in the Planning Contract for each Phase. SJB-249272v3 24 CL205-23 (c) All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority, and with the Planning Contract. If the Redeveloper is making substantial progress with respect to the redevelopment project, and is unable to meet one or more of the above-referenced deadlines, the Authority and the Redeveloper shall negotiate in good faith for a reasonable period to extend the time in which necessary action(s) must be taken or occur, the lapse of which time would otherwise constitute a default under this Agreement. The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, mhd every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. Subsequent to conveyance of the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, to the Redeveloper, and until construction of the Minimum Improvements has been completed, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such construction. Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after substantial completion of the Minimum Improvements (and each Phase thereof) in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for completion thereof), the Authority will furnish the Redeveloper with a Certificate of Completion in substantially the form attached as Schedule C. Such certification by the Authority shall be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements mhd covenants in the Agreement and in any deed with respect to the obligations of the Redeveloper, and its successors and assigns, to construct the relevant Phase of the Minimum Improvements and the dates for the completion thereof. Such certification and such determination shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of. the Redeveloper to any Holder of a Mortgage, or any insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the Minimum Improvements, or any part thereof. (b) Upon Redeveloper's request, the Authority shall furnish to the Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion for each housing unit upon substantial completion of such unit, as evidenced by issuance of a certificate of occupancy therefor by the responsible inspecting authority. (c) Each Certificate of Completion provided for in this Section 4.4 of this Agreement shall be in such form as will enable it to be recorded in the proper office for the recordation of deeds mhd other instruments pertaining to the Redevelopment Property. If the Authority shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will SJB-249272v3 25 CL205-23 be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. (d) The construction of the Minimum huprovements or any Phase thereof shall be deemed to be substantially complete for the purposes of this Agreement when the Redeveloper has received a certificate of occupancy from the City for the required number of housing units specified in Section 4.3(a) for that Phase, and the specified site improvements for that Phase have been substantially completed as reasonably detenuined by the Authority Representative. In the case of Phase I, the certificate of occupancy for commercial improvements may exclude tenant build-outs. Section 4.5. Grant Covenants. (a) As required under the DEED Grant Agreement for Phase I, at least 20 percent of the number of units required for Phase I must be sold initially at a purchase price not to exceed 110 percent of the maximum affordable price under Met Council guidelines in effect in the year of the sale. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for Phase I (and in any event, prior to issuing any Refinancing Note related to Phase I), Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority evidence of compliance with this Section, including at a minimum certificates of real estate value delivered at closing for the required number of units. (b) If the Authority or City receives DEED cleanup grants for Phase II and/or III, and the grant imposes similar requirements, the provisions of paragraph (a) apply for those Phases. Section 4.6. Association Covenants. (a) Upon execution of the Planning Contract for each Phase or portion thereof, the Authority shall be entitled to review and approve the initial articles, bylaws and declaration of restrictive covenants for the townhome or condominium association (the "Association") to be created (collectively, the "Housing Association Documents"). (b) The Housing Association Documents shall include at least the following provisions, unless and to the extent any provisions are prohibited by rules of federal agencies, quasi-federal agencies or similar nationally recognized entities providing financing or guarantees for construction or purchase of the Minimum Improvements: (i) a requirement that each unit owner be a member of the Association; (ii) a requirement that the Association have the authority to assess unit owners; (iii) a requirement that the Association establish a maintenance fund for exteriors, common areas and utilities including an mmual assessment per unit reasonably acceptable to the Authority; and (iv) a long-term plan providing for maintenance and replacement reasonably acceptable to the Authority, describing the timing, cost and monthly assessment needed to pay such costs. Section 4.7. Records. The Authority, the Met Council, DEED, the Legislative Auditor and the State Auditor's office, through any authorized representatives, shall have the right after reasonable notice to inspect, examine and copy all books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Public Redevelopment Costs and the Minimum Improvements. Redeveloper shall also use reasonable efforts to cause the contractor or contractors, all sub-contractors and their agents and lenders to make their books and records relating to the Public Redevelopment Costs available to the Authority, upon SJB-249272v3 26 CL205~23 reasonable notice, for inspection, examination and audit. Redeveloper shall maintain such records and provide such rights of inspection for a period of six years after issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements. Section 4.8. Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the Authority a written report at least quarterly, commencing March 1, 2005 and continuing until issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the final Phase of the Minimum Improvements. The report must describe progress on construction of the Minimum Improvements and must comply with the DEED Grant Agreement, the Met Council Grant Agreement, and Section 116J.994, subd. 7(c) of the Business Subsidy Act. The Authority will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms. Section 4.9. Aclcnowledgements. During work on the Public Redevelopment Costs and and the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper must post a sign on the site containing the following or similar language: This project was financed in part through the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, with grant funds provided by the Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, and by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Section 4.10. Construction of Public Improvements. (a) City Responsibilities. The City will construct the Parkway; all sewer and water utilities in the Parkway fight of way; and the storm sewer improvements and open space improvements in the area dedicated in the plat for storm water ponding (collectively, the "Public Improvements"). The City will consult with Redeveloper regarding final plans for the Public Improvements and reasonably respond to Redeveloper comments on such plans. City will construct the Public Improvements in a time frame consistent with the construction schedule for the Minimum Improvements. (b) Redeveloper Responsibilities. The Redeveloper will construct, at its cost, all interior roads and associated infrastructure. As noted in Section 3.4, the Redeveloper will dedicate the Parkway right of way as a public street. The City and Redeveloper will mutually agree whether interior roads in each Phase will be private or dedicated to the public (such determination to be specified in the relevant the Planning Contract). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, a determination that interior roads will be dedicated to the public will not relieve Redeveloper's obligation to pay the cost of construction. All costs incurred by Redeveloper under this paragraph are a Public Redevelopment Cost reimbursable in accordance with Section 3.8. (c) Financing of Public Improvements. Costs of the Public Improvements will be allocated between the City and Redeveloper substantially in accordance with the Public Improvements Budget attached as Schedule __ Such budget is subject to modification by mutual agreement of the City and Redeveloper as final plans are developed. The City currently expects to finance its portion of Public Improvement costs fi'om a combination of Mim~esota Department of Transportation state aid funds and City utility funds. The Redeveloper's portion of the Public Improvement Costs will be specially assessed against the Redevelopment Property. Before the City awards bids for any portion the Public Improvements, the Redeveloper must execute and deliver to the City a petition and waiver agreement in a form acceptable to the City, under which Redeveloper SJB-249272v3 27 CL205-23 accepts special assessments in the amount shown in the Public Improvement Budget (as it may be modified), and waives all fights to challenge such assessments. SJB-249272v3 2 8 CL205-23 ARTICLE V Insurance Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain at all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and, fi:om time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following: (i) Builder's risk insurance, written on the so-called "Builder's Risk -- Completed Value Basis," in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value of the Minimum Improvements at the date of completion, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called "all risk" form of policy. The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and content satisfactory to the Authority; (ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner's Contractor's Policy with limits against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used); and (iii) Workers' compensation insurance, with statutory coverage. (b) Upon completion of construction of the Mhfimum Improvements and prior to the Tenuination Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense, and fi:om time to time at the request of the Authority shall furuish proof of the payment of premiums on, insurance as follows: (i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar businesses. (ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or property, in the minimum mnount for each occurrence and for each year of $2,000,000 and shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds. (iii) Such other insurance, including workers' compensation insurance respecting all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customm-ily cmried by like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers' compensation. (c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper that are authorized under SJB-249272v3 29 CL205-23 the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Redeveloper will deposit annually with the Authority a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and the Authority at least 30 days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements. Any insurance required under this Article may be provided separately by Phase or building. (d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will forthwith repair, reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the Redeveloper for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remahfing after completion of such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper. Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the rights of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any insurance proceeds shall, in all respects, be subordinate and subject to the rights of any Holder under a Mortgage allowed pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement. Section 5.3. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties acknowledge and agree that: (a) The provisions of Section 5.1 hereof shall not apply to a housing unit from and after ~,~ o .................... .~ completed and ~,~,~ (b) Upon transfer of the Redevelopment Property or portion thereof to another person or entity except for sales to owner-occupant, the Redeveloper will remain obligated under Section 5.1 hereof relating to such portion transferred, unless the Redeveloper is released from such obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 8.2(b) or 8.3 hereof. SJB-249272v3 30 CL205-23 ARTICLE VI Tax Increment; Taxes Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the redevelopment described in this Agreement, in part through issuance of the Note. The Redeveloper understands that the Tax Increments pledged to payment of the Note are derived from real estate taxes on the Minimum Improvements, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, the Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on behalf of the Authority through the Termination Date to sue the Redeveloper or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the county auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees. Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to the Termination Date, it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof; or (B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement. The Redeveloper also agrees that it will not, prior to the Termination Date, apply for a deferral of property tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law, or transfer or permit transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity whose ownership or operation of the property would result in the Redevelopment Property being exempt from real estate taxes under State law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the City or Authority in accordance with this Agreement). Section 6.3. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties acknowledge and agree that: (a) The provisions of Sections 6.1 and 6.2 hereof shall not apply to a housing unit from and after the date that such unit is substantially completed and sold to an owner-occupant. (b) Upon transfer of the Redevelopment Property or portion thereof to another person or entity except for sales to owner-occupants, the Redeveloper will remain obligated under Sections 6.1 and 6.2 hereof relating to such portion transferred, unless the Redeveloper is released from such obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 8.2(b) or 8.3 hereof. SJB-249272v3 3 1 CL205-23 ARTICLE VII Financin~ Section 7.1. Mortgage Financing. (a) Before commencement of construction of any Phase, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City evidence of one or more commitments for financing which, together with committed equity for such construction, is sufficient for payment of the Minimum hr~provements. Such commitments may be submitted as short term financing, long term mortgage financing, a bridge loan with a long term take-out financing commitment, or any combination of the foregoing. (b) If the Authority fmds that the financing is sufficiently committed and adequate in amount to pay the costs specified in paragraph (a) then the Authority shall notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and either approval or rejection shall be given within twenty (20) days from the date when the Authority is provided the evidence of financing. A failure by the Authority to respond to such evidence of financing shall be deemed to constitute an approval hereunder. If the Authority rejects the evidence of financing as inadequate, it shall do so in writing specifying the basis for the rejection. In any event the Redeveloper shall submit adequate evidence of financing within ten (10) days after such rejection. (c) In the event that there occurs a default under any Mortgage authorized pursuant to Section 7.1 of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall cause the Authority to receive copies of any notice of default received by the Redeveloper from the holder of such Mortgage. Thereafter, the Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of the Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to the Redeveloper under the Mortgage documents. In the event there is an event of default under this Agreement, the Authority will transmit to the Holder of any Mortgage a copy of any notice of default given by the Authority pursuant to Article IX of this Agreement. (d) In order to facilitate the securing of other financing, the Authority agrees to subordinate its rights under this Agreement provided that such subordination shall be subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Authority and Holder mutually agree in writing. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any subordination agreement must include the provision described in Section 7. l(c). SJB-249272v3 32 CL205-23 ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions A~ainst Assignment and Transfer~ Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Redevelopment. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property and not for speculation in land holding. Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper's Transfer of Property and Assig-muent of Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that until the Termination Date: (a) Except as specifically described in this Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale, assigrLment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same, to any person or entity (collectively, a "Transfer"), without the prior written approval of the Authority's board of commissioners. The term "Transfer" does not include (i) encumbrances made or granted by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining construction, interim or permanent financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property or to construct the Minimum Improvements or component thereof, (ii) any lease, license, easement or similar arrangement entered into in the ordinary course of business related to operation of the Minimum Improvements, or (iii) any sale, conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate. The parties agree and understand that Redeveloper intends to Transfer certain portions of the Redevelopment Property, along with certain rights and obligations of Redeveloper under this Agreement, to one or more third party developers ("Subdevelopers") who will construct portions of the Minimum Improvements. Any such Transfer is subject to the provisions of this Section. (b) If the Redeveloper seeks to effect a Transfer, the Authority shall be entitled to require as conditions to such Transfer that: (1) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial the obligations unde~en in this A~eement by the Redeveloper as to the potion of the Redevelopment Prope~y to be transferred; ~d (2) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Anoka County, Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the Authority, have expressly assmued all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under this Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is subject as to such portion, except that the "lookback provisions" of Section 3.9(c) shall not apply to a transferee; provided, SJB-249272v3 3 3 CL205-23 however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any other successor in interest whatsoever to, the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for whatever reason, have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the Authority) deprive the Authority of any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the Redevelopment Property, the Minimum Improvements or any part thereof or the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally, or practically, to deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any rights or remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the Redevelopment Property that the Authority would have had, had there been no such transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve the Redeveloper, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to the Redevelopment Property, from any of its obligations with respect thereto. (3) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property governed by this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority. (c) If the conditions described in paragraph (b) are satisfied, then the Transfer will be approved and the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The Authority will review and respond to a request for Transfer within 45 days after receipt of a written request. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any Transfer that releases the Redeveloper from its obligations under this Agreement (or any portion thereof) shall be approved by the Authority's board of commissioners. If the Redeveloper remains fully bound under this Agreement notwithstanding the Transfer, as documented in the transfer instrument, the Transfer may be approved by the Authority Representative. The provisions of this paragraph (c) apply to all subsequent transferors. (d) Nothing in this Article VIII will be construed to require, as a condition for release of the Redeveloper hereunder or otherwise, that purchasers of any unit assume any obligations of the Redeveloper. Upon sale of any residential unit to an initial owner-occupant, the Authority will provide to Redeveloper or the buyer a certificate in recordable form releasing the unit from all encumbrances of this Agreement. (e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section: (1) If a Phase is transferred under this Section in part but not in whole, and Redeveloper seeks to be released from its obligations as to the portion transferred, as a condition to approval of the Transfer the Authority may designate the portion of Minimum Improvements for that Phase that are allocated to the transferred Parcel, such that the SJB-249272v3 34 CL205-23 transferee is bound by all the terms of this Agreement as to the allocated number of housing units (or amount commercial improvements in the case of Phase I); and (2) the "lookback provisions of Section 3.9(c) will not apply to any permitted transferee under this Section. However, an Initial Note issued to or held by a transferee remains subject to reduction or prepayment under the terms of Section 3.9(b). Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) The Redeveloper releases from and covenants and agrees that the Authority and the City and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and the City and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Minimum Improvements. (b) Except for any willful or negligent misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties (as hereafter defined), and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Authority and the City and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof (the "Indemnified Parties"), now or forever, and further agrees to hold the Indemnified Parties harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Minimum Improvements. (c) Except for any negligence of the Indemnified Parties (as defined in clause (b) above), and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Redeveloper or its officers, agents, servants or employees or any other person who may be about the Minimum Improvements due to any act of negligence of any person. (d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of the Authority in the individual capacity thereof. SJB-249272v3 35 CL205-23 ARTICLE IX Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides 30 days written notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not been cured within said 30 days or, if the event is by its nature incurable within 30 days, the defaulting party does not, within such 30-day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the party providing notice of default that the event will be cured and will be cured as soon as reasonably possible: (a) Failure by the Redeveloper or the Authority to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement or the Planning Contract; (b) The Redeveloper: (i) files any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law; (ii) makes an assignment for benefit of its creditors; (iii) admits in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or (iv) is adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent. Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. (a) Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the non-defaulting party may exercise its rights under this Section 9.2 after providing thirty days written notice to the defaulting party of the Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty days or, if the Event of Default is by its nature incurable within thirty days, the defaulting party does not provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of Default will be cured and will be cured as soon as reasonably possible: (b) Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper, the Authority may withhold payments under any Initial Note in accordance with its terms, which withheld amount is payable, without interest thereon, on the first payment date after the default is cured. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, upon default under this Agreement or the Planning Contract with respect to any Phase (or any Parcel of a Phase transferred to a Subdeveloper), the Authority may withhold Available Tax Increment attributable to the defaulting Phase or Subdeveloper's Parcel, but may not withhold Available Tax Increment attributable to any Phase or Parcel thereof for which there is no uncured default as of the relevant payment date. However, any default in Redeveloper's obligation under Section 4.5 will SJB-249272v3 36 CL205-23 entitle the Authority to withhold Available Tax Increment attributable to the entire Phase, whether or not Parcels are transferred to a Subdeveloper. (d) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement. Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the Authority or Redeveloper is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the Authority to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article IX. Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. SJB-249272v3 37 CL205-23 ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Authority Representatives Not Individually Liable. The Authority and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that no member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member, official, or employee of the Authority shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority or County or for any amount which may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement. Section 10.2. Equal Emplownent Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local equal employment and non-discrimination laws and regulations. Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that until the Termination Date, the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Redevelopment Property to, the operation of the Minimum Improvements for uses described in the definition of such term in this Agreement, and shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Redevelopment Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement. Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 10.6. Notices m~d Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) in the case of the Redeveloper, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Redeveloper at 615 First Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413, Attention: Bradley J. Schafer; and SJB-249272v3 3 8 CL205-23 (b) in the case of the Authority or City, is addressed to or delivered personally at 590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421, Attn: Executive Director/City Manager; or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, fro1Tl time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 10.8. Recording. The Authority may record this Agreement and any amendments thereto with the Anoka County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for recording. Section 10.9. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement approved by the Authority and the Redeveloper. Section 10.10. Authori_ty or City Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required by the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative. Section 10.11. Termination. This Agreement terminates on the Termination Date, except that termination of the Agreement does not terminate, limit or affect the rights of any party that arise before the Termination Date. SJB-249272v3 39 CL205-23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused tlfis Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf on or as of the date first above written. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By. Its President- Don Murzyn, Jr. By. Its Executive Director- Walter R. Fehst STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of , 2004, by Don Murzyn, Jr. and Walter R. Fehst, the President and Executive Director of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, a public body politic and corporate, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS By. Its Mayor- Julienne Wyckoff By. Its City Manager- Walter R. Fehst STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ., 2004, by Julienne Wycoff and Walter R. Fehst, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Columbia Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 CH LAND, LLC By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) 2004 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ by Bradley J. Schafer, the of CH ., on behalf of the day of Land, LLC, a Minnesota Notary Public SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 SCHEDULE A REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Parcel A: Parcel B: Parcel C Parcel D Parcel E Parcel F Parcel G [SR Parcel] [Rayco] [Duffy] [Pearo] [Greif] [Buckles] [Smith] SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 SCHEDULE D AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION Authorizing Resolution COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS $ TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES, SERIES __ BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale. 1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of Columbia Heights have heretofore approved the establishment of the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") the Downtown CBD Redevelopment Project (the "Project"), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. In connection with the T~ District, the Authority and City have approved a Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and CH Land, LLC (the "Agreement"). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note in the maximum principal amount of $ (the "Note") for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project. 1.03. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. The Authority 'hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement. The Note shall be issued to CH Land, LLC ("Owner"). The Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery, shall mature no later than February 1, 20 and shall bear interest at the rate of__ percent per annum from the date of original issue of the Note. The Note is issued in consideration of payment by Owner of certain Public Redevelopment Costs in at least the principal amount of the Note, in accordance with the Agreement. SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount and payment schedule adjusted as of the date of issue: UNITED STATE OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No. R-1 $ TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE SERIES 20 Date Rate of Original Issue % ., 20 The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority ("Authority") for value received, certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to or registered assigns (the "Owner"), solely from the sources and in the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum of $__ or so much thereof as has been from time to time advanced (the "Principal Amount"), as provided in the Agreement defined hereafter, together with interest on the unpaid balance thereof accrued from the date of original issue hereof at the rate of__ percent per almum (the "Stated Rate"). This Note is given in accordance with that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Issuer, the City of Columbia Heights and CH Land, LLC dated as of ., 2004 (the "Agreement") and the authorizing resolution (the "Resolution") duly adopted by the Authority on , 20 Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meaning provided for such ten, as in the Agreement unless the context clearly requires otherwise. 1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 20 and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 20__ ("Payment Dates") in the amounts set forth on the attached payment schedule, payable solely from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. 2. Interest. Interest accruing from the date of original issue through and including February 1, 20 will be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30-day months. SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 3. Available Tax Increment. All payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely from and in the amount of the "Available Tax Increment," which means, on each Payment Date, 90 percent of the Tax Increment attributable to the [relevant property] as defined in the Agreement that is paid to the Authority by Anoka County in the six months preceding the Payment Date; provided that while any Authority Subordinate Note described in Section 3.6(c) of the Agreement is outstanding, "80 percent" is substituted for "90 percent" in this sentence. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment If on any Payment Date there is available to the Authority insufficient Available Tax Increment to pay the scheduled Payment due on such date, the mnount of such deficiency shall be deferred and paid, without interest thereon, on the next Payment Date on which the Authority has available to it Available Tax Increment in excess of the amount necessary to pay the scheduled amount due on such subsequent Payment Date. 4. Default. Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper under the Agreement, the Authority may exercise the remedies witli respect to this Note described in Section 9.2 of the Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Optional Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. If the Authority prepays the Note in part, the prepayment will be applied first to accrued interest and then to the outstanding principal amount of the Note in inverse order of principal installments due. Ten days' prior notice of any such prepayment shall be given by first-call mail by the Registrar to the registered owner of the Note. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise required to be made under this Note. (b) The Note may be deemed prepaid in whole or in part in accordance with Section 3.9 of the Agreement. Upon any such prepayment, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the amount applied to prepayment under Section 3.9 and the outstanding principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment. Any deemed prepayment under this paragraph will be applied under the same procedures described in paragraph (a) above. 6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $ issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to the Resolution, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to. 469.179. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except from and to the extent of the revenues pledged hereto, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto. SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office of the City Chief Financial Officer, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates. This Note shall not be transferred to any person unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. IT IS HEREBY CERT~IED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and manner as so required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Executive Director President REGISTRATION PROVISIONS The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the City Chief Financial Officer, in the name of the person last listed below. Date of Registration Section 3. Registered Owner__ CH Land, LLC Federal Tax I.D. No. Terms, Execution and Delivery. Signature of City Chief Financial Officer SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note numbered R- 1. The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by mail to the owner of'record thereof as of`the close of business on the fifteenth day of`the month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. 3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Chief` Financial Officer to perform the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as f,ollows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and exchanges of the Note. (b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof` or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably satisf,actory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof` or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transf,eree or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the f,oregoing, the Note shall not be transferred to any person unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisf,actory to the Authority, that such transf,er is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of f,ederal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until such Payment Date. (c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transf,er shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority. (d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Note or separate instrument of, transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good f,aith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of, and interest on such Note and f,or all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement. Section 4. Security Provisions. 4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note Available Tax Increment under the terms and as defined in the Note. Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution. 4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to tlfis resolution) remains unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special "Bond Fund" to be used for no purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Tax Increment in the amount necessary to pay principal and interest when due on the Note. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's account for the T~ District upon termination of the Note in accordance with its terms. 4.03. Additional Bonds. If the Authority issues any bonds or notes secured by Available Tax Increment, such additional bonds or notes are subordinate to the Note in all respects. SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. 5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Adopted this __ day of ., 20 President Executive Director SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES __ PAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment Date Principal Interest Total Payment SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 SCHEDULE E CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Grantor"), by a Deed recorded in the Office of the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Anoka and State of Minnesota, as Deed Document Number(s) and ., respectively, has conveyed to , a Minnesota (the "Grantee"), the following described land in County of Anoka and State of Mim~esota, to-wit: (the "Property") and WHEREAS, said Deed comained certain covenants and restrictions set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of said Deed; and WHEREAS, said Grantee has performed said covenants and conditions with respect to the Property insofar as it is able in a mmmer deemed sufficient by the Grantor to permit the execution and recording of this certification; NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all building construction and other physical improvements specified to be done and made by the Grantee on the Property have been completed and the above covenants and conditions in said Deed and the agreements and covenants in Article IV of the Agreement (as described in said Deed) with respect to the Property have been performed by the Grantee therein, and the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Anoka and State of Minnesota is hereby authorized to accept for recording and to record, the filing of this instrument, to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of Article IV of the Agreement with respect to the Property, Dated: ,20__. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On this __ day of , 20 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared , to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that (s)he is the President of the Authority named in the foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed to said instrument is the seal of said Authority; that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Authority by authority of its governing body; and said acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Authority. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On this __ day of , 20 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ., to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that (s)he is the Executive Dh'ector of the Authority nmned in the foregoing instnunent; that the seal affixed to said instrument is the seal of said Authority; that said instrmx~ent was signed and sealed in behalf of said Authority by authority of its governing body; and said acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Authority. Notary Public SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 SCHEDULE F PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET SJB-249272v3 CL205-23 City of Columbia Heights - Huset Parkway 7/14/04 Item Estimated Project Costs Estimated Project Funding Funding Source 3ity Developer [C Sanitary Sewer 31,000 31,000 ity Sanitary Utility Fund Water Main 185,000 185,000 City Water Utility Fund Services 45,000 45,000 100% Developer Storm Sewer 362,000 155,660 206,340 Based on C x drainage area Ponding 436,000 222,360 213,640 ]ased on C x drainage area Roadway 1,841,000 South end to 5th St 478,660 478,660 Front foot split - 26% 5th St. to Jefferson 810,040 405,020 405,020 Front foot split - 44% Jefferson to 40th 552,300 552,300 :ront foot split - 30% Landscape 283,000 147,160 135,840 Front foot split Lighting 402,000 209,040 192,960 Front foot split Total Project Costs 3,585,000 1,907,540 1,677,460 Phased Roadway -500,000 -500,000 (N/S portion in park) Total 1 st Phase 3,085,000 1,407,540 1,677,460 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, Other ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S Ordinances and Resolutions Community Development APPROVAL NO: BY:, ITEM: Resolution 2004-51, Lot Split BY: EllenBerkelhamer Y", ,~~/~/~ Case #: 2004-0901, 1813 40th Avenue NE/4041 Hayes DATE: September 14, 2004 St. NE BACKGROUND: An application has been made by Gladys Wychor, the owner of the property at 1813 40th Avenue NE, for a lot split to reconfigure the property line separating her property and an adjacent property at 4041 Hayes Street NE. Ms. Wychor proposes to sell the rear portion of her lot (6,595 sq. ft. of land) to Mark Carlson, the owner of 4041 Hayes St. NE, to create an increased rear lot for his property. The proposed lot split meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed split would allow for the resulting parcels to be in conformance with all City requirements including setbacks, lot coverage and lot size. Section 9.410(4) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission which shall provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing for the request on September 8, 2004 and voted to recommend City Council approval of the lot split as it is consistent w/th City zoning and subdivision standards. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-51, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to adopt Resolution 2004-51, a resolution approving a lot split of the property at 1813 40m Avenue NE/4041 Hayes St. NE, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant shall provide required utility and ch'ainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Attachments: Resolution 2004-51, Planning Report to Council, Location Map, Certificate of Su~;ey COUNCIL ACTION: CTTY OF COLUMBTA HETGHTS PLANNTNG REPORT TO CTTY COUNCTL CASE NUMBER: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PREPARED BY: 2004-0901 September 27, 2004 Columbia Heights City Council Gladys Wychor 1813 40th Avenue NE/4041 Hayes Street NE R2 One and Two Family Residential District Lot Split Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP, City Planner Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance Both of the properties involved in the lot split are zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential. The lot at 1813 40th Avenue NE is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE is surrounded on the north, east, and south by properties zoned R-2. The west side of Hayes St. is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Applicable requirements are as follows: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home. Currently, the lot at 1813 40th Av. NE contains 34,022 sq. ft. and the lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE contains 6,600 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, 1813 40th Av. NE would contain 27,427 sq. ft. and 4041 Hayes St. NE would contain 13,195 sq. ft. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. The lot widths of the both properties remain unchanged as a result of the lot split. 1813 40th AV. NE has a lot width of 80 ft. and 4041 Hayes St. NE has a lot width of 60 ft. · Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of existing structures on both properties will continue to meet these requirements. City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Lot Split, 1813 40th Av. NE/4041 Hayes St. NE Case #2004-0901 Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent: Currently, the lot at 1813 40th Av. NE has a lot coverage of 21 percent and the lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE has a lot coverage of 6 percent. After the proposed lot split, 1813 40th Av. NE would have a lot coverage of 8 percent and 4041 Hayes St. NE would have a lot coverage of 10 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will create two reconfigured lots. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public right-of-way. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. 1. The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka Page 2 City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Lot Split, 1813 40th Av. NE/4041 Hayes St. NE Case #2004-0901 County Recorder's Office. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Attachments · Location Map · Certificate of Survey Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-51 SUBDIVISION REQUEST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 1, Gladys Wychor, hereby request a split of PIN 36-30-24-42-0112 Legally described as: That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 180.00 feet thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PIN 36-30-24-42-0014 Legally described as: The south 60.00 feet front and rear of the north 240.00 feet, front and rear of Lot 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: PIN 36-30-24-42-0112 Legally described as: That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PIN 36-30-24-42-0014 Legally described as: The south 60.00 feet of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines of Lot 4 and 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: This 8th day of September, 2004 Offered by: Fiorendino Seconded by: Szurek Roll Call: All Ayes ~onin§ OffiCer Signature of Owner, Notarized Owners Address Telephone No. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of ,2004 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Notary Public This __ day of 2004. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Secretary to the Council Julienne Wyck0ff, Mayor City of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2-2, .FUTURE LAND USE M A P LEGEND Future Land Usc: Ama: % orTo~: ~ Low Density Re~idmtial 1,029.20244.3~ ire'nm Medium Desk"y Residential 59.538 2.56% . 1~. Demity R~sidentlal 69.970 3.01% lmlitmional 4&191 2.07~  lleligiam lmfitut/ons 16.092 0.69% Comnmmi~l 90.026 3.87% L-'-'3 Industxial Ir/.831 3.71E.[ ~ Co mmanity Cemer Dislziet 7.641 0.33% ~ Transit Orlen~l D~velopment 50.431 Z56% I Transitional Devolvement 10.675 0.46% ~ Vacant 0..116 0.01% I Park 1~3.483 5.31% Public: (,:' I Right-of-Way 517.569 2~.8~ Non42ity Land: ~ City of Itilltop 69.117 ~ City of Minnea~lis 74.845 322% TOTALS: 2.323.443 ~ .... I War. Features :54.091 Acres NCityl.~mit City orColam~a ! leigh t~ - C~.nnnmity Development Depamnent Engineering E~ IG.I.S. Division~ FOR I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Tills SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER-~Y-DIREC_L.?zg_PERVlSION AND THAT I AM A DULY L;ICENSED LA~B'~'qJJ~V~R UNDER Randy L. I~r-l-h=--L-.~:.S. No. '20270 Russell d. Kurlh. L.L.S. No. 18113 I' ,d CERT I F I CATE OF SURVEY fMEASUREMENTS SHOI/N IN FEET AND DECIMALS OF A FOOT) KURTH SURVEYi~G, INC. 4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 Pt-DNtZ (765) 788-9769 FAX (76J) 780-7602 E-MAIL: KURFHSURV£¥OAOL,CO~ I~t3 / 0 \ DATE ~ ~ u~ '2~2-,'Zoo o -- IRON MONUMENTF 0 /-4 0 C_L~:: c..\..,,,t::x...~ ~ L~ ~¢.. SCALE IN FEET EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4041 Hayes St. NE The south 60.00 feet front and rear of thc north 240.00 feet, front and rear of Lot 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2~a Snbdivision, Anoka County, Mi~mcsota'. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1813 40'h Avenue NE That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 180.00 feet thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"d Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except fl~e north 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2® Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. DESCRIPTION 4041 Hayes St. NE After Split The south 60.00 feet of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines of Lo! 4 and 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka Comity, Minnesota. DESCRIPTION 18 ! 5 40th Avenue NE After Split That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"d Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines thereof. Together with: The east 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"a Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivisiom Anoka County, Minnesota. COLUMBIA ltEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: Se ~tember 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, Other ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: ~ CITY MANAGER'S Ordinances and Resolutions Community Development APPROVAL NO: ITEM: Resolution 2004-52, Lot Split BY: Ellen Berkelhamer BY:./~~~. _~, Case #: 2004-0902, 1226 43rd Avenue NE DATE: September 14, 2004 BACKGROUND: An application has been made by Laurie Kames of LEK Holding Company, the owner of the property at 1226 43rd Avenue NE, for a lot split of the one parcel into one single family lot and two twinhome lots. Ms. Karnes proposes that the existing structure will remain on the single-family lot and that she will sell the two twinhome lots to a builder. The proposed split would allow for the resulting parcels to be in conformance with all City requirements including setbacks, lot coverage and lot size. These requirements are detailed in the attached Council planning report, along with information as to what the proposed twinhomes may look like. Section 9.410(4) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission which shall provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Several neighbors appeared at the public hearing to raise concerns about the issue of poor soils at the site and whether the twinhome lots would be buildable. Staff informed the neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Commission that it was the responsibility of the property owner to correct any bad soil conditions that may exist and to submit all necessary information showing how this would be accomplished in conformance with all city codes as part of the building permit process. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing for the request on September 8, 2004 and voted four ayes and one nay to recormr~end City Council approval of the lot split. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-52, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to adopt Resolution 2004-52, a resolution approving a lot split of the property at 1226 43ed Rye subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The applicant shall pay parkland dedication fees in the amount of $2,195 per lot for each of the two lots newly created lots. This fee is payable at the time of building permit. Should soil conditions on the property warrant, information as to how soil conditions will be corrected shall be submitted to the Building Official along with the building permit application. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Attachments: Resolution 2004-52, Planning Report to Council, Location Map, Certificate of Sm~ey COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-52 SUBDIVISION REQUEST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 I, Laurie Karnes of LEK Holding Company, hereby request a split of PIN 36 30 24 24 0153 Legally described as: The west 60.00 feet of the North 150.00 feet of Lot 6, and the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, lying north of the south 165.00 feet; All in Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: The west 60.00 feet of the north 150.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. The east 35.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. The west 35.00 feet of the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: This __ day of ,2004 Offered by: Schmitt Seconded by: Baker Roll Call: Ayes: Fiorendino, Baker, Schmitt, Peterson Nay: Szurek Signature of Owner, Notarized Owner's Address Telephone No. Zoning Officer COUNCIL ACTION: Notary Public SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __ day of ,2004 CITY This __ day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: ,2004. Secretary to the Council Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor CTTY OF COLUMBTA HETGHTS PLANNTNG REPORT TO CTTY COUNCTL CASE NUMBER: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PREPARED BY: 2004-0902 September 27, 2004 Columbia Heights City Council Laurie Karnes, LEK Holding Company 1226 43rd Avenue NE R2 One and Two Family Residential District Lot Split Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP, City Planner Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The property involved in the lot split is zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential. The parcel is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Section 9.904 regulates standards for"zero lot line" (twinhome) setbacks. Applicable requirements are as folloWs: For the proposed sinqle-family lot: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home. One lot will be created to contain the existing single family home on the site. This is referred to as Lot A on the certificate of survey. The total parcel area is currently 18, 850 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, Lot A will be 8, 700 sq. ft. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. The total parcel is currently 130 ft. in width. After the proposed lot split, Lot A will be 60 ft. in width. · Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; corner side yard - 10 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of the existing structure on the proposed Lot A will meet City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Lot Split, 1226 43rd Avenue NE Case #2004-0902 these requirements. The front yard setback will be 39.5 ff., the side yard setback will be 8. 9 ff., and the comer side setback will be 18.5 ff. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent. Currently, entire parcel has a lot coverage of 7 percent. After the proposed lot split, Lot A would have a lot coverage of 16 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. For the proposed twinhome lots: A twin home is defined as a single-family residential dwelling on an individual lot, sharing a common wall with another single-family residential dwelling. This is also known as a "zero lot line" development. Each individual lot has a separate PIN number. Combined, the two twinhome lots must contain the minimum required lot area, setbacks and lot coverage for twinhome dwellings in a given zoning district. According to Section 9.904, the yard for a single family attached dwelling may be reduced to zero (0) feet, provided that the following conditions are satisfactorily met: · The wall of the dwelling unit shall be placed upon said property line in a manner that does not encroach upon another property. · The applicant records all required agreements, easements and deed restrictions against all properties that abut the zero lot line. · The minimum front, side and rear building setbacks shall be applied to the structure as a whole, rather than to individual units. Two lots will be created that will each contain one twinhome. These are shown on the certificate of survey as Lots B and C. As required, Lots B and C taken as a whole will have a side yard setback of 5 ff. and a rear yard setback of 20% of lot depth. Front yard setbacks will be based on the average setback of other houses on the same block face within 200 ff. Any detached accessory structures must be a minimum of 3 ff. from side and rear property lines. In accordance with Section 9.602 of the Zoning Ordinance, in any residential district where the average depth of the front yard within 200 ff. and within the same block is lesser or greater than that required by ordinance, the required front yard shall be the average plus or minus 10 percent of the depth. This setback will be determined at the time of building permit application. · The minimum lot area requirement shall be applied by dividing the sum of the area of all parcels occupied by the structure by the total number of dwelling units. The minimum lot area needed for development of twinhome dwellings is 9,000 sq. ff. and the total lot width must be 60 ff. After a lot split, each individual twinhome lot must have a minimum of 4,500 sq. ff. per dwelling unit and 30 ff of lot width. After the proposed lot split, Lots B and C will each have 5, 075 sq. ff. and a lot width of 35 ff. The total property may have a maximum lot coverage of 3O percent (or3,045 sq. ff. based on the combined area of Lots B and C of 10,150 sq. ff.). When reviewing twinhome subdivisions, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have historically been provided with sample building elevations and footprints to confirm that twinhome development can occur on the property. These samples are not intended to be building permit plans but rather concepts of what will be developed. Therefore, attached to this report is a photograph of a single-family product built by the intended builder of the twinhomes. This product would be modified as shown in the attached elevation sketch to create two zero lot line twinhomes for the site. Placement would be approximately as shown on the attached Page 2 City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Lot Split, 1226 43rd Avenue NE Case #2004-0902 building footprint. Each unit would have 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms on the upper level. The lower level of each unit would contain a two-car garage unit and with the remainder of the level unfinished space. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will three lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public right-of-way. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. Records do show that the property was previously two lots that were combined into one lot in 1998. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Recommendation On a vote of four ayes and one nay, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 2. The applicant shall pay parkland dedication fees in the amount of $2,195 per lot for each of the two lots newly created lots. This fee is payable at the time of building permit. Page 3 City of Columbia Heights City Council September 27, 2004 Lot Split, 1226 43rd Avenue NE Case #2004-0902 Should soil conditions on the property warrant, information as to how soil conditions will be corrected shall be submitted to the Building Official along with the building permit application. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Attachments · Location Map · Letter from Applicant · Certificate of Survey · Sample photographs, elevations and footprint Page 4 City of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2-2, .FUTURE LAND U S E M A P LEGEND Future Land Use: ^c-~s: % of Total: ~ Low Density Residential 1,029.2024430% ~ Medium Deslty Residential59.538 2.56% ~ High Demity Pa~sidential 69.970 3.01% [~1 lnstltutional 48.191 2.07%  Religiom Institutions 16.092 0.69% Commercial 90.026 3.87"4 r---'-] lndustzial 87.831 3.78% ~ Communit~ Center Dis'lxict . 7.641 0.33% ~ Transit Onen~i Development 59.431 Z56% mlmml Transitional Development 10.675 0.46% ~ Vacant 0316 0.01% ~ Park 123.483 531% Public: I I Right-of-Way 517.569 22.28% Non-City Land: ~ City of Hilltop 69.317 2.98% [7-.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~ City of Minneapolls 74.845 3.22% TOTALS: I I Water Features 54.091 Acres Parcel Lines O Rede',etopmea~tArea 2323.443 100.00% N City Limits Sources: City of Columbia l-leigh~s- Community Dcvelopment Department Enginc~'ing Department IG.I.S. Division) LEK Holding Company P.O. Box 1958 Maple Grove, MN 55311 August 5, 2004 City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 re: Lot Split Request for 1226 43rd Avenue Dear Columbia Heights Staff, Planning Commission and City Council, I'm excited to be creating oppormnities'for three more families to live in your community. I purchased a home at 3919 Main Street NE in December of 2002 and split a lot off that property. I've been actively looking for another property in Columbia Heights ever since. Part of what makes Columbia Heights such a geat place to live is the character of the community and the diversity of housing styles. I live in Maple Grove, where new construction has seen so many cookie cutter housing units that the Maple Grove City Council just approved a radically new zoni.ng code to try to create the character that Columbia Heights already has. My petition is to keep the remaining single family home at 1226 43rd avenue as is and sell the property. On the vacant land I'm splitting offI'm proposing a Twin Home to be built by J.D. Roofing and Construction, Inc., who has built in your community. His letter is attached. The surrounding neighborhood has other scattered recently built 2 family homes including: 3820 NE Hayes, built in 2001 4401/4405 Quincy NE, built in 2002 677 NE 43rd Ave, built in 1999 The new proposed lot with the existing home does meet your standards to also build a Twinhome on it, being 8,700 square feet with 60' width. However, the existing home is in excellent condition so I'm leaving it as is. The new proposed Twinhome lot exceeds the standards for Twinhome lots, as it will be 10,150 square feet and 70' wide. Each dwelling unit will be 35' wide and 5,075 square feet, exceeding the minimum 4,500 square feet. I understand that I could have a duplex built on the lot without requesting the additional lot line split down the center of my Twimhome lot. But a duplex, by definition, is a rental property because it is a two family home with one property ID number so it can only have one owner. A Twinhome has two property ID numbers and can be sold to 2 different families, each owner occupied. I believe that owner occupied units will be more welcomed by the neighborhood. Sincerely, Laurie E. Karnes, President LEK Holding Company July 28, 2004 City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Dear Columbia Heights Planning Commission and City Council, My name is Jack Buszta and a have a purchase agreement to buy the lot that LEK Holding is splitting off from 1226 43® Avenue North. My intent is to build a Twinhome and sell it to two families, each side being owner occupied. If I built a Duplex that would, by definition, be a rental property. My homes features a sunken living room with a bay window that is popular with my home buyers. I understand that the water and sewer are in the street and they are not stubbed to the lot. I know I am responsible to bear this cost to bring the utilities to service the new homes I'm building. This will be my second home built in your community. I also built a home at 4344 5th Street NE. I look forward to building again in Columbia Heights. Thank you. J.D. Roofing & Construction, Inc. 11345 Uplander Street Coon Rapids, MN 55433 CERTIFICATE -FOR L; I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DJ~REC:T SUPERVISION AJ~r'TI~T I AM A ~ILY .LJ;,ENSED L/~,:/I) SURVEYOR' UNDER .~E LA~S OF ~E~AT~F UIN~ Rdndy L. ffurlh. Y.L.~ No.~70 Russell J. Kurth, L,L.S, No. 16113 OF SURVEY (MEASUREIvfENTS SHOFN IN FEET AND DECIMALS OF A FOOT; · KURtH SURVEYING, INC. "4002 sr COLL~BIA FE~gHT$, UN 55421 ~ J PHOAE (763) 788-9769 FAX (763) 768-7602 E-MAIL: KURTHSURVEYOAOL.COM SC^LE IN FEET DATE '~:~ -~ '- C'~ z-~ o ,. IRON MON,UMFNY Existing Lcg',d Description I 1 © .q The west 60.00 feet of the North 150.00 feet of Lot 6, and the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, lying north of thc south 165.00 feet; All in Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. The west 60.00 feet of the north 150.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. Thc east 35.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. The west 35.00 feet of the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anolm County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. I .. JD Roofing & Construction Page 1 of 2 JD Roofing WELCOME Home About Us Services Our Clients Contact Us Our Clients 612-366-5545 Fax: 763-862-1660 Eagle Lake Road Groveland COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: September 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY Community Development MANAGER'-S NO: '~ ~ [ APPROVAL ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004 -61, being a BY: Robert Streetar BY: resolution appropriating and designating fund DATE: September 22, 2004 ~~ balances from the Parking Ramp Fund 290 and the Sheffield Fund 410 to the Capital Improvement Development Fund 420. BACKGROUND To facilitate the acquisition of the Burger King property, located at 3939 Central Avenue, by the City's Economic Development Authority, the EDA is requesting a loan from the City in the amount of $800,000. To issue the loan the City must appropriate $530,000 from the Parking Ramp Fund 290, and $270,000 from the Sheffield Fund 410, and designate those funds to the Capital Improvement Development Fund 420. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating and designating fund balances from the Parldng Ramp Fund 290 and the Sheffield Fund 410 to the Capital Improvement Development Fund 420. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-61, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-61, a Resolution appropriating and designating fund balances from the Parking Ramp Fund 290 and the Sheffield Fund 410 to the Capital Improvement Development Fund 420. COUNCIL ACTION: h:\Consent2002\CL Res.2004-61 Appropriating & Designating Funds RESOLUTION 2004 - 61 BEING A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING AND DESIGNATING FUND BALANCES FROM THE PARKING RAMP FUND 290 AND THE SHEFFIELD FUND 410 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND 420. WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights has accumulated fi-md balances in the Parking Ramp Fund 290, and the Sheffield Fund 410 for the pm'pose of ftmding future redevelopment projects in the City and, WHEREAS, these funds would be more appropriately accounted for in a separate fund designated for the purpose in wltich these funds were acctLmulated and, WHEREAS, the City has established the area of 39th and Central Avenue, that includes the Burger King property, a high redevelopment priority in Columbia Heights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following transfers be made and appropriated for the acquisition of the Burger King property. Transfer from the following funds: 290 Parking Ramp Fund 410 Sheffield Fund Total Transfers out: $530,000 $27O,000 $800,000 Transfers to the following funds: 420 Capital Improvement Development $800,000 Passed this 27th day of September 2004. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Attest: Mayor Julimme Wyckoff Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: Se ~tember 27, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: 'CITY NO: Community Development MANAGER'S --'] ~ ~ APPROVAL ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-60, approving BY: Robert Streetar B ~ ~ and specifying terms of an inter-fund loan for DATE:September 22, 2004 ~~,/f~,~/ the acquisition of the Burger King Property. BACKGROUND The Nath Companies, Inc. has offered to sell the Burger property located at 3939 Central Avenue to the City's Economic Development Authority for $800,000. On September 21, 2004, the EDA approved a purchase agreement with the closing to occur subject to City loaning the EDA $800,000 to purchase the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of resolution 2004-60. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of resolution 2004-60, there being an ample amount of copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-60, approving and specifying terms of an inter-fund loan for acquisition of the Burger King property. COUNCIL ACTION: h:\Consent2004\CL Res.2004-60 Inter Fund for BK CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RESOLUTION 2004-60 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND SPECIFYING TERMS OF INTER-FUND LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF NATH (BURGER KING) PROPERTY RECITALS A. The City of Columbia Heights. ("City") and its Economic Development Authority ("Authority") have undertaken a program to promote the development and redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City, and in this connection the Authority administers the Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (the "Act"). B. Pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to acquire real property for development and redevelopment by private enterprise or public use. C. The Authority proposes to acquire the Burger King property located in the Project at 3939 Central Avenue NE (the "Property"). D. The Authority and City may establish a tax increment financing district ("TIF District") under Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.174 to 469.176, the ("TIF Act) that includes the Property in order to facilitate development of that property; or the Authority and City may develop the property for various public uses. E. Under Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, the City is authorized to advance or loan money from any fund from which such advances may be legally made in order to finance expenditures that are eligible to be paid with tax increments under the TIF Act. F. The City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to loan funds to the EDA in order to acquire the Property, which loan may be repaid from tax increments or other sources, all as further described in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights as follows: 1. The City authorizes a loan to the Authority in the maximum amount of $800,000 (the --Loan-'), to be drawn from the "----"-'nnp,' .................. u v ¢m¢,,t ~'A-. W*,~p,I,*,,L A' ..... * Fund ~..a'm.fl~l ..... ~ ....... ...... k.,i:lpl ti:ti S ut.,.u, lo'mpOot-o. Such amount will be made available to the Authority at or before the closing on acquisition of the Property by the Authority. 2. The outstanding principal balance of the Loan bears interest at the rate of 4.0 percent per annum. Interest accrues from the date of disbursement from the identified funds in order to acquire the Property. MTN-253210vl CL205-24 3. The Loan is payable from tax increments generated from a TIF District to be created (if any), from any other tax increments legally available for such purposes, from proceeds of the sale of the Property (if any), and from any other revenues available to the Authority. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be made at the times any revenue sources are available to make installment payments. The outstanding balance of principal and interest is due on the later of 15 years after the date of the first disbursement, or the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District (if created). Payments will be credited to the respective fund from which the Loan was ch'awn. All payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal of the Loan. 4. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under the Loan are pre-payable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. 5. To the extent the Loan is paid with tax increment, the Loan is evidence of an interfund loan in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment hereof under this resOlution. This Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of the pledged revenues, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on the Loan or other costs incident hereto. 6. If the Property acquired with proceeds of the Loan is used for a purpose that is a prohibited expenditure of tax increment under the TIF Act (including without limitation a building to be used primarily for conducting the business of the City, a public or private facility used for social or recreational purposes, or a public facility used for conference purposes), then the Authority may not make any payments on the Loan from tax increments. If the Property is used for any public facility, the City and Authority will mutually determine how and whether the Loan is to be repaid. 7. The City may amend the terms of this Loan at any time by resolution of the City Council, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal mnount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. 8. The City Council authorizes and directs staff to take all actions and execute any collateral documents necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Dated 'dlis /-/ uay ul oclot~n~u~,, Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Julienne Wyckoff ATTEST: Patricia Muscovitz, CMC Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary MTN-253210vl CL205 -24