Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-04 P&Z1. 2. 3. 4. COLUMBIA CH HEIGHTS Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 4th, 2016 7:00pm Columbia Heights City Hall 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Call to Order and Roll Call. JVU a. Approval of September 6`h, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Hearings Other Business a. Review that the TIF Plan for Hy -Vee is in compliance with the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan. b. Resolution 2016 -PZ05, a resolution of the Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission Finding that a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Conform to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. Adjourn 10 -4 -16 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPT 6, 2016 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Szurek. Commission Members present- Buesgens, Fiorendino, Schill, Hoium, and Szurek Also present were Elizabeth Holmbeck (Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary) along with Council Liaison, John Murzyn. Motion by Hoium , seconded by Buesgens , to approve the minutes from the meeting of July 5, 2016 All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2016 -0901 John Brehm, Hy -Vee 4300 Central Avenue Site Plan Approval Holmbeck told members that John Brehm, on behalf of Hy -Vee, Inc., has applied for Site Plan Review. The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing commercial strip center located at 4300 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421. The proposal includes renovating the interior of the existing building, and incorporating a new fagade. Additionally, a number of exterior site improvements are proposed including renovation of the parking lot and landscape improvements. The applicant is proposing rebuild a portion of the west facing wall to add an additional 3,790 square feet for off - street loading purposes. The existing building is 140,281 square feet. The renovated building will be 144,071 square feet. The south facing wall will be modified to accommodate a grocery and pharmacy pick -up drive thru. A narrative provided by the applicant, was enclosed in the agenda for review. Holmbeck went on to review how the application meets the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and Design Guidelines along with the details of the Site Plan. 018W Wel F11 C 1 The property located at 4300 Central Avenue NE., is located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. The properties to the north and south are located in the Limited Business Zoning District, the R -2A, One and Two - Family Residential Zoning District, and the R -2B, Built as Duplexes Residential Zoning District. The properties to the west are located in the R -2A, One and Two Family Residential Zoning District and the R- 2B, Built as Duplexes Zoning District. The properties to the east are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for commercial uses. Renovating the vacant un -used portion of the commercial building to be re -used as a retail grocery store is consistent with the goals and intent of the comprehensive Plan. P & Z Minutes Page 2 Sept 6, 2016 DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is located within the Design Guideline Overlay District, and is governed by the "Highway District" standards within the Design Guidelines. The intent of the Design Guidelines is to make the City more aesthetically appealing, by requiring a set of minimum standards for new construction along Central Avenue and 40`h Avenue. The minimum standards were created by a task force of City Officials, business owners and residents, and adopted into the City Code by the City Council. In general, the proposed buildings meet the design guidelines. Signage will be addressed when the property owner or tenant applies for a Sign Permit. Signage must be consistent with Design Guidelines and with City Code. The following components are requirements of the Design Guidelines Highway District and how the applicant has attempted to meet the guidelines: • Buildings maybe setback a maximum of 85 feet from the sidewalk, in order to allow for two rows of parking and drive aisles plus landscaped frontage. The proposed building does not meet this guideline as it is located 453' feet from the property line along Central Avenue. The Design Guidelines do allow for exceptions in the cases where topography or other physical conditions would prevent parking areas from being located to the rear of the building. The developer is proposing to renovate the existing structure which is located much farther from the street andpre -dates the City's Design Guidelines. • The primary facade(s) of buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller increments through the techniques such as using of different textures or contrasting, but compatible, materials; dividing storefronts with separate display windows and entrances or incorporating arcades, awnings, window bays, balconies or similar ornamental features. The proposed building meets this guideline. The building is articulated into smaller increments with divided storefronts which define the different elements of the store and existing businesses. • Building height shall be a minimum of 22 feet. The proposed building meets this guideline. The building will be 26'10" at the lowest facade, and 352" at the highest fagade. • 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 proposed plan meets this guideline on the front and sides of the building, however there are no windows shown on the rear side of the building. • The building should have a well- defined front facade with primary entrances facing the street. The proposed building will have a well - defined front fagade, with the primary entrance facing Central Avenue. • Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. The colors that are proposed are neutral, coincide with the company's recognizable grocery brand, and should complement the surrounding area. P & Z Minutes Page 3 Sept 6, 2016 • No more than two principal colors may be used on a fagade or individual storefront. Bright or primary colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent of building facades, except when used in a mural or other public art. The proposed building will consist of two primary colors: Maison Blanche and Nantucket Dune (two shades of beige) and Rustic Red (red). The plans also show accent awnings /window coverings to be green. • All buildings should be constructed of high- quality materials, including the following: Brick, Natural Stone, Stucco Precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a textured material in order to give the wall surface a three dimensional character. Jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any fagade, provided that it is used only on the lower third of the building wall. The proposal meets this guideline. The building will be refaced with brick and stucco precast concrete panels. • Architectural details such as ornamental cornices, arched windows and warm -toned brick with bands of contrasting color are encouraged in new construction. The proposal generally meets the intent of this guideline. • Parking areas adjacent to public streets or sidewalks shall be screened with a combination of landscape material and decorative fencing or walls sufficient to screen parked cars on a year -round basis while providing adequate visibility for pedestrians. The proposed landscape plan includes a variety of trees (canopy, understory and evergreens) to be planted around the perimeter of the site, which meets the City's Landscaping requirements and will provide adequate screening. SITE PLAN 1. Parking The proposed plan identifies 692 parking stalls for the entire site. Staff believes this number is adequate, as it exceeds the minimum zoning requirement. For retail sales and service establishments, the Zoning Code requires 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area. 2. Access The site will be primarily served by access points off Central Avenue onto 43`a and 44a' Avenue NE. The property itself will be served by three entrances off 43rd Avenue NE., and three entrances off 44`h Avenue NE. 3. Landscape The proposed landscaping materials are shown on the attached Landscape Plan. The applicant is proposing to plant trees and shrubs which will complement the layout of the development. A seasonal garden center is proposed to be located on the southeast corner of the site. The property currently has a Conditional Use Permit for seasonal outdoor sales. 4. Lot Dimension, Height and Setback Requirements The proposed plan meets the lot dimension, height, and setback requirements. P & Z Minutes Page 4 Sept 6, 2016 FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (N) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings of fact that must be met in order for the City to approve a Site Plan. They are as follows: a. The Site Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. The applicable Zoning Code requirements are achieved. b. The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. The proposed Site Plan for the property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. c. The Site Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no area plan for this parcel. d. The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right - of -way. The proposed Site Plan for meets all the minimum setback requirements and general development standards outlined in the Zoning Code. Therefore, the properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development should not be adversely impacted. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Site Plan for the Hy -Vee grocery store to be located at 4300 Central Avenue NE. uestions/comments from members: Buesgens asked the applicant if they were purchasing the entire site, what they planned for storm water drainage, and if they were aware that there will be a great deal of pedestrian traffic, especially along 43 d Avenue. John Brehm, from Hy -Vee answered that they are purchasing the whole site, that they will use the existing storm water drainage system, and they will work to make it pedestrian friendly. She asked if they would be adding any rain garden areas, and he said they did not plan to at this time. Fiorendino questioned how traffic would flow on the site, and wanted details on the existing retaining walls since the City Engineer recommended leaving them in place. Brehm told members that they plan to add a grocery and pharmacy pick up area on the south side of the building. He went on to review how they want traffic to flow on the�roperty. He said delivery trucks should be entering the delivery bays on the west side of the building from 44 Avenue. Brehm said they will probably be exiting to 43d Avenue and that a curb cut on 43'a Avenue will be added and the other one widened so that trucks will be able to make the swing without impacting residential properties to the south. Brehm told members that after meeting with Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director, they have decided to leave the retaining wall along 44d' Avenue intact, especially the NE corner. However, they plan on altering the wall along Central Avenue to soften the appearance and improve the visibility to the shopping center. They plan to terrace it down and add landscaping to make the elevation change more gradual. He went on to say they will mill and overlay the entire parking lot and change out the lighting. The front fascade on the entire building will be re -done and the front sidewalk will have no curb. P & Z Minutes Page 5 Sept 6, 2016 Fiorendino asked about relocating the Garden Center to the SE corner of the site. Brehm said he is aware that they will have to amend the existing CUP to relocate the Garden Center. He said that ACE Hardware has had the rights to operate their garden center the last few years and that they will work it out with them, but the plan is to relocate it. Public Hearing was Opened. Sue Lowe from 4256 Jackson St. said she is happy they will be locating their store at the site. However, she was concerned with truck traffic along 43d Avenue and their ability to navigate the turns in and out of the shopping center without coming onto her property. She also was concerned with garbage smells from the dumpsters. Brehm said that widening the curb cuts along 43`d Avenue should help with trucks exiting the site. He also showed her where the garbage compactors would be located, which are further north than they used to be so that should improve that situation also. Holmbeck told members that the delivery hours are among the conditions for approval. Joyce Shellito from 403 Summit St. thanked the Hy -Vee representatives for locating a store in Columbia Heights. Rochell Lathen from 946 42nd Avenue is excited for the store to open and appreciated that they will be open 24 hours a day and will also serve breakfast. Kelly Dunn from 4257 Jackson St bought her house to be near a grocery store, so she is happy they will be locating there. She had concerns with the roof and roof top units as the existing ones are very noisy. Brehm told her that they will be replacing the roof membrane and all the rooftop units will be replaced and will be screened. He said the equipment they normally use is more quiet than older units and that they can adjust fan speeds to lessen the noise. Schill asked if everything will be roof mounted. Brehm said all HVAC and compressors would be on the roof. Brehm also said they are hoping to start construction in 2017. The Public Hearing was closed. Fiorendino wanted to add language to Condition 45 to add the word "sound" to the clause minimize the visual and sound impact on adjacent properties. Motion by Buesgens, seconded by Fiorendino, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2016 -PZ04, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. Motion by Buesgens , seconded by Fiorendino, to adopt Resolution No. 2016 PZ04, being a resolution approving a Site Plan, for the proposed Hy- Fee Grocery Store, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 2. Trash and /or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. P & Z Minutes Page 6 Sept 6, 2016 3. There shall be no deliveries, loading or unloading ofgoods and materials between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. 4. All exterior lighting shall be downcast as not to adversely impact neighboring residential properties. S. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and /or screened so as to minimize the visual and sound impact on adjacent properties and from public streets. 6 The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated August 22, 2016 7. Applicant will install a guardrail along the west property line to mitigate further damage to the City's fence surrounding Jackson Pond. 8. All City Storm Water Management requirements and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization requirements shall be achieved for this property. 9. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated August 1, 2016 shall become part of this approval. 10. Any requirements outlined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation must be met (MNDOT review pending). Any comments from MNDOT will be forwarded over to the applicant and will become part of this approval. 11. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. RESOLUTION NO.2016 -PZ04 A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2016 -0901) has been submitted by John Brehm on behalf of Hy -Vee, Inc. to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting Site Plan Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: Address: 4300 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Legal Description: On file at City Hall. The applicant seeks the following: Site Plan Approval for a proposed renovation of the commercial building located at 4300 Central Avenue NE. Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City's Zoning Code, on September 6s', 2016. Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of City Staff regarding the effect of the proposed Site Plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all Ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. P & Z Minutes Page 7 Sept 6, 2016 Further, be it resolved, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall become part of this approval; and in granting this approval the City and the Applicant agree that this Site Plan shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. 1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 2. Trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 3. There shall be no deliveries, loading or unloading of goods and materials between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. 4. All exterior lighting shall be downcast as not to adversely impact neighboring residential properties. 5. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets. 6. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated August 22, 2016. 7. Applicant will install a guardrail along the west property line to mitigate further damage to the City's fence surrounding Jackson Pond. 8. All City Storm Water Management requirements and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization requirements shall be achieved for this property. 9. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated August 1, 2016 shall become part of this approval. 10. Any requirements outlined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation must be met ( MNDOT review pending). Any comments from MNDOT will be forwarded over to the applicant and will become part of this approval. 11. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Passed this 6h day of September, 2016 Offered by: Buesgens Seconded by: Fiorendino Roll Call: All Ayes Marlaine Szurek, Chair Attest: Shelley Hanson, Secretary P & Z Minutes Page 8 Sept 6, 2016 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: 2016 -0902 Thomas Brama, Property Owner DEVELOPMENT: Preliminary Plat of T3 Addition for Thomas Brama II LOCATION: 4400 Stinson Blvd. NE. REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval with a Waiver to City Code Holmbeck told members that Thomas Brama has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Waiver for the property located at 4400 Stinson Blvd. NE. The site is currently comprised of 2 lots. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing lot line, and re -plat the property to result in seven single family residential lots. Once the plat has been approved, the applicant is proposing to keep the existing home on one of the newly created lots and build 6 new single family residential homes on the remaining newly created lots. This proposal requires a waiver to City Code, Section 9.115 to allow proposed lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 to have reduced lot widths. State Building Code prevents constructing a new building over a property line. Furthermore, in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the property, the lot lines must be removed. ZONING ORDINANCE The site is currently comprised of two lots. The properties are located in the R 1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. The properties to the north, south and west are also located in the Rl, Single Family Residential Zoning District. The properties to the east are located in the City of St. Anthony. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Low Density Residential Development. The City's Comprehensive Plan aims to identify new areas that can support single family housing and to encourage newer higher valued housing opportunities to provide move -up housing for existing and new residents. Re- platting the property to allow for the construction of new single family homes is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is not located in the Design Guideline Overlay District and as such, is not governed by the Design Guideline standards. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (L) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines three conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Preliminary Plat. They are as follows: P & Z Minutes Page 9 Sept 6, 2016 (a) The proposed preliminary plat conforms with the requirements of § 9.115. The proposed Preliminary Plat does not meet certain items under the Subdivision Ordinance (See attached memo from the City Engineer dated August 22 "d, 2016). A waiver to Section 9.115 is requested to allow lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 to have reduced lot width. Proposed lot widths include: Lot 4: 52 Feet Lot 5: 62 Feet Lot 6: 62 Feet Lot T. 52 Feet (b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This is correct. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low - density Residential. (c) The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. This is correct. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed Preliminary Plat with a Waiver to Section 9.115 of City Code to allow four reduced lot widths for the property located at 4400 Stinson Boulevard NE. Staff will work with the applicant to ensure that all the items listed in the attached Public Works Director's report are addressed before the Final Plat goes to the City Council for final approval at a later date. Holmbeck explained they have one year to finalize the plat and to record with Anoka County. Questions /comments by members: Fiorendino asked what the rationale was for creating 4 lots across the front and not 3. He asked if there was a hardship requirement to grant a waiver to City Code. Holmbeck explained this is a waiver, not a variance so a hardship is not necessarily required. The City Council would have to approve whether they want to deviate from the City Code in place after they consider whether it benefits the City as a whole or if geography dictates an exception to the rules in place. Fiorendino asked if there would be a homeowner's association created to ensure that maintenance and shared driveway access is detailed. Brama stated there would be. Hoium said the proposed lot widths are a concern to him. Buesgens was concerned with the City Engineer's memo. Holmbeck explained that is addressed in the conditions of the approval motion and Resolution. Public Hearing was Opened. Thomas Brama from 3302 39a' Avenue, St. Anthony, is the applicant. He and his Engineer Tim Egritch were present. He said he is proposing 4 lots across the front based on the geography of the lot, including a large hill and several retaining walls that will have to be constructed to make the lots buildable. He said the cost of constructing the walls are significant and the extra lot across the front will help recoup some of that expense. Brama told members that even though the lot widths are narrower than required, he still meets the overall minimum square footage required because the lots are deeper. P & Z Minutes Page 10 Sept 6, 2016 Brama said that 6 new single family homes, (plus the existing home), will be constructed near the beach and park and will make them very desirable. He plans on leaving as much of the natural landscaping and woods as possible. Buesgens asked Brama to explain to the audience his reasoning for smaller lots and the type of home he plans on constructing. Brama told members that he plans to construct Rambler (one level style) homes on smaller lots that require less maintenance which is becoming more attractive to young working families and seniors who still want to live in a house rather than an apartment or townhouse. Brama said he already reduced the number of lots across the front from 5 to 4 and again said he can't reduce anymore due to the expense of constructing boulder retaining walls. Fiorendino noted that the three lots in back appear to exceed the minimum 8,400 sf requirement but because there are driveway easements involved, it reduces the overall square footage by quite a bit. Hoium was also concerned with the reduction in square footage due to the driveway easements. He thought it makes the lots too small. He didn't feel an exception should be made to the Code, especially with no good reason. The job of the commission is to uphold our Code as it was established for the good of the City overall. Fiorendino agreed. Holmbeck explained to members that sometimes cities have to get creative in providing lots for new homes. She said this is a good use of the land but it is up to the Commission and City Council to decide whether to approve the proposal or not. He has a right to submit a proposal and the City has a right to approve or deny. Since the Commission can only make a recommendation and the City Council will make the ultimate decision on this, she encouraged all interested parties to attend the Council meeting on Sept. 12th. Schill asked who lives in the existing home and what condition it is in. Brama said he bought it from a bank as it was a foreclosure. He has renovated the interior and will add stonework to the exterior so it will fit in with the new homes. He told members he would like to move into the existing home himself. Hoium asked about the height of the retaining walls. Brama said there will be a 7 ft high retaining wall behind Lot 1 and an 8 ft wall behind Lot 7. The area depicted on the plan by Lot 4 is a wooded area that will be kept as is. Hoium asked about the 8 inch line to the fireplug which is currently located on the interior of the property. Brama said that would be moved to the street and that has been approved by the Fire Chief. Joyce Shellito from 403 Summit St. stated that parking should be a concern as people park along Stinson Blvd. which restricts traffic to one lane. Where will people who are visiting residents in the new homes park. The driveways are not that big and street parking is not always available. She said the park is full most days and especially on the weekends. She asked whether an interior street could be added so that entry could be made from the back of the lots. Holmbeck said the City isn't interested in doing that since installing the infrastructure would be almost impossible due to the topography of the area. The new owner (Dana) of 4343 Benjamin St. moved into her home last week. She said she bought the property because it was a low density area and surrounded by natural habitat. She is very upset that most of the trees will be removed and that six homes will be added to the area. She thinks it is a breach of trust to break the Zoning laws to create high density housing in a low density single family home area. She said the applicant created the hardship himself by trying to build so much in a small area so he can personally profit as much as possible. P & Z Minutes Page 11 Sept 6, 2016 Robert Kerwin from 4410 Stinson Blvd is very concerned about how congested this will make the area. He said the area is already congested due to the City Beach/Park, Silverwood Park and the current residents. This will double the density of the block and he thinks the density should be the same as the other properties in the neighborhood. The parking lot at the City Beach is small and does not accommodate the cars now and to add more residents and potential company will make the road impassable. He said he will have two houses bordering him on the south side of his lot versus the one he has on the north side. Kerwin also expressed concern about cars having a hard time getting up the hill in the winter. Mr. Moses of 4343 Benjamin St asked if adding 6 additional houses next to the park and cutting down trees and vegetation would have any environmental impact on the hill or the lake. He thinks the hill behind the existing homes could be in jeopardy of erosion. He asked if any environmental studies were performed or required. Mark Blinkman from 4430 Stinson Blvd has lived there for 38 years. He said parking along the street is an issue. It is a narrow street and normally has only one lane for moving traffic. He asked what the timeline would be to construct the new homes. Will they be done all at once or spread out over several years. He also wanted to know the price point that these homes would be marketed at. Lane Vickner from 4343 Benjamin St said construction vehicles will also add congestion to the street that may make it impassable at times. He also wanted to see information from an environmental study. The owners from 4525 Chatham Dr., and members of the Church abutting this property, were concerned about the removal of the vegetation on the site. They were also concerned about snow removal from the site. Where do they plan on putting the snow with such small lots and the private road accessing all the homes. The Reverend Jin S. Kim, Pastor of the Church of All Nations, gave the Commission a history of the church and said that at one time, they owned the piece of property being discussed at this meeting. According to Kim, when the Church sold the property in the 1960's, they were under the assumption that it would be kept as a wooded area with a maximum of one house possibly being added according to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Kim said members should keep in mind where this property is located and that it is abutting other nature areas for residents of the City to enjoy. He said there is no hardship for the developer if he develops it according to the Zoning Ordinance. However, if the Commission approves his proposal it will create a hardship for everyone around this property and anyone who uses the City Park, Silverwood, and the neighboring Church. Kim said Mr. Brama is trying to make a large profit by constructing as many homes on the site as possible and everyone else is paying the price. Kim told members that when the Church paved their parking lot, the Watershed District made them filter the water and create gardens to eliminate water run off that would add pollution near the lake. He asked what the environmental impact this would have on the surrounding parks and lake. He asked the Commission to exercise judgment in making their decision for the common good of the whole City and to uphold the City's Ordinance that was established for a reason. He said he will be going to the City Council to voice his concerns also. The Public Hearing was Closed. P & Z Minutes Page 12 Sept. 6, 2016 Brama addressed concerns mentioned by residents. He told members that he has already removed 10 -11 roll offs of debris and garbage from the site. He ensured everyone that he plans on keeping as many trees and vegetation as possible on the site. He admitted he is purchased this property as an investment and designed the number of homes to maximize his profit. He is excited to add new housing in a nice area of the City for new families. He told the Commission that he plans on constructing homes that will sell for $400,000 to $600,000 each. He estimates that the existing home in the back of the lot will be worth about $200,000 once he is done working on the exterior. Brama said this will clean up the site and be good for the area. The members asked if the project would still go forward if the number of homes were reduced so the waiver wasn't necessary. He said he wasn't sure he would proceed since there wouldn't be as much profit in it for him. Szurek asked Holmbeck to explain what a hardship is in regards to Planning. Holmbeck said this is not a variance request whereby a hardship must be given in order to be approved. This is a waiver to the Zoning Ordinance which asks that the rules be waived for this one case. Holmbeck explained that the Commission could approve the Plat without the waiver and he could still plat out 3 lots in front and meet the lot width requirement. She said it isn't up to the Commission to design the site or lots for him. If approved without the waiver it would be up to Brama to bring back a new Plat for approval. Murzyn asked Brama how he would handle snow removal. Brama said the snow would be handled on site and probably be plowed to the side of the road/driveways. Murzyn said this could affect fire truck access if the private road/driveway access is made to narrow due to a large amount of snow kept on site. He also said there wouldn't be much room on the lots since large homes are being proposed for the site. He also asked if the homes would be constructed all at once or whether they would be constructed gradually as sold. Brams said he would like to do construction in two phases. The front ones would be constructed first, and the back two at a later time. Fiorendino didn't see any reason to waive the City Code. Hoium agreed with him 100 %. He wants the developer to come back with a new plan with 70 foot width lots as required. They both thought the proposal should be approved or denied as submitted. If denied, it is up to the developer to come back with a new proposal for consideration. They didn't feel comfortable re- designing it for him. Buesgens understands his plan to build higher end homes on small lots, but also hears the concerns of the neighbors and the need to provide natural areas for people to enjoy that are accessible. She favored a compromise of approving the Plat but reducing the lots in the front from 4 to 3. Joe Hogeboom, the Community Development Director, said the City did know about the property being for sale, but the price was too high for the City to purchase for the possible construction of a single family home. He said staff also had a discussion of extending or opening another street access to the site, but the City Engineer was not in favor of that due to the topography of the property and the expense of adding the infrastructure that would be required to develop it properly. He said the members must consider whether the waiver makes sense for this site since additional public roads will not be added. Mr. Brama came up with a design to develop the property without an additional road and also took into account the topography, which was a challenge. P & Z Minutes Page 13 Sept 6, 2016 Szurek agreed with Buesgens. She stated she has conflicting views. While she admires someone pursuing the "American Dream" of making the most of an investment, she also understands the concerns of the neighbors. She would be comfortable recommending the City Council approve the plan with only 3 lots across the front. Szurek explained that the Commission can only make a recommendation and that the City Council will actually make the decision on this matter. Schill appreciated everyone who spoke and that his questions have all been answered. Motion by Buesgens, seconded by Szurek, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2016 -75, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Buesgens, seconded by Szurek, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat without the Waiver to Section 9.115 of City Code, and recommends reducing the front lots from 4 to 3 for the property located at 4400 Stinson Boulevard NE. subject to certain 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: 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated August 22, 2016. All the items outlined in the report should be dealt with prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3. The private driveway will need to be constructed to hold the weight of a fire vehicle, approximately 45,000 to 50,000 lbs. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 5. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the City Council approval. In the event that a Final Plat is not submitted within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will become void. 6. Upon approval of a Final Plat, the applicant shall be responsible for filing and recording the Final Plat with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within one year of the date of City Council action. In the event that a Final Plat is not recorded within this time period, the Final Plat will become void. Roll Call: Ayes- Buesgens and Szurek. Nays- Fiorendino, Hoium, and Schill MOTION FAILED. This matter will go to the City Council for consideration at the September 120 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary CH COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2016 -1001 DATE: October 4, 2016 TO: Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission APPLICANT: Hy -Vee, Inc. DEVELOPMENT: Central Valu Center LOCATION: 4300 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 REQUEST: Approval of the Conformity of the Tax Increment Financing Plan to the Comprehensive Plan and Adoption of Resolution 2016 -PZ05 PREPARED BY: Keith Dahl, Economic Development Manager INTRODUCTION Hy -Vee has requested public financial assistance from the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the redevelopment of the property located at 4300 Central Avenue NE (Subject Property). In Columbia Heights, the EDA is the authority authorized to exercise Tax Increment Financing (TIF) powers, however the EDA may not exercise any TIF powers without prior approval from the City Council. The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to approve the modification and establishment of the proposed TIF district for October 24, 2016 at approximately 7:00 PM. Before or at the time of approval of a TIF district, the City Council shall make certain findings pursuant to Minnesota State Statue 469.175. One specific finding that is required before City Council approval is that the Planning and Zoning Commission review and determine if the TIF plan conforms to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. Thus, the Planning and Zoning Commission will need to approve a resolution that ensures the proposed TIF plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan for the City. ZONING ORDINANCE The Subject Property is located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District (GB) along Central Avenue. The 10.14 Acre site is adjacent, on the north and south side, to Limited Business Zoning Districts (LB), One and Two - Family Residential Zoning Districts (R -2A), and Built as Duplexes Residential Zoning Districts (R -26). However, the property to the west is zoned as 4300 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2016 Planning Report Page 2 Public and Open Spaces (PO) and the properties to the east, across Central Avenue, are designated as GB. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Currently, the existing use along Central Avenue between 43rd and 45th Avenue NE is home to auto - oriented, big box stores with large front loaded parking lots. Given the frequent transit services along Central Avenue, the Comprehensive Plan guides the Subject Property for transit - oriented, mixed -use development that accommodates a front loaded building along Central Avenue with off - street parking located behind. The development should also provide an enhanced pedestrian environment that incorporates landscaping and fagade features in an effort to increase pedestrian activity. The Comprehensive Plan also discusses the opportunity for the City to pursue funding for redevelopment, such as grants and evaluation of financial tools, such as Tax Increment Financing or Tax Abatement to attract redevelopment specific to the desired needs of the community. The modification and establishment of the proposed TIF plan will result in the renovation of an underutilized commercial retail center and the attraction of a new grocery store, Hy -Vee. Hy- Vee's Site Plans were previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 2016. The approved Site Plans propose that development will incorporate vegetation (canopy trees, understory plants, and evergreens) throughout the property in a concentrated effort to create an aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrian activity to increase. The typical distance for a pedestrian to choose to walk rather than drive is in the range of a quarter mile. Within the quarter mile radius around the Subject Property, there is approximately 1000 residential housing units zoned as R -2A and R -26. If you take the average household size in Columbia Heights, which is roughly 3.15, and multiply it by the number of residential housing units within the quarter mile radius, you find 3,150 residents have the potential to increase the pedestrian activity in the surrounding area. In conclusion, granted that the approved Site Plans for Hy -Vee are not consistent with the transit - oriented, mixed -use development the Comprehensive Plan guides for, the proposed TIF plan will generate roughly 450 jobs within the community. That is 77% of the expected jobs Columbia Heights is supposed to accommodate for between 2000 and 2030. For these reasons and more, the proposed Central Valu Center TIF District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Columbia Heights. DESIGN GUIDELINES The request and approval for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and determine the proposed TIF district is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan isn't subject to Design Guidelines. SITE PLAN City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2016 Planning Report Page 3 The request and approval for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and determine the proposed TIF district is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan isn't subject to a Site Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT The request and approval for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and determine the proposed TIF district is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan isn't subject to Findings of Fact. RECOMMENDATION Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2016 -PZ05, a resolution by the Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission Finding that a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and the Plans for Establishment of the Central Valu Center TIF District conform to the General Plans for the Development and the Redevelopment of the City of Columbia Heights. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2016 -PZ05 2. Tax Increment Financing Plan PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -PZ05 RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL VALU CENTER TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA ") and the City of Columbia Heights (the "City ") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Value Center Tax Increment Financing District therein (together, the 'Plans ") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: October 4, 2016 Chair ATTEST: Secretary As of September 27, 2016 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority City of Columbia Heights Anoka County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: October 24, 2016 Adopted: E H L E RS Prepared by EHLERS i ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651- 697 -8500 fax: 651 - 697 -8555 ✓.ehlers- inc.com Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project ...................... 1 -1 Foreword.............................. ............................... 1 -1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District ..................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword ................ ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ......... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives .... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2 -2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District .. ............................... 2 -2 Subsection 2 -7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2 -4 Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4 Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ............ ............................... 2 -6 Subsection 2 -11. Fiscal Disparities Election ... ............................... 2 -6 Subsection 2 -12. Business Subsidies ........ ............................... 2 -7 Subsection 2 -13. County Road Costs ........ ............................... 2 -8 Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2 -8 Subsection 2 -15. Supporting Documentation . ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -17. Modifications to the District . ............................... 2 -11 Subsection 2 -18. Administrative Expenses ... ............................... 2 -11 Subsection 2 -19. Limitation of Increment .... ............................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment ..... ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -21. Excess Increments ....... ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2 -14 Subsection 2 -23. Assessment Agreements .. ............................... 2 -14 Subsection 2 -24. Administration of the District ............................... 2 -14 Subsection 2 -25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2 -14 Subsection 2 -26. Reasonable Expectations .. ............................... 2 -14 Subsection 2 -27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................. 2 -15 Subsection 2 -28. Summary ............... ............................... 2 -16 Appendix A Project Description ....................... ............................... A -1 Map of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the District ...... B -1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C -1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ......... ............................... D -1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ........ ............................... E -1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District ... ............................... F -1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications ...... ............................... G -1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project is recommended. It is available from the Community Development Director at the City of Columbia Heights. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project 1 -1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2 -1. Foreword The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA "), the City of Columbia Heights (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (the "District "), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist 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'), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act "), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing, predominately vacant retail center into a 98,000 square foot grocery and 20,000 square foot retail or medical office space in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA will be entering into an agreement with Central Valu Center Inc. and development is likely to occur in early 2017. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the District. Subsection 2.4. Redevelopment Plan Overview I . 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. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, 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. 4. The EDA orCity may perform orprovide for some orall necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2.1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions 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 determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type oftax incrementfinancing district consisting ofaproject, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of70percent ofthe area 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, 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) tankfacilities, orproperty whose immediatelyprevious use wasfor tankfacilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tankfacility: (i) have or had a capacity ofmore than one million gallons; (ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. lob. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination ofdeficiencies in essential utilities andfacilities, light and ventilation, fireprotection including adequate egress, layout and condition ofinteriorpartitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard ifit is in compliance with the building code applicable Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -2 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 ofthe building, the average cost ofplumbing, 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, ifthe 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 building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the following conditions are met. (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements ofparagraph (e), as the case may be, within three years of thefiling ofthe request for certification ofthe parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; (2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were 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 or met the requirement ofparagraph (e) and that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and (4) upon filing the request for certification ofthe tax capacity ofthe parcel as part ofa district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity ofthe parcel must be adjusted as provided by ,¢ 469.177, subdivision ],paragraph 69. (e) 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 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. 69 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 district, 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 District is a redevelopment district consisting of one parcel. • 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 ofthe buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent ofthe buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 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 and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., 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 EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2019, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2044, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify 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 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177 Subd. 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 in 2016 for taxes payable 2017. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2019) the amount 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 boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in 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 2017, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2017. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2019. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 24 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $500,936 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $102,068 Fiscal Disparities Contribution $119,102 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $279,766 Original Local Tax Rate 1.50371 Pay 2016 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $420,687 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax cappacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the Distnct in year one is estimated to be $239,250. 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, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality 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 improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found that some building permits have been issued in the past 18 months, but none that should increase the original tax capacity. Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay -as- you -go note and/or interfund loan/transfer. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. 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 determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $6,904,488 Interest $690,449 TOTAL $7,594,937 The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $4,679,208. Such bonds may be in the form of pay -as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -5 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing, predominately vacant retail center into a 98,000 square foot grocery and 20,000 square foot retail or medical office space. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility 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 financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $1,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $2,500,000 Utilities $100,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $388,759 Administrative Costs (up to 10°/0) $690,449 PROJECT COST TOTAL $4,679,208 Interest $2.915.729 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $7,594,937 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2 -9. 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 MS., 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 Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. 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 b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial - industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -6 capacity is equal to orgreater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current 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 financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditorshall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity ofthe authorityfrom 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 ofthe authority as well as the net tax capacity ofthe local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension ofthe less 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 b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method ofcomputation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant 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 ofcomputation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2 -12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses 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 stock 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 if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (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 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (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 described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -7 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota 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 current 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 by, 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 $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 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 to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if 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 improve 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 development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF 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. Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact 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 has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -8 i UU.TaXeRsi��v:�� The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2017 rates and figures, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $6,904,488; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is not expected. The City Police Department does track all calls for service by addresses and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City Police Department expects an increase in call types similar to those generate from other similar developments in the area. However, the City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. However, lighting operating Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -9 2015/Pay 2016 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Completion to Entity Total Anoka County 265,016,460 279,766 0.1056% City of Columbia Heights 10,044,448 279,766 2.7853% ISD No. 13 14,553,977 279,766 1.9223% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Pay 2016 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Anoka County 0.379920 25.27% 279,766 106,289 City of Columbia Heights 0.748410 49.77% 279,766 209,380 ISD No. 13 0.294420 19.58% 279,766 82,369 Other 0.080960 5.38% 279.766 22,650 Total 1.503710 100.00% 420,687 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2017 rates and figures, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $6,904,488; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is not expected. The City Police Department does track all calls for service by addresses and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City Police Department expects an increase in call types similar to those generate from other similar developments in the area. However, the City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. However, lighting operating Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -9 costs are yet to be determined. Sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees are yet to be determined. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $1,351,899; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $1,744,453; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2 -15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. I (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: • A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing. Subsection 2 -16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid 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, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -10 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 District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; 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 469.175 Subd. 469, the geographic area of the District 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 of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2 -18. Administrative Expenses h1 accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative 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, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations 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, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -11 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 District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated 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 District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. 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 increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget 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 examining 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 The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all 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 incrementf nancing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation ofproperty or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner oftheparcel in accordance with the tax incrementfinancing 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 orrenovation orothersitepreparation on thatparcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax incrementf:nancingplan, the authorityshall 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 ofthe tax incrementf nancing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions ofthis subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February I of the fifth yearfollowing the year in which the parcel was certified Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2.12 as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately October 2020 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located 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 the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project pursuant to 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 Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise 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 M.S., Chapter 462C. MS., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and /or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued 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 circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Anoka to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. 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 reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement 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 following: 1. Prepay 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 outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2.13 modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Downtown Central Business 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 conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate 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 to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired 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 issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired 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 acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2 -23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed 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 improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2 -24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director Subsection 2 -25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published 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 containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution 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 anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 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 TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, 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. Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment General Limitations. 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 the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project pursuant toM.S, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, 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 government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling 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 activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed 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 satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation ofredevelopment and renewal and renovation districts underMS., Section 469.176Subd. 4j. Thesecosts include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring 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 action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -15 Subsection 2 -28. Summary The Columbia Heights is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697 -8500. Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2 -16 Appendix A Project Description Hy -Vee intends to acquire the existing CenterValu Mall and demolish portions of the existing structure, complete environmental cleanup that is required and then construct a 3,800 sq /ft addition for loading docks and complete significant renovation of the remaining center into a 98,000 sq /ft grocery and 20,000 sq /ft retail space to accommodate medical office and/or additional new retail. The EDA will be issuing a pay -as- you -go TIF note. Appendix A -1 Appendix B Map of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the District Appendix B -1 CENTRAL VALU CENTER TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA I _ 1 • _ _ c Jar T I I - � 1 -: I� ?F II Axnl arrtaor ', - _ ry ` Legend Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Redevelopment Project - Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District m. muedm.. el n. c.mnl ausmus omdn R<daelapmm[P f f h. ae co[erminem riN tee [eryeM. IImM[ eh e. LM/ e/ CelumEle NtlgMa Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 35- 30 -24 -11 -0083 4300 CENTRAL AVE NE BRE NON -CORE 2 OWNER B LLC Appendix C_1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Appendix D -1 912=016 EHLERS HyVee Redevelopment • 3% Inflation City an Colurnblg Heights Grocery An r—p Retell Cenur B. V.I. Assumption. -Pegg 1 1 Bena value s ere pr pay 301 dewd a pon review al ..c y �i.tx _�61 Ifi Pa. ea, Warm 6arznwe 1.-.. qry, NW in. wtalCN UrrdaWyyrWOWry.Emmme- RrGWO',ayap MprekaWyWr" PeMorp RxrapF f Unp}A W. Fria, BR Tf... BASE ASSUMPTIONS INFORMATION (Original Tax DIetXCnVps: Retleeelopar —t Tex Relx District NsmMlwnber Bullding Mnbt Velua 3123,000 Tot Market Vtlu0 5,190, 0 PercenteHeTot CA Velue Used for 0Wltct lac Original Wrlwl Value ,190,90 C.W, Dletrld M: PropM Tex Claw C/1 n/. Curnnl Original Tw Cn ea 102.0f1 Exempt Clew RaU(Exempt) 0.00% FlatyiWr Constructs. or Inflation on V.I.. N17 Cmmrtsrtid 1W.M.1 Pnkmtl Claw Raw (VI First) 5.140.900 ExlagnB 0WVpW - gpwHy No. Yuri Rafralning tOg OBg Boil $150,000 1.5m Inflation Rate -Every Ywr 9.00% Ovsr $150,000 2,009( IMenal Wn: 6.0016 Commsnel lMUS1l ICMae Wle (GI( 2,0% P— MVelua Date: 1 -AuW17 Rental HouMV Class RSn(WNelf 1,25% First Parid Endiy 1 -F.b18 ARoryble Renal Hwulrp Class RAW (AR. Rental) Tex Year District was certified : Pay2017 Finl $115,000 D]5% OseMlowA —rraa Fail Tex In—aWW For Development: 2019 cwt $115,030 0.25% Ywn d Tex IndsmaM 28 IbmHOmesbed RedderNel (No" Res. t Unit) Asaum» Lent Yeeraf Tex lnaameM 2000 Ff. 5500000 1,C0% Fiawl DiaprtilMa EMCtion l0ulabe N). triad. ABL or NAl Inelde(B) Owr 550,000 1.25% IWimmeMal or TOnl Fiscal DispaMin In[nmenYl Ibmesteed WsMeroal Data Rep (Hmsld. Res.) Floul Dispel COMnbMion Ratio N .8501% Payola Ff. 550000 1.0091 Flacel DlspMisa MaWWMe Tex for, 1502820% Pay 2018 Owr 5500,000 1.0% Wumum4manLoWlTu Rep: 15oat Payola AOrmuBUreI N.11-W.M." CumM Local Tex Rep. (Um keaar of Currant or M—) 15D.371% Payola 3leprvMe Tex RAW (Comm AM. orly it W,.1 pwa) 95.8910% Payola WMt Velw Tex Rep (Used air WWI pips) 01912]% Payola 1 Bena value s ere pr pay 301 dewd a pon review al ..c y �i.tx _�61 Ifi Pa. ea, Warm 6arznwe 1.-.. qry, NW in. wtalCN UrrdaWyyrWOWry.Emmme- RrGWO',ayap MprekaWyWr" PeMorp RxrapF f Unp}A W. Fria, BR Tf... BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity) Ipnd W A PIO O.Vnn Addrwa WWit Velus 1 353629]]0083 030 CeMmI AVe 2,01,500 Bullding Mnbt Velua 3123,000 Tot Market Vtlu0 5,190, 0 PercenteHeTot CA Velue Used for 0Wltct lac Original Wrlwl Value ,190,90 Tex Ywr oXgNal Mehet Velua ey 1 PropM Tex Claw C/1 n/. Curnnl Original Tw Cn ea 102.0f1 Class ABar Co —relon Crl n. glpr Cornanpn ArW Od .Tae Ce PM1w 1 8 t 5.140.900 tOg OBg 192 pkk 1 Bena value s ere pr pay 301 dewd a pon review al ..c y �i.tx _�61 Ifi Pa. ea, Warm 6arznwe 1.-.. qry, NW in. wtalCN UrrdaWyyrWOWry.Emmme- RrGWO',ayap MprekaWyWr" PeMorp RxrapF f Unp}A W. Fria, BR Tf... az2/zD1e EHLERS HyVee Redevelopment -3% Inflation City of CDlurgbia Heights Grocery AncFOrad Retell Cemer Baas Value Assumptions -Page 2 I Merkur valuessn..ad upon a allme4Jrom county esw¢sor on 03 -16 /signlirantly lrwn Yee o year PROJECT TAX CALCULATIONS r 4tmw e Tax Dbpetllies EctNyted Taxa Total Texeb4 Property Property P.—elee Pemanta al Pa...gu Percen4ge Flrsl Yesr Ce ecit MsMel Wlua Market value iotel Merbt Tax PreJecl PmJed TU CompNgd Cample4d Canpbted Celnplebd Full Taxes RnNPM1eu New Dw pp By. FtNnll Par Be. Bq.FW.14 Velus Cleea Tu Ce c Ce Be d nll 20 1] 2018 M19 2020 Peyeble Oram 92 92 130.455 11.000.000 CII'ref. 23925 2 IMp 1 1 im 2019 Bubtpbl Nesldardlel 0 0 0 �BUMW qn arc4Nn 130 12.000,000 .250 I Merkur valuessn..ad upon a allme4Jrom county esw¢sor on 03 -16 -^ /signlirantly lrwn Yee o year delwnding u'on vat uea.. alas, stela Is. 11-1 dl.1 -11sa end other lectors TAX CALCULATIONS 4tmw e Tax Dbpetllies Tex Propady Disperl0es Property Velua To41 Tese. Per New UU Ce ecit Tex Ce Ce ecit Texea Texea Texea Tuee Tuea Sq FIIUnIt Groro 238,250 T1,440L1 111],810 252.33 10]0 441 16,052 4BS. 11 3.11 -^ /signlirantly lrwn Yee o year delwnding u'on vat uea.. alas, stela Is. 11-1 dl.1 -11sa end other lectors wnlcM1 cannel Le pntliclatl M nlee / , ew- 5lde TUes M (110,3)4) ue -ESL 12.000000 iep, Adj. (10],846) 7NI�-E.nL., VelwTaxep (16.952) Tex lncl—M lue Tewe 10].631) TIF cprc wilbN Texlx4mwnu lam Nan: Ps. Ly EManB A.axwwI- - 10—we Q uxswxxxM "HeexuxW NEanmie�0.WrebPnpnMIFlTIF OIaRM1WplMil[peaknTFRwrtYI § n Y2Me�FIMX FOPiM PLµ,tla anzz9lS re. mc,.menl czsnnow. Psa.3 EHLERS HyVee Redevelopment - 3% Inflation City of Columbia Heights Grocery Anchored Retail Center %a( 7,u Tx G41vXtlx TaR Tx Orax TU I Grax TV Rutlllar tl HetTU Puxnt EXGIX13 Tu 10%l 299.250 (102.058) (JO.Po9) 99,219 150371% 1... 221"3 (200) (7,208) 04,8]4 S.,. 05 2019 OBN1N9 '71M 12051 (7,208) 04,8]0 118.892 1 ROCS 02 1. 10x0. 2x,428 (102088) (49.100 ) 101.204 150.9]1% 1522Y ]8,128 (214) (7,5&5) 0B.289 110,919 15 2020 MI= 10.128 (27<) (],595) 80..9 238,]46 2 2020 02 Mi 1006 253,820 (102008) (65,313) 1..4]9 160.9]1% 180053 80,02] (288) (],9]O) ]1.285 2",885 25 2021 OBN1Y1t BOOR] (288) (7.974) ]1,]05 980.005 9 2021 Mile 100% 201495 (102,"8) (47,581) 111]80 150.3]1% 168084 04,OR (303) (8.974) 75,300 .1,811 35 2028 owl. B4.W2 (303) (8,914) 75,M 482.485 4 2022 0 lMS 10 269,278 1102,058) (40,928) 117,261 150.9]1% 178,366 BBj. (317) (8.]05) "075 5",835 I5 2023 MlM 88,1]8 (311) (%186) 79075 0[5,99$ 5 2023 02V1119 104% 277,9'.8 (102088) 152. %1) 122.941 150.371% 1.877 90438 (939) (9,211) U.S. 088,]80 5.6 2024 0&0105 02,138 (39 9) (9,211) 82.895 ]903]8 6 =4 07,9145 100% 2..." OWNS) (54,8X) 12%]89 150.371% 193%53 05,820 (949) (9,808) 80... 7.SN 05 2025 O IAM (948) (9.840) WAS) 855.040 ] 20M MIME 100% 294.247 (102808) (57,385) 13 7. 150371% 202,602 101.840 (385) 110,098) .883 010,2]2 7.5 XX OWIM 101.318 (XS) (10.098) Po.BB3 081.85] B XX 02/01R] 104% 903.075 (102088) 180.021) 140.900 150.371% 212002 IDOPOI (382) ry0.b2) 05.67 1.045,028 05 2027 OwIM? 108091 (392) (10.502) 0.167 7,108.315 0 W27 =l 058 mW 312%] (192.058) (02.7X) 1.1363 150.971% ..592 110]. (309) (11.0) 99,357 1,172013 95 me O"lQ8 11Olin (399) (17,04 0) 99357 135.021 1 10 2028 MIN D 1pPb 321592 (102,058) (05.5921 153,832 1509]1% 291.x9 11M H1]) (11,532) 103.780 1,900,147 10.5 2029 MI. 115,74 (417) (11,532) 102729 1.X3,408 11 2029 02.190 104% 331.178 (102088) (08.412) 180,804 1..9"% 241.042 120,821 (4%) (12,099) 108..8 1..". 115 203(, OBN190 120021 (4n) (12030) 108.948 1001,831 12 MO MIMI 100% .1,113 (1@.048 ) ",3]9 ( ) 10].005 1603]1% 252.121 1X,051 (4.1 (12561) illm 1,55001 125 X31 O IMI 128.061 1404) (12,561) 113M 1,820.210 13 2091 02NV32 105% 951.7 (102,000) (74495) 170.805 150371% X2.914 131,457 (419) (13,098) 11;829 1,885,300 105 X92 M IA2 131,457 (419) (13,090) 117.X8 1040,105 14 20M Oh IM 105% 301,88] (102088) (7].582) 182.2n 1.0.3]1% 274.01 13],010 (403) (13,M2) 122.870 1.814,904 14.6 On Ob0199 131.018 (483) (19.052) 1228]0 1,an. 15 2029 02"11. ISM 3]2,1x (102.058) (80824) 18904 150371% 285,482 142]41 (514) 110.223) I.S. 1 W3.511 1S5 2034 Ml 142.741 (514) 114.2191 1290" 200].51] 10 X. O IAM 105% 389,829 (14,058) (84105) 1.,685 1X.371% 297.276 14%X8 (529) (14,810) 133.20 2,012,X0 18.5 20M M11M 1Q.SW (296) (14,810) 133.204 2.1X.41 17 20M MIME 105% 906.44 (tO ;Mel IB).X2) 2MgX 1X.9"% 304.424 1M.]12 (X]) (15.415) 1X,]39 2.X2,294 25 2029 M1.1 1.712 1X71 (15,415) 1X,739 2X0.904 18 2048 MiM7 100% 05),93] MIMS) (91,145) 214 OW 150371% 321.938 100988 (5]9) (IsW4) 14.829 2,MIJ59 185 2037 MroW7 1.0,968 (570) (18.00) 14,929 2,395,051 19 2047 02"1/38 10J 410.529 (tW,W8) (80.]09) 222055 15S371% 334,8. 107012 (299) (18,8.1) 160.128 2.11X3 19.5 2038 .1. 18].412 (299) (18081) 150.1" 25X,2]9 20 2038 .7,0199 tM% 432112 (1020561 (05X2) "1.404 1X.3]1% 94.004 t]4,M0 (4]) (17,342) 105,029 2,5M,4T 204 X94 0601(30 174W9 (4]) (17,342) 105,880 2,054,05 21 XV9 .1.0 105% 40.5,0]5 (102.060) (104.422) 240,585 150371% "1.770 Is"" 1051) (10,00) 102211 2,719,834 215 2040 0"110 1X.885 (MI) (x,023) a2211 ;783,X8 22 RWO .1.1 105% 45%429 (104.058) 005008) 2.00 15.371% 3]3.053 18].0" (e77) (18.723) 1881525 2840040 US 2.1 OBOt /4 187,026 (817) (18.725) 105329 2912794 23 2041 02"1/42 105% 472181 (102.8) (110,510) "8.292 150.371% M..359 186.170 ("9) (19,448) 1] ;0]9 2,977,922 ",6 X42 OM1142 10,179 (70n (19.48) 1]5,0]0 3,041.575 . . MI143 1.% 4053. ('MM) (114.74) X9532 1X.9"% 405.298 202048 (730) ( ".14) 181,728 3106.4" 245 2053 08"1143 120,14) 181,7,28 9.110.043 25 20d3 4/01/4 1.% 5.,930 (I..8) (119,102) 279,]29 150.3]1% 4X.08] 30,.3 (751) 1 (20059) 1808" 3,2..390 25.5 20m IwV 210349 ]51 T.b1 8,424,4" n4,9461 1XO,4 ..X4.19 011x05 Velu From Otgl / "17 PmerR Value qa4 4.00% 1.043005 113246 RB6,.41 9.240..0 8-.. er E..,. 4...«.... M.. e.e,,.m.om N, .- xirew.,,a..ror w..rro E-k . x.a..111...1wmmore m- ...rvoW.mFne.�rFn..ezaa- r1w'rox r :.lwn Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at httL)://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/N4BAFForm.htin for information and forms. Appendix E -1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District To be added to prior to the public hearing Appendix F•1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications To be added to prior to the public hearing But -For Analysis Current Market Value 5,140,900 New Market Value - Estimate 12,000,000 Difference 8,859,100 Present Value of Tax Increment 3,678,030 Difference 3,181,070 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 3,181,070 Appendix G -1