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