Loading...
2002.03.11 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY March 11, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • February 11, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS * none * D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Review results of City Council consideration of Planning Commission bylaw changes. 2. Consider initiating a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change future land uses along Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue by modifying Figure 7 - Future Land Use and associated text. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Redevelopment Update. F. GENERAL INFORMATION • City Council action on items previously reviewed by the Planning Commission • "Welcome to the Commission!" packet G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT • For additional information, contact John Sutter at 763-531-1142 • \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\P LAN NING\PLANCOMM12002103-11\agendasummary.doc February 11, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Elsen, T. Graham, Krueger, Nystrom, Magnuson, K. Graham, Koss, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Kamp. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2002 meeting and the January 28, 2002 work session with no exceptions. Motion carried. 2. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-01 for lot combination and division for the purpose of re -aligning an existing lot line between 5826 West Broadway (P.I.D. 05- 118-21-13-0009) and 5820 West Broadway (P.I.D. 05-118-21-13-0010). Application submitted Carl A. Swenson, Jr. (applicant and owner of 5826 West Broadway) and Betty J. Foster (owner of 5820 West Broadway). Planner Sutter stated that Carl A. Swenson, Jr. owns the property at 5826 West Broadway and Betty J. Foster owns the property at 5820 West Broadway. In October 1997, when Mr. Swenson moved a garage onto the property, he assumed that the fence line was also the property line and placed the garage so that it complied with the minimum setback as measured from the fence. Both the applicant and the adjacent owner are in agreement that they have always considered the fence to be right on the property line, although Ms. Foster and the previous owners have generally been the ones maintaining the fence. Because the property line does not actually follow the fence line, the recently moved -in garage does not comply with the minimum setback for an accessory structure. This did not become known to the applicant or the city until the location of the garage was verified during the field inspection process. The city has initiated enforcement action against the applicant to ensure that the required setback is complied with and the required hard surfaced driveway is installed. This application is intended to resolve the setback issue. The enforcement action regarding the hard surfaced driveway will continue with or without approval of this application. To correct the problem with the newly moved -in garage, and to relocate the property line to the fence line, the applicant is requesting lot combination and division. The modifications to the width and area of each parcel would be quite minimal and would not affect either property's compliance with the lot and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Sutter explained that staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. The dimensions of both parcels would appear to allow their use with or without approval of the request. The main effect of this request would be to make conforming the recently moved -in garage at 5826 West Broadway. It would also reduce (but not eliminate) the nonconformity of the older, existing garage on the same property. Planner Sutter stated that one concern of staff is that the required hard surfaced driveway has not yet been installed, even though the garage was moved onto the site in October 1997. Completion of the hard surfacing is long overdue. However, because it is currently winter, staff recommended giving the applicant until July 1, 2002 to complete the required hard surfaced driveway. Staff also feels that fences should be on one property or the other, not directly on the line. This is to ensure that, years down the road after one or both properties have changed hands, it is clear who has ownership of and responsibility of the fence. However, staff could find no such requirement in the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance, and as a result, staff opinion is that, assuming the request is approved, the city should include the following in the approval letter: • The city would prefer but cannot require that the property line be on one side of the fence instead of exactly along the fence; • It is up to the two current property owners to determine ownership of and responsibility for the fence, and to record such legal documents as may be necessary to make said ownership and responsibility clear for future owners of the properties; Any disagreement over the fence shall be a purely private matter between the two owners and the city will accept no responsibility in the matter. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Nystrom exclaimed that it is very important for property owners to take responsibility for a fence before it becomes an eyesore. Commissioner Elsen pointed out the city used to encourage building fences on the property line. Planner Sutter responded by suggesting that owners adopt a maintenance agreement to ensure future owners of the property know who is responsible for the fence. Commissioner Krueger inquired why this issue wasn't dealt with when the permit was applied for and Planner Sutter stated that in fact, that was when it was discovered by the inspector. Mr. Swenson, applicant and property owner, was asked by the Planning Commission to come forward and help clarify the situation. Mr. Swenson stated that he has been neighbors with Ms. Foster for over 20 years both are willing to negotiate a maintenance easement to designate one property owner as rightful caretaker of the fence. He also explained that the discrepancy was caused by plans that were drawn inaccurately. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-01 for a lot combination and division of 5826 West Broadway and 5820 West Broadway. Findings of fact are as follows: The request is consistent with the requirements of the Crystal City Code, provided the following conditions are met: • No later than July 1, 2002, the applicant shall complete the required hard surfaced driveway as shown in the Building Official's notes attached to Building Permit 413156 issued October 2, 1997. • Staff shall include language in the approval letter that puts both property owners on notice that they and any subsequent owners are responsible for ownership and maintenance issues related to the existing fence and the city has no role regarding those issues. Motion carried. Old business 4. New business 0 Consider proposed changes to Planning Commission Bylaws Commissioner Koss stated that he did not like the suggested term limits proposed by staff. He argued that if an elected official does well in a certain position, then they should not be limited in how long they can serve. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she thought the bylaws used to have a limit of three consecutive terms, but they were eliminated. She also said that she feels that the commission should have the right to appoint whoever they feel is the most deserving of the officer positions without having to be limited by terms. ' Commissioner K. Graham stated that the officer positions provide leadership opportunities for others on the commission and by limiting the terms, it would give others a chance to take on these roles. Commissioner T. Graham agreed with Commissioner K. Graham in that he thought the term limit was maybe a good idea. He also reminded the commission that they have the ability to decide what the term limit should be, if any. He said that three years maybe just isn't the right number. Planner Sutter stated that the three year number was arbitrary, and that it had been chosen by staff only because it corresponded to the length of Planning Commissioners' terms. Commissioner Krueger stated that he was against any term limit altogether. He reiterated that the best person should lead the commission, and that is proven through the votes of the commission. Commissioner K. Graham agreed that the best should lead, but expressed that others may have a different opinion of who the best is. Commissioner T. Graham suggested that leadership rotation could operate at each Planning Commission meeting by having the chair appoint a specific member to lead at different public hearings. This way, all members could get an opportunity to take on a leadership role and offer their expertise on specific agenda items. The majority of the Planning Commission was in agreement that they should consider developing Commissioner T. Graham's suggestion further. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to delete the term limits suggested by staff in the proposed changes to the bylaws. Motion carried 6-2, with Elsen, T. Graham, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, and Nystrom voting aye, K. Graham and V onRueden voting nay. Concern was also expressed about the attendance of Planning Commissioners at regular scheduled meetings. Staff suggested limiting absences to three per year, whether excused or unexcused, before removing the individual from the Planning Commission. Some commissioners stated that a pattern of deliberate - absences by a commissioner may require removal, but most absences cannot be helped. Planner Sutter explained that for the good of the Planning Commission, it is imperative for all commissioners to attend the regular scheduled meetings. For this reason, staff feels that excessive absences cannot be accepted, whatever the reason. In response to the comments and suggestions made by the Planning Commission, Planner Sutter suggested changing the proposal to read "In the event that a commissioner is absent from three or more regular meetings in a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences." At that time, the Mayor and City Council would then be responsible for making the decision to remove the individual based on the circumstances of the absences. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the revised changes to the attendance bylaws. Motion carried. The Planning Commission was in agreement that the mission statement incorporated the role and values of the commission very well, except for the statement "Striving for excellence", which was said to be too vague. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to eliminate the "Striving for excellence" condition from the mission statement. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Koss to approve the changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Motion carried. o Election of Planning Commission Officers for 2002 Commissioner Koss nominated and Commissioner Elsen seconded the nomination of Commissioner Paulette Magnuson as chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Motion carried. Commissioner Elsen nominated and Commissioner Koss seconded the nomination of Commissioner Richard VonRueden as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Commissioner T. Graham nominated and Commissioner K. Graham seconded the nomination of Commissioner Anthony Kamp as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Because there was more than one nomination for vice chair, voting was done by paper ballot and tabulated by staff. Motion carried 6-2 to elect Commissioner Richard VonRueden as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Commissioner Nystrom nominated and Commissioner Koss seconded the nomination of Commissioner T. Graham as secretary of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Motion carried. ❑ Select possible dates for the next Planning Commission work session and a joint work session with the City Council ❑ Review land uses along Douglas Drive N, south of 36`h Ave N, and consider whether to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment application for a public hearing in March Plamier Sutter stated that high density development is not realistic in this area. As previously discussed, staff and the Planning Commission suggested rezoning the area to medium density to provide more of a transition to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Planner Sutter also stated that the City Council has expressed interest in seeing something different in this area, and that is why the Planning Commission is asked to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and public hearing. Several commissioners had various concerns involving the impact on surrounding properties and how rezoning the area could effect how much control the Planning Commission would have over future development. Planner Sutter stated that the commission might still have a reason to deny an application if they could point out a specific negative impact of the proposed development. Planner Sutter explained that the city is stalling future development with the current zoning. Commissioners T. Graham and K. Graham agreed with Planner Sutter that the people that own this land and want to develop it deserve that opportunity and ultimately it is up to the city to provide it. Planner Sutter recommended that in order to give the city a greater degree of control, the Planning Commission should consider incorporating text into the Comprehensive Plan to specify what sort of development would be permitted in this area. The Planning Commission was very responsive to Planner Sutter's recommendation and requested that staff put together some text that coincides with the proposed rezoning changes for the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was tentatively scheduled for the April Planning Commission meeting. 5. General information ❑ City Council action on items previously reviewed by the Planning Commission ❑ Information on general Planning Commission issues 6. Open forum Adj ournment Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Koss to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Secretary Nystrom Chair Magnuson M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 7, 2002 TO: PI rfning Commission (for March 11th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Consider initiating a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change future land uses along Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue by modifying Figure 7 - Future Land Use and associated text. As we discussed at the February meeting, city staff has drafted some proposed text changes that would be part of a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment to facilitate private -sector - initiated redevelopment along Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. Attached is a copy of the draft text changes, together with the maps that were handed out last month. Staff might refine these further once the Planning Commission authorizes us to proceed with the public hearing on the matter, but the attached draft does provide a good outline of what we would be trying to accomplish with this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff requests that the Planning Commission authorize consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in accordance with the map and text enclosed. The public hearing would be on April 8, 2002. 3. City Of Crystal Vision Plan Narrative — "A Tour Of Crystal In 2020" 24 F. LAND USE 35 1. Existing Land Use 35 2. Land Use Plan 39 a. General Objectives 39 b. General Policies 39 3. Future Land Use Categories 40 a. Residential Neighborhoods 40 1. Objectives 40 2. Plan 41 3. Policies 42 b. Commercial and Mixed Use Areas 43 1. Objectives 43 2. Plan 43 ti. 3. Policies 45 C. Industrial Use Areas 46 1. Objectives 46 2. Plan 46 3. Policies 46 d. Airport 47 e. Special Area Plans 47 1. Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue 47 G. HOUSING 53 1. Introduction 53 2. Population and Housing 53 City of Crystal Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents e. Special Area Plans. 1. Corridor Plan — Douglas Drive south of 36`h Avenue. Some of the city's greatest potential for residential infill development can be found among the vacant, underutilized, or inappropriately zoned parcels scattered along both sides of Douglas Drive south of 36`h Avenue. The specific area included in this corridor plan is the area between Brunswick and Florida Avenue from 36`h Avenue south to the city boundary. The Future Land Use map (Figure 7) shows these parcels predominantly being guided for Medium Density Residential, with some of the transitional areas being guided Low Density Residential for better compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city for these underdeveloped areas to be redeveloped in a haphazard fashion. Specifically, the city has concerns about the following potential negative impacts of redevelopment along this corridor. CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: • Isolation. Redevelopment of some parcels might isolate or otherwise make it more difficult to redevelop other parcels in the area. • Compatibility. Due to the odd configuration of many of the parcels and limitations on development such as soils, flood zones and the presence of Bassett Creek, it is likely that redevelopment of many sites will be proposed as a Planned Unit Development. While PUDs offer increased flexibility for the developer and the city, there is also the potential for increased impacts on adjacent low density residential areas. • Systems. One of the characteristics of this area that has made it difficult for development is that it is where Douglas Drive, a road with a long history in the area, runs adjacent to Bassett Creek. The area is therefore directly impacted by elements of two regional systems: The transportation system and the natural resources system. The city has determined that preservation and enhancement of both transportation routes and open space corridors are important goals for the future well being of the community, and there is always the potential for development to occur in a way which conflicts with these goals. To address these potential negative impacts, the city has established the following guiding principles for the corridor. These principles shall be used by the city in evaluating any planning, zoning or other land use related application within the corridor plan area. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR • Development shall be consistent with the density limits established for the residential uses shown on the Future Land Use map. If a development site includes areas guided for different densities, the developer may request that the city average the guided density on a pro -rated basis over the entire site. However, the city may require the developer to conform with, each guided density instead of a pro -rated average. Density bonuses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance may be granted in cases where the city determines that there is a public benefit that will be enjoyed beyond the boundaries of the development itself. • Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by impeding access or leaving undeveloped any adjacent small, isolated, difficult -to -develop parcels. • Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Drive or other public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation system. • Development shall preserve a public open space corridor along Bassett Creek for the purposes of flood prevention, open space preservation and a possible future public trail. • Development shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and systems, including but not limited to issues of traffic, parking, noise, buffering, screening, impervious coverage, building size, form and materials. The city reserves the right to deny any land use related application that does not include site, building, landscaping, or other information deemed necessary by the city to evaluate the application. I1CY FSIISYSIGROUPSICOMDEVLPIPLANN/NGL4pplications12002IDouglasDrivecorridorltextchanges-2002-03-07.doc ROBBINSD4LE ULLAKELANO AVE. N. -J 45 TMRF PV N 3 � aas WEx 3 H 0 W Q = O .2 m 100 1ROBSINSDALE f ]6TH u PVE L / 3 R k W Q h 2 N,#1 I�I xl ...JnF I ¢. 'YVLYCn VwlLC1 ITHPVE N _I ;3 TN WE hL 29 TM � E ' H: W NEW :. .'•®�a of ' `: �. cf ❑ � I- -1 r� /_ ti�L y < ,1G IIS ....._ _.._ _.__ T -..- -- --_�- "-_`- f(l.1� 1 qv l�1..� r ? 1('7 jo CA ���m-.WNw `UNNO1t 4 v�SF'06 o`NN �ooOe < ,Lp3f5 'i�v 6h p m4_K' rn • .Ni�� V .ti %lDZ4-.tcTlr� I7-12R.L.S. Y L 70 t OS� t` 635 N 8 Aa . 0 l27o8!A m:y p mD _ �< �> �i Oo I w _ W N 3 •* ` Lu Q W W O IJ '' N {T� II ' ■. O O VOQ `C'� V p D /27.0 4 J //7. v 63.5 L.9.SY 4", 63•{•2 65¢2 X497 7498 .A AVE- �a a -i: L'i /27.0! •• - ti iz3.o/ �,1 �- - Y - p cns'6S 7,5 ?S 75G2 4p. /27.0/ (s� SIE __ TER R!A�Q 6 ro �, Q p ,,...rn N CrI W D u •° o m y o 0° i- /�A w a w ' O N N °pa c n Na x r 10 GK o ,,• �. !/C.7Z M` 4.4 p >h 68.49 v 4 zL. :� o s (, .s z.s p lzc,x - 0 LL.� Le op {• G3 L7.4E tv # A aN. N m //6.Q7 �IIbm,9l>(j -Z..a� o .f.�_ ,, -��- _ 1 / _ 4. D1 I ! ti - .({�. �p�` -Aar2� ��y "- �'+ THILLWA4D. fri 8� �'�w� c = "' a _ ��.o wt's p 4N _ # e� ^ J� 0 0 16: �5 w (1 e;, `:'� tl ' � ti `a w mob a .n J� w "' 3 v.N w P r -c ` .0.--1 , P. + a v p e N /09 fro G2 3441 66.93 Ga /26.53 G .4L 434 1 G•9E /26.93 N'ti6.9j I 116,9 /26.43111 �. _Li -U /ac -93 /AL.93 N r, Z. s- )IL,S oAVE. I�3a-- �h�� 41\ to o raFLORIDA`. ,� . b AVE. _ T• - \F 19(5 /!6.2 _•• w •• 15 ^ 7y 1Z 33 IZj.j"�. 01 76'k21�0 w� 14 _u • a jp'.d•... - - iQ ,,,1 V a s A D. -" V ti� inn "U? v � ^ J m t0 - y m Vl DOUGLAS Z, ;D io N 0 O N L w QI J. C A off• S 1t1.'}P /oo 1171 yi •, •'w .. n 3- 6' qq tZFU;o r14 U 14. 4 fzb.sl Ezde. vn4. Lo LLa/ DO 95.21 / 95 Vi W V` Q4-?-, �•y�.N N u ~ _ (i7 b s c 4 i .ca S. T 72 ` G3••Is - _•• w •• •• ^ •' •• •• L;.tS 1IG9 IZj.j"�. '1�r 14 14.7 4 jp'.d•... - - iQ ,,,1 V „ A D. -" ofl N e 63.37 •, P� inn "U? v � ^ J m t0 - y m Vl DOUGLAS Z, ;D io N 0 O N L w QI J. C A LSi1i S 1t1.'}P /oo 1171 yi •, •'w .. n 3- 6' qq tZFU;o r14 U 14. 4 fzb.sl Ezde. vn4. Lo LLa/ DO 95.21 / 95 Vi W V` Q4-?-, �•y�.N N G C.�', N _ (i7 tV - u OW h b�✓D .+ ` VI V n:. FI T A DITI L3.41 65, 0.1 95.t3 95 =3 Qr L ).4i 44 <. 3 I I I 1 I _ I { 1 I I I 1 ' I N y-�% _ e - n EDGEWOOD r�4 E. - --------------- 4 - ��� /�z7 60 ;' 3 =. EDGEWOOD AVE. o o ----------------------------------- � R`$0 * J.;Z 75 72 I C 126.79 63.39 43.39 L3.59 b3.3T A„ 3 w LT %� ac.Tt 46.77 r:.9a." 2�4.ri at-sz �•.-,sz �l/L.74 I O /i /oo 00 W R}ar / - - '�_ •r v �.. .�f �,(� - UL W r `.'P Av. cr w 0 tid: 6�. W 116.7[ ,+ W. r a o TO `��° .� f•a �op ba.t? vim+ gym• •� roti .e+. '.S e�sn •-•�` V J - ? K I SD•l " > N Y `� ' 1z ° y � � o <.. _ `^ - t 93.37 •` 6 /3•r•.. . x >.,, dG/9 B� %S .3>t D �_ INAw „�, - 4� � ao G o trr , 17 &.7s � Z53.5 ,. ^^ ,r no �y� { ro •� O 4 N ' + N Q �� r ��t» ;..,. i.�I 1 •' .. T,� "..� ►•✓. ,.fit '` � a '? -i W110 eo 70 1 11 iQ So 1915 1 J jj 4 c.7r 253 2 /7 .ZA 91- 1i.. z3 . 42 716 7/ 61 ^ nt$ 126. 0 //0.9 124.9 6b 93.78 w 93.78 f2b. rn j,"'?; FL AS o w {{ D jp'.d•... - - iQ ,,,1 V „ A D. v ofl N e 63.37 •, P� inn 6E �s 93.74 9'.74 v Q C '77 O w, -i y ' N U m Vl DOUGLAS Z, ;D io N 0 O A o TN H i D PLAZA `^ 1t1.'}P /oo 1171 63_x! c3.35 -1 ,'-7.R 7i rt z'� fzb.sl Ezde. vn4. Lo LLa/ -ts 14.78 Lia &3.-397 i ! 653.9 6b 93.78 w 93.78 f2b. rn j,"'?; FL AS o w {{ D jp'.d•... - - iQ ,,,1 V „ A D. v ofl N e 63.37 •, P� i^r "' 6E �s 93.74 9'.74 . Q C '77 O w, -i ob• 117 } �+, � "' N 1.'11 2.•97 7•'49 DOUGLAS Z, •I M�'oa cK` N MEDICAL H i D PLAZA `^ 1t1.'}P /oo 1171 63_x! c3.35 -1 ,'-7.R 7i •� `� - ... � 330 v � w S£' t' O CU s�:af' f 5Y}E► �11 9t - otb! r. 'li 7.9 Zo y 1a0'z w .c Q 0 a N r � Gti2 d # o �• as C A Q " VI17 � ' s� �a I r-..• ry N ."� ..,.....m...-. z go -is aolB �y F406 w 4d XL m+a __ - - w NHP . . yli �► w M Ir �, g 9t1s'ON OaN IS NG W - cr 01,61 :r� s� i s� F7s f �T/ .. I }u o tl . x0 i_ . ' OF w t7 ZO TF/ e 7 �^ t w , 1L' r7--�- co y.. w n �1 N r `1 r7t E1 0 • 1 e w �, T .:. � � ..� _• - N w '� •� © t!1 -� yti'+ 0 �. � o o a i � ,� x �� al, ++ r 4 P��j� 3• p` e w G p yrt M �j "' `o N of If s7 ss oe 9s }o Zt/ ••� y y� �' G G• c� f 'LF's) �it9 94lZ/ 8t 97/ 3^V 8 a a 1 CA J u 6) C N W W W fy � W O ♦ • O P O O r h C ' v(� i ! N ` i \MG�c�,�D c rn j,"'?; 1(R A#Y_ jp'.d•... - - iQ ,,,1 V ^o y e rn ,Q Q M Z Q C '77 O w, -i ob• 117 } �+, � "' N 1.'11 2.•97 7•'49 -A •I p7 'dL IIJn -11 LI v(� i ! N ` i \MG�c�,�D c rn j,"'?; A#Y_ ^o y e I ' ' I O w, -i ob• 117 } �+, � "' -A •I 7 4 _ IN .Z z * PROF e [1YliF(['fl is < Ii7-7 so 3 EDGEWOOD AVE. (R p 63.39 f3_39 69.39 63.39 1541 " � � R• -22C z B•}s-c e+,sz//G-7e C �G � � 151)1 n Llr� /OO /00 ' t�. (� so hjT; 6 C/Q`� w Fi.. ,n .� 04 � � � �p `� i -n v •O'f. 4.S Bt.S� � •--fes e, W G� q Pi `l CA N S Ts l i! 80 10 _:... � 26�2I of � _ fid. r ••NN wo- �.j4'►`� 1 � � _ c u f 61 O!F �T•� 2Ti ^�6J Li O W t,o f m�!� M J. i s7 t _ �. 5 n v � � ti � ti• � -,, ! 9• g ai '• v ?'3� o H� .� tsc yG l. 11 I.. / i N 1 I7i��2- I O f l J < Ii7-7 so 3 EDGEWOOD AVE. (R p 63.39 f3_39 69.39 63.39 1541 " � � R• -22C z B•}s-c e+,sz//G-7e C �G � � 151)1 n Llr� /OO /00 L •�A W � t�. (� so hjT; 6 C/Q`� w Fi.. 7� 6dt73w' � � � � �p `� i -n v •O'f. 4.S Bt.S� � •--fes e, W G� q ~ _ `l CA N S Ts l i! 80 10 [ON 12(.75 .-. =� //lu i i I . _K /7.�. % �T•� 2Ti tj6.7G Li O W t,o f m�!� M J. .ca LSON - ... N 'S N :� N a .� c.7t FLORIDA 11 � b AVE. EDGEWOOD I I I I 1 I _ I i 1 I 1 I I I� IN rl 1 AVE. � J -r------------------ ------------ -------- '.5 S 75 75 CK n •S Itz.g N T H l LL W ADD. .n A � N 112.c' t1L.S ♦' ^ 11(,J j26.jo //0.914 126.9 aGp r.&.s � �2G.9n 95 _IC3l��/� v L ti eN. 4 if N O _ u im — }ate " Tr �0 0 KJa IIC z� rZ6.81 `�./x to Lci/ is C 126.79 / 63.39 f3_39 69.39 63.39 �„ 411 � Ga 1.77 86.77 -22C z B•}s-c e+,sz//G-7e W N "- CRrSJ. bl n � �•. `.% L •�A W � t�. (� � � V� n1 4 �1 0 6 C/Q`� w Fi.. 7� 6dt73w' � � � � �p `� i -n v •O'f. 4.S Bt.S� � •--fes e, W C ~ _ Qi n V m [ON 12(.75 .-. =� //lu i i I . _K /7.�. % �T•� 2Ti tj6.7G Li O W t,o f m�!� M J. .ca LSON s O � :� N a .� c.7t CS41,G I7i��2- i4. ©O 1_� G N h V pw LI 4 � W N W v` ■ �` � - - � ^ j, ~T tr+ N — a o� W-�y�' Mw� ry.0 N R {-I R ACIDITI�14.431 N L3-ff 6941 95.13 95 '3.41 6.H 674{ 7Q EDGEWOOD I I I I 1 I _ I i 1 I 1 I I I� IN rl 1 AVE. � J -r------------------ ------------ -------- '.5 S 75 75 CK n •S Itz.g N T H l LL W ADD. .n A � N 112.c' t1L.S ♦' ^ 11(,J j26.jo //0.914 126.9 aGp r.&.s � �2G.9n 95 _IC3l��/� v L ti eN. 4 if N O _ u im — }ate " Tr �0 0 KJa IIC z� rZ6.81 `�./x to Lci/ is C 126.79 / 63.39 f3_39 69.39 63.39 �„ 411 � Ga 1.77 86.77 -22C z B•}s-c e+,sz//G-7e W N "- CRrSJ. bl n � �•. `.% L •�A W � t�. (� � � V� n1 4 �1 0 6 C/Q`� w ,� � � N 7� 6dt73w' � � � � �p `� i -n v •O'f. 4.S Bt.S� � •--fes e, W C ~ _ w�'i• 1� 12(.75 .-. =� //lu i i I . _K /7.�. % �T•� 2Ti tj6.7G Li O W t,o f m�!� M �4. » io O � :� N a .� c.7t I7i��2- C 126.79 / 63.39 f3_39 69.39 63.39 �„ 411 � Ga 1.77 86.77 -22C z B•}s-c e+,sz//G-7e W N "- CRrSJ. bl n � �•. `.% L •�A W � t�. (� � � V� n1 4 �1 0 6 C/Q`� w ,� � � N 7� 6dt73w' � � � � �p `� i -n v •O'f. 4.S Bt.S� � •--fes e, W C ~ _ w�'i• 1� 12(.75 .-. =� //lu i i I . _K /7.�. % �T•� 2Ti tj6.7G Li O W t,o f m�!� M �4. » io O � :� N a .� c.7t I7i��2- c3.sy 43.39 t26.7i 6197 6339 i6 93?6_8 93.78 J2 PL Al - 11��^ v 114.1 2467 DOUGLAS w � i/iEDlCAL o w I X4;9 7f 610 I W zooms• 9 I' 4 a J i� u1 ! '" O� .�. A p 7 Z f.. U� C w�'i• 1� 09 'a/.[ 17 9 -Vs O4NC 6w-�4 • • t,o f c3.sy 43.39 t26.7i 6197 6339 i6 93?6_8 93.78 J2 PL Al - 11��^ v 114.1 2467 DOUGLAS w � i/iEDlCAL o w I X4;9 7f 610 I W PLAZA � U+ 9 N N b � 610 I W PLAZA � U+ 9 N N b � 9 -Vs O4NC M E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: March 6, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for March I It" meeting) FROM: A�riohn Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Redevelopment update As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting, staff felt that it would be a good idea to update the EDA about recent, current or planned redevelopment activities in the city. For your information, please review the attached items. Staff will make a brief presentation and be available to answer questions at the March 11th meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL Throughout 2001, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) continued its activities to maintain and improve the community's tax base, both commercial and residential. Maintaining and improving the community's commercial tax base generally involves redeveloping underutilized or blighted commercial sites. For residential property, it generally involves rehabilitating or replacing substandard housing, with occasional multi -family construction or redevelopment as these opportunities arise. As in the past five years, the EDA recommended and the Council approved an EDA levy to provide additional funding for redevelopment activities. In 2002, the EDA looks forward to continuing and expanding its work on residential and commercial redevelopment. The following is a specific category -by -category description of EDA program activities in 2001: 1. Single Family Residential - Scattered Site New Home Construction. 2001 was not as active as the two previous years. Five properties were redeveloped for new single family homes. The following is a summary of program activity in 2001: EXPENDITURES AND TOTAL FOR AVC. PER REVENUES FOR 2001 ALL PROJECTS NEW HOUSE Expenditures $ 261,705 $ 02,341 Lot Sale Proceeds $ 220,500 $ 44,100 = Net Public Expenditures $ 41,204 $ 8,241 ESTIMATED CHANGE IN TOTAL FOR AVG. PER PROPERTY VALUATION ALL PROJECTS NEW HOUSE assessor's value — before $ 321,000 $ 64,200 assessor's value -- after $ 1,000,300 $ 200,060 change in assessor's value 679,300 $ 135,680 ESTIMATED CHANGE IN TOTAL FOR AVG. PER PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE ALL PROJECTS NEW HOUSE property taxes — before $ 3,759 $ 752 property taxes — after $ 18,694 $ 3,739 change in property taxes $ 14,935 $ 2,987 ( \NCY FS11SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\EDAlannualrepor#-2001.doc 02128102 Attached are a spreadsheet and narrative with more details about each project completed by the EDA during the last three years (1999, 2000 & 2001). Please note that, due to the way the property tax system works, there is a 2+ year delay before the actual property tax impact is known. For this reason, actual figures are only available for 1999 projects. Also, please see the attached map "2001 EDA Rehab Projects and Lot Sales for New Home Construction". In addition, the EDA has seven lots for new homes in the works for 2002. One has been made available by the acquisition and demolition of 6617 45th. The other six will be made available as part of the Edgewood Gardens redevelopment planned for the properties at 6404 38t", 3821 Douglas and 3818 Florida. 2. Single Family Residential - Scattered Site Acquisition and Rehabilitation. The EDA completed three rehab projects in 2001. This is significantly more activity than has been typical in prior years. Please see the attached map "2001 EDA Rehab Projects and Lot Sales for New Home Construction". 3425 Lee. This house was acquired in 2000 and rehabbed in 2001 in partnership with the federally -funded MURL ("Urban Homesteading") program. The goal of this project was to rehab a blighted house and provide a homeownership opportunity for a lower income household. The house is a 11/2 story built in 1925, with 1,836 sq. ft. (1,020 finished), three bedrooms, V/2 bathrooms plus a detached one car garage. The 816 sq. ft. basement is set up for future finishing to include the possibility of an additional bedroom and bathroom. The house sold in June 2001 for $153,000; the sale was financed through a no interest 16 year contract for deed. Total expenses were $191,288. Federal funds totaled $110,393 ($90,000 from MURL and $20,393 from CDBG). The EDA paid $80,895; however, $75,576 of that was recaptured and added to the City's CDBG allocation for use on other Crystal projects, In addition, the EDA will recapture the contract for deed payments for re -use on a similar project in the future, 5536 Regent. This house was acquired in 1999 but due to exploration of other rehab alternatives it was not rehabbed until 2001. It was a very small (720 sq. ft.) rambler. We built an 18'x 24' main floor addition to convert the house from a 2 bedrooms with 1 bath to 3 bedrooms with 2 baths. The addition increased the main floor from 720 sq. ft, to 1,152 sq. ft. We also completely remodeled the existing part of the house including a new exterior, interior, appliances, plumbing, electric and mechanicals. The house sold in September 2001 for $164,350. Net sale proceeds were $152,976. Total expenses were $174,269. Net public expenditure was $21,294 from the City's redevelopment fund. 5204 Florida. This house was acquired in 2000 and rehabbed in 2001. It was a small rambler with 816 sq. ft. and a crawl space instead of a full basement. We converted the house to a split entry with 1,752 sq, ft. (1,182 finished). We also completely remodeled the house including new windows, doors, roof, soffits, siding, wallboard, insulation, mechanicals, plumbing, electrical, flooring, cabinets, paint and appliances. The upper level has a living room, kitchen I dining room, two bedrooms 2 t\CY_FS I \SYS\GROUPSXCOMDEVLP\EDA\annualreport-2001,doc 02/28/02 and one bathroom. The lower level has a family room, laundry / utility room, and space for finishing two additional bedrooms and another bathroom in the future. The house sold in December 2001 for $166,000. Net sale proceeds were $154,434. Total expenses were $163,362. Net public expenditure was $8,928 from the City's redevelopment fund. The EDA also acquired the house at 6328 38" in December 2001 for rehab in 2002. When the rehab is completed, this house will be sold to a household at or below 80% of the regional median income. The EDA is also expected to do some minor rehab work at 3821 Douglas in 2002 as part of the Edgewood Gardens redevelopment. This house will be sold on the open market. 3. Single Family Residential - Home Improvement Incentive Rebates. Crystal and four other communities have partnered with the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) to provide an incentive rebate for improvements to owner occupied homes. Households with incomes up to 110% of the regional median income are eligible for the rebates. Funding for this program initially came from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Metropolitan Council. In 2001, the city committed $88,000 of EDA funds to supplement the rebate program for properties in Crystal. However, because additional funding was received from outside agencies in 2001, only $7,025 of the EDA funds were drawn down by GMHC in 2001. Due to increasing demand and the anticipated exhaustion of the funds from outside agencies, GMHC expects to fully utilize the EDA funds in 2002. From March 1998 through December 2001 this program assisted with improvements to 166 homes in Crystal. A summary of the cumulative figures through December 2001 is shown below: TOTAL PROJECTS TOTAL REBATES TOTAL OTHER SOURCES $1,717,949 $187,204 $1,530,745 AVG. PROJECT AVG. REBATE AVG. OTHER SOURCES $10,349 $1,128 $9,221 Also, please see the attached map "Home Improvement Incentive Rebates, August - December 2001" (locations for projects before August 2001 are not available,) 4. Single Family Residential — Deferred Home Improvement Loans. Crystal has a long history of using part of its CDBG allocation to fund deferred home improvement loans for low income households. The program assists households with incomes up to 50% of the regional median income in the form of a 30 year no interest loan that is deferred until the property owner sells or moves out of the house. Since 1994, when the city transferred administration of the program to Hennepin County, 31 3 \\CY—FS 1 \SY$\GR0UPS\C0MDEVLP\E0A\a n nualreport-200 1,doc 02128102 households in Crystal have received CDBG funds for improvements. The cumulative totals and averages since 1994 are as follows: TOTALSPENT # OF PROJECTS AVG. PROJECT $406,615 31 $13,117 Increased demand for the program has caused these funds to be used more quickly than in prior years. For this reason, in 2001 some of the program income received by CDBG on the 3425 Lee project was redirected to this program, raising the City's 2001 CDBG allocation for the deferred loan program from $50,000 to $80,000, 5. Multi -Family Residential Redevelopment. Staff has been exploring redevelopment options for four 4-plexes, on Bass Lake Road (5111, 5121, 5201 & 5211) for the past two years. Our preferred option was to demolish the 4-plexes and construct 14 rental townhouse units for lower income households. On behalf of Crystal, the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) requested funding for the project from a variety of state and federal sources. Due to the state's strong negative reaction to the cost of the project, staff worked with NCRC to apply for funding for a scaled down version of the project (rehab instead of new construction). This request was also rejected by the state. In addition, there has been extremely rapid inflation in the projected acquisition cost for these four properties. Specifically, the Hennepin County Assessor's estimated market value on the properties has increased an average of 23% in each of the last two years. For this reason, staff has put its plans to rehab or redevelop these properties on hold until acquisition becomes more feasible and outside funding sources are more willing to help with the project. In the meantime, the city's more aggressive code enforcement strategy is helping to minimize the negative impact these properties have on the adjacent neighborhood and the community as a whole. There appears to be increasing interest among private developers in developing senior - oriented multifamily -type housing products in the Crystal area. This is probably market- driven, with developers' interest in Crystal continuing to increase as land prices rise throughout the region. Developments in other parts of the region have shown that there is a market among seniors for innovative arrangements such as cooperatives, which combine maintenance -free apartment -style living with the benefits of homeownership. This in turn might help open up some of the city's housing stock for new families. Staff will continue to work with private developers and bring potential projects to the EDA. 6. Commercial and Industrial Redevelopment. Following the completion of several projects, 2000 and 2001 have been relatively quiet years for commercial and industrial redevelopment. Crystal Business Commons (5500 Lakeland, built in 1999) and Crystal Town Center (5600 West Broadway, built in 1997) both neared full occupancy in 2001. Staff continues to meet with businesses and developers regarding potential redevelopment sites. However, market shifts since 2000 have led most prospective developers to pursue residential projects instead of 4 \\CY—FS I kSYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLPkEDAkan n ualreport-200 1,doc 02/28/02 commercial/industrial. In addition, staff has been participating in the planning process for the County Road 81 corridor, which may eventually lead to land use and transportation enhancements. For this reason, staff has not pursued redevelopment of sites along this corridor because such redevelopment might conflict with these enhancements. 7. Site Investigations and Research. Due to staff time constraints resulting from the three rehab projects, and our preliminary work on the upcoming Edgewood Gardens redevelopment, we did not pursue infill redevelopment opportunities in the vicinity of 515t Place west of Florida, Edgewood north of 34th, and Georgia north of 32nd. However, staff still has these areas in mind and expects to pursue them in the future. In addition, opportunities may arise in other areas as properties come on the market. Staff will continue to review real estate listings and bring redevelopment opportunities to the EDA. Please see the attached map "Potential EDA Redevelopment Opportunities". 8, Land Banking for Future Redevelopment. The city acquired and demolished two additional properties in 2001 to be held for future redevelopment: 5217 34th Place and 5324 34th Place. This brings to five the number of vacant lots the EDA is holding in the "West Panhandle" area. The other area where we are holding vacant lots is the area between Zane and Xenia south of 44th. At this time, the EDA owns two lots in that area but is in the process of acquiring a third. Please see the attached map "Potential EDA Redevelopment Opportunities". 5 k1CY—F51 \SYS1GROUPSkCOMDEVLP\EDA\annualreport-2001.doc 02128/02 NEW HOME PROGRAM — 2001 EDA ANNUAL REPORT Lots Sold in 2001. The following are descriptions of the ten lots sold in 2000 for construction of new single-family homes: 5608 Regent. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Sussel Corp. for $30,000. Construction began in June 2001. The new house will be a two-story with 2,489 sq, ft. (1,689 sq. ft, finished), three bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached double garage. The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is $183,200. This house is pre -sold. • 3408 Quail. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Novak -Fleck for $44,000. Construction began in May 2001 and the exterior is basically complete. The new house will be a two- story with 2,394 sq. ft. (1,554 sq. ft. finished), three bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached double garage. It sold for $202,175 in August 2001. 4833 Douglas. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Feyereisen Construction for $40,000. The new house will be a two-story with 2,728 sq. ft. (1,927 sq. ft. finished), 4 bedrooms, 2'/2 bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached triple garage. The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is $204,000, Construction is expected to be complete by spring 2002. Sale information is not yet available. • 3200 Adair. In November 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Novak -Fleck for $60,000. The new house is a split entry with 2,571 sq. ft. (2,361 finished), four bedrooms, three bathrooms and an attached triple garage. The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is $211,000. Construction is about 50% complete and is expected to be done by early spring 2002, This house is pre -sold. 4330 Adair. In October 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Al Stobbe Homes $46,500. The new house is a two story with 2,868 sq. ft, (1,916 finished), three bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms and a detached double garage. Construction is about 30% complete and is expected to be done by early spring 2002. The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is $210,000. Sale information is not yet available. Anticipated Lot Sales in 2002. The following properties are owned by the EDA and are expected to be sold for new home construction in 2002: 6617 45th. In October 2001, the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The existing 500 sq. ft. home was demolished in November by the City's Public Works Department. (The existing 896 sq, ft. garage, which is heated and insulated, remains on the property.) The target price for the property was $60,000 and the target value (lot, existing garage & new home combined) was $198,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot were reviewed by the EDA on February 5`h` A two story proposal from Al Stobbe Homes with a lot price of $66,000 was selected. The assessor's estimated value (land, existing garage and new house combined) is $224,380. Closing on the lot sale is scheduled for March 11t', construction is expected to begin soon thereafter, and the new house is expected to be completed during summer 2002. Sale information is not yet available, 6 11CY_FS 1 \SYSkGROUPSNCOMDEVLP\E DAlannua I report -200 1,doc 02/28102 • Edgewood Gardens Redevelopment (possibly six new home lots). This would be a replat of the properties at 6404 38th, 3821 Douglas and 3818 Florida. Acquisition of the properties, preparation of the preliminary and final plats, completion of the public hearing and approval process, construction of necessary site improvements, and sale of the lots for new home construction would all occur in 2002. 7 , \\CY_FS 1 \SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLPkEDAlann ualreport-2001,doc 02/28102 CITY OF CRYSTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Crystal New Home Program Summary of 1999 Projects - ESTIMATED (as of Feb. 2000) PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES ACOUISITION DEMOLITION USES QF FUNDS LEGALIADMIN HOLDING COSTS OTHER TOTAL USES 5916 45th $38,000 $6,623 $2,531 $1,486 $5,336 $53,976 4343 Zane $45,000 $5,323 $2,115 $1,779 $1,064 $55,281 4305 Zane $44,000 $5,323 $1,912 $1,765 $716 $53,716 4509 36th 1 $44,000 $6,173 $1,748 $1,995 $0 $53,916 5719 35th 2 $87,000 $5,418 $10,750 $1,256 $574 $104,998 3513 Kyle $37,000 $7,820 $2,863 $700 $0 $48,383 $0 $0 $o Totals for 1999 .................... Avg, per new house...,,,...,:, New houses: 7 $295,000 $42,143 ACQUISITION $36,680 $5,240 DEMOLITION $21,919 $3,131 LEGALIADMIN $8,981 $1,283 HOLDING COSTS $7,690 $1,099 OTHER $370,270 $52,896 TOTAL USES PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES CDBG FUND REDEV. FUND SOURCES OF FUNDS OTHER SUBSIDY TOTAL SUBSIDY LOT SALE. ETC. TOTAL SOURCES 5916 45th $27,976 $27,976 $26,000 $53,976 4343 Zane $29.281 $29,281 $26t000 $55,281 4305 Zane $27,716 $27,716 $26,000 $53,716 4509 36th 1 $25,916 $25,916 $28,000 $53,916 5719 35th 2 $2,898 $2,898 $102,100 $104,998 3513 Kyle $25,283 $25,283 $23,100 $48,383 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 Totals for 1999 ............. Avg. per now house............ New houses: 7 $136,172 $19,453 CDBG FUND $2,898 $414 REDEV, FUND $0 $0 OTHER SUBSIDY $139,070 $19,867 TOTAL SUBSIDY $231,200 $33,029 LOT SALE, ETC. $370.270 $52,896 TOTAL SOURCES PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES PROPERTY VALUATON BEFORE AFTER CHANGE PROPERTY TAXES BEFORE AFTER CHANGE 5916 45th $42,000 $121,000 $79,000 $512 $1.869 $1,357 4343 Zane $57,000 $122,000 $65,000 $695 $1.890 $1,194 4305 Zane $50,000 $129,000 $79,000 $610 $2.035 $1,425 450936th 1 $56,000 $133,000 $77,000 $683 $2,118 $1,435 5719 35th 2 $72,000 $351,000 $279,000 $878 $5,999 $5,120 3513 Kyle $66,000 $127,000 $61,000 $805 $1,993 $1,188 Totals for 1999 .................... Avg, per now house............ New houses: 7 $343,000 $49,000 BEFORE $983,000 $140,429 AFTER $640,000 $91,429 CHANGE $4,185 $598 BEFORE $16,904 $2,272 AFTER $11,719 $1,674 CHANGE NOTES: I The address of this parcel is being changed to 3551 Lee Ave N, 2 This parcel has been replatted into two lots, which are addressed as 3450 and 3456 Yates Ave N. The "Lot Sale, Etc.' revenue includes $T2,100 from lot sales and $30,000 from the Phase IV street project. Because the $30,000 would have been spent on a retaining Wall it the existing house had remained, it has the same effect an the project's subsidy as lot safe revenue, 212612002 annualsumma ry- I 999 -estimated CITY OF CRYSTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Crystal New Home Program Summary of 1999 Projects - ACTUAL Las of Feb. 2002) PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES ACQUISITION DEMOLITION USES OF FUNDS LEGALADMIN MOLDING COSTS OTHER TOTAL USES 5916 45th $38,000 $6,623 $2.531 $1,486 $5,336 $53.976 4343 Zane $45,000 $5.323 $2,115 $1,779 $1,064 $55,281 4305 Zane $44,000 $5,323 $1,912 $1,765 $716 $53,716 4509 36th $44,000 $6,173 $1,748 $1,995 $0 $53,916 5719 35th •. $87,000 $5,418 $10,750 $1.256 $574 $104,998 3513 Kyle $37,000 $7.820 $2,863 $700 $0 $48,383 $0 50 $0 Totals for 1999 .................... Avg. per new house.....,..... New houses., 7 $295,000 $42,143 ACQUISITION $36,680 $5,240 DEMOLITION $21,919 $3,131 LEGALIADMIN $8,981 $1,283 HOLDING COSTS $7,690 $1,099 OTHER $370,270 $52,896 TOTAL USES PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES CRBG FUND REDEV. FUND SOURCES OF FUNDS OTHER SUBSIDY TOTAL SUBSIDY LOT SALE, ETC- TOTAL SOURCES 5916 45th $27,976 $27,976 $26,000 $53.976 4343 Zane $29,281 $29,281 $26,000 $55.281 4305 Zane 527,716 $27,716 $26.000 $53,716 4509 36th $25,916 $25,916 $28,000 $53,916 571935th • $2,898 $2,898 $102.100 $104,998 3513 K le $25,283 $25,283 $23,100 $48,383 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $0 Totals for 1999 ................... Avg. per new house............ New houses- 7 $136,172 $19,453 COEG FUND $2,898 $414 REDEV. FUND $0 $0 OTHER SUBSIDY $139,070 $19,867 TOTAL SUBSIDY $231,200 $33,029 LOT SALE, ETC, $370,270 $62,896 TOTAL SOURCES PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTE'S PROPERTY BEFORE ALUATION* AFTER CHANGE PROPERTY TAXES* BEFORE AFTER CHANGE 591645th $42.000 $137,000 $95,000 $512 $1,782 $1,270 4343 Zane $57,000 $149,000 $92,000 $695 $1,980 $1,285 4305 Zane $50,000 $147,500 $97,500 $610 $1,998 $1,388 4509 36th -- $56.000 $159,000 $103,000 $683 $2,046 $1.363 5719 35th $72,000 $448,600 $376,600 $878 $6,661 $5,783 3513 Kyle $66,000 $143,100 $77,100 $805 $1,989 $1,184 Totals for 1999 ................... Avg. per new house............ New houses: 7 $343,000 $49,000 BEFORE $1,184,200 $169,171 AFTER $841,200 $120,171 CHANGE $4,185 $598 BEFORE $16,456 $2,351 AFTER $12,271 $1,753 CHANGE NOTES: Ater figures are based on actual January 2001 assessor`s valuations and 2002 taxes payable. • The address of this parcel is being changed to 3551 Lee Ave N. This parcel has been reptatted into two lots, which are addressed as 3450 and 3456 Yates Ave N_ The 'Lot Sale. Ctc_' revenma includes $72,100 from lot sates and $30,000 from the Phase lv street project. Because the $30.000 would have been spent on a retaining wall #the existing house had remarried. it has the same effect on the project's subsidy as lot sate revenue. 212612002 annualsummary-1999-actual CITY OF CRYSTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Crystal New Home Program Summary of 2000 Ero, jects - ES TIMA TED as of Feb. 2000) NOTES: I TWO LOTS SOLD. This parcel Was divided into two lots, one wlongtriad address and the other addressed as 4509 Adair. 2 ONE LOT SOLD., This parcel was divided into two lots, approx. 114 to be sold for a new house and 314 to be held by the EDA, 3 This parcel is a former tax forfeit lot which the City acquired at no cost in 1975 for drainage purposes. EDA MY need to pay Hann. Co. $26.000 for the property before we can sell it for redevelopment, 4 TWO LOTS SOLD: This parcel was divided into two lots addressed as 7116 and 7124 33rd, 5 ONE LOT SOLDo This parcel was divided into two lots,, one w1ofiginat address and the other to be combined with adjacent park Because this acquisition was financed from the General Fund all sale proceeds will be returned to the General Fund. 2/26/2002 annualsummary-2000-estimated CITY OF CRYSTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Crystal New Nome Program Summary of 2000 Projects - ACTUAL* Not available until early 2003, when the 2002 estimated market value and 2003 taxes payable will bath be known. 212612002 annuatsummary-2000-actualnotavailyet CITY OF CRYSTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Crystal New Home Program Summary of 2001 Projects - ESTIMATED (as of Feb. 2002) PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES ACQUISITION DEMOLITION USES OF FUNDS LEGALIADMIN HOLDING COSTS OTHER TOTAL 5608 Regent $55,000 $3,664 $3.183 $580 362.427 3408 Quail $38.000 $3,453 $2,131 $380 $43,964 4833 Douglas $59.000 $11,210 $3,400 $1,198 $74.808 4330 Adair $69,000 $7,175 $3,228 $65 $0 $79,467 3200 Adair $0 $0 $938 $101 $0 $1,039 $0 $0 $0 Totals for 2001 ................... New houses in 2001..........,, Avg. per new house...,....... $221,000 5 $44,200 $25,501 5 $5,100 $12,881 5 $2,576 $2,323 5 $465 $0 5 $0 $261,705 5 $52,341 PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES CDBG FUND REDEV, FUND SOURCES OF FUNDS OTHER PUBLIC TOTAL PUBLIC LOT SALE, ETC. TOTAL SOURCES 5608 Regent $32,427 $32,427 $30,000 $62,427 3408 Quail ($36 $36) $44,000 $43,904 4833 Douglas $34,808 $34,808 $40,000 $74,808 4330 Adair $32,967 532.967 $46,500 $79,467 3200 Adair ($58.961) ($58,961) $60,000 $1.039 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals for 2001 ................... New houses in 2001............ Avg. per new house........... $32,967 5 $6,593 $8,237 5 $1,647 $0 5 $0 $41,204 5 $8,241 $220,500 5 $44,100 $261,704 5 $52,341 PROPERTY ADDRESS NOTES PROPERTY BEFORE VALUATION" AFTER CHANGE PROPERTY TAXES** BEFORE AFTER CHANGE 5608 Regent $67,000 $183,200 $116.200 $692 $3,366 $2.674 3408 Quail $85,000 $192,100 $107,100 $921 $3,563 $2,642 4833 Dou las $100,000 $204,000 $104,000 $1,204 $3,826 $2,622 4330 Adair $89.000 $210,000 $141.000 $942 $3.959 $3,017 3200 Adair $0 $211,000 $211,000 $0 $3.981 $3,981 Totals for 2001 .................... New houses in 2001..,......... Avg. per new house., ......... $321,000 5 $64,200 $1,000,300 5 $200,060 $679,300 5 $135,860 $3,759 5 $752 $18,694 5 $3,739 $14,935 5 $2,987 NOTES: before" ualuakon is Henn< Co. Assessor's 2000 estimated market value forties payable in 2001, After" is Henn. Co. Assessor's estimated market value after project completion using 2001 formulas. These figures wilt be updated with actuals in Feb 2004 " To ensure an appropriate campadson between taxes "before" and taxes 'after, the taxes atter are calculated using the 2001 class rates and tax rates. Changes in the property tax- System beginning with taxes payable in 2002 may result in srgrmficant changes in taxes pard; but these changes would not be caused by the redevelopment of the property. 212612002 annuatsummary-2401-estimated I- 2/2612002 - CITY OF CRYSTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Crystal New Home Program Summary of 2001 ELo ects - ACTUAL* `` Not available until early 2004, when the 2003 estimated market value and 2004 taxes payable will both be known. 2/2612002 annualsummary-2001-aotualnotavailyet e**� /01*N t t AW% ON, muMv Improvement Incentive Rebates August - December 2001 Potential EDA Redevelopment Opportunities Areas where infill redevelopment is currently underway, Areas where the EDA is currently land banking for possiblE future re, development Potential areas for future infill redevelopment where there is under- utilized land. Ord io 71 '4n X 4 Mn 0 KF I- 2 1MOP 1 74 4 S o(, /aCO2, powccl�) OWNVZ 13Y M14 Dar (HW 100 4-OwW) Zo.4C7Ch. Goy' . CITY OF RO t5w.o3 ti,;`.:.MW t th .0 or+ i 16 17j 3..f5 a a •r CD s b .M B 2 4I 4 3 3 14 » w.24 S 5. $4'34 W, • "t x 4�i ? 33 63 tiL 4 R ' vp e 0 0 �q aQ 6 � t„ U. � t_ n 5.84' 54 y4d. f z B? .f M qiu q cs 1.77. G 3 Si1,39 t 1 F L� :—z yrs <� � r sk -•r , ' ' i=. tii ,++'..10 a ti -4 soi \+r%511 • 3"{ ° 3 ' o > > R3 ;AVE. 19= 18�" 17 16 15 14 13 d t ± '�9sn a dol A - CLQpp N ti+1...Luz tz Zt Z v. to 35fh 3; z 94 1to ' 5,q5 its X10 �vzd — ttaa 2 ,t 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 fd • ._,. a to � U — l zQ-tom, 12 4 11 3 i €It s _ 19 4 to t ....... u_ 22 21 16 {7 16'. 16� 14 ,* 13 M i12 oc 4 zu.,WCcu,j t � ti rz ul to €fit "K tX z if 1 7449e° at` / r S ctt. 34TH PLACE NO. ;1 ����ti°� . is - r., >���X�' TS 7ul 5 2!S ' 2'S 23 j� cot 22 ' 21 20 ' i4 17+ V, 1L 2 4 "Z =.t w R CL Q CIA, 7,t,. b to o - :E o � t K fl I~ .. - i z ao�o- °ate tt .. v J't'S7 IOE 8 71 n j 12 11 1OD74 6 �� «'"-'xtrr7"�. I 41 a 0 T j a. t4 it t t vz to � �a lip x^! rr � sem= tt4j . 2 J= t� SCOTT AVE. EDGEWOOD GARDENS REDEVELOPMENT ,Prof ct Timetable Feb. 12,2002 Closing on the acquisition of 6404 38th. (Please note that, in accordance with the purchase agreement, the previous owner will be able to occupy the home through April 30'r'.) Feb. 13,2002 Closing on the acquisition of 3821 Douglas. (Please note that, in accordance with the purchase agreement, the previous owner will be able to occupy the home through April 30th and will also have until June 36P to relocate plants from the gardens on the property.) Feb. 19,2002 City Council vacates an unnecessary utility easement at 3818 Florida. March 4, 2002 City Council transfers ownership of 3818 Florida to the EDA. mid March 2002 Surveyor drafts Preliminary Plat and Final Plat; also sets corner pins. March 27, 2002 Notice of Public Hearing published for the Preliminary Plat; also mailed to property owners within 700' radius (twice the minimum required distance). April 8, 2002 Planning Commission holds the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat. April 16, 2002 City Council considers approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. mid May 2002 Rehab begins on existing home at 3821 Douglas. 6404 38th demolished. mid June 2002 Rehab of 3821 Douglas completed; house placed on the market. early July 2002 Grading and installation of infrastructure for the development begins. Sale of rehabbed 3821 Douglas is completed. early Aug. 2002 Upon completion of grading work, Surveyor re -sets the corner pins in accordance with the previously approved Final Plat, Lots are ready for development. Request for Proposals sent to prospective builders. Aug, 20,2002 City Council considers approval of Final Plat. Aug. 23,2002 Proposals from builders due. Sep. 3,2002 EDA reviews proposals and selects builder(s). late Sep. 2002 Closing on the sale of the lots to the builder(s). Oct. 2002 Construction begins on new homes, spring 2003 New homes completed; project closeout, F GROUMCONIDF VLPtREDEVEL OPME NI ME SIDE NTIAL-NEWHOMEPURCHASED&$01. M2002138TH.' DOUGLAS0 IME T AFIL F, -21)02-0� -1,16 DOC a r {1: @ es UC i q {'�``�'��,..d �^ �. � ^...'� : g („� -- .�.,,._""�""".++.• � .'i�! r-�. � ✓ � � 9 � py Elm `a..!.� i �S (jp'' 1..d '•s�»,^w..'�,ti � t • Q�': #. � i � eJ'+.. � '.+..�.�++...�.�.✓ as � �•+i ^'��� LCI f7- �f �,, t ."'""",,. , bT..f {,.oda"'.. `. ✓""`_ �""'^'t`�..""; L 064 r 39, 1? ^` jffrr^^°° a,"9,, -�-ss,, `ac.,.--• t` "�,. 3 E Ir VI �l` . - t Ip � P e '^i`r t � - # Km -,Y3. iC" I e•;"'J"" ral • s � . wA'l .`"• w � � � � , t �„ "' � �� ,t ,w,J € � � Q0.",, •..."' s ,. `� yM v !! t 16 `....�It G' ■ � a i Lr7 PAOP05ez 10 r CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 2002) February 19, 2002: 1. APPROVED: Application 2002-01 for Lot Combination and Division for the purpose of re -aligning an existing lot line between 5826 West Broadway (P.I.D. 05- 118-21-13-0009) and 5820 West Broadway (P.I.D. 05-118-21-13-0010). Application submitted Carl A. Swenson, Jr. (applicant and owner of 5826 West Broadway) and Betty J. Foster (owner of 5820 West Broadway).