Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1994 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY May 10, 1994 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. December 8, 1993 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business a. Carefree Cottages of Maplewood - Phase Three - Tax-increment financing b. Annual Report c. Meeting with City Council d. Commercial Property Study 8. Date of Next Meeting a. June !4, !994 9. Adjournment HRAAGEND.MEM MINUTES OF THE MAPI FWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 8, 1993 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Gary Pearson, Larry Whitcomb City Staff: Ken Roberts APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Connelly moved approval of the amended agenda, moving items 7. a. and b. after item 3. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes--all NEW BUSINESS a. CARE Institute, Inc. - Rosewood Estates of Maplewood, Senior Housing Project, Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive (Section 25) Ken Roberts presented the staff report. Dick Webb was present representing the applicant. Mr. Webb gave a presentation. The commission discussed the floor area variances requested. They also suggested that if the use of this building were to change, the City should review 'the number of parking and garage spaces on the site. Commissioner Connelly moved the HRA recommend approval of the resolution which approves tax-exempt mortgage revenue financing for up to $13 million to construct the Rosewood Estate project. Approval is subject to the developer meeting the City's requirements for tax-exempt mortgage revenue note financing. The HRA has no objection to the parking variances requested but would strongly urge the Council to require and enforce the property owner to add additional off-street parking if the Council determines there is a need for it. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all b. Golden Star (Larpenteur East) Apartments - 315 Larpenteur Avenue (Section 18) Ken Roberts presented the staff report. George Van Vliet, the owner of the apartments, explained his plans for rehabilitating this apartment complex. HRA Minutes of 12-8-93 -2- Commissioner Pearson moved the HRA recommend approval of the resolution which requests that the County approve a low-interest loan for the rehabilitation of the Golden Star (Larpenteur East) Apartments. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Commissioner Pearson seconded COMMUNICATIONS a, Ayes--all November 9, 1993 Gommissioner Gonnelly moved approval of the minutes of November 9, 1993 as submitted. Ayes--all Update - Truth-in-Housing Code Amendment Gommissioner Fischer updated the HRA on the Gouncil's action on this ordinance at the November 22 Gouncil meeting. UNFINISHED EUSINESS Commissioner Connelly seconded 8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING a. January 11, 1993 9. ADJOURNMENT Resignation - Lori Tauer Commissioner Whitcomb moved approval of the resolution of appreciation for Lori Tauer for her service on the HRA. Ayes--all Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Tax_~,nt PROJECT: Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase LOCATION: Gervais Avenue, West of White Bear Avenue APPLICANT: The Carefree Cottages of Maplewood III Partnership DATE: May 6, 1994 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting Council approval for $100,409 each year for 15 years in tax- increment financing (TIF). This request is for Phase III of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood on Gervais Avenue, west of White Bear Avenue. The applicant is proposing to develop about 60 cottage-style senior housing units on 15 acres in this phase. The proposed site is between the Carefree Cottages they are now building and l~alnbow Foods store to the east. (See the maps on pages 5 and 6.) The developer has not yet submitted a proposed site plan to the City for this phase of the development. In return for this financing, the developer would keep the rents affordable to low and moderate income seniors for at least the 35-year life of the bonds. BACKGROUND Tax-increment financing uses the increase in taxes from a development to finance projects with a public purpose. These taxes would normally go to the city, county, school district and other agencies that property taxes fund. The chart on page 10 shows the agencies that would lose taxes and how much. A justification for tax-increment financing is that the developer would not build the project (which will generate property taxes) without this financing. So these agencies may not have received this money anyway. The City approved tax-increment financing for two senior housing projects in 1982 (Hazel Ridge and the Harmony School site (never built)), for the Village on Woodlynn project in 1988 and for the Carefree Cottages in 1991. DISCUSSION Tax-increment Financin~ The proposed rents of this phase would be similar to the existing Carefree Cottages. The developer would get 100 percent of the first 15 years of tax-increment from this project. Need for Senior Hott~ing The current demand looks good for senior housing in the Maplewood area. The waiting lists for the Village on Woodlyrm and the Cottages of North St. Paul are more than 262 people. As the baby boom generation ages, there should be a growing need for senior housing. This project may have a problem if the growing trend in senior housing continues. The Cottages of North St. Paul was just finished. This project will add another 106 units. The Cottages of Sfillwater project could not get enough seniors to fill their units and so they have opened them up to non-seniors. They now have only 40% of their units occupied with seniors. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has had restrictions on new senior housing for several years, because of over building of senior housing in the metro area. The developer should provide a market study to determine the long-term demand for these units. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution that gives the developer 100 percent of the increased tax revenue (tax increment) from this project for 15 years on a pay-as-you go basis. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The City may change the amount of tax-increment financing after the following are done: (a) The developer and City determine the total cost of the development. (b) The developer shall provide a market study to the City documenting there will be enough demand from seniors over 59 years old for these units over the life of the bonds. The City must approve this study. 2. The City Council must approve conditional use permit for a l~anned unit development~n_.~y~duction in parking spacesland the final design plans. (Staff will have this resolution for the HRA meeting.) Past Actions on other S~nlor Ho~tsin? Financin~ 1982: Council gave concept approval to using tax-increment financing to help with the development of a seniors housing project. This project would have used about $150,000 of tax-increment funds for each of two senior housing developments (Hazel Ridge and Bennington Woods). The developer abandoned the program. 1-14-85: The Council gave pre 'hminary approval for $5.8 million of tax-exempt financing for up to 100 units for the Hazel Ridge Seniors Residence at 2696 Hazelwood Avenue. 11-25-85: The Council gave preliminary approval for $6.5 million of tax-exempt financing for the 116-unit Harmony School (Casey Lake) Seniors Residence (County Road C and White Bear Avenue). This was subject to construction beginning within one year. (The developer never built this project.) 1987-88: The Council approved $2,448,100 of tax-exempt housing revenue bonds for the 60-unit Cottages of Maplewood [Village on Woodlynn) project. The Council also approved $275,000 of tax-increment financing. 1988: The City received a Federal grant (CDBG) of $252,500 in 1988 for the Village on Woodlyrm project. The developer used this money towards the purchase of the land for the project. 1991: The City Council approved tax-exempt and tax-increment financing for the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phases I and II). In 1993, the Council asked the County to approve a low-interest loan for this project. The Council also revised the TIF to allow the developer to keep 100 percent of the TIF. l~tal Information The applicant has not given the City any rent information yet. The developer proposed the following rents for 1992 for the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phases I and II): $385 plus $40 for utilities = $425 per month for a one-bedroom unit; $485 plus $50 for utilities = $535 per month for a two-bedroom unit; and $495 per month for a three-bedroom unit plus $60 for util/ties = $SSS per month for a three-bedroom unit. Competitiveness with F~i.~n~ S~nlor Residenc~ The design of this development will attract persons usually younger and more independent (transportation and socially) than the Archer Heights and Concordia Arms residences. Archer Heights and Concordia Arms require their residents to be 62 or older. The City required a minimum age of 60 for the Village on Wood]yrm project. Staff is recommending the same requirement for the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood. Archer Heights and Concordia Arms also have meeting areas that this proposal will not have. This project also should not compete directly with the Hazel Ridge units. Hazel Ridge's rents range from $700 to $900 for one bedroom and $980 to $1300 for two-bedroom units. These rents include wellness programs that will not be available at the proposed development. This project would directly compete with the Cottages of North St. Paul and the Village on Woodlynn. Suitability of the Site for a Seniors Re~;idence Gary Solomonson Associates did a site evaluation for the City in 1982 of potential senior housing sites. The study considered seven cities, including this site. This study found this site well suited for senior housing. Captured Tax Increment Not Avmqnhl_e Unit of Government Tax Impact (Current Rate and Values) City of Maplewood $21,844 Ramsey County $45,524 I.S.D. #622 $60,559 Others $6.591 TOTAL $134,518 kr/Cotttif, mem (11-29) Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Resolution: Tax-increment financing Attach~mt 1 GERVAIS VIKING SH(RR~J~ AV~. i· AV~ AVE. RD. OI ~ ~oswooo AW. ~ i'** 5 170(; Attachment 2 """ ,"'~ ,, o,, 1-:'"7 04 · "" (~ ' 2534 ·" c~ ,2526 J.,,~., AUTO PROPOSE,D .,T',',,.,,W,,,",' ESTATE~/ ',,, I I 2472 0 ~, ~ <,: "1' - ~i .,.4/ ':,..b .! I iz~_.~.~_~ CAREFREE COTTAGES ~' / /:'1 ,.--~-. _~, m',- I z440i ~. I /~ ~ /: :1 CHURCH =, ~ --1- I 241~ - ~', I ..... ~,,-~ [ J R. · · / ~'~) ', ,. I / ' j,/ I ~ ...... ~ -- m-"---~,,r.- ~, '-"t · / f /-'-- I ...... I ..,.- I "~ ~ Ml m: I ,¢1 L ..... I ,', i' '"'"'J JLNJ May 2, 1994 City Council Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT- MARCH 1~ FEBRUARY 1994 Following is the Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Annual Report for March 1993 through February 1994. The HRA had four meetings in the last year. A list of the members and their attendance is on page 5. Ix>ri Tauer resigned from the HRA in 1993. Program Participation Maplewood participated in three programs nm by the Metro HRA and four programs nm by local lenders in the past year. These seven programs are shown in Exhibk B. A total of 425 housing units received aid through the rental programs (Exhibk C). Of these, 177 had families and 248 had elderly residents. The number of units receiving Section 8 aid increased from 165 in 1992 to 176 in 1993. This is still less than the 189 Section 8 households in 1989. With the loan programs, 32 Maplewood households received more than $977,000. Housing and Planning Items Considered The HRA considered a variety of housing and planning items in the last year. These included a review of the proposed assisted living care facilities of the VOA and the Rosewood Estates. We also commented on the rehabilitation project at the Golden Star (Larpenteur East) apartments and the commercial property study. The meeting with the Saint Paul Crime Prevention Coalition was most informative. Other Areas of Involvement Commissioner Fischer served on the Maplewood Seniors and Others with Special Needs Advisory Committee and on the Home Share Task Force Commission. Commissioner Fischer is also representing Maplewood on the East Metro Senior Information and Referral Advisory Committee. Current and Emerging Concerns After years of looking at senior housing needs, the HRA continues to believe that support services are a necessary part of housing for seniors. There are many services available from a variety of sources--public, private, quasi private and informal. Information on available services and how one may get them is not always readily available for those in need. Others have put together a comprehensive directory of what services are available throughout the region. However, there are still areas of concern that we could be looking at locally. Having the Maplewood Seniors and Others with Special Living Needs Committee active should be a benefit to the City. An area of concern of the HRA is that of older neighborhoods with deteriorating housing. This is because Maplewood has areas of older housing that could deteriorate if owners do not care for them. Another matter that could be a concern to the HRA might be that of deteriorating multiple-family housing. The HRA will review the issues as appropriate and consider possible solutions to lessen the problems. Another concern of the HRA is the enforcement of the truth-in-housing ordinance. The Gity does not have a formal review process to check to see if property owners are having truth-in-housing evaluations done. Maplewood may want to consider ideas for insuring that property owners are following the ordinance. Maplewood participates in the Share-a-Home program that Lutheran Social Services (LSS) runs. This program had a 1993 budget of $22,419. For 1994, the Share-a-Home program has a budget of $23,540. This includes $8,553 from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and $8,000 from City and County grants. It also includes $4,200 from fees collected and other contributions of $2,787. Maplewood's share of the cost in 1993 was $3,000. LSS has received applications from 44 Maplewood residents since 1986 to be in the Share-a-Home program. In addition, there have been 33 total matches and there are now 17 active matches. LSS received a Ramsey County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in September 1993 for extending homesharing services to single parent families. They call this companion project Families Home Together. 2 1994-95 Work Program g m Study and make recommendaliolls to the City Council about Maplewood's enforcement of the Truth-in-Housing ordinance. Continue to review ordinances and policies that may affect housing. Sponsor or review any necessary code or law revisions to deal with problem areas in housing for City residents. Study the issue of deteriorating housing and consider posm'ble solutions. Continue to participate in Metropolitan Council and MI-IFA programs. Review subsidized housing plans for consistency with the City housing plan and the guidollnes for tax-exempt, tax-increment and Commtmity Development Block Grant (CDBG) financing. Keep info~med on happenings and changes thnt will influence the availability of low-to-moderate cost housing. Use various media to improve public awareness of housing issues and opportunities. Media could include Maplewood in Motion, Maplewood Review, St. Paul paper, sewer inserts, local cable-access TV, etc. This should include information about housing programs and developments in the City. The Maplewood in Motion could have items on T-I-H, housing maintenance codes, and a story explaining what each commission is and does. Another suggestion is an article on each City commission, possibly identifying the current commissioners. This is so the City makes residents more aware of the role and opportunity of citizen involvement in the City. Encourage and aid in the provision of life-cycle housing, including alternative housing for older adults. Strive to develop a strategy for provision of various support services for housing. These enable the elderly to continue to live independently in a suburban city like Maplewood. Decide how Maplewood can maintain an information and referral service to aid older adults in finding services. The East Metro Senior Advisory Gommittee could help with this. Gontinue participation in the Older-Adult Home- Share program as an alternative to premature nursing home placement. Recommend necessary code, law or policy revisions that will make the above possible. 3 Have a tour for the HRA, Council and pl:~nnln~ Commi.~iOn me~abe~ of development and housing areas of interest or concern in Maplewood. Have the City Council classify each item above as high, medium or low priority to work on as time permits. Working with the Council If we feel additional ideas or guidance from the Council is desirable, we will make a request for a shirt-sleeve work session. The HRA also could make a presentation under the '~isitor Presentation" item on the Council agenda. Also included with this report, as Exhibit E (page 1~, ~i\s an item we thought might be of interest to you. This is a summary of rental housing developed with tax-exempt financing. This includes the number of units, the bond issue amount, fees paid, and federal financing restrictions. LORRAINE FISCHER, CHAIRPERSON Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority Attachments kr/hrarpt94.mem EXHIBIT A Nnme Thomas Connelly 1193 E. County Road B, 55109 Lorraine Fischer 1812 N. Fumess St., 55109 Gary Pearson 1209 Antelope Way, 55119 Lori Tauer 467 Sterling Street S., 55119 Larry Whitcomb 518 E. County Road B, 55109 HRA COMMISSIONERS 1/84, 3/85, 7/90 4/75, 3/81, 3/86, 3/91 11/89 3/91 11/89, 3/92 7/95 3/96 3/94 Resigned 3/97 ATTENDANCE MeetinR Connelly Fischer Pearson 5-11-93 x x x 9-14-93 x x x 11-9-93 x x 12-8-93 x x x Tauer Whitcomb x kr/anrepexA.mem 5 bo Co EXHIBIT B ACTIVE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN MAPLEWOOD (All loan numbers refer to loans made in Maplewood) Funds made available by the Metropolitan Council HRA a. Deferred Loan Program - owner-occupied (funded by MHFA): No deferred loans: Total of program was $0. Maximum loan amount per application: $10,000. Households with an adjusted income of $10,000 or less are eligible for this aid. This program offers deferred payment loans. The loan payment is deferred unless the borrower transfers the property within ten years of the loan date. If this occurs, the loan amount must be repaid to the MHFA, but without interest. The purpose of this loan program is to help eligible applicants repair their homes to correct deficiencies directly affecting safety, habitability, energy use or handicap accessibility. The maximum loan amount per applicant is $10,000. The State's data privacy act protects the locations of the loan recipients. Revolving Loan Program - Owner-occupied (funded by MHFA): No revolving loan: Total of program was $0. Maximum loan amount per application: $10,000. Households with an adjusted income of $18,000 or less are eligible for this aid. The program offers low-interest (3%) loans to eligible applicants that are unable to get rehabilitation funding aid from other sources. The purpose of this loan program is to help eligible applicants repair their homes to correct deficiencies directly affecting safety, habitability, energy use and handicap accessibility. The maximum loan amount available per applicant is $10,000. The State's data privacy act protects the locations of the loan recipients. Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program (funded by HUD): Eligible tenants pay a maximum of 30% of their gross income toward the monthly rent payment in the certificate program. The difference between 2. Funds ae be the rent that the tenant can afford and the total rent is the Section 8 paid to the landlord by HUD. In the voucher program, tenants have greater choice and may pay more or less than 30 percent of their income. In December 1993, 176 Maplewood households (51 senior and 125 family) were receiving rental help. See Exhibit C for more information about this program. made available by Local Lenders Great Minnesota Fix-up Fund (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made one loan for a total of $5,539 in 1993. Households with an adjusted annual income of $41,000 or less may be eligible for home improvement loans of up to $15,000. The MHFA determines the loan interest rates (2-8 percent) by the borrower's income. Home Energy Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made twelve loans for a total of $36,525 in 1993. Homeowners may be eligible for loans at 8 percent interest rate. Under this program, loans of $1,000 to $5,000 are available for energy efficiency related improvements only. There are no income limits. MI-IFA Minnesota Mortgage Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 13 loans tot~lllng $903,542 in 1993. This program is for first-time home buyers (FTHB). To qualify, an applicant's adjusted gross household income cannot exceed $34,500 to buy an existing dwelling unit in the Twin City metro area. The below- market interest rate mortgage money is available for the purchase of existing singie-family units, town homes, condominiums or duplexes. Homeownership Assistance Fund (HAF) (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made six HAF loans totalling $31,588 in 1993. Through this program, qualifying lower-income MHFA home mortgage recipients could receive down payments and help with their monthly payments. Households must have an adjusted annual income of $26,000 or less for this program. kr\anrepexB.mem EXHIBIT C RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN MAPLEWOOD Existing Units - Section 8 Household Types Family Elderly Totals One Bedroom 31 14 45 Two Bedroom 75 37 112 Three Bedroom 17 0 17 Four Bedroom 2 0 2 125 51 176 Of these 176 units, 151 are in multiple dwellings, 16 are in double dwellings and 9 are in single dwellings. In addition, these 176 units have 148 certificates and 28 vouchers. Section 8 and Section 236 Family Units Archer Heights(l) Lundgren Maple Knolls Totals One Bedroom 30* 5 35 Two Bedroom 55** 13 32 100 Three Bedroom 4*** 16 20 40 Handicapped - _.: __- 2 89 29 59 177 Elderly Units Archer Heights(l) Concordia Arms Village on Woodlynn(2) Totals One Bedroom 64**** 124 20 208 Two Bedroom 40 40 (1) Archer Heights has 121 Section 8 units, 27 Section 236 units and 20 marker rate units. Section 8 and 236 income guidelines are the same. Section 8 and 236 rent guidelines vary. (2) The Village on Woodlynn has 31 lower and moderate income units (including 12 Section 8 Units). *There is also 1 market rate unit. **There are also 8 market rate units. ***There are also 2 market rate units. ****There are also 9 market rate units. 8 Section 8 and 236 Income and Beut C~llngs Household Size (Persons) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maximum Annual Gross Family Income $17,850 $20,4O0 $22,950 $25,500 $27,550 $29,600 $31,600 $33,650 Maximum Allowable Rent U~tT~e One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom (Includes gas and electridty) $535/month $630/month $788/month In the metropolitan area, the Section 8 and 236 programs are available only to the low income - 80% or less of the median income for the metropolitan area. kr/anrepexc.mem 9 EXHIBIT D HOUSING AND PLANNING PROPOSALS CONSIDERED Meeting Date 5-14-93 Item Annual Report Commercial Property Study Housing Maintenance Code Manufactured Home Financing Action Taken Discusses Council action Discussed - no action taken Discussed - No action taken Presentation - No action taken 9-14-93 Crime Prevention Coalition VOA Assisted Care living Facility Truth-in-Housing Code Discussed - no action taken Recommended approval Recommended approval 11-9-93 Truth-in-Housing Code Amendment Care Institute, Inc. - Rosewood Estates of Maplewood Loft Tauer resignation Recommended approval No action Resolution of Appreciation 12-8-93 Care Institute, Inc. - Rosewood Estates of Maplewood Golden Star Apartments - HOME Loan Recommended approval Recommended approval kr\anrepexD.mem l0 EXHIBIT CITY OF MAPLJ WOOD 1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWODD, MINNESOTA 55109 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER 612-770-4524 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 26, 1994 Chairpersons of Maplewood Boards and Commissions Michael A. McGuire, City Manager ~ MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL At the April 25, 1994 Council meeting, the City Council asked me to extend an invitation to all Maplewood Standing Committees to meet and discuss issues of mutual concern. It was decided to schedule one Commission a month at the Council/Manager Workshops starting in June. The meetings are the first Monday of the month and the time allocated is 6:30 - 7:00 p.m. After sharing this information with your other Board/Commission members, please give me a call or talk to your staff liaison with the dates that are acceptable. tmc C: Staff Liaison ~--~ ~ Equal Opportunity Employer Betty I_ McCollum ~ I:lepre~entatlve Norl~ bt. Paul, Maplewood bt. P~ul Eastside DEC U9 Minnesota House of Representatives 1~3~IIIII'IHEI: EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES; ~ENERAL LEGISLATION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND E~ECTION$; I..GHER EDUCATIC~ FINANCE December 6, 1993 Lucille Aurelius, City Clerk 1830 E. Cry. Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Aurelius: I thought I would inform you of recent legislation, passed last legislative session, commonly referred to as the "This Old House Bill." The bill will make it more cost effective for residents to renovate older homes through a special tax break on improvements made to the homes. It is hoped that this will improve the condition of existing housing stock in the state as well as help keep people in their existing homes who were considering relocating. I hope that you will find the attached information both informative and simple to use. Please contact my office if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Betty McCollum State Representative Building, St. Paul, Minnlloll 55155 (e~ 2) ??o.s?2~ (~2) 2~-~ "THIS 0 LD H ~" L:EGI Sb4TI OIN WHAT~ ITDOP All homes over 35-years-old are eligible for tax relief on the value of the home that results from an im- provement, such as a new kitchen. YOU OU~IFY IF: eYour home Is at least 3S-years-old and homesteaded. ®You are planning to add an Improvement to your home sometime in the next ten years. Improvements begun a~ter January 7, 1993 are eligible. H OW WI LL THE LAW WORld? eThe homeowner must be Issued a buildin8 permit by the dry for the Improvement. eWhen a building permit is Issued, the city buiidin8 Inspector must notify the county assessor of the possibility of the tax exclusion. The assessor may require some docu mentation of the house's age. eThe homeowner Is not taxed on the value of the Improvement for ten years. This exclu sion phases out over the next five years at 70 percent a year. if the home is sold, the new owner does not receive this property tax break. H OWARE THE I AN~ROVF:~BNT$ ~~ This depends on the a_~e of the hou~e. elf the house is more than 7CLyears-old, up to $50,000 in Improvements can be excluded. elf the house is between 35 and 70-yeaJs-o~, half of the value of the impro~t is exduded up to a total of $2.5,000. (i.e. a $35,000 Improvement would add $17,500 to the value of the TY/O OLP Age of Home 1) Value before Improvement -Cost of Improvement 2) ~ value of Improvemem 3) 'Non-taxable' value 4) Value change due to other factors (e.g. Inflation) Estlm~ed Market Value (1 +2+4) Actual Taxable Market Value (1+2+4)-3 50 years $60,000 $10,000 $5,000 $2,500 (50% x S000) $2,400 $67,4OO $64,900 80 years $90,000 $30,000 $20,OO0 $3,600 $113,600 $93,600 Representative Betty McCollum S01 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 296-1188 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUB.IE~: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Comm ifl Study September 10, 1993 On September 7, the City Cotmcil considered the Commercial Property Study. The Planning Commission had raised 28 issues. (See the attached list.) The Council directed the Commission to study the Rrst eight issues. go/b-5:commprop.mem (4.55) Attachment: List of 28 Problems WHAT PROBLEMS DOES THE CITY HAVE WITH COMMERCIAL AREAS OR MAJOR STREET CORRIDORS? PROTECTING SINGLE DWELMNG NEIGHBORHOODS FROM COMMERCIAL USES The City should determine if there are intra-city land use convicts at the City's boundaries. An example is the effect of a proposed 1-494 interchange in Woodbury on traffic and development in Maplewood. Another example, the area of Century Avenue and Stillwater Road. Single and double dwellings around commercial uses are becoming blighted. An example is the homes west of Duluth Street on County Road C. The City has zoned them commercial. This discourages property owners from m~intaining these homes. e There is not enough buffer between R-1 (single dwelling) and commercial or multiple dwellings. (We are excluding mixed use planned unit developments from this problem.) 4. Bothersome types of commercial, such as fast food, are too close to single dwellings. These commercial uses create nuisances, such as litter. 5. The City needs to ease and relieve commercial noise, trespassing, visual impact and traffic in_filtration through single dwelling neighborhoods. 6. Is the City planning transition uses between commercial and single or double dwellings or following the market? 7. Continuous commercial spread along major streets and around the corner into residential neighborhoods. 8. Non-conforming commercial uses in residential zones, such as Don John's commercial business on Stillwater Avenue. GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROBLEMS The Mall area is already overdeveloped with commercial uses. Additional commercial development will create problems for surrounding land uses-traffic congestion, esthetics, too many signs, too little green area and too many people. 10. The City does not regulate commercial uses based on intensity of use. The City should only allow parking ramps to increase green space but not to increase building area. 11. Commercial and apartment development increase crime and bring in gangs from outside the City. TRAFFIC 12. Traffic on Hazelwood Avenue from Highway 36 to County Road D. 13. Traffic conflicts at County Road B and White Bear Avenue. (Caused by the Fina station.) The proposed Community Center will worsen the situation. 14. Traffic around the Mall area as it develops. 15. Do we need a new interchange on 1-694, between Highway 61 and McKnight Road? What would be the impact on the Mall? 16. Traffic problems on North St. Paul Road and Ripley Avenue if the School District builds a high school on Goodrich Golf Course. 17. Road jurisdiction (turn-back of roads to the City). What condition will the City get these streets in? What will be the cost to Maplewood? 18. Rice Street traffic. 19. Need a bridge over the railroad tracks on Larpenteur Avenue, east of Rice Street. 20. Do the long-range plans for Highway 36 include frontage roads? 21. Can the fence be removed on the BN bridge over Highway 36 so people can use the bridge? IMPROVE COMMERCIAL DESIGN 22. The criteria for new commercial design. Need more green area and landscaping, maybe based on a percentage of value. Need breaks in parking lots for green areas and landscaping. Could the City allow a developer to phase in the parking as the project needs it? The City should review the parking standards in the ordinance. Sign criteria needs review. 23. Screening is not aesthetic between single dwellings and other uses. 24. Could builders put commercial mechanical equipment somewhere instead of on the roof? Owners do not maintain roof-screening and materials are not attractive. Consider metal instead of wood slats. Should there be special added conditions if the site abuts residential areas, particularily where there are significant elevation differences? MISCELLANEOUS 25. Fiscal disparity: Does this effect the City's decisions on commercial development? Is the Metropolitan Council encouraging commercial development in the southwest and western suburbs by allowing highways and utilities to be built there? Is the Met Council changing there direction. 26. Is the Farm Zone still valid? Should we limit it to farms? Should F areas be R-l? The F zones do not reflect the planned land use. 27. Should we use or revise the PUD ordinance to use it as a transition zone and for small parcels? 28. How to deal with businesses that go out of business and redevelopment of existing businesses. How can the City control this? Changes in use have an effect on parking and possibly the surrounding uses. Can we require the new business to be brought up to current code standards? 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner April 11, 1994 On April 4, 1994, the Planning Commission continued to work on the commercial property study. They discussed gun shops, heliports and reviewed commercial uses that may be a nuisance to adjacent residences. For the next meeting, the Commission should prepare a list of recommendations for Problems 1-8. The Commission has discussed several ideas. They should now organize them into a list and vote on them. Please bring your copy of the March 14, 1994 staff report for the commercial property study and the Chanhassen Landscaping Ordinance to the next meeting. If you need copies, please give us a call. PROBLEM I Review is complete; no recommendations. PROBLEM 2 Review is complete; no recommendations. PROBLEM 3 Review is still pending. The Commission should make a recommendation about possible code changes for buffering between uses. This review should include the setback and screening ordinances for commercial buildings. This includes the possible increased setbacks in Section 36-28(c)(6) and the required fencing or landscaping. Commissioner Rossbach suggested increasing the minimum setback for a commercial building from a residential property. He suggested at least 75 feet with a maximum of 100 feet. He also suggested requiring landscaping in the required buffer area between a residential property line and a commercial parking lot (instead of just having green space). At the last meeting, the staff distributed information from Commissioner Frost about Chanh_assen's parking lot landscaping ordinance. The Commission should refer any changes to landscaping or screening requirements to the Community Design Review Board (CDP, B) for their review. As an option, the Commission could refer this whole issue to the CDRB. When requiring setbacks to residences, the Commission should establish a common definition for residential. The setbacks in Section 36-28(c)(6) apply to properties that are used or planned for residential use. The definition in the zoning code for residential lot line is any property with a residential building on it or any property that the city is planning for residential use on its land use plan. The Commission decided that setbacks between potential nuisance uses on the attached list would be to land that the City is planning for residential use. This definition would not include houses that the City is planning for future commercial use. We should have consistent definitions. PROBI FMS 4. 5 AND 6 Review is still pending. The Commission has at least two options about controlling nuisances from commercial uses. The first is to change the permitted, conditional and prohibited uses near residential neighborhoods. The Commission developed the list on page 4. The Commission should vote on this list as one their recommendations. Another option for problems 4-6 is to change commercial zones near residential neighborhoods to a more restrictive zone. An example is BC (business commercial) to BC-M (business commercial modified) or LBC (limited business commercial). If the Commission recommends this option, they should identify which properties to change. Heliports and Helistops While discussing the list on page 4, the Commission asked the staff to investigate rules for the location of heliports. I contacted the Metropolitan Council and Saint Paul. The Metropolitan Council has a model ordinance that recommends allowing heliports as conditional use in any zoning district. Saint Paul has definitions for heliports, helistops, private heliports or helistops and public heliports or helistops in their Zoning Code. They define a heliport as a place for the landing or takeoff of helicopters (including maintenance and fueling). A helistop is a place for one helicopter to land or takeoff, but does not include maintenance or fueling operations. By conditional use permit, Saint Paul allows private helistops as an accessory use for a hospital. A condition for a hospital helistop is that it must be at least 250 feet from a residential property line. Saint Paul also allows public and private heliports and helistops at an airport with a condifi0nal use permit. They require that a heliport or helistop at an airport be at least 1,000 feet from a residential property line. Saint Paul requires all heliport and helistop applicants to do noise studies and to follow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The noise study is to find out if the heliport or helistop will meet the State noise regulations. St. Paul will only allow heliports at an airport and not at a business. St. Paul only allows helistops at airports or hospitals, not at businesses. 3M told us that they do not have or plan to have a 2 helistop. We should change heliport to helistop since we do not have an airport or plans for an airport. The City should define helistop, limit them to hospitals and prohibit them within 350 feet of residential districts. Minnesota Pollution Control and FAA regulations would appl~ Check ~ing Busi~ Commissioner Fischer caned this week and asked us to check on check cashing businesses. St. Paul is working on a zoning amendment that would allow check cashing businesses as a permitted use in commercial districts if they were at least 100 feet from a residential district. St. Paul found that check cashing businesses had significantly higher police c~ll.~ than other financial businesses, such as banks. Neither St. Paul or Maplewood license these uses. Howeveg the State does license them. I recommend that we add check cashing businesses as a permitted use in commercial districts if they are at least 350 feet from residential districts. PROBLEM 7 Review is complete; no recommendation. PROBLEM 8 Review is complete. The Commission should recommend whether the City should amortize nonconforming commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. go/b-6:commpr-6.mem (4.55) Attachment: List of Potentially Objectionable Uses 3 F -i r'--- UST OF POTENTIAl i y OBJECTIONABLE USES BY ZONING DISTRICT Compatible = a use that would be compatible next to a residential building CUP = a use that should have a conditional use permit (CUP) if within 350 feet of a property that the City is planning for residential use 350 feet = a use that should be at least 350 feet away from a property that the City is planning for residential use NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Permitted Use: clinics--compatible CO (Commercial Office) ~en~tted Use: clinics-compatible BC (Business Commercial) Permitted Uses: on-sale liquor as part of a restaurant-compatible on-sale liquor that is not part of a restaurant--3SO feet off-sale liquor business-compatible clinic--compatible craftsman's shop--CUP motor vehicle sales (new only or new and used)--350 feet indoor theater-compatible CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities (limited capacity)--350 feet itinerant carnivals (subject to licensing)--compatible Conditional Uses: beverage processing and distribution station--CUP place of amusement--CUP exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials (excluding junkyards, salvage yard, auto wrecking)-CUP sale of used cars--350 feet heliport--350 feet minor motor fuel station (2 pumps on one island)--CUP major motor fuel station, vehicle wash or maintenance garages--350 feet BC(M) (Business CommerciaI-Mod~ Permitted use: indoor theater--compatible 4 M-1 (Ught Manufacturing) Pen~titted Uses: contractors' shops--350 feet manufacturing, assembly, or Processing of products--350 feet Conditional use: mining or material recycling--350 feet Other Uses (not now r~ted) conver~ience stores--compatible pawn shops--compatible gun shops (or sales)--prohibit all shops in Maplewood check cashing businesses--3SO feet 5 ! I MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Commercial Proper~ Study April 27, 1994 PROBLEM 3-SEIBACKS AND SCREENING The Commission made four recommendations for this problem and referred them to the Community Design Review Board (CDP, B). I have attached the setback and screening requirements starting on page 3. Subsection 36-27(a) requires a landscaped area of not less than twenty feet in width. Landscaping could mean just grass. The Commission recommended that the Council change this subsection to require trees or shrubs in addition to grass. Subsections 36-27(c) and (d) require that screening shall be satisfied with a screening fence, planting screen, berm or combination thereof. The Commission recommended that the Gouncil change the ordinance to require trees and shrubs as part of fencing. In other words, a fence alone would not meet the screening requirement. The Commission felt that fences should be landscaped on the residents' side to make them more attractive. Subsection 36-28(c)(6) requires a minimum setback between residential and commercial property. The Commission recommended that the Council change these setbacks from a minimum of 50 feet to 75 feet and a maximum of 75 feet to 100 feet. The Commission recommended that the Council change the definition of residential use. The current definition is the lot line of any property with a residential building on it or any property that the City is planning for residential use on its land use plan. The Commission recommends that this definition only include property that the City is planning for residential use. This recommendation would mean that the setbacks to residential property would not apply to properties with residential buildings that the City is planning for commercial use. On April 26, the CDRB reviewed these changes and tabled them. They were concerned about losing flexibili~. Gommissioner Rossbach attended the meeting to represent the Planning Gommission. PROBLEMS 4, 5 AND 6--REZONINGS The last unresolved issue in the Commercial property is whether to rezone commercial properties next to a residential neighborhood to a more restrictive zone. An example is BC (business commercial) to BC-M (business commercial modified) or LBC (limited business commercial). I have attached maps of commercial zones near residential neighborhoods. I have not included NC (neighborhood commercial) or LBC Oimited business commercial) zones, since the City intends these zones to be next to residential neighborhoods. The Commission should review these maps and determine if they want to recommend any rezonings to the City Council. go/b-7:cornstudy, mem (4.55) Attaehrnents: 1. Landscaping and Sereerting Ordinances 2. Location Maps 3, Property Line/Zordng Maps Attachment ~ abuts a residentially zoned proper~y. (2) A mui~ple dwelling abuts a property zoned for single or double dwellings. The requirements of this subsection shall not apply where the residen~)-lly zoned property is being used or is designated on the city's land use plan for a nonresidential use. (b) Screening shall be provided where: (1) The Light from automobile head~ghts and other sources would be did-ted into residential windows. (2) There would be exterior storage of goods or materials which could annoy or endan~r property owners. (3) Mechanical equipment on the ground or roof would be vis- ible from public streets or adjoining property. Mechanical equipment shall not include chimneys, antennas or vents. The city shall not require screening for single dwellings, double dwellings, mobile homes or equipment for indi- vidual town house units. F, quipment that serves more than one town house unit shall be screened. The community design review beard may waive the screening requirement for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect prop- erty values. If the board waives this requirement, they shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to match the building. Such screening shall be compatible with the materials and design of the principal building and subject to staff or design review beard approval. Approval shall be based on creativity in design to enhance the esthetics, durability of the structure and materials, and the per- cent of screening afforded. The screening and mechan- ical equipment shall be painted or stained to match the building. (4) A parking lot is constructed next to a property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double- dwelling use. The community design review board may waive this requirement if they determine that screening would ,~.t h,, n~L=~, or would not protect surrounding prop- (c) Screening shall be ~atisfled by the use of a screening fen_~e~..~ pf ngbern or comb -, on tho o , the topo aphy, '~-.~riers meet the standards of subsectxons ~) anti (z)_ oe~ow, they .. y for all or pert of the ecreemng fence or screen. (1) A planting screen ,k,ll consist ofevergresn plantings. Trees shall be a ml-i~um of two and one-half (2¥:) inches in trunk diameter, two (2) feet above grade. Shrubs may be used in combination with a berm and shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in height. Spacing of trees and shrubs shall be so as to create an eighty (80) percent opaque screening at least six (6) feet in height. (2) Berms shall have mowable side slopes. Slopes greater than two and one-half (2¥2) to one may be u~d if the slopes are stepped with retalni~ walls. Plant materials resistant to erosion may be ~ubstituted for ~d when approved by the (3) ~Teen~ fences shall be painted or stained whenever nec- essary, so as not to fade, chip or di~olor. Broken or knocked down fences shall be repaired. Planting screens shall be maintained in a n?at ~_~ts~y~condition. Plantings that have ~ promptly replaCed.~ (d) Screening may be satisfied with a screening fen~ ~ screening fence shall be attractive, compatible with the principal / building and surroundingopaquenessland uses, at least six (6) feetpercent.in height, .~ and provide a m~-!m-m of eighty (80) ~(e~_~Mb__~te~ner enclceures shall be provided around all trash containers and shall t~e one hundred (i0~) percent opaque. shall be protected by concrete-filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the structure. If the enclosure is ms~nry, the protective posts may be omitted. In all instances, the enclosure must be of a design, material and color compatible with the building and be kept in good repair. A gate that provides one hundred (100) percent opaqueness shall be provided. The comm,nlty design review board may waive any part of these requirements fftbey find that the trash container would be hidden from adjacent properties and streets. (Ord. No. 530, § 1, 11-22-82; Ord. No. 580, § 1, 2-11-85; Ord. No. 633, § 1, 10-10-88; Ord. No. 710, § 1, 3-8-93) 6co. 36-38. Additional dee~gn standard~. (a) All construction and landscaping shall comply with the plans approved by the city. (b) The property owners shall maintain their building and grounds in at least as good a condition as when originally com- pleted. Maintenance shall include: (1) Replacing any hndemping shown on the approved plan (2) Picking up all trash and debris from the grounds. (8) Removi~ all noxious weeds. (4) Watering the grass, trees and shrubs. (5) ltep~ any exterior parts of the building that deterio- rate or brealu (c) The developer of dwellings, shall do the any project, other than single or double following: (1) Install parking lot lighting. Lighting shall not be directly visible from any residential area or public street. Lighting shall not exceed one footcandle at a residential property line. Resident-,_'_~! areas are areas planned or used for resi- dential purposes. (2) ])rain all ~ormwater runoff from im~rvious surfaces to an underground, on-site wtormwater collection system that is connected to a public wtormwater system. (3) Restore any public right~f*way, adjacent property or proi~ erty irons disturbed by the cormtruction. (4) Install stop signs, handicap signs and building address signs as requixed by the city. (5) Construct parking lots with the following minimum setbacks: a. Fift~n (15) feet from a street right~of-way. b. Five (5) feet from all other property llne~. This setback shall be increased to twenty (20) feet if the adjacent property is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. (6) C~t'r~c--~-~-~, except s . . anally · *' a. Thirty ([JO) feet from a street right.f-way. " b. Fifty (§0) feet from property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. This set~ back shall be increased up to seventy-five (75) feet based on the more restrictive of the following requirements: ~d_ing height: The building setbacks sh_s~h~LLbe*~ in~--:re]szed two iv) leec for each one ~oot~-~building exceed~ twenty-five (25) feet in height. 2. Exterior wall are~' Where an exterior wall faces a residentially zoned property, the wall setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each one thousand (1,000) square feet, or part thereof, in excess of two thousand (2,000) ~quare feet. (7) The city council may approve a cendltional use permit to allow an addition within a required setback if: The required findings in ~cion 36'442 for a condi- tional use permit are met. b. The setback would be consistent with the setbacks for muTounding properti~. c. At least eighty (80) percent of the addition would be screened from property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. (8) Plant trees with the following minimum sizes: Large deciduous trees, two and on.half (2¥~) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped. b. Small deciduous (ornamental) trees, one and one-half (1¥~) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped. c. Evergreen trees, six (6) feet in height. (9) Install ~ hwn irrigation system that will not sprs~ on public street3 or sidewalks. (10) Use low.maintenance materials on buildinp. (11) Use building materials that are compatible in quality with Similar development in the area. (12) Locate any bike racks so they do not interfere with vehic- ular or pedestrian traffic or fire lanes. (13) Preserve significant natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, as required in the environmental protection ordinance (Chapter 9, Article IX). (14) Provide on-gte loading and ,nloading space where needed so that public streets are not used for this purpose. (Ord. Bio. 652, § 3, 9-11-89; Ord. No. 676, § 4, 11-2~90) Sec~. 36*29-3640. Reserved, 6 ! Attachment 2 AlS HEIGHTS 1. SUIaUlT CT. 2. COUml~'vlEw aR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. L'fOtA ST. C *El ~) I~ AREA1 RD. JUNC'nON AVF.. ROSLr"WO00 AVF... AV~.. S. LOCATION MAP 7 N " ~' ~ ?~' "'~ RD. D ,,. .:'~: C~R. CT.  . ~:,. 4. ST. . .... ~ - ~: ...... CT. CT. ~ ~, ~J G£RVN$ VIK1NG PAUL (~) CN,~BE'~S cOUP-5£ 10 4, 104C~T L~ " CQff~Y ST. LOCATION MAP 11 Attachment 3 · BEAM'AVE' BUlKiER I1 RADATZ AVE. mi (44 · TOWN HOUSES BUILDING LBC..~ 27~ '~ 2755 4B~ ,.,,. 12 Il' IIII GULDEN'S / / / 4.34P4c· I/ ~ I /~;~ /// (~ / 2911 2873 TOYOTA .i Se4 .S~c $ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP N 13 MITSU~I 11141 CHURCH 3RD. ~[ OUTLOT A' '"- '"' W£T LAND 1,?$. PROPERTY LINE / 14 ZONING MAP N DEMONT.~ vt .~ ~IC:ONNOR AVE MOBk. E ~ PALM( G) N.W. CAMERA · · · BmBB~mBI~ HIGHWAY 480 WELL DRILLING , PROPERTY LINE/ZONING,~.,.,. MAP-~I~]'-~ 15 ! · · · ! W -'IRY A II G A ~.~& SMNT P&UL I ..~,~. III1 S 1721 , i PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 16 N YAN ~ --F R.O S II SUMMER AVE PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 17 FROST {Ix) ALDINCH ARENA RAFI$EY COUN'I'Y ' eM) ~KINGSTO~ PRICE S~NT/WJL BC PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP AREA7 18 I i I I :: :--- IG.~Q RA~3£¥ ¢OUN3'Y ALDRICH ARENA Ii BUILDER'S SQUARE BC THEATER ~KINGSTO 8 PRICE PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP AREA · 19 F SARRACKS 3M --~ N PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP AREA · 20 .i ,../,,/,:, ! I / / I :-I UPPER AFTON ROAD AUTO PARTS TOM THUMB CARVER SCHOOL SCHOOL DIST. N~622 F .,'-DRUG STOR~ 21 LAKE, BG ,~ ~:! ME.T_.CI. IEVY.. 1'7 I$ \\ II OJI PROPERTY LI~-E / ZONING MaP irm :T' DAY CARE CTR. II , I 3M PROPERTY 577 571 561 ~. · 557 ? -549 I 543 537 (3') :' '" 529 .... J- --~ P 521 · ; 513 <") I APT& LINE / ZONING MAP AREA 12 23 N 'L. s MINNEHAHA AVE. ~"r~.~k' I CENTURY CENTER · , I POND le-~ ~,z.) ~ '-~ .~ ill ~ (~6) ) i~-, ~-~/--'~ ~"~ :i ~" ~1 : c~) ,o ¢:~--~--5-~-~ --~1 --- ~ (,~) I I ~ -~ ..... ~1 ~,~ , uJ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 24 N Attachment BRAND ST. ' I I 'i'i '[ I -865 I i" .... ~ ..... ' I '1 c-) I~' I ~)1 ~-~ ;I ~-~ ~.,~ ~725~ ! -4, ~ ,~ DEGE GARDEN CENTER QUEEN 7~ ~ _~ 77~ i7~r STO~E PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 25 C~ 'LBC .I Attachment IO II FIRE YOCUM ON. TEXACO 1077 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Al"lEA 26