Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2001 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WEDNESDAY. JULY 11, 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1.. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes November 14, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications a. Annual City Tour (1) July 30, 2001 (2) HRA's Involvement 6. Unfinished Business a. Home Replacement Program - Property Purchases 7. New Business 8. Date of Next Meeting 9. Adjournment c:memo~RAAGEND.MEM ! I I ] I MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 14, 2000 I1. III. IV. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Joe O'Brien, Gary Pearson (arrived at 7:08), Beth Ulrich. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 9, 2000. Commissioner Connelly moved approval of the minutes of May 9, 2000, as submitted. Commissioner O'Brien seconded. Ayes-4 (Fischer, Connelly, O'Brien, Pearson) Abstain-1 (Ulrich) APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner O'Brien moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Ayes-all COMMUNICATIONS Ken Roberts, associate planner, introduced Beth Ulrich and welcomed her aboard as the new HRA commissioner. Ms. Melinda Coleman distributed an article from the Star Tribune about a study that was done by the Maxfield Research Group that talked about the relationship between affordable family rental housing and home values in the Twin Cities. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None I i' I I I HRA MINUTES 11-14-2000 -2- VII. NEW BUSINESS Home Replacement Program--Operations and Procedures Plan. Mr. Roberts presented the staff report for the city. On May 9, 2000, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) met and reviewed a proposed operations and procedures plan for the Housing Replacement Program. Since then, Mr. Roberts and Bob Wenger, the Maplewood Environmental Health Inspector, revisited some of the sites. One site they did not feel should be included on the list and a couple other sites were removed due to the homeowner improving the site. Ms. Fischer questioned why the particular sites were on the list. Was it due to structural issues or housekeeping problems? The difference being if it was just housekeeping and a new owner moves in, that issue could be eliminated within a couple months. If it was a structural issue, the problem would still be there with the new owner, and possibly continue to deteriorate. Dilapidated and Substandard Houses - Maplewood (October 2000) 1. 1819 Birmingham Street (PIN 15-29-22-32-0023) Structure 2. 1890 Adele Street (PIN 16-29-22-42-0018) Both 3. 1779 Frank Street (PIN 16-2922-43-0004) Structure 4. 1742 ¼ English Street (PIN 15-29-22-33-0094) Structure 5. 549 Farrell Street (PIN 36-29-22-14-0022) ?-Size 6. 1694 Sylvan Street (PIN 18-29-22-34-0035) Size 7. 1724 Sylvan Street (PIN 18-29-22-34-0039) Size 8. 1287 Lark Avenue (PIN 09-29-22-44-0002) Housekeeping 9. 1800 Bradley Street (PIN 17-29-22-34-0020) Housekeeping Chairperson Fischer noted the home on 1819 Birmingham Street (#1 in priority) has a for sale sign on the property. The property on Adele Street has five new homes built around it and staff feels a lot could be done for the neighborhood if that home was removed. Maps and information were collected for each of the properties listed which includes ownership, lot size and current market value. Ms. Fischer would prefer item C to be switched with item A under #8 in the Practices and Methods of Property Purchase and Resale, in a priority listino~ The reasoning for item ,~ was to improve the overall visual effect and improvement of the city and also to increase the city tax base, but Ms. Fischer stated "it appears that we seem to be going away from that. We are eliminating an unsightly house and building a new home to increase the tax base. The goal is to create additional tax base and not to create side yards." Staff reminded the board members the goal was to visually improve the neighborhood. If an old ratty home is gone and now there is open space and a new home gets built to replace it, the city has accomplished its goal. Staff does not feel the city wants anyone building on a 40-foot lot. It is just not good public policy. Ms. Fischer felt if the word got out-that the city would allow a variance to build on a 40- foot lot, people would start paying their variances for the additional lot in fear of losing the lot. Ms. Coleman suggests getting feedback from the council to inquire if the Maplewood City Council would support building on a 40-foot lot (vs. 60 feet). She also felt if a variance is approved, the city should be able to stipulate what style of home is being built. HRA MINUTES 11 - 14-2000 -:3- Under the Practices and Methods of Property Purchase and Resale, #6 will read: "The community design review board will review and approve all new house design and site plans. Also, the developer or builder may appeal the staff decision about design issues to the city council. When considering house plans, staff will consider the color and materials of the architectural elements of the proposed buildings". Ms. Coleman also thought it would be a good idea to run the plans through the design review board especially due to the fact there are not all that many per year. It was suggested that a committee could be created that combines HRA members and community design review board members. The developer or builder will have the right to apPeal the staff decisions about design issues to the city council. Under the practices and methods, item 8, C will be listed first. B will state: "Divide the property and sell the pieces to the adjacent property owners". Item 8 will now state: If the property the city has bought does not meet the city's zoning standards for lot size or lot width, or street frontage, the city may choose to: a. Grant variances to allow the construction of a new house. b. Keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. c. Divide the property and sell the pieces to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Roberts noted the home on English Street appears to be a chicken coop or a garage that at some point was turned into a home. It is currently landlocked with the two homes sharing a driveway. The property in this case could be sold between the two property owners. Commissioner Fischer noted that some of the lot values did not seem comparable to neighborhood values. Why more of the "clone" homes in the area were not included in the list was a concern to Ms. Fischer. Was it because staff had been inside the homes on the list and found them to be structurally unsound? Staff responded in saying the decision was probably based upon complaints from neighbors and after being inspected by Bob Wenger. If a home is taken down and replaced, what about the clones on the same street? Could we include other similar homes on the list and actually create a larger base? About six weeks ago staff made contact with the Realtor who had listed the Birmingham residence for sale. The real-estate agent stated the home was listed for $59,900. He did have a couple of people at that time that had made offers, but did not qualify. Commissioner Pearson shared several photos he.had taken of the properties on. t_he list. One of the commissioners noted the property on 1779 Frank has more board than paint showing on the exterior. Why hasn't the city ordinance for maintenance been applied as of yet? As far as staff knows from the Environmental Health Inspector, he has not received any complaints on this property as of yet. Ms. Fischer did not understand why the owner has not been tagged as of yet and told to get a paint job. Staff explained there are other problems with the property also. There is a city employee familiar with the home and has heard there are structural issues with the roof also. When this program gets underway, and the owner is approached by the city, staff is hopeful they will be interested in selling and moving on. I 1 I ] I HRA MINUTES -4- 11 - 14-2000 Mr. Roberts stated that he felt Dennis Campbell, a local home builder who builds three or .four homes a year, would love the opportunity to build on some of these properties. Some cities are paying for contractors to be trained to become updated with the rehabilitation projects. If they are applying for renovation loans, they would need to select a contractor off the list that has been trained for that type of project. The contractors are required to carry the liability insurance, therefore, so many contractors are hesitant to do it. Also, there is so much work out there, why take the rehab jobs that cost so much for hazardous waste removal? Ms. Fischer noticed the irony of the home owner who has too much money to receive federal funds will not be required to follow federal regulation, and therefore will probably leave the lead paint. One of the commissioners noted that Minnesota was not one of the states that were having issues with containing the lead paint. Other states were not complying with the way the regulation said it needed to be handled. They made the regulations nearly suffocating, so in order to follow them to the letter, people end up relocating out of the house. All of the homes listed are on city sewer except possibly the property on Bradley Street which may have a well. The city property off of Frost and English has a little well that goes down 600 feet. It had been covered up by the railroad and they are working on getting it capped. There are about 140-150 homes in the city that are not yet connected to city sewer with the majority of them in the south end of Maplewood. Ms. Coleman questioned how often Ramsey County actually goes out and appraises homes. Mr. Roberts responded in saying he thought it was once every four years. Ms. Coleman suggested a caveat be added stating the list is not in any way, shape or form exclusive (it is subject to change). Ms. Fischer was concerned that the practices and methods did not define dilapidated. She felt possibly using the term "substandard" may be more appropriate. Ms. Coleman suggested using both in the definition. Mr. Roberts informed the housing and redevelopment authority that the Harvester area just had their streets redone in the last couple years. He will be interested to see if that now creates more interest in that area for people to spruce up their property. Staff wanted to discuss item 10 which is the home that burned on Prosperity. · Much cf thc inside of the home was destroyed and has been sitting boarded up for 12-15 years. Staff has it' listed as a possible rehab project. If the owner is not willing to sell, it does not matter, but Ms. Fischer thought he may change his mind if the county looks at it, valuate the worth and makes an offer. The city gets one or two calls a month on the property. A good approach may be t° watch for a for sale sign and approach the owner at that point. Ms. Coleman discussed the issue of how the city wants to disburse the funds. If funds are used for Iow to intermediate housing, the funds will not go as far. She would like to see the city jump in and start doing something, stop talking, and start moving. The main question was" how quickly do we want to start"? The HRA commissioners felt a workshop at the city council may be the best place to start and the most informative for everyone. HRA MINUTES 11 - 14-2000 -5- Commissioner Pearson was willing to offer the services of his company to build Manufactured homes on the lots for cost only. He felt the sites were large enough for attached or detached garages and would sell for $45,000 to $55,000. All the homes would be 28-feet wide and 40 to 70 feet long. The home installed on Century Avenue, just north of the Dairy Queen, is this type of modular home and looks just like a little rambler. Mr. Pearson's product is a little more finished than the Wausau modular homes. Mr. Pearson's homes come with a little less woodwork, and can be ordered with a Lindsey Floor Truss which is made to go on a foundation. If they want to have a finished basement it runs about $10,00-12,000 more. That product typically comes without appliances and does not have the furnace and water heater, which could be installed after the unit is sited. It would appear to be beneficial for the city to install these homes on the sites, sell them and make a profit on them. Staff felt this proposal should be brought up to the council. One of the board members stated an empty lot does not have any adverse effects on the tax base for the surrounding properties, but when you place a new home on the lot it does increase the value of the surrounding properties. The HRA board members viewed the picture of the property on 1724 Sylvan Street and tried to figure out why that property was on the list. Staff felt that property did not look that bad esthetically and it was possible it was placed on the list by mistake. There may be another address on the block that should be listed instead. Staff clarified that with the majority of the properties listed, they are owner occupied. A commissioner questioned, "If some of the properties are dilapidated looking, can the city ticket the owner to fix it?" Staff responded in saying the maintenance ordinance could be applied. The commission would appreciate it if staff would include the maintenance ordinance in the next meeting packet so they know what they have to work with. Ms Fisher felt the ordinance has not been looked at since it has been adopted, and felt it would be beneficial to view the ordinance and maybe improve upon it. Staff feels when health and safety issues are involved, the Health Inspector becomes actively involved and includes the police when needed. His frustrations are when the courts get involved and the tickets are not followed up on. It may be beneficial to have Bob Wenger attend some meetings since Bob has been working in his field for over 20 years. When a complaint is received, Bob's first attempt is to gain rapport with the owner and get the problem fixed. If not, it usually ends up in the Ramsey County court system. VIII.. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next HRA meeting will be in January or February after the workshop with the city council. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. I I I ] 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM - PROPERTY PURCHASES July 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION City staff is asking for city council approval to buy three houses under the Housing Replacement Program. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2001, the city council approved the Housing Replacement Program Operations and Procedures Plan. This plan, starting on page seven, has the goals, history and practices the city will follow when buying property and the options the city has once we have purchased a property. This plan also is the city's policy guide for the Housing Replacement Program. DISCUSSION The first three properties under consideration for purchase are at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue. (See the maps on pages 3-5.) These homes are just west of Adolphus Street on the north side of Larpenteur Avenue. Unfortunately, these homes were flooded during the rainstorm on April 23, 2001, and received a large amount of damage. Since then, the city has been trying to work with the property owners to help them in any way possible. After reviewing this matter with the city attorney and with the League of Minnesota Cities, staff has determined that the best available remedy the city could provide to the property owners would be to buy the properties. On May 29, 2001, the city council authorized city staff to begin negotiations with these property owners to buy the properties under the city's Housing Replacement Program. If successful, the city would buy the properties, demolish the homes, regrade the properties to help ensure that flooding would not occur in the future and then resell the lots as building sites for houses. The city recently had appraisals done for each of these properties and has reached tentative purchase agreements with each of the property owners. (See the memo from the city engineer on page 6.) The following is the information about these properties: Property_ Address 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 2000 Tax Market Value* $1 O2,8OO $110,000 Negotiated Purchase Price $145,000 $155,OO0 215 Lamenteur Avenue $102.100 $146,000 Total $446,000 *Note: The tax-market value can be 20-25 percent below market value. Property values have increased about 10-15 percent for 2001. The city's net cost for the purchase of each lot will range from $80,000 to $100,000 for a total city cost of about $250,000 to $300,000. I I I ] I The Housing Replacement Program now has a balance of $547,000. RECOMMENDATION Authorize city staff, including the city manager and city attorney, to complete negotiations with the property owners of 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue to purchase their properties. Staff will: 1..Conductthese negotiations and purchases under the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program. 2. Have the city council approve any purchase agreements. kr/p:miscell\hsgpro7.mem 1. Location Map - Larpenteur Avenue Properties 2. Property Line Map - Larpenteur Avenue Properties 3. IRIS Area Map - Larpenteur Avenue Properties 4. Memo from City Engineer dated July 3, 2001 5. Housing Replacement Program Operations and Procedures Plan Attachment 1 COUNTY PI. A7?A 2 ALYARADO DR BE:U.~CR~5-"T DR 4 DEA/,,/VIL/,.~ OR $ MERIDIAN DR 5 < 2400N ~_ ® Lll-FLE CANADA OOO LOCATION MAP I [ I 1 I Attachment 2 6 & ! 142' 29 2O PONDING AREA -264 (111 I -' i I --'-~, ----~ ....... .... -~- I~RPENTUER AVENUE SAINT PAUL PROPERTY LINE MAP Nj Attachment 3 Address: IRIS Map Printout ©PropertyKey. com, 2000 Printed on 05/29/01 at 11:45 AM Scale: 0.07 miles PONDING AREA 150 ft. 205 211 = = · . ~,, 20, J--- 215 00 ft. 72 LARPENTUER AVENUE Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. I I "T' I i Attachment 4 MEMO RA ND UM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Ken Roberts, City Planner R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer~ July 3, 2001 Larpenteur/Adolphus Flooding - Property Purchases The following is a status of discussions with property owners: 215 E. Larpenteur Avenue City' Appraised value range: up to $148,875 Final Agreed upon sale price: $146,000 Value of lot for resale: (est.) $ 65,000 211 East Larpenteur Avenue City's Appraised value range: up to $165,300 Final Agreed upon sale price: Value of lot for resale: (est.) 209 East Larpenteur Avenue City's Appraised value range: up to $155,000 $ 65,000 $150,525 Final Agreed upon sale price: $145,000 Value of lot for resale: (est.) $ 65,000 We are currently working with our insurance carrier for recovery of some of these costs. If you have any questions, please contact me. RCA 6 Attaclm~ent 5 MAPLEWOOD HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES PLAN January 22,2001 Introduction The Maplewood City Council has been discussing the condition of older housing in Maplewood for several years. ^ concern of the council has been that if a single dwelling deteriorates to the point of becoming a detriment or an eyesore it will have a negative affect on the surrounding area. As such, the city council has made a commitment to improve the condition of the single family residential housing stock in scattered sites with the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program. Goals The following are the goals of the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program: 1. To keep the Maplewood housing market viable and values increasing by constantly improving and upgrading housing. 2. To eliminate problem housing by removing housing that can only deteriorate because its basic quality is inherently Iow. 3. To have a program and plan that will benefit the whole city and each of its residents. History The Maplewood City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have been discussing and reviewing the condition of housing in Maplewood for several years. In 1992, the comprehensive plan identified two related issues about housing and neighborhood quality. The first issue is naming the steps the city can take to prevent the deterioration or abandonment of its older housing stock. ^ second issue is to identify the steps the city can take to prevent neighborhoods from deteriorating. Specifically, if a single dwelling deteriorates to the point of becoming a detriment or an eyesore, it will have a negative affect on the surrounding area. That is, other property owners may not be motivated to care for or to improve their properties if they live next to or near a rundown house. Because of the above concerns, the city council hired Quam and Associates in 1996 to do a housing program concepts evaluation. This evaluation was to provide the city with a summary of the following program issues: The type of programs (home replacement, existing home transformation, area redevelopment) that would be most effective in updating neighborhoods and conserving existing open lands. 2. The possible funding sources for such a program. 3. The cost effectiveness of any housing initiatives and the positive impact they might have on the taxes and revenues of the city and the school district. 7 I 1 I I I The housing program evaluation completed by Quam and Associates determined that a home replacement program would be the best program for Maplewood. This is because there are properties that have deteriorated and are inconsistent with the character of the rest of the neighborhood. It is important to remember that much of the housing in older Maplewood neighborhoods was built before zoning and building restrictions were in place. These are often the houses that are now deteriorated and an eyesore. Removing an existing eyesore property and replacing the worst home with a new home that sets a new quality standard is an effective action for change. In a meeting on August 2, 1999 with the HRA, the city council again discussed possible future housing programs. At this meeting, the council directed staff to prepare a housing plan that would replace dilapidated houses with new, higher-value replacement homes. On August 23, 1999, the city council approved developing a Housing Replacement Program that would: Use the surplus tax increment proceeds (up to about $687,000) from Districts 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6 to fund the housing program. The city must reasonably expect to spend this money within 3 years. 2. Buy vacant or dilapidated properties from willing sellers at fair market value. 3. Demolish any dilapidated houses and other structures and rough grade the lots. Deed the vacant properties at no cost to an agency or group that will use the lots to provide new housing for Iow-to-moderate income persons. Such a transaction would be subject to all Maplewood zoning and building requirements. Note: Because the city was going to be using tax-exempt bonds to fund this program, the city may only do no-cost grants of property. The city cannot sell the property or provide Iow interest loans with the tax-exempt money. The council also adopted resolutions at this meeting that provided preliminary approval for the sale of $719,094 1999 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds and authorized the use of excess tax increment revenues from the Carefree Cottages to finance debt service on the bonds. On September 27, 1999, the city council approved a resolution approving changes for the Development District No. 1 and changes to Housing Districts Numbers 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6. These changes designated that the city will spend the excess funds from the three TIF Districts on a housing replacement program~ The total funds available to the city to spend '-~,,,,m '";,,,,o ........ ~,-,u,o,,, should be about $687,000. On December 13, 1999, the city council approved several city staff requests for the Housing Replacement Program. These included amending the resolution for the 1999 Tax Increment Bonds. The council made the amendments so that the proceeds can be used to reimburse the Sanitary Sewer Fund for the cost of sanitary sewer improvements directly related to the Carefree Cottages Phase I, II and III. The improvements involved slip lining a sanitary sewer main to decrease leakage into it and to increase its capacity. Decreasing the leakage has caused a decrease in the flow through the sanitary sewer main and a corresponding decrease in sewage treatment costs. This will result in about a ten-year payback of the improvement costs by 8 decreased treatment costs. There was no need, therefore, for the Sanitary Sewer Fund to keep the $646,929.86 reimbursement for sanitary sewer improvement costs. At this meeting the council also established a Housing Replacement Fund and transferred $646,929.86 from the Sewer Fund to the Housing Replacement Fund. These actions created the Housing Replacement Fund, set a budget for the fund, and most important, gave the city more flexibility in how the city may spend the money in the fund. General Policy Guidelines The city shall follow the standards and guidelines in the Maplewood City Code of Ordinances and in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan when administering and operating the Maplewood ' Housing Replacement Program. The Director of Community Development shall make the final decisions in cases or issues of uncertainty in the program. Anyone may appeal the Director's decision to the Maplewood City Council for review and possible change. Practices and Methods of Property Purchase and Resale 1. Maplewood will only buy vacant, substandard or dilapidated properties from willing sellers. 2. The city will have an appraisal done and will only pay fair market value for a property. 3. The seller of the property is responsible for properly sealing or capping any wells on the property. 4. After the city closes on the purchase, the city will hire a contractor to remove the structures on the property and rough grade the site. The city also may have a survey of the property done. For a buildable site, the city may do one of two things with the property. First, the city may choose to deed the property at no cost to an agency or group that will use the lot to provide new housing for Iow-to-moderate income persons after the contractor has graded the site. The other option the city has would be to put the property up for sale by sealed bid. In either case, the new construction would be subject to city staff review and approval as outlined below and all Maplewood zoning and building requirements. The city council shall approve any property ownership transfer. 6. The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) will review and approve all new house design and site plans. The construction shall include a garage at least big enough to hold two motor vehicles. The design of the new construction shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby houses. Staff shall consider the following when reviewing these house plans: a. The height, bulk and area of the existing and proposed buildings. b. The color and materials of the proposed buildings. c. The physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structure with the existing buildings (including the architectural elements). d. The site, layout, orientation and location of the proposed and existing buildings and their relationship with existing topography, landscaping and vegetation. City staff or the CDRB may require changes to the plans or may add conditions they deem necessary to ensure that the proposed design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. I I I ] I The city must make the following findings to approve the proposed plans: ao The design and location of the proposed construction and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments are such that it will not impair the desirability of the existing neighborhood. b. The proposed design and location of the construction are in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. c. The proposed design would be aesthetically pleasing in composition, materials, textures and colors. The developer or builder may appeal the staff decisions about design issues to the city council. If the property the city has bought is substandard in width or area for the neighborhood or area and it is next to publicly-owned property, the city may choose to keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. The city council shall approve any property transfer or decision to keep a property. If the property the city has bought does not meet the city's zoning standards for lot size or lot width, the city may choose to: a. Grant variances to allow the construction of a new house. b. Keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. c. Divide the property and sell the pieces to the adjacent property owners. The city council shall approve any property transfer, variance or decision to keep a property. This plan was api3r°ved by the Maplewood City Council on January 22, 2001. 10