Loading...
03-26-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, March 26, 2001 6:00 P.M. for Meeting with Mayor Mary Anderson and Council Member LeSuer - Food Provided 7:00 P.M. - Start of Regular Planning Commission Meeting I. Discussion of New Commission Guidelines - Presentation by Mayor Mary Anderson II. Approval of Minutes - February 26, 2001 and March 5, 2001 Planning Commission Meetings III. Planning Commission Approval- Amendment to Golden Hills Tax Increment Financing Plan -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business A. Election of Officers VII. Adjournment ", . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 5, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. ent were Director of Planning Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Secretary Lisa Wittman I. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design P Applicant: Lions Park Development, LLC Address: 7001 Harold Avenue, Gol Purpose: The P.U.D. would all homes on new lot struction of 6 single family . nt's request. He showed the general n plained that the applicant is proposing to nd create 6 lots to construct 6 new single family locations and the proposed driveway locations Id. Olson stated the area is approximately 56,000 acres. As requested by the City Engineer, the I 20 feet of right-of-way along Louisiana. The City est further and is now only requesting an additional 10 feet City Planner Dan Olson presente location and the proposed site demolish the existing church homes. He showed the p on Louisiana, Kentucky a square feet or appro' tel developer dedicated Engineer review ofright-of-wa . use of this change, the front yards would now be 40 feet in depth or d shift the houses forward. Olson exp that many of the variances requested by the developer won't change due to this additional ten feet, but the applicant would prefer to add the additional 1 0 feet to the back yards of the properties, which already meet the setback requirements. Olson stated the developer would be willing to dedicate five feet of that to the front yards which would increase them to 35 feet which is standard for single family homes and they would then meet the front yard setbacks. The additional 5 feet would go in the back yards. However, the two corner lots on Harold and Kentucky would not meet the corner yard setback requirements. Another thing that would change in result of reducing the dedication is that the two corner lots would meet the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet; they would be 10,534 square feet. The four interior lots would be increased, but still would not meet the 10,000 square feet minimum. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 2 . Olson stated that the overall density of this development would be less than 5 units per acre. He explained that the six homes would be a traditional 2-story design with full basements and would be priced from $450,000 to $600,000. Olson noted that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 24, 2001, and originally had proposed 10 single family homes on this site, but after meeting with the neighbors, the feedback he received was to reduce the number of homes and build more expensive homes. Eck continued by stating and we're only meeting 0 City will benefit from family homes. P I stated the neigh neighborhoo , the zoning e 93 % feet hey are rd setbacks for ave proposed side side yard setbacks. These nts. Olson referred to the variances the applicant is requesting. code requires a minimum of a 1 OO-feet width. The propos wide. None of the interior lots meet the width requireme approximately 77 feet wide. The rear setbacks are met. these lots would have to be 15% of the lot width. The i yards of 11 % feet wide and the two corner lots ha setbacks do not meet the residential zoning di Olson referred to the Livable Communities A Communities Act would be met regardi recommendation of staff is that the C e s that only one Livable ship. Olson then stated that the prove this PUD. Eck asked if it would be accurat six, the variances requested w land were platted in five lots instead of be required. Olson stated that was correct. . osing to put up six, half million dollar homes livable communities goals here and asked how the tated the benefit is that we are getting six single g for vacant lots to build homes on, and the applicant xpressed a desire for higher priced homes in their e property is now zoned Institutional and if we are doing anything at this meeting. Olson stated the City Attorney thought it would be if it were rezoned to Residential at the general plan stage. Applicant, Marshall Kieffer, Kieffer Companies, 8815 W. 34th Street, St. Louis Park stated that originally his proposal was for cluster housing which was more compact with heavier density and less value. He had a neighborhood meeting where the neighbors said they would like to see something more in the traditional single family design. They felt that less housing with higher value would be more appropriate for their neighborhood. He stated that they are looking at designs where the master bedroom is on the first floor level, which would help meet the life-cycle housing goals of the City. He stated that to go with five homes, only the four inner lots would benefit and . essentially instead of 80 feet they would have 100 feet, and in the interest of the shortage of housing, trying to get 3 feet from the inner lots and six from the end lots allows for the sixth house. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 3 Shaffer asked what the homes are going to look like. Kieffer stated they would have a maintenance free exterior of stucco, or vinyl siding, half-high brick, open, atrium types of entries, a more modern, contemporary style of building. He stated that the two corner lots will face frontage out onto Louisiana and that these new homes should bring approximately $40,000 per year to the tax roles. Pentel stated if he went to 5 lots instead of 6, a 54-foot wide.hous be extraordinarily generous. Kieffer stated that a two level, 54 the square footage for the garage, gives you approximately a s not seem to , taking out foot home. Pentel asked if these homes would have 2 or 3 car gara be two car garages, but there should be enough room ~ lots. He stated he does not believe it would be appropri the center lots. ted that all can es on the corner e 3 car garages on Chair Pentel opened the informal public heari Mamie Bumsted, 245 Kentucky Avenu less housing is correct, but they didn' houses going in there, she would Ii neighborhood, it will be changin lot size, it will look more like to be too dense. She also st now she faces an empty stated concern about the currently on that bloc ying the neighborhood wanted uses. She doesn't agree with 6 because it won't look like the rest of the he neighborhood, it will be changing the than single family homes and she feels it will s about a 3-car garage facing Kentucky. Right refer 2-car garages with landscaping. She also tbacks remaining the same as the houses that are Grimes stated if garages bei al goes to 5 homes, the City has no control over 3-car allowable in the City and is at the discretion of the builder. Helene Joh Kentucky Avenue, stated the church hasn't been the best neigh , and Ice homes would be an improvement. However, she has concerns about h concrete there will be, and where it will be. She also has concerns about a fen oing up in the back. She stated that there is a neighborhood agreement that there would be common land and there would be no fencing between the houses. She also has concerns about the landscaping in the back of these proposed homes. Mark Friederichs, 7501 Western Avenue, stated that every time a piece of property comes up we have to somehow, through the City Council, stop the speculation in the land. We're here tonight glad he only wants to put six units on there instead of 10 or 12 and we feel a sigh of relief about that. We shouldn't have to do that. He then read from the PUD Ordinance and asked if it would be reasonable if the zoning laws that are applicable across the street should be applicable here. A PUD to put one extra house in just doesn't seem right. He stated at the neighborhood meeting they said they didn't want more expensive houses, just fewer houses. He stated the City Council might do Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 4 . something crazy and we have to stop the speculation, that's what the zoning laws are for. Otherwise, it will just go on and on and every time a parcel of land comes up everybody just says "what can I do here, how much can I stuff on there, what can I put on there, how many houses can I get in here". There are laws that tell you exactly what can be put there and we just have to take the speculation out of it. Steve Swartz, 220 Kentucky Avenue, stated rned about the appropriateness of using the PUD vehicle to grant variances evelopment is going to be a single use development, residential ho what would be appropriate is to ask the question, what variances wo ission be willing to grant if it was not a PUD request, but rather a straig quest for variances. He stated that in some respects one can underst ity might be interested, given the fact that . this property is going to be con m non-taxable property to taxable property. The City would be very inte ximizing the tax revenue from the property, but that needs to be balance pact on the neighborhood. He recommended a site visit and stated that large homes on that property would be quite imposing and it certa' eping with how he views the neighborhood. how expensive ethe re now. Joey Wagenheim, 7182 Harold Avenue, stated she was taken aba and how huge they want to make these houses. She stated sh proposed homes to be more in tune with the rest of the hous Sharon Ruble, 7156 Harold Avenue, stated that last year front of their house within the front setback area. This stated she doesn't understand how the proposal can be she asked for the same thing last year (building in uild a garage in the BZA. She as being ok when etback). licant about how he intended to treat the whole property in terms ei er stated originally he proposed a 6-foot fence, but a natural ery appropriate as well. He stated that he's never proposed any sort of budget fo ndscaping to the public or the neighborhood, so if there's an inkling that they are going to short the development on landscaping, that is completely incorrect. Avenue, stated he's concerned that the aesthetic beauty of d once these homes were put in. Justin Frys, 694 the park wo Pentel asked Keiffer when individuals buy a home with him, if they also buy a landscaping package as well. Keiffer stated yes they do, there is always a landscaping package, usually in the range of $5,000 or more to cover the grass work in the front and the rear and bushes and shrubs. He noted that they are looking to save approximately 11 out of the 15 trees that are on the site now. Keiffer also clarified that a traditional home on Louisiana or Kentucky is in the vicinity of 1,200 square feet on the main level . and if they have a second level it's probably a total of 2,000 to 2,400 square feet. He stated he doesn't consider the homes he's proposing at approximately 2,600 to 2,800 square feet as exorbitantly large for the space. Keiffer clarified that what's on the plans . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 5 now is what he calls a box plan to fit on the site. They were set up to show that a home of a natural size could fit and still meet the setbacks,iso the homes could be built smaller, but notlarger. Shaffer asked the applicant how he's going to control it so the houses don't look like townhomes. Keiffer stated that they would work with two different builders so they can have different design styles. He then showed pictures from a differ t project to give an idea of what he doesn't want the proposed homes to look like Ron Wilson, from the Church at 7001 Harold Avenue, stated taken almost a year and before the project began they sp what they would like to see put on the site. He stated t them very well and he hopes to see the plans go throug is church has ty regarding as worked with Mamie Bumstead, 245 Kentucky Avenue, stated sli setbacks on Kentucky and Harold and if there. those, or if the developer will have to meet wi the h Kentucky. Grimes stated the developer i and Harold rather than the required 35 require if it were zoned straight singl clarification on the side to a variance granted for es that are already existing on -foot setbacks along Kentucky feet closer than the code would Helene Johnson, 240 Kentucky proposal would look and where home that is being propos Ms. Johnson then questi Grimes replied by saying that it will become si , d she was concerned about how the orner lot the home would sit. Pentel stated the closer by five feet to Kentucky than her house is. n eds to be different from the current zoning code. w the property is zoned institutional and we can't say sidential. ily residential, 5 lots could be built there and all the Planning .ng is a subdivision. All of those lots would meet the g code and it would just be administrative at that point. r lots on this plan, the Commission could say, if they chose to allow e have to meet the 35-foot setback and not quite as big of a house e footprint would just be smaller. Keiffer stated if he went to a 12-foot side yard setback it would come down to just a variance on the width of the lots and the lot size. Chair Pentel closed the public hearing. Eck stated the logical use for this land is residential. However, whether there are five homes or six homes here is a relatively minor difference in the overall scheme of things in terms of the housing in Golden Valley. He stated he sees no reason, other than the economic benefit to the developer, to make a PUD out of this and have these variances that are being asked for, when five lots can be done without requiring variances. He stated he would support five lots here, but would not support six. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 6 . Groger agreed with Eck and stated Mr. Friederichs did a good job of speaking to the issue regarding PUD's. He doesn't think this is an appropriate situation to use a PUD and thought it would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, especially on Louisiana Avenue where the lots are very uniform. He stated this is a rectangular lot and a very simple layout for single family homes. He doesn't see the benefit to the City in creating a PUD just to squeeze in one more home, when it is no' eeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he woul ed to this proposal as well. Shaffer stated that under does give the City so Conceivably, in the P make the develo could tell the PUD. ase. It seems eighborhood. Ive homes being built. he would have the right to in den Valley where we have omes would have 30 feet have to go to the Board of Pentel stated she would also have a hard time invoking that 5 lots could well serve and could bring very nice ho Pentel asked staff if a PUD would still be necessary if th Grimes stated that if it were because of the depth ask for variances because of that. We have si blanket variances for blocks, which would me setback rather than 35 feet that's somethin t Zoning Appeals. Rasmussen asked if this property i current ordinance it is because 0 proposal is more than one buil can be considered a PUD. a PUD. Pentel stated that under our he lot. Grimes clarified that if the more than one lot and it's over an acre in size it . ordinance they can put Slots there too. The PUD ver the property that a subdivision doesn't. d define how much landscaping we feel is needed to nto the neighborhood, we could allow fencing or not, we f driveways they could have. There is still some value to the e tends to look at the ordinance and think of it as a 3-step process. at the developer has to meet the minimum threshold requirement and it's clearly ere. The next step is to ask if there something else about the plan that qualifies it as a PUD. The third part is reviewing the plan and deciding if it meets the basic requirements for our community. McAleese referred to the ordinance and listed a number of reasons for the purpose of PUD's. One purpose is to encourage the use of contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design. He stated he doesn't see anything in this proposal that is different than you might find in a standard subdivision. He stated the PUD ordinance also pays tribute to the advantages of creating large community type developments. This proposal doesn't have that sort of scale or mix in uses. . t . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 7 The procedure is intended to be used where the designation of the single zoning district or the strict application of zoning provisions is too rigid for practical application. The only reason that the R-1 zoning code wouldn't work here is because of the extra house. He stated that Staff noted the PUD is intended to provide some design flexibility by granting variances. He stated staff takes the position that if the developer wants this design flexibility that's a sufficient reason for a PUD, when in fact, all that does is to describe the way the ordinance is supposed to work, it really isn't t sis for making something a PUD. If a proposal qualifies as a PUD then we will ign flexibility. On the other hand, just because someone wants design f1exi . Icient basis for making something a PUD. McAleese referred to Subdivision 6 of the PUD ordinan appropriate place for a PUD is as a buffer in a transitio neighborhoods from inappropriately highly develo townhomes and apartments. Here we have a Q development, and the variances being asked and shouldn't qualify as a PUD under our ord tes the most tect residential on t e other side as in he likes the minor, but it doesn't qualify Pentel asked in terms of framing the PUD and then have a motion that wo there are only going to be 5 hom that the zoning code works wel PUD. ey first have a motion to deny this lower density. Grimes stated if posal, he would prefer it not to be a PUD, y districts and there isn't a need to have a Shaffer commented that should be well comm nd houses being too big bigger houses 0 setback require Pentel said t the numb oper approached the neighborhood in good faith and stated that the neighbors had concerns about the 6 lots, but with 5 lots they will be able to have even stated the houses would then have to meet the normal r the subdivision ordinance versus the PUD ordinance. e heard weren't so much about the size of the homes, but t e Commission should address the issues that were in the , just in case the Council does not agree with the decision. Grimes stated the neer's main recommendation is the reduction and the width of the street, which would still be appropriate to review in a subdivision. Pentel referred to the proponent's letter in which he wrote that there would be a $7,500 paid directly to the City for a park dedication fee. McAleese referred to the posting of the $14,400 escrow account for street reconstruction. Grimes stated these things would also be covered in a subdivision proposal. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to deny the Preliminary Design Plan for the Lion's Park P.U.D 92 for the following reasons: the purpose doesn't deviate from contemporary land planning, a subdivision ordinance would work here, the proposed density would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 8 II. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning (Z020-01) Applicant: Susan Gonyea Address: Lots 9, 10 & 11, Block 8 of Lakeview Heights located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: he property The applicant is requesting a rezoning of from Residential to Two-Family (R-2) Grimes reviewed his staff report regarding the rezoning located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North. He stated this planning commission meeting as a subdivision of t requirements of the subdivision code is that all f the property wed at the last and one of the eated by a subdivision or t . consolidation must meet the requirements of code. It was determined that the duplex home that exists on the new ed single family residential and therefore, does not meet the require sidential zoning code. In order for this plat to go forward, the west lot be rezoned R-2 as a two family designation. Grimes referred to de map and stated that when the duplex . was built it met the zoning code ments at that time. Grimes referred to the general land use plan and isting duplex and the proposed new home wouldn't change the over density in that area and would be consistent with the overall land use f Grimes stated he sees no issues with rezoning this to two family. ning is not approved what effect that would have on the that the subdivision code specifically states that all lots have of zoning code and right now it's a nonconforming use in the . trict and without the rezoning the plat can't be approved according y. Gerald Hatling, 1308 Gettysburg, asked when the property gets subdivided into two lots, if there's anything to stop applicant from putting a duplex on the other lot. Pentel stated the lot wouldn't be large enough, and the duplex that is there now is an existing condition and this rezoning is just to bring it into conformance and the other lot is zoned single family. Grimes stated that the lot would be large enough, but it's not wide enough at the front setback line and the only way it could go through is to get variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals and it's unlikely that would happen. . .. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 9 McAleese asked if the Council denies the subdivision request, does everything just stop at that point and if the existing duplex would remain nonconforming would there be no rezoning. Grimes stated no, because the recommendation from the Planning Commission would be to rezone a future parcel that's being created and right now this duplex is on all of the parcel, which is considered one parcel by Hennepin County. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Shaffer, and motion approve the rezoning of a portion of the subject property to two family residential. III. Reports on Meetings of the Ho Council, Board of Zoning Ap evelopment Authority, City her Meetings Shaffer stated there are a numb ordinance because the BZA ha Shaffer discussed the fact at need to be redone to the zoning etting a lot of side setback variance requests. , we have no ordinance regarding fences. Rasmussen stated the S single family homes ite committee is going to present their proposal for ext week. IV. new Commission Guidelines sion Guidelines will be discussed, along with a presentation by the ., at the March 26 Planning Commission meeting. B. Discuss GTS Land Use Planning Workshops Pentel discussed the various GTS (Government Training Service) workshops that are being offered in March, April and May. She also stated that these workshops would probably be offered again at the next state planning conference in September V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9: 15 PM. 1 ; i . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday February 26, 2001. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 p.m. II. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Gro Rasmussen and Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was abse of Planning Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Re se, nt were Director ary Lisa Wittman. I. Presentation by Common Bond Commun. . Approval of Minutes - February 12, ing Commission Meeting McAleese noted that on page have a semi-colon after the wo the seventh paragraph, th recommend whether thi use." On page 3 the fi statute which auth process for appro paragraph, the last sentence should i1y residential. Also, on page two, in nce should read, "The City Attorney can g in e code or in a policy manual for the City to ce should read, "McAleese noted that the state as a conditional use) does not specify in detail the n the eleventh paragraph, the first sentence should read, e 0 s that go out into Sweeney Lake" not "the lake". r, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to ebruary 12, 2001 minutes with the above revisions. III. ublic Hearing.. Property Subdivision (SU20..02) Applicant: Susan Gonyea Address: Lots 9, 10 & 11, Block 8 of Lakeview Heights located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create two new lots from the three existing lots that total about 27,500 square feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 2 Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes discussed the proposed minor subdivision of the property at 9120 Plymouth Ave in Golden Valley. Grimes referred to the area map pointing out that it is located on the north side of Plymouth Avenue, adjacent to the General Mills Research Center property, between Plymouth Avenue and Flag Avenue, the cul-de-sac end of Flag Avenue. Grimes stated the reason they want to subdivide the property is to be able to get ano uilding site on this property. They own a portion of lots 9, 10 and 11 of the eights Addition. The total area is about 27,700 square feet. Originally, to just split the property in half with a line going north to south. The at is the property is only 150 feet wide and if it was split in d only be 75-foot wide lots, the zoning code requires 100-foot wid aff and applicant began to look at different alternatives for how thi ould be split to not require variances and meet the requiremen bdivision code. The idea that was reached is to run a line from the so orthwest, which would allow the proper amount of footage for the e se and also have the proper width at the setback lines for a house off of e. Since the City has the right-of- considered a street. The pi a single-family home. Gr" could get by without goi needs be rezoned. subdivision code s requirements of th rezoning to all they are pr 0 enough at puttin 200 hean mpr tn venue, at this point it can be t e existing house is actually a duplex, not ok ith the City Attorney about this to see if we h a rezoning on this property. The attorney said it it's an existing nonconforming building, the property is subdivided it has to meet the code, so he's recommending that it go through a lot to be a two-family residential zoning district. The lot the requirements of the two-family district - it's large uare feet and it has a two-car garage. Grimes suggested hearing on the next Planning Commission meeting (March 5, to the City Council on March 20,2001. A City Council public held both on the rezoning and on the subdivision of the land. The slve plan is low density. Keeping a two-family home here would keep .. nsity character of the neighborhood. Grimes next reviewed the topography of the property, and stated there's a very steep slope. The map indicates the property drops 26 to 30 feet from east to west. Grimes stated the concern that the City Staff has is in regard to building a home where we can be sure the hill will be stable after the home is constructed. Grimes mentioned talking with the City Engineer (Jeff Oliver) about this. Originally, Jeff's request was that they submit a soil stabilization plan or study on this before it went to the City Council. This is a rather expensive item to have prepared and Mr. Gonyea and Susan Gonyea felt this was an extraordinary cost for them to have to prepare prior to knowing if the City Council would even approve the subdivision. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 3 Grimes stated he sympathized with their concerns, but also realized there is a need to be sure there isn't going to be a problem with this lot once it gets platted. Grimes stated he went over the subdivision code with the City Attorney and the code states one of the conditions of the plat can be to see a soil stability study prior to the approval of the final plat. What the City Attorney is suggesting is that as part of the resolution approving the subdivision, one of the conditions e that a soil stability report be submitted and approved by the City En r ore we sign the final plat. Mr. Gonyea has agreed to that, because at t 'nt i me he would know that the City would approve the plat. All he's n is the knowledge that the soil stability is acceptable to th en Valley. . Grimes indicated that the home that is being pro It is off of the stub end of Flag Avenue. In 0 east lot, the City will have to issue a per that is now not constructed. Another i City Engineer's request for an addition utility lines that are located in the concerned because of the ste room in case of a water mai particularly if there is goi stability of the City's utili the proposed home slope a little bit m thought it would be move the hom have close to get it awa flatter Ho furth me r out 24 feet by 66 feet. in access to the house on the ight-of-way of Flag Avenue ame up in looking at this site is the f easement for City water and Avenue. The City Engineer is 20-foot wide easement is not enough he would like to have another 10 feet e there. He's also concerned about the hich are in the old right-of-way. Because of that, et moved further to the west, which puts it into the ated that in his discussions with the Gonyea's he able as part of this process to consider a variance to he north, so rather than the required 35 feet they would etback. In this case it would seem reasonable to help to utility line and a little bit further to the north where it is a little bit ave to be reviewed as part of the Board of Zoning Appeals. e could be built there without a variance. It would just have to be outh. That is one of the things that we're suggesting in order to give from that request for the additional 10 feet of easement area. Sha asked Grimes if the 100 feet width requirement was at the right-of-way line or setback line. Grimes stated that it's at the front setback line. Shaffer asked if there was a Lot 8, Lakeview Heights. Grimes stated lot 8 is owned by the City of Golden Valley. Shaffer asked if the 102.18 feet is considered the front yard of the new lot. . Pentel asked in terms of the steep slope, if this could be considered a bluff. Grimes didn't know, but said he'd check with the City Engineer. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 4 . Pentel asked if the unpaved driveway could be improved and if the City still allows unpaved driveways. Grimes stated the City doesn't require paved driveways. Shaffer stated currently the house and garage sit on two different lots, 10 & 11. Conceivably if they consolidated lots 10 & 11, they'd have a usable lot. They could leave 9 as it is because it's considered a lot currently. Grim ated they could have left it, but that's something to ask Mr. Gonyea. Groger asked Grimes to clarify the easement on the the way to Plymouth Avenue. Grimes confirmed t easement from Plymouth Avenue to Flag Avenu if it extends all 20-foot wide Groger asked if there are any provisions for easement and the structure. Grimes st the easement and that is what the City needs to dig there, that gives us extra foundation. ce between the City's t ructure can be right next to is concerned about. If the City ot adversely affect the homes Dennis Gonyea, applicant, questions from the Com . build a house only on lot more sense to comb' 10. t to discuss the proposal and answer tated there are three lots and if he were to Id be a real cliffhanger. He stated it would make nd make the house sit on what's now lots 9 and . house would be facing east. Gonyea confirmed that it was proposing a new garage for the duplex unit. Gonyea an the site up. e why he was proposing to move the garage to the east. Gonyea uld act as a retaining wall and it would make it work better. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Mike Peltier, 1401 Flag Avenue asked how he could learn more about zoning issues and stated that he was concerned about having renters in the neighborhood. Pentel clarified that at the time the duplex was built, it was allowed to be in the single-family residential area, so now with this proposed subdivision it's a good time to clean up the zoning. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 5 Groger further clarified that it was only the western lot that they are considering rezoning on. Peltier stated concerns about soil erosion. Grimes stated that we have a soil and erosion control ordinance that addresses these issues. Pentel clarified that the new house being propos duplex. She also clarified that the rezoning is jus there now. duplexes being ing another Marcia Hatling, 1308 Gettysburg, stated she was concer put in and having renters come in. She's also concer access into the area. . Ie family, not a isting duplex that is Gerald Hatling, 1308 Gettysburg, stat and was concerned about run-off from a lot of water problems in the past rty going into his yard. . McAleese stated that the City i the development being prop, today. He further clarifie have to be approved by drainage and erosion issues and that ma e the situation any worse than it is ny development can occur the proposal will Engineer. Pentel closed the i Grimes stated that right to r adjacent p he conditions of a minor subdivision is that the City has ge plans so that they won't have an adverse impact on he conditions to consider that were listed in the staff report. ted he was concerned about voting on a subdivision that is going to mediate variance. Shaffer also stated concern about the City owning lot at the need might arise for the City to use it at some point in the future, then positioning this house close to another house becomes a side yard setback rather than a front yard setback and questioned if the setbacks set up correctly for that lot. Grimes mentioned that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn't have to approve this variance and they would have to build a home that conforms. . Pentel noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals tends to frown upon subdivision requests, which then require a variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26,2001 Page 6 . Grimes stated that part of the reason the proposed home is in the location it is, is because the City is requesting an additional 10 feet of easement above and beyond what is now there. So in fairness to the Gonyea's, he felt that there might be a legitimate reason for the variance request. looks at the he approves pprove a zoning code he's im. The best r ted back to us so we , in this case he's willing to y later. McAleese wants to subject to the idea that the lot will McAleese stated that normally when he looks at subdivisio requirements set out in the code and if it meets all the re the subdivision. McAleese said it's a fundamental prin . subdivision unless you end up with lots that are buil requirements for the lot without any variances. M uncomfortable going forward without having the approach would be to have that study prepared a can make recommendations to the Council. make it a condition that the City Staff wi make it clear that any approval he wo be buildable without the variance. Shaffer questioned if rear yard the rear yard setback is 200;( e been looked at. Grimes stated that o depth. . Eck questioned if part of but also to the actua onse would depend not just on the soil condition, pe, size and location of the house. McAleese stated at on that lot in int, what we need to know, is that there is a footprint area n build a home. ot be as large as the one that is shown on the proposed plans. at in this particular case, the defining issue is the soil conditions n stated she has some difficulty talking about a setback from a lot that we r don't think will be developed in the future. If this is marginally buildable, the lot above it, lot 8 probably would be very difficult to build on and also Flag Avenue does not go through, so it's a situation where those spaces really are going to be green and the setbacks won't have any visual impact, so there's some kind of common sense factor that should be weighed in to it too. McAleese stated when we create a new lot through a subdivision process that the Planning Commission is bound to comply with the zoning code requirements, it doesn't matter what's next door as long as the lot created will allow a home that . meets the building code requirements. When creating a lot, there has to be a buildable area inside the setback lines. t . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 7 Grimes stated they could build a home that will meet the setback requirements. It just won't be the house they want. Shaffer stated they have to show where the house should be. That's what should be coming to us, not a house with a variance. Groger questioned what the City Engineer's responsibilit the soil stability study, and asked if it will take into acco issues. terms of doing ter drainage Grimes stated that there are two processes. Th erosion control plan as part of the building permi plans for building the home and maintaining They also have to have a second study that is going to built there has stable s they put it. e a drainage and hich will 'look at the age and erosion on the site. a gineer saying that the home the house is going to stay where Pentel asked when the water has to be submitted to the City. . Grimes stated that's part the City Engineer is so c that property. We h to be sure we're n damage during co permit process, but in this case the reason d about this is because we have an investment on and a water line on old Flag Avenue and we want ome to close to that, or where there is a chance for n or where erosion may occur. is more of an issue here than the stability of the structure, natives for drainage. be a ditch or berms, this is something needs to be looked at as 'Iding permit procedure. ed if there would be a possibility that the applicant would get to the permit stage and be denied a building permit because of drainage issues. Grimes stated the applicant probably wouldn't be denied, but would be told drainage is something that has to be looked at. Pentel stated she'd like to see the soil study before she'd feel comfortable approving this subdivision. . McAleese stated there might be something related to the soil study that may make this a non-buildable lot and that's where he has trouble approving this subdivision proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 8 t . Eck stated that the staff recommendation does include the soil study as a condition subject to acceptability by the City Engineer. Grimes stated the City Engineer is very concerned about this and he's not going to accept just a cursory kind of report on this. He's going to want to be sure that it really works. IV. wand see the eginning so McAleese stated he trusts staff on this issue and is will" report later. But it seems better to bring this informa . there can be a full discussion with all of the data 0 Shaffer asked if the soil stability survey included Grimes stated it's covered in the buildin Commission can request it to be part Groger stated he's troubled that the structure that is going to b in an awkward situation. H ' be added as a condition t may have the expectation that this is ould put the Board of Zoning Appeals led by the drainage issue and wants that to . I. MOVED by Shaffer the correct zoning issues related to t City Engineer. property s i itions of rezoning the existing the duplex house to p nt study of the site for soil stability and drainage nd the additional 10-foot easement recommended by the y Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the aring - Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) g Code Section 11.55 d this amendment stemmed from the Golden Meadows PUD. It would tion to the staff as far as what information is provided by the.applicant. Also, ould state that the PUD regulations apply not only to the Zoning Code but also to the Subdivision regulations of the City Code. As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting,. the language in section 2A has been rewritten and is much more clear. In section 3 the grammar was in question. The City Attorney said it's part ofa list from a subsection of that part of the ordinance. It wasn't meant to be a complete sentence. Eck asked where the parentheses end in the sentence in section 3. Grimes stated the close parentheses should be after the word "therefrom". . , . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 9 Eek stated that where it says chapter 12 the word "the" in front of chapter 12 should be crossed out. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Olson reviewed the revisions from the last Planni should be listed as 1 b. Also, 2 properties a right-of-way. The color of the historical Attorney suggested to leave the zonin Highway 100 as discussed previousl , nimously to rdinance MOVED by Eck, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carr;' approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Developm Zoning Code Section 11.55 with the above revisions. V. Informal Public Hearing - Revisions to the Offici sion meeting. PUD 16 ay 100 were rezoned as ha en changed. The City he old gas station property on ding litigation. . Shaffer asked about rezoning North (the subject property fr Grimes stated he'd first r the zoning district. located next to 9120 Plymouth Avenue eeting. ) make sure that it meets the requirements of MOVED b approve t Zonin pu Ie hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel earing. nded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to s indicated on the staff memo to the Official Golden Valley Pentel opened the closed the infor a -- Short Recess -- VI. n Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City oard of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel reported that she went to the last City Council meeting and the Luther PUD was approved. VII. Other Business The Planning Commission meeting on March 26 will begin at 6:00 to hear a presentation by Mayor Mary Anderson. . VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. " . , Hey Memorandum Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development c:0O....?- From: Don Taylor, Finance Director Subject: Amendment to Golden Hills Tax Increment Financing Plan Date: March 19,2001 The Golden Hills Tax Increment Financing Plan does not currently include a budget for expenditures for the "Northwest Project" in the Central Area (Olympic Printing Site) or for the "East Area Project". Since the HRA is currently in negotiations for the purchase of the Olympic Printing Site and could possibly become involved in the future in purchasing property from the State in the East Area, it is appropriate at this time to amend the plan budget. The attached amendment number 3 increases the district budget by $8,500,000 for the Northwest . Project and by $1,000,000 for the East Area Project. The HRA approved the amendment at its meeting of March 13, 2001. The next step in the approval process is review and approval by the Planning Commission. The final step is approval by the City Council at a public hearing scheduled for April 03, 2001. . . City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Amendment No.3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (9 Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1503 . (Golden Hills Project) . for Original Plan Adopted: October 16, 1984 Amendment No. 1 - Adopted December 1, 1998 Amendment No.2 - Adopted December 21, 1999 Amendment No.3 - Drafted March 7, 2001 Prepared by: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 85 E. Seventh Place, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55101-2887 (651) 223-3000 WWW.SPRINGSTED.COM . . . INTRODUCTION The purpose of Amendment No.3 to the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1503 (Golden Hills Project) is to amend the estimated project costs in Section F, the estimated amount of bonded indebtedness in Section G, and the sources of revenue in Section H. The City anticipates acquiring land in the Northwest Project (approximately seven acres) and East Area Project (approximately five acres) Areas with a combination of cash on hand and bond proceeds. The amendment makes no other modifications to the TIF District and does not result in an increase in the geographic size of the District. In addition, there is no additional estimated fiscal and economic impact due to this April 3, 2001 amendment. At the time this document was prepared there were no signed construction contracts with regard to the above described development. In addition, no development agreement is currently in place for this property. Once the property is acquired, the Planning Commission will develop a recommendation for the type of development that will occur, most likely consisting of a combination of retail and open space. . A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. . N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. . TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paqe(s) Definitions.................................................................................................................. 1 Statutory Authority ............................................... ...................................................... 1 Statement of Objectives.... .................. ...... ........... ..................... ........... ............ .... ..... 1 Development Program............................................................................................... 1 Description of Property in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District.................................................. 1 Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District................................................ 1 Estimate of Costs .... .......... ........................ ......... ..................... ....... .......... ................. 2 Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness.............................................................. 4 Sources of Revenue .......... ................... ................... ............ ............... ...... ................. 4 Original Assessed Value.... ........ ........... ........................... .......... ..... ...... ...... ............... 5 Estimated Captured Assessed Value ....................... ........... ........... .... ....................... 5 Duration of the District ....... ............ ...... ................................ ........... .... ..... .................. 5 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions........................................................ 5 Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District................................................ 5 Limitation on Administrative Expenses ................. ........... ........ ........... ..... .................. 5 Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts ...................................... 5 Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement ........ ..................................................... ...... ............... 5 Limitation on Use of Tax Increment ........................................................................... 5 Notification of Prior Planned Improvements............................................................... 5 Excess Tax Increments ........ ................. .................. ...................... .............. .............. 5 Requirement for Agreements with the Developer ..............~....................................... 5 Assessment Ag reements........................................................................................... 6 Administration of the Tax Increment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account........................................................... 6 Annual Disclosure Requirements.............. ............. ........ .................... ........ ................ 6 Original Exhibits ..............................................................:..................................... Map of the Tax Increment Financing District .............................................. Modification Exhibits ................... ...................... ......... .................... ............ ..... ....... Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report............................. [No Change] EXHIBIT I [No Change] EXHIBIT VII Definitions . The terms defined in this section have the meanings given herein, unless the context in which they are used indicates a different meaning: "Authority" means the Golden Valley Housing.and Redevelopment Authority. "City" means the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota; also referred to as a "Municipality". "City Council" means the City Council of the City; also referred to as the "Governinq Body". "County" means Hennepin County, Minnesota. "Redevelopment Proiect" means Northwest and East Area Redevelopment Project Areas in the City, which is described in the corresponding Redevelopment Plan. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment District. "Project Area" means the geographic area of the Redevelopment District. "School District" means Independent School District No. 270, Minnesota. . "State" means the State of Minnesota. . "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1791, both inclusive. "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1503. "TIF Plan" means the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District. Section A Statutory Authority [No Change] Section B Statement of Objectives [No Change] Section C Development Program [No Change] Section D Description of Property in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District [No Change] Section E Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District [No Change] . Page 1 . Section F Estimate of Costs The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax increments of the TIF District. BudQet contained within Amendment No.2 (1999): ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Equalc: Original Xenia .^Ne.! Byclget as Tl:JFnor's Contral .^,roa Re~tatod Crossroad For State (Outciclo TIF Southwost North'.vest Northeact GtAef: .^,moRsed TIF Farms Distriot) PfejeGt ~ Pfajeet Projects &eget SOl:lrces Bond Preooodcl Tax Incremont $22, 4 65, 000 $6,510,000 $11,150,000 $G $4,540,000 $1,000,000 $46,6e5,900 Lone Sale Pr-ocoedG 5, 7QO,QOO Q 2,875,000 Q 1,4113,000 Q 9,990,000 Munisipal State Aiel (MSA) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Intoroct Eamingo 1,461,270 Q Q Q Q Q 1,161,270 $30 62a 370 $6 510000 $14 0:?5 000 . Uses LanEIIBlJileling /\sqlJieition $19,989,116 $2,070,000 $8,2QO,00O ~ Imf)ro\'smontG (Domelition) 1,625,752 2,825,000 400,900 Installation at Puelic Utilitios 2,7139,854 420,000 1,599,000 Administration &. Logal 2,122,744 202,950 1,269,000 Relooation 2,9132,989 204,000 1,500,000 Enginoering! En'/ironmsntal Q 560,000 1,000,000 Sond Issl:IanGe C osk: 392,615 ~ 166,000 Capitalizod Interoct 771,299 Q 824,000 Pedostrian Q Crossing Q Q Joint City.' Sohool Dist. Roo. Fasility Q Q Q Contingenoy Q eQ,79Q Q Total Uscs ~30 626 370 $6 510 000 $11 025 000 . ~ l!;5 95a 000 l!;1 000000 1Ii58 11a 370 -$Q $2,600,000 $G $32,8139,116 Q 650,000 Q 6,1329,758 100,000 Q 4,770,861- 434,400 Q 4,121,094 500,000 Q 5, 1137,989 Q Q 1,559,000 +9;eOO Q 703,475 691,900 Q 1,262,299 Q Q Q Q ~,OOO,OOO 1,000,000 Q eQ,79Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ 1Ii5 955 000 $1.000000 1Ii5Q 116 d70 Page 2 . Section F Estimated Public Costs (continued) Modified BudQet for this Amendment No.3 (April 3. 2001) Sources Bond Proceeds/ Tax Increment Land Sale Proceeds Municipal State Aid (MSA) Interest Earnings Plus: Plus: Plus: Plus: Plus: Plus: Equals: Xenia Ave.! Original Turner's Central Area Budget as Crossroad Restated (Outside For State TIF Southwest Northwest Northeast Other East Area Amended TIF Forms District) Project Project Project Projects Project Budget $23,465,000 $6,510,000 $11,150,000 $8,500,000 $4,540,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $56,165,000 5,700,000 o 2,875,000 o 1,415,000 o o 9,990,000 o 1,461,370 ,0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 1,461,370 $30 626 370 $6 510 000 $14 025 000 $8 500 000 $5 955 000 $1 000 000 $1 000 000 $67 616 370 Uses Land/Building . Acquisition $19,989,116 $2,070,000 $8,200,000 $4,500,000 $3,600,000 $0 $1,000,000 $39,359,116 Site Improvements (Demolition) 1,635,753 2,835,000 400,000 300,000 650,000 0 0 5,820,753 Installation of Public Utilities 2,750,854 420,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 100,000 0 0 5,770,854 Administration & Legal 2,132,744 303,950 1,260,000 700,000 434,400 0 0 4,831,094 Relocation 2,953,989 204,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 0 6,157,989 Engineering! Environmental 0 550,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 2,550,000 Bond Issuance Costs 392,615 66,260 165,000 0 79,600 0 0 703,475 Capitalized Interest 771,299 0 824,000 0 591,000 0 0 1,362,299 Pedestrian Crossing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Joint City/ School Dist. Rec. Facility 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 Contingency 0 60,790 0 0 0 0 0 60,790 Total Uses $30626370 $6510000 $14025000 $8500000 $5955000 $1 000000 $1 000000 $67616370 . The City reserves the right to administratively adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased. Page 3 . . . Section G Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness Part I - OriQinal BudQet A summary of actual bonded indebtedness for the TI F District is listed below. The maximum amount of bonded indebtedness that can be incurred to pay for the public costs associated with the TIF District is $46,665,000 (as per current TIF plan). 1985 Bonds 1991 Bonds (Additional Issuance) 1997 Bonds (Additional Issuance) 1997B Bonds (Taxable) 1997C Bonds 1999A Bonds (Taxable) 1999C Bonds 19990 Bonds (Taxable) 6,700,000 115,000 55,000 6,875,000 2,350,000 4,540,000 6,510,000 11.150.000 $38,295,000 Part II - Amended BudQet In addition to the original budget, it is estimated that it will be necessary to issue up to $9,500,000 of general obligation tax increment bonds to pay the net public redevelopment costs. That total amount is expected to be provided through the sale of two separate issues as follows: October 1,2001 February 1, 2002 $8,500,000 Northwest Project Area $1.000.000 East Area Project $9,500,000 The actual date for sale of the bonds, their terms and estimated interest rates will be adjusted as necessary by the City to insure the timely availability of capital funds to defray the public redevelopment costs. The maximum amount of bonded indebtedness that can be incurred to pay for the public costs associated with the TIF District will increase to $56,165,000. Section H Sources of Revenue The following amounts are to fund the amended budget: - Tax increment revenue Interest on invested funds Bond proceeds Loan proceeds Real estate sales Special assessments RenVlease revenue Other $ 0 o 9,500,000 o o o o o $9,500,000 Total Page 4 . . . The City reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you- go assistance, internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The City also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment income. Section I Section J Section K Section L Section M Section N Section 0 Section P Section Q Section R Section S Section T Original Assessed Value [No Change] Estimated Captured Assessed Value [No Change] Duration of the District [No Change J Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions [No Change] Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District [No Change] Limitation on Administrative Expenses [No Change] Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts [No Change] Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement [No Change] Limitation on Use of Tax Increment [No Change] Notification of Prior Planned Improvements [No Change] Excess Tax Increments [No Change] Requirement for Agreements with the Developer . [No Change] Page 5 . . . Section U Section V Assessment Agreements [No Change] Administration of the Tax Increment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Section W Annual Disclosure Requirements [No Change] [No Change] Page 6 \. flj/l' r INTERSTA'r -== I"E 394 ---- ., l~Valley GOLDEN HILLS TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT m >< I OJ -f 'I. ~ SCALE: , Inch '" 600 teet DATE: 31112001 SOURCE: Engll16ering Division . . Estimated ImDact on Other Taxina Jurisdictions ReDort Taxing Jurisdiction ~ ~ City of Golden Valley, Minnesota t9 J*: Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1503 ~ Golden Hills ~.. ~. Witr.Q Project or TIF ~rict , 0-- 1997/98 ~ 1997/98 Taxable 1997/98CV~ Taxable Net Tax Local Vi. Net Tax Caoacitv (1) Tax Rate .r.&acitv (1 Hypothetical Decrease In Local Tax Rate ,. With Project and TIF District Hypothetical Adjusted Local Tax Rate ,. City of Golden Valley 22,643,342 30.122% ,342 , 936148~ 1,161,395 937,647,466 . 76, 733, 133~1, 161,395 77,894,528 ... ~,395 C';t ~ · Statement 1: If the projected Retained Captu..d Net Tex Capacity of the TIF DJ($~as hypothetically available to each of the taxing juriSdictions above, the result would be a lower local tax rate ( ypothetical Adjusted Tax Rate above) whioh would Produce the seme smount of faxes for each taxing /Ur1sdictio m Jil'ch s csss, the totallocel tax rat. would decrease by 2.428% (see Hypothetical Decrease in Local Tax Rate ab~gj( The hypothetical tax that the Retained eaprured Net Tsx Capacity of ths T1F District would gooerata is s1s0 ~bove. Statement 2: Since the projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District is not avail~~to the taxing jurisdictions, then there is no impact on taxes levied or local tax rates. . ~ (1) T exable net tsx cepscity = total net tax cepscity . capturOd TIF . tlseel disparity conllibutlon. ~ ~ (2) The Impsct on these taxfng jurisdiotlons Is negligible since they represent only 5.46% of the _ tax rate. ~ ts)? ? 28.652% 1.470% Hennepin County 936,486,071 38.386% ISO #270, Hopkins 38.338% 0.048% 76,733,133 61.063% Other (2) 60.153% 0.910% 7.483% Totals 7.483% 137.054% 134.626% 2.428% kpared by; Springsted Incorporated (3/2/01) Hypothetical Tax Generated by Retained Captured N.T.C.'. 332,767 445,261 698,609 .'; . -I ::T CD ""C (D -- o :::J o o.Q) Co. CDo. ...;::;: 00 -:::J ::TO) --- 0(D >0 "C~ ::!-3 -Q) c..:t_ .. CD NO. 0.... 0-- ....0 o 0)0) 3- (DO) :::J::S 0.0. 3(D (DO :::JO _:3 · 0 3 -- o 3 1m "C x 0) I (') - - l:D -I <