HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/05/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
MAY 3, 2017
1. Call to order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of April 5, 2017 and April 19, 2017
3. Hearings: None
4. Other Business
A. Consideration of Resolution No. 91 – Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan
Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please
call 952.928.2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 5, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen,
Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Torrey Kanne, Rick Person, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT: Erick Francis, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison,
Sean Walther
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of March 8, 2017
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of March 8,
2017. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 5-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. St. Louis Park Walker Stormwater Ponds – Conditional Use Permit
Location: 3400 Republic Avenue & 7015 Walker Street
Applicant: St. Louis Park Engineering Department
Case No.: 17-10-CUP
Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. Plans for a stormwater
treatment facility require excavation of 2,160 square cubic yards of soil from the
site and 500 cubic yards of clean fill material to be imported to the site. A
conditional use permit is required to excavate or fill more than 400 cubic yards of
fill.
Ms. Monson provided background on the site. She discussed landscaping,
construction haul routes, construction hours and construction schedule. She said a
neighborhood meeting was held and no one indicated concerns regarding the
stormwater project.
Commissioner Carper asked if the diverted stormwater would drain into the
groundwater.
Erick Francis, Water Resources Manager, explained the design of the treatment
facility which prevents diverted water from being infiltrated into the groundwater.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 5, 2017
Page 2
Commissioner Carper asked about involvement with the Minnehaha Watershed
District on the project.
Mr. Francis responded that there are no restrictions placed on the project by the
Watershed District.
Commissioner Carper asked if there are any measures in place regarding blowing
dust and dirt during construction.
Mr. Francis said additional measures for dust control will be in place.
Chair Peilen opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak,
she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper made a motion approving the Conditional Use Permit for
3400 Republic Avenue and 7015 Walker Street. Commissioner Johnston-
Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
6:15 p.m.
1. Architectural Design Study
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, explained that staff wishes to
discuss the architectural design section of the zoning ordinance for direction and
insight on these items: update list of materials in all three classes, review design
criteria, screening and effectiveness of the ordinance.
Chair Peilen said she liked the idea of a focus group to assist with research and
selection of materials and criteria.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 5, 2017
Page 3
Commissioner Robertson said it is a good idea to regularly review the materials
list as new materials come on to the market. He said at the same time it’s often
tough with architectural materials as it is a challenge to be cutting edge and the
city doesn’t want to risk putting materials on our buildings that will not perform
well. It’s good to have a regular review or have something in the code for
reviewing an alternative material. It’s best to have a comprehensive list.
Commissioner Robertson said sustainability is very complex and the city
shouldn’t reject a material that isn’t sustainable. He suggested using extra points
or consideration, similar to what is used with energy efficiency.
Commissioner Robertson said in addition to some architects, focus group
participants should include manufacturing reps, installers and a developer.
Commissioners suggested the following criteria for materials: longevity, aesthetic
durability, performance durability and maintenance.
Commissioner Carper spoke about looking at the types of energy to be used. He
spoke about solar panels and looking ahead to the future.
Commissioner Carper said the focus group might also include large construction
company representative and someone from an architecture school.
2. Vision 3.0 Facilitated Conversation
Mr. Walther conducted a Vision 3.0 community conversation with
commissioners. Discussion items included:
a. Welcome and Why We’re Here
b. Introductions
c. The Big Questions
d. The Closing Circle
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 19, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne,
Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hunt, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of March 15, 2017
Commissioner Carper made a motion approving the minutes of March 15, 2017.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 4-0-2 (Person and Robertson abstained).
3. Other Business
A. Consideration of Resolution No. 90 – Wooddale Station TIF District
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator, stated the request is adoption of
a resolution finding the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the proposed
Wooddale Station Tax Increment Financing District conform to the general plans
for the development and redevelopment of the city. He explained that the
proposed TIF District would incorporate PLACE’s proposed plans to construct a
major mixed-use redevelopment at the southeast quadrant of Highway 7 and
Wooddale Ave., and the northeast corner of W. 36th St. and Wooddale Ave. He
provided background on the PLACE E-generation project. Mr. Hunt discussed
the TIF assistance to be provided and the proposed redevelopment TIF District.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 90 finding the
TIF Plans for the proposed Wooddale Station Tax Increment Financing District to
be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-
1 (Johnston-Madison opposed).
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 19, 2017
Page 2
4. Hearings
A. Special Permit Major Amendment
Location: 2501 State Highway 100
Applicant: Benilde-St. Margaret’s School
Case No.: 17-12-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, provided the staff report. The
applicant is requesting an amendment to add approximately 2,200 square feet of
flex space within its building and to convert approximately 4,700 square feet of
storage space into science lab classroom space.
Mr. Morrison reviewed construction plans, parking and lighting. He stated that
all the new lighting inside the building is strictly downcast and the windows are
slightly tinted helping to mitigate light coming from the windows. He said an
architectural element, a cross, will not be lit by flood lights but would be back lit
with an LED strip along the back side of the cross, providing a halo effect. He
said this was a concern at the first neighborhood meeting. He said at the second
neighborhood meeting putting the cross lighting on the same timer as parking lot
lights was discussed. That seemed amenable to residents and it is written into the
conditions of approval.
Natalie Ramier, CFO, Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, spoke about the proposed
plans.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated it was a nice addition.
Commissioner Robertson stated the design is top notch.
Commissioner Carper said he attended the second neighborhood meeting and had
some questions about the cross and lighting. Those questions have been
answered satisfactorily for him. He asked if the cross facing Highway 100 is
illuminated.
Ms. Ramier responded she did not think the cross facing Hwy. 100 was
illuminated.
Chair Peilen opened the public hearing.
Elisabeth Shapiro, 2500 Princeton Court, said she was representing her husband
who was unable to attend, several of her neighbors who face the wetlands, school
fields and school. She said she also represented the magnificent wildlife that is
present in the wetlands adjacent to their homes, the neighborhood and the school.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 19, 2017
Page 3
She said they understand and are excited about the proposed addition. She said,
however, that the modified design still has a negative impact on the residents, the
wildlife and the wetland.
Ms. Shapiro said she is the neighbor who was concerned about lighting at the first
neighborhood meeting. She said she is grateful that the plans were modified
somewhat from the first meeting. She said she could not attend the second
meeting. She stated that the modifications are inadequate and unacceptable to the
residents for the following reasons: 1) downcast lighting in the atrium is still
visible from the outdoors; 2) an illuminated cross, even backlit, causing a halo
effect at night, and even on a timer, still faces their homes and is visible clearly
from the north facing windows and decks, illuminated and visible at night. She
said to be very honest it is an affront to the diversity of the residential
neighborhood. She said it shows a total lack of respect and sensitivity to the
diversity and harmony of their neighborhood. 3) The tinted glass windows still
allow light downward emitted out to the surrounding fields, wetlands and
neighborhood. 4) Ms. Shapiro stated that the glass windows will also reflect
external lighting. She added that there is a lot of external lighting at the school.
She said the school’s minor modification to address their concerns by redirecting
the atrium lighting downward and placing the cross illumination on a timer are
really ineffective in minimizing the impact on the neighborhood.
Ms. Shapiro presented and distributed to the Commission four nighttime
photographs illustrating her concerns about existing lighting on residences and
wetland.
Ms. Shapiro spoke about light pollution impact on the wildlife and environment.
Ms. Shapiro spoke about glass that can be used that doesn’t reflect light and will
not emit light.
Ms. Shapiro distributed letters from the following neighbors concerned about the
proposal and lighting: Nancy Murphy, 2504 Princeton Ct.; Marc Rothstein, 2512
Princeton Ct.; Jeffrey Sawyer and Karli Koski, 2500 Quentin Ct.; and Judy and
Jerel Shapiro, 2516 Monterey Ave. S.
Ms. Shapiro distributed materials from Joanna Eckles, Audubon Society; Kristen
Osterwood, Green Building Alliance; Leeanna Newsome, Green Business
Certification; International Dark-Sky Association; Audubon Minnesota; and
Report of the Council on Science and Public Health regarding Human and
Environmental Effects of LED Community Lighting.
Ms. Shapiro concluded by saying the neighbors vigorously oppose any addition to
the light pollution that impacts them nightly. She said the proposed plan is
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 19, 2017
Page 4
insensitive and disregards the neighbors, wildlife and wetland. The atrium
proposal adds more light pollution. They ask that the city demands that BSM
respectfully and sensitively deal with the plan so that the neighborhood and
wetlands will be able to live in a neighborhood with lighting plans that emit zero
additional lighting impact.
Lee Snitzer, 2504 Quentin Court, said he missed both neighborhood meetings.
His concerns were outlined by Ms. Shapiro. He said it seems significant that
BSM chose not to light the cross across from Hwy. 100. He said he assumed that
had to do with amount of signage allowed by city code. He asked the
Commission to explore that. He suggested that the cross should not be lit. He
said BSM is a great neighbor and tries to address concerns. He said timers are
not always controlled well. He spoke about property values going down due to
excessive lighting on their properties.
Jay Jaffee, 2521 Princeton Court, said his property faces east. He does see the
light coming from the north at night, often until 10 or 11 at night even without
school events. He spoke about moving there seven years ago and enjoying the
wildlife and wetlands. He said anything adding illumination is not a good idea.
He spoke about the non-lit cross which faces the service road and Hwy. 100. He
said he wasn’t sure why the proposed new cross needs to be lit.
As no one else was present wishing to speak the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kanne spoke about property values decreasing over time due to
excessive light.
Commissioner Robertson said the lit cross isn’t necessary for the auditorium and
science rooms. It is an applied ornament. He said the amount of light that would
come from atrium and cross is dwarfed by the field lighting. He said it would be
wise on BSM’s part not to light the cross. He said he is sensitive to wildlife
biology. He said it is frustrating the field lights are on unnecessarily. He said the
issue of the lit cross should be revisited before the item comes to city council.
Commissioner Person asked staff for a reminder of what types of conditions were
put in place when the athletic field was expanded.
Mr. Morrison and Mr. Walther spoke about hours of lighting, use of audio
equipment, and lighting fixtures reducing the spill lighting and glare. The
Council required BSM to meet regularly with neighborhood regarding relations
and concerns between the two. The committee has been meeting regularly.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 19, 2017
Page 5
Dean Laird, Facilities Director, BSM, said parking lights are on all night for
security reasons and interior lights are shut down at 11 p.m. He spoke about
exterior security lighting.
Commissioner Carper said he thought parking lights were on a timer.
Mr. Laird said the cross lighting could be put on a timer.
Commissioner Kanne said the effect of lighting on property values is relevant and
important to consider.
Commissioner Robertson said when the field lights go off the cross light should
also go off.
Chair Peilen said, setting aside lighting, she didn’t think the addition of the cross
was insensitive. She said she believes BSM wants to be as good a neighbor as it
has been. She also spoke about the good relationship between BSM and Beth El
Synagogue.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she didn’t think Benilde intended to offend
anyone. It could be discussed further. She suggested that all lighting on the
property could be reviewed as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of a major
amendment to the Special Permit with staff conditions, and including further
review of all lighting and conformity to current zoning, prior to city council
consideration.
Commissioner Carper said he is against the motion as proposed. He said there is
an established working community committee so there is an ability for discussion
of light pollution, including back lit cross, so it wouldn’t need to be covered in the
motion.
Commissioner Robertson said he thought it would be wise to have an additional
lighting conversation prior to consideration by city council.
Natalie Ramier, CFO, said BSM wanted to hear more discussion this evening, and
she said they are willing to remove the back lighting of the cross. She will speak
with BSM and community members about lighting that occurs when an event is
not occuring.
Commissioner Robertson removed his original motion. He then made a motion
recommending approval of a major amendment to the Special Permit to allow a
building expansion at Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) school with conditions
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 19, 2017
Page 6
recommended by staff. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Kanne opposed).
Commissioners asked staff to review the BSM parking lot lighting.
B. Conditional Use Permit – Snap Fitness
Location: 7210 Minnetonka Boulevard
Applicant: Steven Cherney
Case No.: 17-11-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
explained that the request is a CUP to operate a Snap Fitness 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. Without the CUP the hours are limited to 6 am to midnight.
He reviewed the zoning regulations and the conditions of approval.
Steve Cherney, Snap Fitness, said he appreciated the Commission’s consideration.
The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak she
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the Snap Fitness located at 7210 Minnetonka Blvd. to operate
24 hours, 7 days a week with conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner
Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
C. Major Amendment to PUD – Parkway 25
Location: 4005, 4015 and 4027 County Rd. 25
Applicant: Sela Group, LLC
Case No.: 17-13-PUD
Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. She noted a correction in the
proposed motion. The zoning code section to be amended is 36-268 PUD 7, not
26-268 PUD 7. She explained that the original PUD commercial uses included a
restaurant. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for
medical uses and to increase the size of the commercial area. Proposed changes
occur only on the ground floor of the building. The amendment would decrease
the west surface parking lot and the east surface parking lot. Landscaping on the
west property line will be removed and additional landscaping will be installed
elsewhere on the site to make up for removals.
Ms. Monson presented existing approved plans and proposed plans. She
reviewed uses, height, parking, landscaping, DORA and public input.
Commissioner Person asked if the developer has a medical office tenant.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 19, 2017
Page 7
Ms. Monson responded that a medical office tenant has been named.
Commissioner Person asked about the small commercial space.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, stated that space would be an
executive office space of the medical office.
Chair Peilen asked about the pool house from the existing plan.
Dean Dovolis, architect, DJR Architecture, explained that pool equipment would
have been stored in the pool house. That equipment space has now been moved
inside, resulting in more green space outdoors.
Chair Peilen stated she was disappointed over the loss of the restaurant as an
amenity. She said she understood with the amendment that there was no longer
the required parking available for a restaurant. She asked if in the future there
might be a food service of some type.
Mr. Dovolis said it’s possible a coffee shop or food service use could operate in
the future.
Chair Peilen opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak
she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of
Major Amendment to Section 36-268 PUD 7 subject to conditions recommended
by staff. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 6-0.
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: May 3, 2017
Agenda Item: 4A
REQUEST: Requested is a recommendation of approval of the resolution finding that the
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the proposed Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment
Financing District conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the
city.
36th Street LLC’s proposed plans to construct a senior mixed-use redevelopment at 5605 W 36th
Street as described in the Elmwood TIF District Plan are in conformance with the land use
designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site which is Mixed-Use.
BACKGROUND: 36th Street LLC (“Developer”) acquired the property located at 5605 W 36th
Street in 2002. This one acre property is located at the southeast corner of Xenwood Avenue and
36th Street West. The subject redevelopment site is currently occupied by a two-story multi-
tenant commercial building known as 36th Street Business Center. The building’s primary tenant,
American Legion Post 282, recently vacated the building.
4A. Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
Location: 5605 W 36th Street
Applicant: 36th Street LLC
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution finding that the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing
District is in conformance with the general plans for the development
and redevelopment of the City of St. Louis Park.
Proposed Redevelopment Site:
5605 W 36th Street
Agenda Item No. 4A –The Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
Meeting Date: May 3, 2017 Page 2
CURRENT PROPOSAL: The Developer proposes to raze the existing building and construct a
six story, mixed-use senior housing building called The Elmwood. The project will consist of 85
residential units restricted to residents age 55+, of which 17 (or 20%) will be affordable at 60%
of the area median income (AMI), approximately 4,920 square feet of commercial space, and
188 parking stalls. The west wing of the proposed building contains 4,920 gross square feet of
commercial space, with space for outdoor seating. Active uses fronting 36th Street include a
fitness studio, leasing office and main entrance. Additional amenities include a yoga room, a
building shop, a residence shop, an arts and craft room, a library business center, indoor bike
storage area and an underground parking ramp.
Rendering of proposed building – The Elmwood
Developer’s Request for Public Financing Assistance
The Total Development Cost to construct The Elmwood redevelopment is approximately $19
million. There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the subject site.
These include: asbestos abatement, building demolition, soil correction, site preparation, shoring,
underground stormwater retention, and structured underground parking. Altogether, these costs
exceed $3.6 million and prevent the proposed project from achieving financial feasibility.
Consequently the Developer applied to the EDA for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to
offset a portion of these costs so as to enable The Elmwood project to proceed. Tax increment
financing uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance
certain qualified development costs incurred by that project for a limited period of time.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
The Developer’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return
(ROR) related to The Elmwood were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial
consultant). Based upon its analysis of the Developer’s financial information, Ehlers determined
Agenda Item No. 4A –The Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
Meeting Date: May 3, 2017 Page 3
that The Elmwood project is not financially feasible but/for the provision of $950,000 in tax
increment assistance. Ehlers estimated that such an amount would likely be generated upon
project completion over a term of 6 years. The proposed amount of TIF assistance is consistent
with other redevelopments the EDA has assisted previously.
The proposed tax increment would be generated by The Elmwood project itself and would only
be provided once construction is completed and the Developer supplies statements verifying that
it had incurred the specified qualified costs. Statutorily, the proposed tax increment assistance
could only be provided to offset the project’s extraordinary expenses noted earlier. The EDA
would be obligated to provide assistance to the project only to the extent that the project
generates sufficient tax increment to make the bi-annual payments. Upon project completion, tax
increment generated from the increased value of the property would be provided to the
Developer in the form of a "pay-as-you-go" TIF Note which is the preferred financing method
under the City's TIF Policy. Upon completion, the proposed project would generate the proposed
$950,000 in approximately 6 years.
Estimated Increase in Property Value and Employment
The total taxable market value of the current property is approximately $1.1 million. The total
taxable market value of The Elmwood upon construction completion is estimated at $16.2
million. Most of the new value would be captured as tax increment and used to make payments
on the TIF Note until it is paid off and the TIF district is terminated. The City, County and
School District would continue to receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s Base
Value. The project is estimated to generate a total of $298,932 in annual property taxes, of which
an estimated $235,597 would be captured as gross tax increment. Once the TIF Note is retired,
the additional property taxes generated by The Elmwood would accrue to the local taxing
jurisdictions. Upon retirement of the TIF Note, it is estimated that the City’s portion of the
project’s total property taxes will be approximately $97,000 annually.
The proposed project is expected to create three (3) FTE jobs related to the building and
residences and an estimated seven (7) FTE jobs related to the commercial portion of the project
for a total of ten (10) FTE new jobs. The number of jobs created by the 4,920 SF of commercial
space could be higher depending upon the business that leases the space.
TIF Application Review
The EDA/City Council reviewed 36th Street LLC’s TIF Application for the proposed Elmwood
project at the March 27th Study Session. Following discussion there was consensus support for
favorably considering the Developer’s request for tax increment assistance. As a result, Staff was
directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment TIF District and draft a
formal redevelopment contract with 36th Street LLC.
TIF District Approvals
At its April 3rd meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of May 15, 2017 for
consideration of the proposed Elmwood Apartments Redevelopment TIF District. The EDA will
consider the approval of the redevelopment contract on that same date.
Agenda Item No. 4A –The Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
Meeting Date: May 3, 2017 Page 4
TIF District
The subject site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city
where the EDA may statutorily establish TIF districts. In order to provide the proposed project
with tax increment a new Redevelopment TIF District needs to be established. Such a TIF
district could allow up to 26 years of tax increment. As shown in the attached TIF District maps,
the proposed Elmwood Apartments TIF District includes one parcel: 5605 36th St West.
The proposed Elmwood Apartments TIF District meets the necessary statutory requirements of a
Redevelopment TIF District as determined by LHB architects in its report: Report of Inspection
Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as
a Redevelopment District: 5605 36th Street West Redevelopment TIF District dated February 1,
2017. Additional details pertaining to the proposed Wooddale Station TIF District may be found
in the attached TIF Plan.
Is the proposed TIF district in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
The land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject redevelopment site
is Mixed-Use (see attachment). The intent of the “Mixed Use” land use designation is to create
compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings, typically with retail, service or other commercial
uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed-use is intended to
accommodate mixed-income housing, a mix of housing types on the same block, and higher
density development. The proposed Elmwood project provides a mixture of market rate and
affordable apartments as well as ground floor commercial space and residential units promoting
an active street frontage. The development provides ample bike parking and is situated in close
proximity to the Cedar Lake Trail, Route 17 and Route 615 bus lines, and is near the future
Wooddale Southwest LRT stations. The outdoor amenity areas provide outdoor recreation space
for residents.
More specifically the proposed project is consistent with the following goal and policies listed in
the Land Use section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use Goal
Expand the development of mixed-use areas within St. Louis Park to create a more livable and
connected community.
Strategy A: Encourage and support mixed-use infill and redevelopment where the design of
the project enable compatibility with existing surrounding land uses.
The proposed development also supports goals in the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and
Transportation Study completed in 2003. Applicable goals are listed below.
• Land Use: Parcels adjacent to the south side of the West 36th Street should be
redeveloped for mixed use with retail/service on the first floor and residential or
professional offices above.
• Transportation: Xenwood Avenue should be extended from Wooddale Avenue north to
the TH 7 South Frontage Road, and a four-way signal control should be implemented at
the Xenwood/Wooddale intersection.
Agenda Item No. 4A –The Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
Meeting Date: May 3, 2017 Page 5
• Pedestrian/Bicycle: Improve pedestrian/bicycle accommodations throughout study area to
serve transit, parks, retail areas, and regional pedestrian/bicycle connections.
• Aesthetics: Improve streetscape of West 36th Street.
• Desired Neighborhood Improvements: Complete sidewalk system; improve sidewalk
accessibility; improve transit; affordable senior housing; trees; improved trails and trail
connections; pedestrian lighting.
On March 20, 2017, the City Council approved a Final PUD and Plat for The Elmwood
redevelopment after finding that The Elmwood redevelopment meets many of the objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan and is suitable for the subject redevelopment site. As a result the
proposed Elmwood project is allowable under the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Requirement of Planning Commissions under the MN TIF Act
The Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act requires planning commissions to determine if a
proposed TIF district is in conformance with its city’s Comprehensive Plan. In light of the fact
that land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject redevelopment site
is Mixed-Use, and the proposed project to be constructed on subject site (as described in the
attached TIF Plan for the Establishment of the Elmwood Apartments TIF District) is, in fact,
mixed-use, the Planning Commission is being asked to find that the proposed Elmwood
Apartments TIF District Plan conforms to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the city.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution finding that the proposed Tax Increment
Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City.
Attachments:
• Resolution of Approval
• Elmwood Apartments TIF District Map
• Land Use Map
• Tax Increment Financing Plan for Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Agenda Item No. 4A –The Elmwood Apartments TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans
Meeting Date: May 3, 2017 Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91
RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR THE ELMWOOD APARTMENTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of St.
Louis Park (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) and a Tax
Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing
District within the Project (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the "Plans"), and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the
"Commission") for its review and comment, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3,
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Adopted by the St. Louis Park Planning Commission May 3, 2017
ATTEST: Lisa Peilen, Chair
Sean Walther
Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Proposed TIF District
´
Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Legend
Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Redevelopment Project Area No 1
Parcels
March 14, 2017
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
5605
5605 36th St W
PID: 16-117-21-34-0073 HIGHWAY 100 S35TH ST W
XENWOOD AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E WEBSTER AVE S36TH ST W TO NB HWY100 SHIGHWAY 100 S´
Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Legend
Road Centerlines
Parcels
Proposed TIF District
March 14, 2017
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
180 0 18090 Feet
36TH
35TH
XENWOODHIGHWAY 100YOSEMITEHIGHWAY 1002030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use MapThe Elmwood Apartments
¯
Legend
Comp Plan 30
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
Site Location
Current 2030 Land Use
MX Mixed Use
0 300150 Feet
As of April 25, 2017
Draft for Planning Commission
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District
(a redevelopment district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: May 15, 2017
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District .................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District........... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-6
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-11
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-14
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment . ................ 2-15
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-16
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Elmwood
Apartments Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Elmwood
Apartments Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing
district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is
being created to facilitate the construction of 85 apartments and approximately 4,920 square feet of
commercial space in the City. Twenty (20) percent of the units will be affordable to households with incomes
at or below 60 percent of area median income. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The
EDA has not entered into an agreement but anticipates entering into an agreement with 36th Street LLC.
Development is anticipated to begin in mid-2017 and be completed by the end of 2018. This TIF Plan is
expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii)have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of one parcel.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes
payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of
26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2019, which is no
later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2044, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2016 for taxes payable 2017.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2019) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2017, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2017. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2019. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC)
listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$422,252
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$14,025
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $10,377
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$397,850
Original Local Tax Rate 1.24745 Pay 2017
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $496,297
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $62,316.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the
City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and
interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan
Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue
bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $8,809,580
Interest $880,958
TOTAL $9,690,538
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $5,645,844. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of 85 apartments and
approximately 4,920 square feet of commercial space. The EDA and City have determined that it will be
necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied
the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the
establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax
increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of
funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $536,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $450,000
Utilities $315,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $3,463,886
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$880,958
PROJECT COST TOTAL $5,645,844
Interest $4,044,694
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $9,690,538
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be
spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2016/Pay 2017
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,573,060,731 397,850 0.0253%
City of St. Louis Park 60,531,990 397,850 0.6573%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 57,161,713 397,850 0.6960%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2017
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.440870 35.34% 397,850 175,400
City of St. Louis Park 0.478610 38.37% 397,850 190,415
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.217400 17.43% 397,850 86,492
Other 0.110570 8.86%397,850 43,990
Total 1.247450 100.00%496,297
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual Pay 2017 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on actual Pay 2017 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2017 rates assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2017.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $8,809,580;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is not expected. The City police department does track all calls for
service including property-type calls and crimes. The City estimates the development may result in
an additional 50 to 100 calls annually. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional
overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of
itself, will necessitate new capital investment.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The existing buildings, which
will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is
not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
is expected to contribute an estimated $2,485 for each sanitary sewer (SAC) fee per unit and $750
for each water (WAC) connection fee.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $1,535,510;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $3,113,306;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, and Transportation Study (2003)
• Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis for St. Louis Park, Minnesota (2013)
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District;
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately May 2021
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA
and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for
the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District 2-16
Appendix A
Project Description
36th Street LLC intends to redevelop a one-acre parcel in the District with a mixed use, mixed-income, age-
restricted housing project including a total of 85 units and 4,920 square feet of ground floor commercial
space. Twenty (20) percent of the units are anticipated to be affordable to households with incomes at or
below 60 percent of the area median income. The City intends to issue a PAYGO TIF Note to offset qualified
costs related to the development of the site.
Appendix A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
Appendix B-1
Proposed TIF District
´
Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Legend
Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Redevelopment Project Area No 1
Parcels
March 14, 2017
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
5605
5605 36th St W
PID: 16-117-21-34-0073 HIGHWAY 100 S35TH ST W
XENWOOD AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E WEBSTER AVE S36TH ST W TO NB HWY100 SHIGHWAY 100 S´
Elmwood Apartments TIF District
Legend
Road Centerlines
Parcels
Proposed TIF District
March 14, 2017
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
180 0 18090 Feet
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcel listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC
Appendix C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
Appendix D-1
4/4/2017Base Value Assumptions - Page 1The Elmwood ApartmentsCity of St. Louis Park85 Apartments; 4,920 SF Commercial SpaceASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2017Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,0002.00%Interest Rate:5.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-18Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-19Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2017First $115,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2019 Over $115,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2044First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio32.6027% Pay 2017 First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate150.0490% Pay 2017 Over $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 124.745% Pay 2017 Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 124.745%Pay 2017 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 45.8020% Pay 2017 Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.19126% Pay 2017 Building Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.11611721340073 36th Street LLC 5605 36th St W 967,000 133,000 1,100,00090% 990,000 Pay 2017 C/I Pref.19,050 Rental12,375 121611721340073 36th Street LLC 5605 36th St W 967,000 133,000 1,100,00010% 110,000 Pay 2017 C/I Pref.1,650 C/I Pref.1,650 11,934,000 266,000 2,200,0001,100,000 20,70014,025Note:1. Base values are for Pay 2017 from County website on 2-23-17.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Elmwood Apt TIF\TIF Plan Run 3-23-17 - FINAL
4/4/2017Base Value Assumptions - Page 2The Elmwood ApartmentsCity of St. Louis Park85 Apartments; 4,920 SF Commercial SpaceEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2017201820192020 Payable1Apartments 180,000180,000 85 15,300,000 Rental191,2502,250 30%100%100%100%20201Retail175175 4,920 861,000 C/I Pref. 16,4703 30%100%100%100%2020TOTAL16,161,000 207,720 Subtotal Residential85 15,300,000 191,250 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.4,920 861,000 16,470 Note:1. Market values based upon estimates from City Assessor on 2-23-17.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApartments 191,2500191,250 238,5750029,263 267,838 3,151.03Retail 16,4705,37011,100 13,8478,0577,5441,64731,0956.32TOTAL 207,720 5,370 202,350 252,422 8,0577,54430,910 298,932Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes298,932Current Market Value - Est.1,100,000less State-wide Taxes(7,544)New Market Value - Est.16,161,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(8,057) Difference15,061,000less Market Value Taxes(30,910)Present Value of Tax Increment4,331,068less Base Value Taxes(16,824) Difference10,729,932Annual Gross TIF 235,597Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:10,729,932 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Elmwood Apt TIF\TIF Plan Run 3-23-17 - FINAL
4/4/2017Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3The Elmwood ApartmentsCity of St. Louis Park85 Apartments; 4,920 SF Commercial SpaceTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin.Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/19100% 62,316 (14,025) (1,073) 47,218 124.745% 58,902 29,451 (106) (2,935) 26,411 25,138 0.52019 08/01/19100% 62,316 (14,025) (1,073) 47,218 124.745% 58,902 29,451 (106) (2,935) 26,411 49,663 12019 02/01/20100% 207,720 (14,025) (4,832) 188,863 124.745% 235,597 117,799 (424) (11,737) 105,637 145,365 1.52020 08/01/20100% 207,720 (14,025) (4,832) 188,863 124.745% 235,597 117,799 (424) (11,737) 105,637 238,733 22020 02/01/21100% 213,952 (14,025) (4,993) 194,934 124.745% 243,170 121,585 (438) (12,115) 109,033 332,751 2.52021 08/01/21100% 213,952 (14,025) (4,993) 194,934 124.745% 243,170 121,585 (438) (12,115) 109,033 424,477 32021 02/01/22100% 220,370 (14,025) (5,159) 201,186 124.745% 250,970 125,485 (452) (12,503) 112,530 516,835 3.52022 08/01/22100% 220,370 (14,025) (5,159) 201,186 124.745% 250,970 125,485 (452) (12,503) 112,530 606,941 42022 02/01/23100% 226,981 (14,025) (5,330) 207,627 124.745% 259,004 129,502 (466) (12,904) 116,132 697,663 4.52023 08/01/23100% 226,981 (14,025) (5,330) 207,627 124.745% 259,004 129,502 (466) (12,904) 116,132 786,173 52023 02/01/24100% 233,791 (14,025) (5,506) 214,260 124.745% 267,279 133,639 (481) (13,316) 119,842 875,282 5.52024 08/01/24100% 233,791 (14,025) (5,506) 214,260 124.745% 267,279 133,639 (481) (13,316) 119,842 962,218 62024 02/01/25100% 240,804 (14,025) (5,687) 221,092 124.745% 275,802 137,901 (496) (13,740) 123,664 1,049,739 6.52025 08/01/25100% 240,804 (14,025) (5,687) 221,092 124.745% 275,802 137,901 (496) (13,740) 123,664 1,135,125 72025 02/01/26100% 248,029 (14,025) (5,874) 228,130 124.745% 284,581 142,290 (512) (14,178) 127,600 1,221,079 7.52026 08/01/26100% 248,029 (14,025) (5,874) 228,130 124.745% 284,581 142,290 (512) (14,178) 127,600 1,304,938 82026 02/01/27100% 255,469 (14,025) (6,066) 235,378 124.745% 293,623 146,811 (529) (14,628) 131,655 1,389,350 8.52027 08/01/27100% 255,469 (14,025) (6,066) 235,378 124.745% 293,623 146,811 (529) (14,628) 131,655 1,471,703 92027 02/01/28100% 263,133 (14,025) (6,264) 242,844 124.745% 302,936 151,468 (545) (15,092) 135,830 1,554,597 9.52028 08/01/28100% 263,133 (14,025) (6,264) 242,844 124.745% 302,936 151,468 (545) (15,092) 135,830 1,635,468 102028 02/01/29100% 271,027 (14,025) (6,468) 250,534 124.745% 312,529 156,264 (563) (15,570) 140,132 1,716,866 10.52029 08/01/29100% 271,027 (14,025) (6,468) 250,534 124.745% 312,529 156,264 (563) (15,570) 140,132 1,796,278 112029 02/01/30100% 279,158 (14,025) (6,678) 258,455 124.745% 322,410 161,205 (580) (16,062) 144,562 1,876,203 11.52030 08/01/30100% 279,158 (14,025) (6,678) 258,455 124.745% 322,410 161,205 (580) (16,062) 144,562 1,954,178 122030 02/01/31100% 287,533 (14,025) (6,895) 266,613 124.745% 332,587 166,293 (599) (16,569) 149,125 2,032,653 12.52031 08/01/31100% 287,533 (14,025) (6,895) 266,613 124.745% 332,587 166,293 (599) (16,569) 149,125 2,109,214 132031 02/01/32100% 296,159 (14,025) (7,118) 275,016 124.745% 343,069 171,534 (618) (17,092) 153,825 2,186,262 13.52032 08/01/32100% 296,159 (14,025) (7,118) 275,016 124.745% 343,069 171,534 (618) (17,092) 153,825 2,261,430 142032 02/01/33100% 305,044 (14,025) (7,348) 283,671 124.745% 353,866 176,933 (637) (17,630) 158,666 2,337,073 14.52033 08/01/33100% 305,044 (14,025) (7,348) 283,671 124.745% 353,866 176,933 (637) (17,630) 158,666 2,410,871 152033 02/01/34100% 314,195 (14,025) (7,584) 292,586 124.745% 364,986 182,493 (657) (18,184) 163,653 2,485,132 15.52034 08/01/34100% 314,195 (14,025) (7,584) 292,586 124.745% 364,986 182,493 (657) (18,184) 163,653 2,557,581 162034 02/01/35100% 323,621 (14,025) (7,828) 301,768 124.745% 376,441 188,220 (678) (18,754) 168,788 2,630,482 16.52035 08/01/35100% 323,621 (14,025) (7,828) 301,768 124.745% 376,441 188,220 (678) (18,754) 168,788 2,701,605 172035 02/01/36100% 333,330 (14,025) (8,079) 311,226 124.745% 388,239 194,119 (699) (19,342) 174,078 2,773,167 17.52036 08/01/36100% 333,330 (14,025) (8,079) 311,226 124.745% 388,239 194,119 (699) (19,342) 174,078 2,842,984 182036 02/01/37100% 343,330 (14,025) (8,337) 320,967 124.745% 400,391 200,195 (721) (19,947) 179,527 2,913,231 18.52037 08/01/37100% 343,330 (14,025) (8,337) 320,967 124.745% 400,391 200,195 (721) (19,947) 179,527 2,981,764 192037 02/01/38100% 353,629 (14,025) (8,604) 331,001 124.745% 412,907 206,454 (743) (20,571) 185,139 3,050,715 19.52038 08/01/38100% 353,629 (14,025) (8,604) 331,001 124.745% 412,907 206,454 (743) (20,571) 185,139 3,117,985 202038 02/01/39100% 364,238 (14,025) (8,878) 341,335 124.745% 425,799 212,899 (766) (21,213) 190,920 3,185,663 20.52039 08/01/39100% 364,238 (14,025) (8,878) 341,335 124.745% 425,799 212,899 (766) (21,213) 190,920 3,251,690 212039 02/01/40100% 375,165 (14,025) (9,160) 351,980 124.745% 439,078 219,539 (790) (21,875) 196,874 3,318,116 21.52040 08/01/40100% 375,165 (14,025) (9,160) 351,980 124.745% 439,078 219,539 (790) (21,875) 196,874 3,382,922 222040 02/01/41100% 386,420 (14,025) (9,451) 362,944 124.745% 452,755 226,377 (815) (22,556) 203,006 3,448,117 22.52041 08/01/41100% 386,420 (14,025) (9,451) 362,944 124.745% 452,755 226,377 (815) (22,556) 203,006 3,511,721 232041 02/01/42100% 398,013 (14,025) (9,751) 374,237 124.745% 466,842 233,421 (840) (23,258) 209,323 3,575,705 23.52042 08/01/42100% 398,013 (14,025) (9,751) 374,237 124.745% 466,842 233,421 (840) (23,258) 209,323 3,638,128 24204202/01/43100% 409,953 (14,025) (10,060) 385,869 124.745% 481,352 240,676 (866) (23,981) 215,829 3,700,922 24.52043 08/01/43100% 409,953 (14,025) (10,060) 385,869 124.745% 481,352 240,676 (866) (23,981) 215,829 3,762,184 252043 02/01/44100% 422,252 (14,025) (10,377) 397,850 124.745% 496,297 248,149 (893) (24,726) 222,530 3,823,808 25.52044 08/01/44100% 422,252 (14,025) (10,377) 397,850 124.745% 496,297 248,149 (893) (24,726) 222,530 3,883,928 262044 02/01/45 Total8,841,409 (31,829) (880,958) 7,928,622 Present Value From 08/01/2018 Present Value Rate 5.00%4,331,068 (15,592) (431,548) 3,883,928 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Elmwood Apt TIF\TIF Plan Run 3-23-17 - FINAL
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Appendix E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
To be added to prior to the public hearing
Appendix F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
To be added to prior to the public hearing
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 1,100,000
New Market Value - Estimate 16,161,000
Difference 15,061,000
Present Value of Tax Increment 4,331,068
Difference 10,729,932
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 10,729,932
Appendix G-1