HRA 11/10/1994 - 6349CITY OF FRIDLEY
A G E N D A
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, � OZFDMR 10, 1994 7:30 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers
Fridley Municipal Center
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
* Joint HRA /City Council meeting of 10/24/94
* Regular HRA meeting of 10/24/94
ACTION ITEMS:
APPROVE REOCCUPANCY OF FORMER 10,000. . . . . .
. . . . . 1
- 1Z
AUTO PARTS BUILDING, BY JIM YUNGNER;
6525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
DISPOSITION GUIDELINES FOR SCATTERED- . . . . .
. . . . . 2
- 2W
SITE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
APPROVE CONVEYANCE OF RIGHT -OF -WAY. . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 -
3A
ALONG 8280 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E.
REVENUEAND EXPENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 -
4B
INFORMATION ITEMS:
FOLLOW -UP INFORMATION REGARDING HOME . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 -
5I
PROGRAM
UPDATE ON DEMOLITION BIDS FOR 550 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6A
HUGO STREET, 677 HUGO STREET, AND
683 GLENCOE STREET
MONTHLY HOUSING REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7A
UPDATE ON ANOKA COUNTY HRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8E
REVIEW EXPENDITURES FOR REDEVELOP -. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9G
MENT OF THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT AND
LAKE POINTE
UPDATE ON LAKE POINTE MARKETING . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 - 10D
UPDATE ON ACCAPIS APPLICATION TO . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
MHFA
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT
COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCHJHRA
CONFERENCE MEETING OF
OCTOBER 24,1994
1. After informally polling Council members, I determined that there was a majority in
favor of filling Scott Erickson's position and potentially the position in the Street
Department that could be open if Kim Hermann is selected as a full-time firefighter.
2. I asked Council to volunteer for newsletter articles. Councilmember Dennis
Schneider said he would be willing to write a newsletter article as long as it appears
after the election.
3. I informally polled Council members regarding their willingness to consider
placement of a street light on West Danube. There seems to be a majority of support
for this project.
4. I discussed Rick Pribyl's memorandum on the Housing Revitalization Fund informally
with Council. There seems to be general agreement with the manner in which the
budgetary accounting has been set up for this fund. A majority appeared to be willing
to support the allocation of $250,000 in the 1995 budget for this fund.
5. I polled Council informally regarding the demolition of the Custom Mechanical
building. A majority seemed to favor proceeding with the demolition.
6. I discussed with Council suggested names for the replacement of Andrew Cardinal,
Sr., on the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. They did not seem to
feel that there was too much merit in making any suggestions. In any event, I have
asked John Flora to suggest three names we could submit at the next City Council
meeting for Council's approval.
7. With respect to the Southwest Quadrant redevelopment issues,_ we had the following
responses
A. John Meyer objected to the row house look of the site plans that were
presented by the planners.
B. Councilmembers Dennis Schneider and Nancy Jorgenson both seemed to want
a senior high rise located on the corner of University Avenue and Mississippi.
This in turn would help to lower the density of owner occupied townhomes.
C. Virginia Schnabel said she did not like the straight line streets either and felt
that the density of the townhomes was too high.
.r
D. Councilmember Ann Bolkcom indicated that she would like to have some sort
of community . park or community facilitv . as a focal point for the development.
E. Councilmember Dennis Schneider would like us to consider going even higher
than three stories for the senior high rise.
F. Councilmember Dennis Schneider indicated that he likes the idea of roof top
terraces on both the apartment unit and the townhomes.
G. Councilmember Nancy Jorgenson indicated that she would prefer two car
garages in the townhomes.
H. Mayor Nee indicated a distinct dislike for stucco exteriors.
I. Councilmember Ann Bolkcom wanted to know the rental rates for the
Cherrywood Apartments and the other apartment buildings.
J. Councilmember Dennis Schneider asked if the loss of affordable housing units
would put us in an adversary relationship with the Metropolitan Council.
K. Councilmember Ann Bolkcom indicated a preference for acquiring and
demolishing all four of the apartment units.
L. Councilmember Steve Billings indicated that he does not want to spend
millions to acquire and remove the four apartment units. He would like to do
the rehabbing options that were presented by Barbara Dacy. He feels that the
rehabbed apartment units can be made to be compatible with the townhomes.
M. Councihnember Dennis Schneider indicated that he wanted to take out three
or four of the buildings.
N. Councilmembers Nancy Jorgenson and Steve Billings indicated that they do
not want LaNel as the developer for the site. They feel that we should not
reward LaNel for their lack of maintenance and poor management at the
Cherrywood Apartments.
O. Councilmember Nancy Jorgenson would like to see all four buildings
removed. She said that we cannot continue to ignore the deferred maintenance
on these structures.
2
P. Councilmember Dennis Schneider indicated that he would like to see the
historical data that displays the market value and taxes for the four apartment
buildings.
Q. Larry Commers initially suggested we talk with Rotlund to see what they
could do. We could run the numbers and see if they could afford it and what
they were willing to pay for the property. He also suggested going to LaNel
to see what they could do for us.
R- Ultimately, Council and the HRA members present at the meeting agreed that
we would talk to all three developers and review the guidelines and
modifications to the guidelines that were discussed at the meeting. They also
asked us to assume that the developer would be developing 14 acres with no
density requirements and that there should be some sort of community park or
facility as the focal point of the development.
8. Council and the HRA agreed to meet again on December 5, 1994, at 6:00 p.m. Once
again, dinner will be served as part of the meeting.
3
r
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the October 24, 1994, Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 11:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Jim
McFarland, Duane Prairie, John Meyer
Members Absent: None
Others Present: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1994. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES•
Ms. Schnabel noted that on page 4 in the second paragraph, it did
not seem to make sense. The sentence should read, "We are just
beginning to finish up on last year's contracts." Ms. Schnabel
also stated to remind staff to follow -up on the questions they
had on page 6 regarding the HOME program and on page 15 regarding
the Southwest Quadrant budget.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
September 8, 1994, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as
amended.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMERS, SCHNABEL, PRAIRIE, AND MCFARLAND
VOTING AYE, AND MEYER ABSTAINED. CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED.
1. APPROVE REVISED PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH SADIE GUNDERSON
Chairperson Commers stated that this request is to extend the
purchase agreement on the Gunderson home, but also establish a
closing date of April 14, 1995.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to authorize the
Executive Director to execute the amendment to the purchase
agreement, forward the $500.00 earnest money to Ms. Gunderson,
and to execute the necessary closing documents on April 14, 1995.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
a s
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., OCTOBER 24, 1994 PAGE 2
2. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF TWO PROPERTIES; 539 GLENCOE STREET AND
547 GLENCOE STREET
Mr. Fernelius reported that two additional acquisitions under the
scattered -site acquisition program had been negotiated.
Fernelius also noted that if these acquisitions are approved, the
original 1994 scattered -site acquisition budget has been
exceeded.
Ms. Dacy stated that the HRA has the option to amend its
allocation for 1995 to incorporate these costs.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize staff
to execute the purchase agreement and closing documents to
acquire the properties at 539 Glencoe Street and 547 Glencoe
Street, and to amend the 1995 budget to reflect the amount of
expenditures over the approved 1994 budget.
MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize
staff to execute the necessary documents to demolish the
buildings at 539 Glencoe Street and 547 Glencoe Street.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONNERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. REVENUE AND CLAIMS
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize the
expenditures contained in the October 24, 1994 hand -out.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONNERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
check register, checks #25274 - #25306, from September 9, 1994
through October 10, 1994 in the amount of $140,990.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. GREEN BAY PACKAGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Mr. Burns reported that he felt that Green Bay Packaging was a
good company and a good prospect for the property at I -694 and
Main Street. They have not contacted him with a commitment to
pursue the site.
Chairperson Commers said that this letter was for informational
purposes only.
- 4v
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., OCTOBER 24, 1994 PAGE 3
5. MONTHLY HOUSING REPORT
Chairperson Commers said that this was for the Commission's
information.
r: omeloo,����.Ma
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to adjourn the
meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE OCTOBER 24, 19941 HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Dacy
Recording Secretary
Community Development Department
D HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 4, 1994
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of the HRA I *#A-"
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT": Review Reoccupancy of Former 10,.000 Auto Part
Building, by Jim Yungner; 6525 University Avenue
N.E.
The S -2, Redevelopment District provides the Planning Commission,
City Council, and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority..the
ability to review uses in the S= 2.district which are acceptable
to the overall redevelopment plan. The City Council approved
rezoning of the subject property to S -2 in 1991. Jim Yungner of
The Gym is proposing to relocate The Gym from his current .
location at 261 Commerce Circle N.E. to the former 10,000 Auto
Parts building for three years. The Planning Commission and City
Council reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the
reoccupancy subject to six stipulations..
This item is presented to the Housing.& Redevelopment Authority
to review the following:
1. To occupy a building located in an S -2, Redevelopment
District on a temporary basis.-
,
2. To determine the City's position to include this use in the
approved redevelopment plan. -
Temporary Occupancy
The Planning Commission and the City Council agree that temporary
occupancy of the building in the S -2 district would not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood (see attached
staff report). Further, I have consulted with Jim Hoeft of
Barna, Guzy, and Steffen law office regarding impacts on the
HRA's plans to redevelop the property. Hoeft advised that the
minimal improvements proposed by the petitioner to remodel the
building are "maintenance" improvements, and are not capital
improvements which would significantly affect the value of the
building.
1
Reoccupancy of Former 10,000 Auto.Parts
November 4, 1994
Page 2
Lowell Wagner is aware of this proposal and understands that if
the redevelopment project occurs prior to expiration of The Gym's
lease, he will be responsible for resolving the lease issues with
The Gym. Wagner also understands that the HRA is under no
obligation to provide additional assistance beyond that which has
been conceptually approved.
Inclusion in Redevelopment Plan
Whether the proposed use should be included in the ultimate
redevelopment plan of the property is premature. If the HRA
strongly objects to the use, the petitioner has requested to be
so advised as soon as possible. The original plan called for
25,000 square feet of retail space for a neighborhood shopping
center. Given the HRA's current activity on the Southwest
Quadrant, renewed interested from the private market may generate
additional demand for the commercial center in the Northeast
Quadrant. The proposed use is not a neighborhood retail use, and
requires more parking in peak hours than originally contemplated
in the approved redevelopment plan. Stipulation #6 approved by
the City Council requires review by the HRA, City Council, and
Planning Commission to determine if this use would be appropriate
prior to execution of the development contract.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HRA approve reoccupancy
University Avenue N.E. by The Gym subject to the
as approved by the City Council.
BD /dw
M -94 -630
1A
of 6525
six stipulations
r �
s
Community Development Department
G DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: October 13, 1994
TO: William Burns, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Request to Temporarily Occupy 6525 University
Avenue N.E.; by Jim Yungner for The Gym-
The S -2 Redevelopment District provides the Planning Commission,
City Council, and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority the
ability to review uses in the S -2 district which are acceptable
to the overall redevelopment plan. The purpose of this request
by The Gym Training Center by Jim Yungner is as follows:
1. To occupy a building located in a S -2 Redevelopment District
on a temporary basis; and
2. To determine the City's position to include this use in the
approved redevelopment plan.
The petitioner is proposing to relocate his current operation at
261 Commerce Circle N.E. to the subject building for at least
three years. The petitioner is fully aware of the potential
redevelopment of the property and understands that the—building
may be demolished. The Housing & Redevelopment Authority will
also review this request at its upcoming meeting.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
temporary occupancy of 6525 University Avenue N.E. (the former
SlumberLand /10,000 Auto Parts store) subject to the following six
stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for the appropriate building,
plumbing, and mechanical permits to complete remodeling as
proposed.
2. The petitioner shall stripe the parking lot; parking stalls
are 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, or 18 feet long if the
stall abuts a curb stop or landscaped area.
3. The dumpster shall be screened on all sides.
Jim Yungner for The Gym
October 13, 1994
Page 2
4. The parking lot shall be kept free of weeds and grass.
5. Landscaped area to*the north shall be kept trimmed in an
attractive manner to provide screening from the residence to
the north.
6. Inclusion of the proposed use in the Fridley Town Square
redevelopment project shall be reviewed by the City Council,
Planning Commission, and Housing and Redevelopment Authority
prior to execution /approval of the development contract for
the project.
Staff recommends that the City Council-,concur with the-Planning
Commission recommendation.
BD /dw
M -94 -616
1C
D
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date : October 5, 1994
City Council Date: October 17, 1994
APPLICATION NUMBER:
N/A
PETITIONER•
Jim Yungner, The Gym Training Center
LOCATION•
6525 University. Avenue N.E.; former.SlumberLand /10,000 Auto-Parts
store.
REQUEST-
1) To occupy a building located in a S -2 Redevelopment District
on a• temporary basis;
2) To determine the City's position to include this use in the
.approved redevelopment plan.
BACKGROUND:
The parcel was rezoned to S -2, the Redevelopment District in 1990
in conjunction with the redevelopment request by Scott Ericson to
develop a 25,000 square foot strip shopping center to -be named
"Fridley Town Square. ". The center was to contain a Walgreen's
store, a Burger Ring fast food restaurant, and other retail uses.
Lowell Wagner subsequently obtained an option agreement with the
parcel's owner, Norma Swanson of Theisen Partnership, and pursued
the implementation of the approved redevelopment project.
Walgreen's has not pursued the site and Wagner is continuing a.
search for another major anchor tenant. The petitioner is
interested in working with Wagner to redevelop the property.
The redevelopment property contains 2.86 acres and includes the
four vacant lots to the north of the subject parcel and two
single family properties.to the east. The residential lots to
the east are necessary-in order to install for a full - movement
driveway east of the median in Mississippi Street.
1D
Staff Report
Jim Yungner
Page 2
ANALYSIS•
S -2 Redevelopment District
The S -2 Redevelopment District permits the City to determine the
uses which are to be located in the district according to the
"overall redevelopment plan ". Staff has required the petitioner
to process this request since the petitioner is proposing to
occupy the building for at least three years and will be
remodeling the inside of the building. Further, the petitioner
is interested in occupying a portion of the approved shopping
center, if developed. This application gives the City the
opportunity to review the proposed temporary use and to-provide
feedback to the petitioner about consistency with the overall,
redevelopment plan.
Previous to this request, staff has worked with the building
owner to permit temporary occupancies of the building until the
redevelopment plan can be implemented (see letter to Norma
Swanson dated January 28, 1994). The petitioner's request is
different than previous uses in that occupancy is proposed for a
longer period of time and more extensive improvements will be
occurring inside and outside of the building.
The language in the S -2 District does permit the City to approve
or deny building permits or occupancies for buildings within the
zoning district.
The Gym
The petitioner currently operates The Gym at 261 Commerce- Circle.
The City issued a special use permit for the operation in 1991.
The Gym is a personal training center for individuals interested
in weight lifting and "serious training" to accomplish fitness
goals (see letter from Yungner dated September 21, 1994).
The petitioner wants to relocate The Gym to the University Avenue
location fully realizing that the building may be demolished and
redevelopment undertaken prior to the expiration of the three
year lease.
Request #1 - Temporary Occupancy of Building
The temporary occupancy of the building by the proposed use is
not contrary to the intent of the S -2 Redevelopment District.
The petitioner intends to improve the appearance of the outside
of the building by painting the west (front) and south sides of
the building, installing a wall sign (no pylon sign is proposed)
striping the parking lot, and removing weeds and grass in the
1E
Staff Report
Jim Yungner
Page 3
parking lot. Improvements to the inside of the building include
installation of locker rooms and minor interior walls.
Significant changes to the ventilation systems will not be
necessary and have been reviewed by the City's Mechanical
Inspector. Although these improvements are estimated by the
petitioner at $30,000 to $40,000, they are not improvements which
would significantly add to the value of the building, which could
be a concern to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Adequate parking exits on site. The original 1965 site plan
indicates that 89 parking stalls can be striped on the lot. The
petitioner indicates that peak hour use of the facility is after
working hours. Hours of operation will be from 5:00 am to
midnight.
The petitioner has agreed to screen the dumpster at the rear of
the building.
The curb stops should remain on the parking lot to prevent
traffic from going north to 66th Avenue. Also, the shrubs along
the north portion of the parking lot should be retained but
trimmed attractively to provide screening.from the residences to
the north.
No complaints have been received about The Gym at the existing
location. The use does not have any exterior noise or odor
impacts and should not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood.
Request #2 - Consistency with Long -Term Redevelopment Plan
The purpose of this request is to provide an initial reaction to
inclusion of the use as part of the ultimate redevelopment plan.
The petitioner has met with the current developer of the
redevelopment project, Lowell Wagner. If business succeeds as
predicted, the petitioner may want to occupy up to 11,000 square
feet of the new shopping center and own part of the project.
Should this type of use be included in the redevelopment project?
The proposed use has less traffic, noise, and odor impacts than
typical retail uses, like the fast food restaurant use which was
approved in the original plan. The question remains if this type
of use is appropriate as part of a neighborhood retail service
building.
If the southwest quadrant is developed with additional
residential units, the market may react and produce a variety of
retail /service shops not originally contemplated; or, major
IF
Staff Report
Jim Yungner
Page 4
tenants /users may reconsider the location if additional
population is nearby and more activity is occurring at the
intersection. The proposed use is not a neighborhood retail use
and has a specific clientele.
Also of importance is compatibility with the adjacent
neighborhood. Serious concern was raised by the public and some
of the Councilmembers about the redevelopment project. The
proposed use would be more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
As a small part of the original redevelopment plan, inclusion of
the proposed use may be appropriate. Endorsement of the use to
occupy up to almost half of the proposed building (11,000 square
feet versus 25,000 square feet) may be premature given the
current work on the southwest quadrant.
The Planning Commission, city Council, and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority should comment on the proposed use. If
it is .found that the use is unacceptable on a long term basis.,
the petitioner would appreciate knowing that at this point in
time.
RECOMMENDATION /STIPULATIONS:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of
occupancy of the building at 6525 University Avenue NE for The
Gym on a temporary basis (up to three years) subject to the
following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for the appropriate. bur.rd1ing,
plumbing, and mechanical permits to complete remodeling as
proposed.
2. The petitioner shall stripe the parking lot; parking stalls
are 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, or 18.feet long if the
stall abuts a curb stop or landscaped area.
3. The dumpster shall be screened on all sides.
4. The parking lot shall be kept free of weeds and grass.
5. Landscaped area to the north shall be kept trimmed.in an
attractive manner to provide screening from the residence to
the north.
1G
Staff Report
Jim Yungner
Page 5
6. Inclusion of the proposed use in the Fridley Town Square
redevelopment project shall be reviewed by the City Council
and Housing and Redevelopment Authority prior to
execution /approval of the development contract for the
project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
occupancy of 6525 University Avenue N.E. for The Gym on a
temporary basis subject to the six recommended stipulations by
staff with one modification to #6 to include review by the
Planning Commission.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends-that the City Council concur with the.Planning
Commission recommendation.
1H
The Germ Request
N 112 SEC. /4, T. 30t R. 24
cff r OF FRIDLEr
SKI E0
L""66 T H
"kVE. N.E.
@
4
114 Af
0114
6 N.E.
I
v
RIC p
p
0
YES roo
S
26 7
A -
RICE
C
3?9
P4 A)r:s
2
low,
Al
A
30
25
Owe
*
-SP
4
IF
f1�5 3
ZI Z
x JP
JA
j
IVA
C ul!j
lie
•
9
;v
W4
vbp
LD
67 AVE. N.E.
SKI E0
L""66 T H
"kVE. N.E.
4
114 Af
rAil
RIC p
p
0
YES roo
S
26 7
A -
SKI E0
(R (I 7T) @
) f I
.711 LOCATION MAP
L""66 T H
"kVE. N.E.
rAil
RIC p
p
.4
YES roo
S
C
P4 A)r:s
low,
(R (I 7T) @
) f I
.711 LOCATION MAP
a.�
k:
�r
W
d$
�0
The Gym Request
{' p
ai t .r*
• yam.. -s y _ � , � � �
.. ..� f •'/ •ate 1
tr+ _
IL
j 5
Extend Wall
-IO' GAS RAIN - - -\ -- -4 - - -- - - -I— MN
Om" -r — 8' VCP S SEVER — — _ —O_
:.I.P. WATER MAIN — 1_— I — � - -- -- - - - - --
W i
SSISSIPPI STREET � N
IL I
0
m
NOiE-
SEND ALL PARK�I�NpG(,�� gLO�T( ,SyTyRIPPINgG��
EXISTING CURB 9 GUTTER VIQY ADO i amsKa A 2m
ETC. SHALL _ _ 8E_. PAINTEO VVHI rE
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING MANHOLE I PAINT H.C. SIM80LS AT EACH KC.
PROPOSED CURB a GUTTER STALL:
PRROPOSEO CATCH BASIN APPROVED REDEVE
1K
The Gym Request
'UMI I J
I
r
EXISTING H '•
t
SEE SH. NO
SCRR� WA 1'
DIM. 9 DETC
ONE -WAY
/ TRAFFIC
��
oar
HOl
MAIN — — A
DR
SEVER -- -
At
LOPMENT PLAN
•2
.S
IL.
fhe Gym
is
lk;
�w
N
1M
The Gym Request
I
GO
-%v%-, i
205.23.05.
205.23 S -2 REDEVELOPMENT.DISTRICT REGULATIONS S -2 RE-
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
REGIILATIONS
1. PURPOSE PURPOSE
The purpose of this special zoning district is to:
A. Allow for a mixed use development within special redevelopment
district s set up under Chapter 462 of Minnesota State
Statutes for the health, safety and general welfare of the
City.
B. Allow for the maximum flexibility in the promotion of
difficult redevelopment projects.
C. Allow for development by a plan which is acceptable to, and
in the best interest of, the City and the overall district and.
development plan.
2. USES PERMITTED USES
PERMITTED
Permitted uses in S -2 Districts are:
Those uses which are acceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and
specific development plans as approved by the City. Upon approval of
the specific development plans, the City shall determine the specific
uses that are permitted within the development.
3. USES ALLOWED AFTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be
the same as or similar to those uses approved in Section 205.22.2.
above.
4. USES EXCLUDED
-USES
-- -- EXCLUDED
Those uses unacceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific
development plans, as determined by the City, are excluded uses in S -2
Districts.
5. PROCESS FOR APPROVAL
A. Plans for each individual project or combination of projects
must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall
have final authority to approve all project plans.
B. Project plans submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council shall include the following minimum criteria:
(1) Site plans showing the location of buildings, off - street .
parking, street and utility locations, auto and pedestrian
access to and from the project, any modification to
existing services, grading plans, storm water plans,
building exterior finish, lighting and signing and
landscape plans.
9/92 IN 205.52 -1
205.23.05.
(2) Written City staff review on project compatibility to the
overall redevelopment plan.
(3),A written Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) report
on project plan approval and considerations.
C. Any substantial modification to the plan must be submitted
through the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council.
6. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
All performance standards for uses in this district shall be
comparable to other similar uses that are allowed in other districts.
Parking space sizes may be reduced -to nine (9) feet in width upon
approval of a special use permit. (Ref. Ord. 952)
9/92 10 205.S2 -2
.:K
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER . 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571 -3450 • FAX (612) 571 -1287
January 28, 1994
Lowell Wagner
11666 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Norma Swanson
Boss Aire, Inc.
2901 Southeast 4th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55414
.Dear Mr. Wagner and Ms. Swanson:
Several weeks ago, Lowell asked me about the effect of the S -2,
Redevelopment District, regulations on your property if the
redevelopment plan is not pursued. Walgreen's has not made a final
decision as to whether or not they will be pursuing this site.
Questions have been raised as to what types of uses would be
permitted in the existing.. building on.the property, should the
development not occur.
Enclosed is a copy of the S -2, Redevelopment District regulations.
The permitted uses are those uses which are "acceptable to the
overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans as
approved by the City ". This permits the City to-reviev any type
of use in the building. In the past, we have permitted, without
any review process as specified in Section 205.22.05, temporary
occupancies of the building like the Slumberland operation. Any
type -of building permits which would repair or maintain the
building would be permitted without a review process as specified
in the aforementioned section.
It would be staff's recommendation, however, that any use which
would necessitate the expansion of the building would be subject
to Planning Commission, City Council, and Housing & Redevelopment
Authority review as specified in Section 205.22.05.
Unless a new redevelopment plan for the development of the parcel
is approved, it is the Housing & Redevelopment Authority's current
position that expansion of the existing building on the property
is not consistent with long term redevelopment plans. This is due,
in part, to the necessity to have a full movement access just east
a
Lowell - Wagner and Norma Swanson
January 28, 1994
Page 2
of the existing parcel on the single family property at 355
Mississippi Street. Also, the intent of the redevelopment plan was
to remove obsolete commercial buildings and construct a modern
development consistent with-the redevelopment objectives of this
area.
Should you have any specific questions regarding use of the
building, please do not hesitate to contact me at 572 -3590.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dacy
Community Development Director
BD:ls
C -94 -16
10
THE GYM
TRAINING CENTER
September 21, 1994
City of Fridley
Fridley Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Attn: Barbara Dacy, AICP — Community Development Director
RE: Response to letter dated 9/15/94
Dear Ms. Dacy,
Our immediate plans are to relocate our existing Fridley location of 261 Commerce
Circle to the building on the Northeast corner of University and Mississippi. We
have agreed upon a three year lease for the above mentioned building. This is a
temporary lease because the future plans are for the building to be demolished. After
three years we have agreed with the building owners to go on a month to month lease
until the developement of the new mall.
Because the building will be demolished in three to four years we are trying to limit
any leasehold improvments. The improvments which we propose to make would
cost approximately $30,000 to $40,000. Following are the improvements we would
like to make:
1. Womens and mess locker rooms.
2. Co-ed sauna.
3. Separate air conditioning, heating, ventilation system for the locker
rooms.
4. Exterior locker room walls will be built to roof deck of building.
5. New interior walls will be built 7'. to 8' high, which will not be as high
as the existing ceiling.
2855 GLACIER LANE -r PLYMOV110 .,11fINNESOTA 55447 — (612) 553 -0171
IR-
THE GYM
TRAINING CENTER
One main concern of ours is the since that the building will be demolished we do not
wish to upgrade the air conditioning unit. We feel the current unit is more than
adequate due to the fact that the building is a wide open space. We truly need for
The City to work with us on this because this is such a temporary stay.
There is also a concern on your part about the exterior of the building. We definately
intend to better the appearance from what it is today in the following manner:
1. Re- stripe parking lot by painting over the existing weathered paint.
There will be no additional configurations of parking spaces.
2. Re -paint the exterior of the building, which would only -- include the
front, north, and south sides.
3. Contract grass & snow removal services to appropriately upkeep
property.
We are .trying to make this property look the most appealing for the least amount
of money due to the fact it will be demolished in three to fouryears. It certainly would
not be a wise investment to spend a lot of money on something which will be
destroyed.
OUR EXISTING BUSINESS & FUTURE PLANS
The Gym, Inc. was establised in 1979. The first facility was 1900 sq. ft located in
St. Louis Park. In 1981 The Gym, Inc. moved 2.5 miles to larger 3500 sq. & facility
located in Golden Valley. In 1986, the Gym moved to its present 12,500 sq. ft. which
is located in Plymouth. In 1988 The Gym, Inc. opened up its second location in Apple
Valley. In 1990 our third facility of 5600 sq. ft was opened in Fridley. In 1992 the
first licensee opened a 12,500 sq. ft. facility in Champlin. In 1993 a 6500 sq. ft. facility
was opened in Bloomington.
The success of The Gym, Inc. in the last 15 years is due to the fact that we are s
training center, not a fitness center like so many of the so- called "health clubs" in
the Twin Cities.
2
2855 GLACIER LANE — PLYMO,V�'CK1NNESOTA 55447 — (612) 553 -0171
THE GYM
TRAINING CENTER
EXISTING & FUTURE PLANS (coat.)
The Gym is a weight lifting - cardiovascular training facility, which directs our
services primarily to athletes, and people seeking to engage in serious training to
accomplish their fitness goals. The Gym's facility consist mainly of free weights as
opposed to the -other facilities which primarily use "Nautilus" and "Universal
Gyms" type machines, The Gym also uses cardiovascular equipment (bikes, rowers,
stairmasters). The Gym does not offer aerobic dance classes.
The Gym's operating hours will be from 5:00 a.m. to midnight. The heaviest hours
of usage will be from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., and from 5 :00. p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Most
members of The Gym, Inc. work out 3 to 4 days a week, 1 to 2 hours per session.
The Gym also will be selling vitamins, training supplements, training gear, limited
clothing, and bottled beverages. The Gym will not be making or producing any food
or drinks. 90% of the above product sales will be to the members.
Our future plans include increasing our clientel and sales to a degree to enable us
to become either a new tennant or new owner of the up coming new shopping center
coming to this area in the next 3 to 4 years.
We have every intention of occupying the space in the new strip mall. We would be
more than happy to work with Lowell Wagner or any other developer to enable us
to be a tennant or an owner. Ideally we would like to be a partner with Lowell, but
it will also have to be their decision to do this. We, The Gym, Inc. - Fridley, do have
the option to purchase the building at any time during the next three years. If our
business performs as projected we will follow with these purchasing plans.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
The Gym, Inc.
Jim Yungner
Owner
q
2855 GLACIER LANE — PLYMOUTH, : NESOTA 55447 — (612) 553 -0171
THE GYM
TRAINING CENTER
Dear Ms. Dacy,
The Parking Area:
We intend to use exising parking lot as is. We want to use the same lay out that has
always been used for the building for the last 25 years. We do not intend to change
the configuration of the parking spaces. We will only paint over the old weathered
existing stripes.
The Dumpsters:
We intend to use the back of the building for dumpster location, which is the
same location that the grocery store and Slumberland used for their business.
Signs:
We intend to put a sign only on the face of the building. There will be no free
standing or rooftop signs. We will contract out professional sign services-to prepare
details of the signs to meet City codes and to be approved.
If there are any further questions or comments, please contact me.
Sincerely,
The Gym, Inc.
Jim Yungner
Owner
2855 GLACIER LANE — PLYMO MINNESOTA 554 47 — (612) 553 -0171
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 1994 PAGE 8
Mr. Kondrick recommended adding a stipulation that would refer to
the number of clients that occupy the space in the facility.
Mr. Oquist agreed that, when going back to re- license for
additional people, it should be controlled by the state
Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with the request other than
the number of patients. She would like to have fe ack on
numbers in the future or when they go back for r licensing for
additional clients.
Mr. Kondrick asked, with the rules we have, ,an they have more
people there or is 40 the maximum number. /
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner ind ated they need -40 square
feet ' et per person including staff. They ill utilize 6,000 square
feet. The state would look at and s they can have x number of
people. As Mr. Hickok indicated, a tipulation could be included -
that says once they re- license fo over...40, they need to come
back to the City who must re -iss a special use permit to
increase the number.
Mr. Hickok stated the Commis ion's recommendation and Council
approval indicates the zon' g is appropriate and they have been
given a special use permi What would.trigger that is if we say
that number changes,, we call it back for review.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist seconded'by Mr. Kondrick, to approve
Special Use Permit, P #94 -15, by Lynn Porath of Turning Point
Adult Day Care, I to allow day care centers, on Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2, Moore L e Highlands 4th Addition, generally located at
6180 Highway 65 .E., with the following stipulations:
1. A/add* ional signage shall comply with the stipulations of
tvariance approval and the sign code.
2. Atime the applicant makes license application to the
Sserve more than 40 clients, the.Special Use Permit
s subject to review by the City.
UPON%A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE/XOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
McPherson stated this item would be reviewed by the City
,cil at their meeting of October 17.
3. CONSIDERATION OF RE -USE OF THE 10,000 AUTO PARTS BUILDING
BY THE GYM, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
Ms. Dacy stated the request is a two part request. The first'is
to occupy a building located in an S -2 Redevelopment District on
1V
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER S. 1994 PAGE 9
a temporary basis. The second. is to determine the City's
position to include this use in the approved redevelopment plan.
Ms. Dacy. stated the intent of the S -2 district gives broad
discretion to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)_ and
the City and also sets up a process to make that determination.
Ms. Dacy stated the subject parcel is located on the northeast
corner of Mississippi and University. Four years ago, the City
Council approved rezoning to S -2 with stipulations for a
developer to construct a retail strip mall. The 25,000 square
foot mall had 144 parking spaces proposed. The original
developer did not pursue the plan. The current developer does
have option agreements on the two single family homes adjacent to
the east and a verbal agreement with -the owner of the building on
the subject parcel.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner,.Mr. Jim Yungner, is the owner. of
The Gym, which is.a personal training-center.. Mr. Yungner wants
to move. his operation from 261 Commerce Circle to this location
for. period of up to-three years. As part of the request to
move his business, the petitioner has indicated he is going to
make approximately $30,000- $40,0OO.worth of investment in carpet,
rest. rooms,-.: locker. rooms, etc.. He.also.wants to paint the
outsIde.of' the *building and put a`sign-on the front of the
building-
Ms. Dacy stated -the survey from 1965 was-included.with.the
agenda. The building is about 14,000 square feet and shows'
approximately 89 parking spaces. The parking lot would need to
be re- striped, the pavement repaired, and weeds cut.
Ms. Dacy stated the first request is, to consider temporary
occupancy; of. the building. Staff have been working with the
owneron the type of uses occurring= ;withi.n_ the building. This is
the first tenant that wants to:- pursue a longer term occupancy.
Because of. the. three-year plan :and-. our redevelopment goals, staff
has brought this -to your attention.;`.The nature of the use is
compatible with_ the neighborhood:'- '-Tliis use takes place inside.
The peak hours are when clients use the site usually after
working hours. The impact is not as intrusive as other uses.
Ms. Dacy stated the second request is whether the use is
consistent with the long term redevelopment plan. Because the
nature of the use is not atypical retail use, the-use is quite
compatible and less intrusive. -On the other hand, the petitioner
wants to make this location permanent beyond three years. We are
in the middle of the southwest quadrant redevelopment. The
market may dictate new interest in retail shops. There may be
new opportunities the City may want to evaluate. The purpose. of
this part of the request is to provide an opportunity for the HRA
1W
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 1994 PAGE 10
and Council to provide feedback to the petitioner as to whether
this would be a good use on the property.
Ms. Dacy stated there may be a parking issue depending on the
amount of space they are going to occupy. Having a smaller_ area
of the building may work. If they use up to half of the
building, they may need more parking. It depends-on the balance
of uses. On one hand, it is a good use because it is internal
and it is compatible. On the other hand, we don't know what the
market would produce if we are successful on the opposite corner.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval on a temporary basis
would be appropriate. It would improve the appearance of the
building and would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for the appropriate building,
plumbing, and mechanical permits to complete remodeling as
proposed.
2. The petitioner shall stripe the parking lot; parking stalls
are 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, or 18 feet long if the
staff abuts a curb stop or landscaped area.
3. The dumpster.shall be screened on all sides.
4. The parking lot shall be kept free of weeds and grass.
5. Landscaped area to the north shall be kept trimmed in an
attractive manner to provide screening from the residences
to the north.
6. Inclusion of the proposed use in the Fridley Town - -Square
redevelopment project shall be reviewed by the"City Council
and Housing and Redevelopmerit Authority prior to execution/
approval of the development contract for the project.
Mr. Newman asked, if they can took action on the first request
and not the second, could the petitioner take occupancy.
Ms. Dacy stated yes. The intent of the second request is because
the use was not intended. If there are strong feelings against
the request, we should let the petitioner know now.
Mr. Newman stated stipulation #6 he suspects the Planning
Commission may have concerns that this use would-work with the
rest of the uses in relationship to parking. Is it appropriate..
to come back to the Planning Commission as well as the HRA and
Council?
M
PLANNING COMMISSION NESTING. OCTOBER 5. 1994 PAGE 11
Ms. Dacy stated yes, the Planning Commission should be looking at
parking issues.
Mr. Newman stated there--was an access road to the north to 68th.
Under this proposal, is that access road still there.
Ms. Dacy stated the pavement is still there but it is blocked by
concrete bumpers. She felt those should be kept in place.
Mr. Yungner stated this gives them three years to see if the use
is appropriate.
Mr. Newman asked if he was comfortable that the Commission not
take action until we see where the redevelopment plan in going.
Mr. Yungner stated yes.
Mr. Kondrick asked the hours of operation for the business.
Mr. Yungner stated their hours are 5:00 a.m. to midnight during
the week and 7:00 a. m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends.
Mr. Saba asked -if there were -any problems with parking where they
are now.
Mr. Yungner stated they had.none.
z _Nt
Ms. Modig stated the plans were to.repaint- -the exterior on three
sides. Why not the east side?
Mr. Yungner stated that side will not be seen. He is trying to
go in without spending a lot. Their clientele are different from
the-other health clubs in the area. --��
Mr. Kondrick.asked if.Mr..Yungner_ had read the stipulations.
Mr. Yungner stated he understood the stipulations and had no
problems with.them. _
Mr. Newman asked Ms. Dacy if we run the risk of incurring
relocation expenses if we discontinue this use in the final
project.
Ms. Dacy stated there are some financial issues. One issue is
that whoever steps in to the redevelopment, and if they want to
pursue this in one year, would have to deal with the gym and the
lease. Another issue is the amount of improvements being put
into the building. Although it is not significant, there could
be an acquisition impact. Based on what is being proposed, she
did not think it would be significant.
1Y
PLANNING COMMISSION•MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 1994 PAGE 12
Mr. Newman asked if this request would go to the HRA.
Ms. Dacy stated yes.
Mr. Newman stated he thought this would be better than a vacant
building.
Mr. Kondrick stated he knew there were not a lot of cars at the
business at any one time. What does he expect in terms of
traffic at peak times.?
Mr. Yungner stated at 5:00 a.m. -6:30 a.m. there are 15 -30 cars.
Throughout the day, they have from 10 -35 cars. In the evening,
they have 30 -55 cars and less after 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the request. It-'is a
good business and a quiet business.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr.-Oquist, to recommend
approval of occupancy of the building at 6525 University Avenue
N.E. for The Gym on a temporary basis subject to the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for the appropriate building,
plumbing, and mechanical permits to complete remodeling as
proposed.
2. The petitioner shall stripe the parking lot; parking stalls
are 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, or 18 feet long if the
stall abuts a curb stop or landscaped area.
3. The dumpster shall be screened on all sides.
4. The parking lot shall be kept free of weeds and grass.
5. Landscaped area to'the north shall be kept trimmed in an
attractive manner to provide screening from the residences
to the north.
6. Inclusion of the proposed use in the Fridley Town Square
redevelopment project shall be reviewed by the City Council,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission
prior to execution/ approval of the development contract for
the project.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Dacy stated this item would be reviewed by the City Council
at their meeting of October 17.
1Z.
r �
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 3, 1994
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA 4AV
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Disposition Guidelines for Scattered Site
Acquisition Program.
Summary
Several different methods for selling these properties were
considered, including using a real estate agent and listing the
properties through MLS; advertising the lots on our own and
taking offers on a first -come, first - served basis; or using a
sealed bid approach. Because of statutory requirements, the last
method is recommended for the following reasons:
1) By law, the HRA must sell its property for an.amount�, which
takes into consideration the fair market value. By utilizing
a sealed bid approach (i.e. accepting competitive quotes) the
market will in effect establish the price. This does not
mean that the HRA is obligated to accept the offer /s.
2) State law also requires the BRA to conduct a public;-hearing
before it can convey the property. By selling all of the
lots at the same time we can conduct one hearing.
3) Finally, the HRA has the opportunity to takes offers from
the general public and potentially receive more offers.
To ensure that all statutory requirements and program objectives
are met, the HRA would enter into a development agreement with
each buyer. Provisions of the agreement could include such
things as the.type of home, design, exterior materials,
performance bond, completion dates and prohibition against re-
selling the property until all improvements are completed.
Attached is a copy of the disposition guidelines, a sample bid
package, location maps and a memo from Jim Hoeft regarding the
disposition procedures.
Scattered Site Acquisition Program
November 3, 1994
Page 2
We are recommending that the HRA begin accepting sealed bids
during the month of January and review the offers at the February
meeting. The HRA would conduct a public hearing at the February
meeting to formally approve the sale of each lot. In March,
Staff would work with legal counsel to draft the necessary
contracts and close the sales in April. Construction could begin
by next spring or early summer.
We should point out that these procedures only apply to the
buildable lots. Staff is still evaluating options for.disposing
of the non - buildable lots.
Recommendation
Approve the attached Disposition Guidelines and Bid Package and
authorize staff to begin advertising the sale of the lots.
c: \SCATTRD \DISP.GDL
2A
Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Scattered Site Acquisition Program
Disposition Guidelines
Bidding Procedures:
1. Written offers will be accepted for each parcel and award will be made to the highest and
most responsible bidder. At its discretion, the HRA may establish a minimum value
for each parcel. A Bidder may submit an offer on more than one (1) property.
2. Each offer must include a $500.00 earnest money deposit. Only certified cashier's
checks or money orders payable to the Fridley HRA will be accepted.
3. Offers will only be accepted in writing and on a form approved by the HRA. Offers may not
be withdrawn for a .period of thirty (30) days after the bid deadline, or the _bidder will forfeit
their earnest money. -
4. The HRA reserves the right to reject any or all offers without reason and .to waive any
informalities or irregularities in the bidding.
Award Procedures:
1. Before the HRA can officially accept an offer, it must conduct a public hearing. Said
hearing can only be conducted after. published notice, at least once and not less than ten -
days no more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing of the proposed sale and the
provisions thereof.
2. Once award has been made by the HRA, each buyer will enter into a development
agreement with the HRA to establish the following:
a) Date of closing. - - - -- -
b) Minimum value of home to be constructed.
c) Time to complete construction.
d) Design and aethestic components that are appropriate for the neighborhood,
and approved by the HRA.
e) Prohibition on re -sale of property until HRA certifies that improvements have been
completed.
3. . Building plans must be submitted within 60 days of acceptance of Buyer's offer, but
prior to executing developer contract.
Closing Costs:
1. Buyer and seller shall be responsible for their own closing costs which are customary to
typical real estate transactions.
K�
Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Scattered Site Acquisition Program
Bid Package
2C
CIiYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 - (612) 571 -3450 - FAX (612) 571 -1287
To Prospective Buyers:
Thank you for your interest in the Fridley Scattered Site Acquisition Program. This program is
designed to remove older, substandard and deteriorated housing and provide opportunities for
new homes to be built. All properties are acquired on a voluntary basis (no one is forced to
sell), the homes are tom down and the sites are ready for construction.
The properties are located in neighborhoods with mature trees, access to parks and trails, schools
churches, and shopping. In addition, City sewer and water service is available to all sites.
I encourage you to carefully examine this bid package and view the sites in person. Please note
that offers are due by 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 31, 1994. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me at 572 -3591.
Sincerely,
t
Grant Fernelius
Housing Coordinator
2D
Instructions to Bidders
Approval Process
Lot Information Sheets
Design Guidelines
Offer to Buy Vacant Lot
Table of Contents
2E
1
2
3 -7
8
9
Instructions to Bidders
1. All offers must be submitted in writing and on the form "Offer for Vacant Lot". A $500.00
earnest money deposit must be attached with your offer. Only cashier's checks and
money orders will be accepted. You may submit offers on more than one lot.
2. Your offer and earnest money must be received by no later than 4:00 p.m., Tuesday,
January 31, 1995 at Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley,
Minnesota 55432, Attn: Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator.
3. Once submitted, your offer may not be withdrawn before March 2, 1995.
4. Under State statute the HRA must conduct a public hearing before it can sell any property.
On February 9, 1995, the HRA will hold a public hearing to review the offers and award .
sale to the highest, most responsible bidder. After the hearing is closed and award final -
ized the Buyer and HRA must execute a development contract within 60_days. - Said
contract will outline the following:
a) Amount of purchase price.
b) Type of home to be constructed and estimated costs.
c) Schedule for completion of improvements.
d). Information on credentials of builder /buyer.
e) Performance bond.
f) Any other pertinent terms and conditions.
2F
Approval Process
Date Tasks
January 3, 1995 HRA will begin accepting sealed offers to buy lots. Deadline for
submission is January 31, 1995.
January 12, 1995 HRA holds meeting and calls for public hearing on February 12,
1995 to review offers and award sale to highest, most responsible
bidder.
January 24, 1995 Notice of hearing published in Fridley Focus and adjoining -prop -
erty owners.are contacted as required by State law.
'January 31, 1995 Deadline for submitting offers.
February 12, 1995 HRA conducts public hearing.
March 1995 HRA and buyer to execute development,contract and close on
sale of property.
April 1995 Buyer may proceed on construction of home.
2G
Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Scattered Site Acquisition Program
Vacant Lot for Sale
Address: 187 Longfellow St. N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Lot Size: 60' wide .x 140' deep (8,400 s.f.) .
Municipal Sewer(Water. Yes
School District: Anoka- Hennepin School District No. 11
Site Amenities: Mature trees on site, nice neighborhood.
Terms and Conditions: Lot will be sold on sealed bid basis. Successful bidder 'vi ill
be required to enter into a development agreement with the
HRA and to ensure completion of the project. New homes
must be constructed iir accordance with HRA guidelines.
Contact Person: Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
#572 -3591
2H Sample
Scattered Ske AoqulsMon Program
Property Disposlflon
Design Guidelines
1. Only single - family detached dwellings may be constructed on HRA SSAP sites,
Structure must meet minimum square footage requirements as adopted under
City Zoning Code and be constructed in compliance with all other applicable
state and local codes.
2. Three and four bedroom homes are desirable. As an alternative home may have
a two bedrooms and easily finished space for a third bedroom.
3. Two full bathrooms are desirable, however a minimum of one full bath and a 1/2
bath roughed is acceptable.
4. Two car garage is required ,(either attached or detached).
5. Exterior materials should be low- maintenance. Hardboard siding materials are
not acceptable.
6. The house building lines, window placement and orientation to the street must
present a balanced and pleasing view from all sides. Consideration should be '
given to replicating the look and style of existing Fridley homes as much as
possible. Garage door dominance should be minimized.
7. Site must be fully landscaped and sodded upon completion.
8. Buyer may not re- convey property until all improvements have been satisfactorily
completed and inspected by the Authority. - -"
21
Offer to Buy Vacant Lot
I /we
(print nametcompany)
at , #
(address) (tel. number)
(the "Buyer") hereby submit this offer to buy the real property located at:
in Fridley, Minnesota from the
(address of lot)
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley (the "Authority")
for the price of
(words) (figures)
Buyer shall attach a certified check with this offer in the amount of $500.00 payable to
the Authority as earnest money. Buyer acknowledges. that the -Authority_. cannot
accept this offer until a public hearing is conducted.
Buyer agrees to enter into a developer contract with the Authority if this offer. Is
accepted. If Buyer's offer is accepted and Buyer refuses to execute the developer
contract, Buyer will forfeit his/her earnest money.
Once submitted Buyer may not withdraw this offer less than.-thirty (30) days-after the
bid deadline or before March 2, 1995.
Agreed to and signed this day of . 19
(day) (month)
BUYER
X
(Signature)
X
(Signature)
X
(Signature)
2J
SITE1
D
m
SCATTERED SITE
ACQUISITION PROGRAM
PARCEL INVENTORY
OTHERS
SITE 1 817 LONGFELLOW STREET
0 1000 2000
2K
AVE
BUILDABLE
SCATTERED SITE
ACQUISITION PROGRAM
PARCEL INVENTORY
64TH WAY
62ND WAY
SITE3
0 OTHERS
ME SITE 3 6409 EAST RIVER ROAD BUILDABLE
0 1000 2000
2L
E
kcQu
sec
R5
2 8280
4 550
S 667
3 683
7 547
a San
i
CRED
511
t
DN
PROGRA
INVENTORIf
kbl RIVER .ROAD BUILUABLE
JGO STREET NON- BUiLDABI
JGO STREET BUILDABLE
LENCOE STREET NON - BUILDAB
LENCOE STREET NON - BUILDAB
LENCOE STREET NON - BUILDAB
1I1I1 1I1I1
ROBERT A. GI 7Y
RAMELA .M. HARRIS
BERNARD E. STEFFEN
CHARLES hi. SEYKORA
RICHARD A. .\1ERRILL
WILLIAM M. HANSEN
DARRELL A. JENSEN
DANIEL D. GANTER, JR.
JEFFREY S. JOHNSON
—
BEVERLY K. DODGE
RUSSELL H. CROWDER
GREGG V. HERRICK
JON P. ERICKSON
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
JAMES D. HOEFT
LAWRENCE R. JOHNSON
JOAN M. QUADE
DAVID A. COSSI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SCOTT M. LEPAK
THOMAS E MALONE
400 Northtown Financial Plaza
STEVEN L. MACKEY
MICHAEL E HURLEY
DAVID M. WEIGEL
VIRGIL C. HERRICK
200 Coon Rapids Boulevard
ELIZABETH A. SCHADING
HERMAN L. TALLE
Minneapolis, MN 55433
WILLIAM E HUEFNER
ROBERT C. HYNES
(612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780 -1777 19354993
Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783 -5122
MEMORANDUM
TO: Grant Fernelius
Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority
FROM: James D. Hoeft
Attorney
SUBJECT: Sale of HRA Property
DATE: July 25, 1994
In response to our recent conversations regarding the sale of the
residential properties which the HRA has been acquiring, I
• thought•I would- outlt-ne the statutory process for doing so.
Minnesota Statute 469.029 authorizes the.HRA to sell its.property
to private individuals or other private interests. The sale
price must reflect the estimated fair market or rental value of'
the property. If you are going to be offering these properties.
in a bid format, we should not have any problem with meeting the
fair market requirement because the market will in fact be
dictating what the builders are bidding for the property. The
appraisals you have obtained on each of the properties' in the
process of purchasing them are probably not indicative of the
fair market value as they reflect some value for the buildings on
the property. For resale to a builder, those existing structures
not only have no value but.in fact are a liability as there is
cost to remove them.-
Any such sale of property by the HRA can be made only after
public hearing after published notice and a public hearing The
notice must be published by the HRA at least once not less than
ten days nor more than-thirty days prior to the date of the
hearing. The Statute further provides that every such sale shall
provide that the purchaser carry out or cause to be carried out
the approved project area redevelopment plan and-that no use -
shall be made of any land or real property included in the sale
which does not conform to the approved plan. In the present case
that would mean that the builder must in fact construct a single
family residence as that is the plan objective.
An Equal Ory Employcr
Memorandum
July 25, 1994
Page Two
The Statute goes on to state that in the purchase agreement
between the HRA and any subsequent purchaser, the HRA may include
other terms, conditions and provisions that in the judgment of
the HRA will provide reasonable assurance that the purchaser is
financially able to carry out the purchase and improvement of the
property according to the plan set forth by the HRA.
Specifically, the Statute states that "As security for its
fulfillment of the agreement with the authority, a
purchaser... shall furnish a performance bond, with the surety and
in the form and amount the authority may approve, or make any
other guarantee the authority deems necessary in the public
interest." Any such purchase agreement shall also include terms,
conditions and specifications concerning any buildings or other
improvements which the HRA may reasonably impose upon the _ --
property.
Additionally, the Statute places limitations upon disposal of the
property by the purchaser, in that until the authority--certifies
that all building constructions and other physical improvements
specified to be done and made by the purchaser have been
completed, the purchaser shall not convey the property, or any
part thereof, without the consent of the authority.
Just to recap the requirements under the .Statute -in-summary -form.,-
the HRA has the authority to sell.the property.. The sale must be
for fair market value, occurring only after notice and public
hearing.. The purchaser from the HRA cannot resell the property
without the consent of the HRA, and any such purchaser must
provide security acceptable to the HRA that the property will be
improved pursuant to the HRA's plan.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have
regarding the above. I do not see any problems with the process
you have outlined. in our conversations for reselling the acquired
properties. The.only hurdle for the HRA is an administrative one
with regard to the notice and public hearing. I think it is
important that when putting these properties out for RFP's, the
request specifically identifies the statutory conditions.on the
sale and improvement of the property.
al1*
469.028 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 994
poses, or is covered by shallow water, or is subject to periodic flooding, or consists of
unused or underused slips or dock areas or other waterfront property. This subdivision
applies only to land or space that the authority determines may be developed at a cost
reasonably related to the public purpose to be served without major residential clear-
ance activities, and with full consideration of the preservation of beneficial aspects of
the urban and natural environment, for uses that are consistent with emphasis on hous-
ing for low and moderate income families. These uses include the provision of schools,
hospitals, parks and other essential public facilities and, where appropriate, all uses
associated with new community development programs as defined in the United States
Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970, as amended, or similar
large scale undertakings related to inner city needs, including concentrated sources of
employment.
Subd. 5. Early acquisition. When an authority has determined the location of a
proposed redevelopment project, but prior to the approval of the redevelopment plan
and project as provided in subdivision 2, the authority may acquire individual tracts
of real property with the approval of the governing body as to each separate tract.
Before approving early acquisition, the governing body shall hold a public hearing on
the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general cir-
culation in the municipality at least once. not less than ten days nor more than.30 days
prior to the date of the hearing.
The authority shall not. proceed with the acquisition unless the governing body
finds by resolution that (1) the proposed acquisition is necessary to carry out public
improvements in the area, or that the acquisition will contribute to the elimination of
blight or deterioration within the area or that the acquisition is necessary to relieve
hardship; and (2) there is a feasible method for the relocation of families and individu-
als to be displaced by the proposed acquisition.
The _governing body may, in approving early acquisition, agree to , assume the
responsibility for any loss that may arise as a result of the acquisition of land and
related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal, and relocation, in the
event that the property so acquired is not used for. urban renewal purposes because the
urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or
is abandoned for any reason. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to waive
the requirement for public hearing upon the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment
project.
History: 1987 c 291 s 28
469.029 DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.
Subdivision 1.. Sale, lease, or development. In accordance with a redevelopment
plan, an authority may make-any of its land in a redevelopment project available for
use by private individuals; firms, corporations, partnerships, insurance companies,. or
other private. interests, or by public agencies, by sale, lease, or otherwise, or the author-
ity itself may retain property for redevelopment by it. The land shall be made available
at a price that shall, except as provided for in subdivisions 9 and 10, take into consider-
ation the estimated fair market or rental value of the cleared land as determined pursu-
ant to section 469.032, for proposed uses in accordance with the-redevelopment plan.
Subd. 2. Notice; public hearing; determination; terms and conditions. Any such
lease or sale may be made without public bidding but only after a public hearing, after
published notice, by the authority at least once not less than ten days nor more than
30 days prior to the date of the hearing upon the proposed lease or sale and the provi-
sions thereof. The terms of any such lease shall be fixed by the authority, and the instru-
ment of lease may provide for renewals upon reappraisals and with rentals and other
provisions adjusted to the reappraisals. Every such lease or sale shall provide that the
lessee or purchaser shall carry out or cause to be carried out the approved project area
redevelopment plan or approved modifications thereof and that no use shall be made
of any land or real property included in the lease or sale nor any building or structure
erected thereon which does not conform to the approved plan or approved modifica-
2P
ON
995
' tions thereof. In
conditions, and
assurance of the
994
995 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 469.029
insists of ::
tions thereof. In the instrument of lease or sale the authority may include other. terms,
bdivision °>
conditions, and provisions in the judgment of the authority will provide reasonable
at a cost
assurance of the priority of the obligations of the lease or sale and of conformance to
clear_
the plan over any other obligations of the lessee or purchaser, and also assurance of the
'.spects of. ' `
financial and legal ability of the lessee or purchaser to carry out and conform to the plan
on hour- ;>.r
and the terms and conditions of the lease or sale, to begin the building of any improve -
7schools,
meats within a period of time which the authority fixes as reasonable. The instrument
> all uses-
shall also include the terms, conditions, and specifications concerning buildings,
ed States
improvements, subleases, or tenancies, maintenance and management, and any other
ir similar
related matters the authority may reasonably impose or approve, including provisions
)urces of
whereby the obligations to carry out and conform to the project area plan shall run with
the land. If maximum rentals to be charged to tenants of housing are specified, provi-
sion of a 3 '
sion may be made for periodic reconsideration of the rental bases, with a view to pro -
zrit plan
posing modification of the project area plan with respect to the rentals.
ial tracts V -n
Subd. 3. Property devoted to public uses; transfer. After the property in a project
ate tract. =
area has been assembled by an authority, the authority may transfer by deed to local
wring on y
public bodies those pieces of property which, in accordance with the redevelopment
feral cir-
plan, are to be devoted to public uses, other than public housing or redevelopment pur-
30 days
poses. Except for property transferred by dedication, gift, or exchange, the transferee -
body shall pay to the authority the sum agreed upon, and, in the absence of agreement,
ng body
the sum determined by arbitration. The authority shall reimburse the redevelopment
it public
project fund the fair use value of any property in a redevelopment project transferred
ation of =
to a public low -rent housing project.
a relieve 4_
Subd. 4. Disposition in parts. The authority may lease or sell parts of a project area
idividu-
separately to any persons. Any such sale or lease of a part or parts of a project area shall
be subject to the provisions of this section, excluding property required for public low -
ime the
rent housing projects.
end and s
Subd. 5, Limitation upon disposal by purchaser. Until the authority certifies that
i, in the
all building constructions and other physical, improvements specified to be done and
ause the
made by the purchaser of the area have been completed, the purchaser shall not convey
perty or _
the area, or any part thereof, without the consent of the authority. Consent shall not .
o waive
be given unless the grantee or mortgagee of the purchaser is obligated by written instru-
opment
ment to the authority to carry out that portion of the redevelopment plan which falls
within the boundaries of the conveyed property, and also that the grantee, the grantee's
heirs, representatives, successors; and assigns, shall not convey, lease, or let the.con-
veyed property or any part thereof, or erect or use any building or structure erected
thereon, except in conformance with the approved project area redevelopment plan or
opment
approved modifications thereof. - -, -- -
able for
Subd. 6. Modification of plan. A redevelopment plan may be modified at any time.
hies, or
The modification must be adopted by the authority and the governing body of the polit-
author-
' ical subdivision in which -the project is located, upon the notice and after the public
vailable
hearing required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the authority
insider-.
determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved
I pursu-
modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, and
it plan.
do not substantially alter or- affect the general land uses established in the plan, the
iy such
changes shall not constitute a modification of. the redevelopment plan nor require
g, after
approval by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the project is
re than
located.
provi-
Subd. 7. Purchaser or lessee to furnish performance bond. As security for its fulfill -
instru-
ment of the agreement with the authority, a purchaser or lessee shall furnish a perfor-
d other
mance bond, with the surety and in the form and amount the authority may approve,
hat the
or make any other guaranty the authority deems necessary in the public interest. If the
zt area
authority finds that the redevelopment is not being carried out or maintained in accor-
made
dance with the contract terms and conditions, or there is a failure to prosecute the work
Nye
with diligence, or to assume its completion on time, it shall notify the purchaser or les-
)difice-
see and the surety in writing of the noncompliance. Unless the purchaser or lessee com-
20
469.029 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 996
plies with the terms of agreement within 20 days from the date of the notice, the author-
ity may take over the work and may cause the work to be done, and the cost of the work
shall be paid by the surety. The authority may take possession of and utilize in comple-
tion of the work the materials, appliances, and plant as may be on the site of the work
and necessary for it.
Subd. 8. Discrimination forbidden. There shall be no discrimination in the use of
any land in a redevelopment project because of race or religious, political, or other affil-
iations.
Subd. 9. Sale, grant or development. With or without accordance to a redevelop-
ment plan, an authority may make any of its lands in a project that are vacant, open
and undeveloped or lands that contain vacated residential dwelling structures that are
substandard as that term is defined in section 469.012, subdivision 1, clause (7), avail-
able for use by sale, lease, grant, transfer, conveyance, or otherwise to persons or fami-
lies of low and moderate income. The property shall be made available at a price which
may take into consideration the estimated fair market value of the real estate, as.deter
mined pursuant to section 469.032, if the low or moderate income persons or families
have the financial ability or building trade skills, as determined by the authority; to
build on the vacant, open and undeveloped land onto repair, improve,'or rehabilitate
the residential dwelling structures; so as to conform with the applicable state, county,
or city, health, housing, building, fire prevention, and. housing• maintenance codes
within a reasonable period of time as determined by the authority. The authority may
require an agreement from those persons or families of low or moderate income to build
on the lands or to repair, improve, or rehabilitate the residential dwelling structures
within a reasonable period of time so as to conform to the codes as a condition to final
legal title to the lands and the residential dwelling units. Nothing in. Laws 1974, chapter
228, shall prohibit an authoritilirom making rehabilitation loans and.grants pursuant
to section 469.012,.subdivision 6, or procuring other authorized financial assistance for
persons or families of low and moderate income who acquire real property pursuant
to this section, in furtherance of the objectives of this section.
Subd. 10. Excess land. On or before December 31 each year,. each authority shall
make a survey of all lands held, owned., or controlled by it to determine what land,
including air rights, is in excess of its foreseeable needs. A description of each parcel
found to be in excess of foreseeable needs shall be made a matter of public record. Any
low or moderate income resident or nonprofit housing corporation shall upon request
be provided with a list of the parcels without charge. With or without accor-Tana to
a redevelopment plan, an authority may make the excess lands available for use as a
housing or housing development project by a, nonprofit housing corporation by sale,
lease, grant, transfer, conveyance, or otherwise. The price may take into consideration
the estimated fair market or rental value of the real .property, as determined pursuant
to section 469.632 and upon terms and conditions, notwithstanding any other provi-
sions of law to the contrary, that the authority deems to be best suited to the develop-
ment of the parcel for housing available to persons and families of low and moderate
income.
History. 1987 c 291 s 29
469.030 TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF DISPLACED FAMIIM.
Prior to its approval of any redevelopment plan, the authority shall be satisfied that
there is a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families to be displaced from_
the project area, and that there are available or will be provided, in the project area or
in other areas not less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial
facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families displaced from
the project area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number
of the displaced families.
History. 1987 c 291 s 30
2R
Y _
612 334 3382
612 -334 -3352 CASSERLY MOLZAHN
341 P02 NOV 02'94 15:27
Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc.
215 South 11 th Street, Suite 300 • Minneapolis. • Minnesota 56483
Office (612) 342 -2277 • Fax (612) 334 -3382
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City of Fridley
Attn: Bill Burns, City Manager
Barb Dacy, Economic Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator -
FROM: James R. Casserly
Mary E. Molzahn
R,E:' Housing Replacement Program
DATE: November 2, 1994
Attached is an analysis that we prepared for the City of Crystal.
We believe the goals of the Fridley Program and the Crystal
Program are identical.
As the Crystal memo indicates, not only do you have substantial
administrative costs but you also have a local government aid
penalty for accomplishing exactly what the Legislature would like
to have you do. As a result, the Crystal staff are asking their
Council /EDA.to recommend special legislation to eliminate the
local government aid penalty.
Our suggestion is that Fridley work with Crystal and make a joint
proposal for the two cities. Fridley has one additional problem
in that the first lots to go into this program have already had
the houses removed which disqualifies those lots from inclusion
in a redevelopment tax increment district. We might be able to
correct that problem by including- those sites in.the.special
legislation. In any event, the•city would.be in a..position to
implement the program with properties it acquires in 1995 for
redevelopment in 1996.
If there are any questions, please give us a call.
JRC /MEM /kh
Encl
2S
612—:3-34-3382 GASSERLir MOLZAHN 342 P01 NOV 02'94 10:28
Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc.
215 South 11 th Street, Suite 300 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403
Office (612) 342 -2277 • Fax (612) 334 -3382
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City of Crystal
Attention: Anne Norris
FROM: Mary E. Molzahn and James R. Casserly
RE: Proposed Housing Replacement Program __-
DATE: October 31, 1994
== = = === = = = == = = = = -- = = = _= = = = = = ==
At our October 26th meeting, you requested that we analyze the
potential tax increment that could be generated from a five year/
five phase housing replacement: program. DisCussed below are the
assumptions and results of our analysis.
The proposed Housing Replacement Program (the "Programs' would
consist of five phases constructed over a five year.Pe.od. Each
Phase would include the construction of five homestead dwellings
with a combined estimated market value of $496,000 and a combined
estimated -tax capacity of $6,320.. Phase 1 would be constructed
in Year 1, Phase 2 in Year 2, Phase 3 in Year 3, etc. All five
Phases would be located within a single TIF District which would
be created in Year 1 and modified in Years 2 through 53as Phases
2 through 5 were initiated. In addition, a separate Project Area
may be created exclusively for this Program.,
Schedule 1 represents
Increment generated f:
District. Because al:
District, the maximum
District is approximal
increment for 25 year:
Years, Phase 4 for 22
$662,479 at the end of
Available Tax incremer
Calculated at 10.00 of
$736,088 of gross tax
10.0% administrative f
reflected on Schedule
approximates $124,556.
a grid reflecting the Available Tax
'om each Phase and the total for the TIF
Phases are included in a single TIF
duration of all Phases within the TIP
ely 27 years. Phase 1 would generate tax
, Phase 2 for 24 years, Phase 3 for 23
years and Phase 5 for 21 years, totalling
the TIF District's term. This $662,479 of
t is net of administrative fees which are
the total tax increment generated (10.0%
increment). Over this 27 year period, the
ees total approximately $73,609. Also
1 is the potential LGA /HACA loss which
LiSted on Schedule 2 is a complete listing of all assumptions.
2T
612 331 3332
612- 334 -3332 CRSSERLY MOLZAHN 342 P02 NOV 02'94 15:29
If the Program pledges to use all tax increment generated for
additional replacement housing opportunities and we confine the
project area activities exclusively to housing activities, we are
hopeful that the Legislature would exempt the City from the
LGA/HACA penalties. The City should not be penalized $724,556
for removing blighted and substandard housing and making the
sites available for replacement housing.
The administrative costs will be substantially more than those
allowed by the Tax Increment Act, so the EDA /City will need to
make a contribution for those expenses. You may wish to consider
allocating some or all of your EDA levy to this Program in
addition to the CoBG Funds already being used.
While the Program is modest, only 25 replacement homes are
assumed in the analysis, the amounts generated should be very,
helpful. and Certainly, show a Ciity =A commitment to providing
housing opportunities as well as the diminution of blighting
influences.
20
612 334 3382
C-12-334-3382 CASSERL-Y MOL_ZAHN 342 P03 NOU 02194 15:29
CITY OF CRYSTAL. MINNESOTA
PROPOSED HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
144.017 138,257 132.496 126,735 120,975 662.479
o�co__. bat�aa- aec�r= �o�wwswswm-- �== caaasa== �wapo == cac- •..•.-- •.••�••�,.cao
zv
10.00%
ESTIMATED
ALLOWABLE
AOMdIN
EXPENSES
0
0
640
1.280
1.920
2,-%60
3.200..
3,200
3,200
3,200
3.200
3,200
3,200
3.200
3,200
3.200
3.200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3.`100
3.200 - -- -
3,200
3,200
73,609
wep.an_a
t
42.002
POTENTIAL
LGA/
HACA
LOSS
0
0
0
0
0
125
374
747
1,246
1.868
2,491
3.114
3,737
4.359
4,982
5,605
6.928.
.6.851
7,473
8.096
8,719
9,217
9.591
9,840
9.965
9.965
9,965
124.556
PREPARED BY CASSERLY MOLZAHN & AS;OCIATES, INC. 31- Oct -9r
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
TOTAL
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
TAX
TAX
TAX
TAX
TAX
TAX
PERIOD
INCREMENT
INCREMENT
INCREMENT
INCREMENT
INCREMENT
INCREMENT
------ �-------------------------------------------------
YEAR 1
0
0
0
0
.. -----------
0
0
YEAR 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
YEAR 3
5,761
0
0
0
0
5,761
YEAR 4
5,761
5.761
0
0
0
11.521
YEAR 5
5,761
5,761
5,761
- 0
0
17.282
YEAR 6
5,761
5,761
5.761
5,761
0
23.043
YEAR 7
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28.803
Y5AR 8
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 9
5,761
5.761
5.761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 10
5,761
$,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 11
5,761
5.761
5,761
5.761
5.761
28,803
YEAR 12
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 13
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28.803
YEAR 14
5.761
5.761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 15
5,761
5,761
5.761
•5,761
5.761
28.803
YEAR 16
5,761
5,761
5,761
5.761
5.761
28,803
YEAR 17
5.761.
5.761
5,761
5.761
5.761
24,003
YEAR 18
5.761
5,761
5,761
5.761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 19
5,761
5.761
5.761
5.761
5.761
28.803
YEAR 20
5.761
5,761
5,761
5.761
5,761
28.803
YEAR 21
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 22
5.761
5,761
5.761
5,761
5,761
28,803
YEAR 23
5.761
5.761
51761
5,761
5.761
28.803
YEAR 24
$,761
5.761
5.761
5.761
5,761
28.803
YEAR 25
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
5,761
28.803
YEAR 26
5.761
$,761
5.761
5.761
5,761
28,803
Y[AR 2/
5.761
5,761
5.761
5.761
5,761
28,803
144.017 138,257 132.496 126,735 120,975 662.479
o�co__. bat�aa- aec�r= �o�wwswswm-- �== caaasa== �wapo == cac- •..•.-- •.••�••�,.cao
zv
10.00%
ESTIMATED
ALLOWABLE
AOMdIN
EXPENSES
0
0
640
1.280
1.920
2,-%60
3.200..
3,200
3,200
3,200
3.200
3,200
3,200
3.200
3,200
3.200
3.200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
3.`100
3.200 - -- -
3,200
3,200
73,609
wep.an_a
t
42.002
POTENTIAL
LGA/
HACA
LOSS
0
0
0
0
0
125
374
747
1,246
1.868
2,491
3.114
3,737
4.359
4,982
5,605
6.928.
.6.851
7,473
8.096
8,719
9,217
9.591
9,840
9.965
9.965
9,965
124.556
PREPARED BY CASSERLY MOLZAHN & AS;OCIATES, INC. 31- Oct -9r
612 334 3332
612- 334 -3382 CASSERL- MOLZAHN
CITY OF CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA
s CAPTURED TAX CAPACITY
ESTIMATED TAX INCREMENT
49-,000 6,320 8,525
4,74S-,--
6.401 '
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL
PHASE 5
LAND
BLDG
MARKET
TAX
PARCEL
MV
A111
VALUE
CAPACITY
17- 118 -21 -12 -0'24
---------------------
18,000
•--- •----------
18,000
-•------
36,000
- - - - --
360
04- 118 -21 -34 -0123
33,000
24,00
57,500
575
21- 118- 21 -22- 0059
21,000
43,000
64,000
640
ADMIN /PROGRA`l FEES
72,000
65,500
17,500
1,575
10.00%
INFLATION
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
0.00
MARKET
TAX
PROPERTY
VALUE
CAPACITY
TAXES
1I0MESTLAD 1
<72.000
90,000
1,080
1,457
HOMESTEAD 2
81,000
900
1,214
(STEAD 3
91,000
1 ,100
1.464
HOMESTEAD 4
105,000
1,380
1,862
HOMESTEAD 5
129.000
1,860
2.509
s CAPTURED TAX CAPACITY
ESTIMATED TAX INCREMENT
49-,000 6,320 8,525
4,74S-,--
6.401 '
2W
342 PO4 NOV 82194 15:38
PHASE 1
PRASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
CONSTRUCTION
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
VALUATION
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
TAXATION
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR S
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
FACH PHASE CONSISTS OF
HOMESTEADS 1
— 5
ADMIN /PROGRA`l FEES
10.00%
INFLATION
0.00
PAY 1994 TAX RATE
1.34895
HOMESTEAD CLASS RATES
<72.000
MARKET VALUF
1.002
02,000
MARKET VALUE
2.00%
2W
342 PO4 NOV 82194 15:38
FJ
all
'A
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 4, 1994 1'
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of the HRA �I
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review Recommendation on Conveyance of Right -of-
Way Along 8280 East River Road N.E.
Anoka County would like to obtain a 27 foot wide strip along the
property located at 8280 East River Road N.E. which was purchased
by the HRA as part of its scattered -site acquisition program in
May 1994. According to John Flora, Public Works Director, it is
typical City policy to convey right -of -way needed by Anoka County
or the Minnesota Department of Transportation at no cost. The
Mississippi street improvement project is an example where the
HRA has been involved and conveyed the required right -of -way to
Anoka County at no cost.-
Anoka County intends to continue its improvement of East River
Road in the next two to three years. Anoka County is preparing
to complete the second phase of the improvement project on East
River Road between Hartman Circle and Glen Creek Road in 1995.
The final phase of the improvement project extends from Rickard
Road to the municipal boundaries. Anoka County is proposing to
create medians and protected turning lanes which results in the
need to widen the roadway on either side of the street.
The lot area of 8280 East River Road N.E. prior to the taking is
approximately 18,000 square feet. Conveyance of the right -of -way
would result in subtraction of 2,970 square feet.
Recommendation
Unless otherwise directed, staff will request the Executive
Director to sign the necessary documents to convey the requested
right -of -way to Anoka County.
BD /dw
M -94 -632
04
i
/ 0
-- r
o
8280
T RIVER RD.
�
'
`
•
W %tZG FChtCL-
�I.O
\A1060
FEACC -,
a
i
/ 0
-- r
o
�
h
Q
M
s-
m
g
_
> A
J
15,730
s:f.
�..
r
Ic
Z
ap
.�
At
J
Right
of Way
n
s
C.. C
�.0
Ir
`MMc
E
y -
0 M
/
:Q
m
2
y
c
to -C
m r-
m
xmQ
o
z°
-{
> . A.
r
�
Oc
n o -�
r�
�Y
i
TO: FRIDLEY H.R.A
FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY
RE: BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES
OCT 1994
ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
COMPUTER OVERHEAD
(For Micro & Mini computers)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
OPERATING EXPENSES:
US WEST — TELEPHONE SERVICE
INSURANCE — NON PERSONNEL ALLOC SEP 94
INSURANCE — NON PERSONNEL ALLOC SEP 94
INSURANCE — NON PERSONNEL ALLOC AUG 94
Account #'s for
HRA's Use
460-0000-430-4107
Account Ws for
City's Use
14.687.00 101-0000-341-1200
103.00 101-0000-336-3000
194.00 101-0000-336-3000
460-0000-430--4332
13.35
236-0000-336-3000
460-0000-430-4336
48700
236-!0000-336-3000
450-0000-43.0-4336
16.CO
236- 0000-3367w00
-455-00()0-430-4336
33.00 3
236==-336
262.- 0000 219 1002
C
23 092
CITY DENTAL INS Sept & Oct:!L
262-
1
236 -0000= 219 - 1100
CITY OF FRIDLEY — LIFE INS, Sept& Oct
262- 0000 -219 --1200
TOTAL BENEFITS EXPENSES: 49.56
TOTAL EXPENDITURES —
Fit :jlWDATAWRA%TMlLUNG.%*l Delaft
4
OCT 1994
TOTAL: OPERATING EXPENSES
BENEFITS EXPENSES:
CITY OF FRIDLEY.— HEALTHINS
262.- 0000 219 1002
0 00'�
23 092
CITY DENTAL INS Sept & Oct:!L
262-
41 Q6
236 -0000= 219 - 1100
CITY OF FRIDLEY — LIFE INS, Sept& Oct
262- 0000 -219 --1200
8.50
236-0000-219-1200
TOTAL BENEFITS EXPENSES: 49.56
TOTAL EXPENDITURES —
Fit :jlWDATAWRA%TMlLUNG.%*l Delaft
4
OCT 1994
v o .
P •
•
O ■
P
•
c9 •
■
W O Lu •
c9 O W •
•
■
■
■
< m .
■
W
d 11 .
■
d z
IS
ca I.-
z c ■
►-
■
I.-
Z W •
■
Me
■
■
- �: -■ zu
■
H ■
t
■
V •
■
W •
■
O
•
■
d'
■
d ■
n
O
0, W7 I'S WtdSZ2 -
t7
•
■
•
d�O�rZJZZOCd�
U1 K ! p
r
Mp�c7�aW
■ON OC 5cW50010
•
.
'>
<mlC�
. • • I$., -a •�p..
.. •
• ; .
yy,,�� ��yy 1 :•, • - • • W O'1-- • - kill Cc
fA i u
Ro GFH
r
K
NO8 fWn mss C'Mazu .1.
•
p
• �TPO f�N00'W.6 Mf lt��f`
• PNOD u►O N co .
• �- M P tiWN -
•
■
■ N n. i r
i O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
• 000000000-p000p�.00
■ � x
Osee0,000�0000, =;�� �6 {i
Y � t
N A•
- .a— ONAAIVN,:r
O ■O .O in Y1 ■O �O P
i
m
- C H
.tvvvvv.tv.tvvvv . tvv', oc
A P P A A P A P A A A A A A A A-
CM y
O Co O O O O O O N MM MM 0 0 0 0-.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. ---.. - -
- N ,
c r
X.
F t • d l
�_
c9 •
• :
W W
us
K • OC ■
■
W
a °�
IS
SdL
I.-
ti = i
Lu
OC J ■
_ .W •
- �: -■ zu
r
r• <'r
ti
•
•
Z
W
n
•
N O : H
U1 K ! p
r
O
•
C3
fA i u
r
K
r •
x
•
p
W Y i
J
.
��(JJJ
us
IY l W
d d Y.,
• �TPO f�N00'W.6 Mf lt��f`
• PNOD u►O N co .
• �- M P tiWN -
•
■
■ N n. i r
i O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
• 000000000-p000p�.00
■ � x
Osee0,000�0000, =;�� �6 {i
Y � t
N A•
- .a— ONAAIVN,:r
O ■O .O in Y1 ■O �O P
i
m
- C H
.tvvvvv.tv.tvvvv . tvv', oc
A P P A A P A P A A A A A A A A-
CM y
O Co O O O O O O N MM MM 0 0 0 0-.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. ---.. - -
- N ,
c r
X.
¢,_ X
P
t
r
p2YY
5 000d�sNC
1
1
tu
t
1
i
a
1
t
t
1
1
1
t
1
t
1
t
t
t
1
t
t
1
t
t
t
1
t
t
2
O.
i
d
1
i
V
t
{U1i1
'
t
i
O
W
�
.
a �
1
1
8
t
\ t
P .
CC
P .
O 1 ]C
K
uj d
r . W
m
N
Ov. i 522
IA
t
U
P t
W
P 1
S
�
$ .
F
d
1
OC t
t
t
t
i
t
1
i
t
i
1
i
t
�
1
1
�
�
1
�
1
i
r t
�
z t
W 1
gW i
per.
O:
i
OCO
P
p�
0 i
K /
yZj i
>
P
1
p t
1
I
z t
1
3 C,
\ Ln
1
1
P
P
t
t
1
I
S t
t
1
1
.1I1
K OC
car1
0 t W
Q 1
IL d
W t
I
.(W!�Mpp I�C.99 1�
r4a;tZim�pMOO N
Plfl tflP ap NM
m M N
P P
P
M M M M M AP M
N N N N N N N
vvvvvvvv
O.PPO.O.O.OI i�.
P P P P P P P r
r P P P P P P P
t
J zeU Nz Q
t7 m 0 m Z W O
r{yy ULU r
r•+ O2 1 LU
zr O� Jr Z
'A
8W F KZ
W... FE7E 80 Qo
US O y�� pJ
2_ I -arOS
p2YY
5 000d�sNC
M M M M M AP M
N N N N N N N
vvvvvvvv
O.PPO.O.O.OI i�.
P P P P P P P r
r P P P P P P P
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 3, 1994 0-
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA 4
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Follow -up to HRA Questions - Concerning Home Improvement
Grant Program Contract with ACCAP
At the September 8, 1994 HRA meeting several commissioners
questioned staff about the contract with Anoka County Community
Action Program, Inc. ( ACCAP) for administration of the Home
Improvement Grant Program. Grant.Fernelius has.-prepared
responses to the questions below.
Question: Commissioner Commers inquired if.the HRA could pay
ACCAP more than the five (5) percent allowed under
the HOME program?
Response: According to JoAnn Wright at Anoka County, the HRA
may pay ACCAP whatever amount it determines to-be.
just compensation for the services rendered.
However, only 50 of the HOME funds may be used for
administration purposes. ACCAP and staff agreed
that 11 %.of the total budget ($87,500) -or--
$9,625 was an acceptable fee. Further,`the HRA
would need to cover the cost differential of
$5,250. _
Question: Commissioner Schnabel inquired if the
administration fee is influenced by the actual
grant amount?
Response: No. The amount of administration is based on
a flat fee not to exceed $9,625. Whether they
process 15 grant or 20 grants, ACCAP can charge
up to $9,625 for their time and materials.
Any costs above this amount they would have to
pay.
Follow -up to HRA Rehab Questions
November 3, 1994
Page 2
Question: Commissioner Commers inquired as to which other
communities contract with ACCAP and what amounts
do they pay?
Response: With the exception of Columbia Heights, all 19
cities allow the County to contract with ACCAP on
their behalf. This year, Anoka County
has an agreement with ACCAP to administer the
program for $64,051 or 21% of the total rehab
budget of $291,154.
(This figure compares with ilk of the Fridley
budget.) -
Question: Commissioner Schnabel requested staff provide
some examples as to what type of work is done
under this program and who benefits?
Response: Attached is a summary of the program, year -to-
date. The report shows budget (both HOME
and CDBG) and demographic data for 1993 and
1994 (YTD) .
Because this program is limited to addressing
code items, most repairs focus on basic
health and safety, structural or mechanical
areas. The most of the common repairs include:.
1) Roof replacement
2 ) Window and door replacement
3) Re- siding
4) Furnace and water heater replacement
5) Minor electrical and plumbing (GFI's, back
flow preventors, etc.) repairs.
We hope this addresses the concerns of the HRA. We would be glad
to answer additional questions at the November meeting.
\HOUSING \MISC \HRARESPO
5A
A
Home Improvement Grant Program
Summary
I. Number of Applications
a) Received
b) Approved
c) Withdrawn
d) Denied
e) Waiting List
II. Budget
a) Funds Budgeted
b) Funds Spent
c) Average Grant Amount
III. Household Demographics
a) Average Household Size
b) Average Age of Household Head
c) Average Household Income
d) Percent of Female Heads of Household
e) Average of Age of House
f) Average Length of Residency
Notes:
1993
1994
26
35
13
23
10
1
.3
4
0
7
$269,030
$330,554
$131,332
$154,150
$10,102
$11,587
1.3
2.1
49
52
$11,085
$13,660
61%
67%
40 years
41 years
14 years
17 years
* — Includes 1993 HOME funds ($87,500) and portion of 1992 HOME funds ($30,900).
M
CITY AREA NUMBER PROJECT BUDGET GOAL
Multicity 465 Alexandra House Development $4,500 3
Contribution to construction of new
shelter for battered women and their
children. For security, site not given.
570.201(c)
Multicity 499 Area III /IV Unallocated $12,024
County 451 General Administration 128,192 7
Overall management of the CDBG
Program including planning, applications,
financial, contract, compliance and
reporting. 570.206
County 452 .Economic Development Planning $75,000 7
Studies, analyses, data gathering,
preparation of plans, and identification of
actions to implement plans which will
improve the economic development
climate in Anoka County.
570.205(a)(3)
*:ounty 453 County -wide Housing Rehabilitation $291,154
Rehabilitation of housing owned and
occupied by low income households. The
program is available county -wide with
dedication of resources by target areas
within the County. The County
anticipates availability of approximately
$20,000 in program income resulting
from sales of rehabilitated, properties. _
This additional funding will also be used
for rehabilitation projects. 570.202
SOURCES: 1994 CDBG GRANT
$1,938,000
CARRY - FORWARD FROM 1993
$_0_
ESTIMATED PROGRAM INCOME
$300,000
TOTAL REVENUE
$2,238,000
USES BY HUD PUBLIC SERVICES
$314,924
12.58%
CATEGORY: PLANNING /ADMINISTRATION
$313,953
12.54%
SERVING LOW /MOD
88.00%
" SLUM /BLIGHT ACTIVITIES
$246,457
11.00%
UNALLOCATED /CONTINGENCY
$34,684
1.00%
-11-
5C
2. Commissioner McCarron made motion authorizing the Division Manager of Governmental
Services to execute the 1994 Subgrantee Agreements supporting the 1994 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as it was approved for submission to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development on May 10, 1994, subject to review by the
County Attorney as to form and legality. Commissioner Burman seconded the motion. Upon roll
call vote, Commissioners Langfeld, Erhart, McCauley, McCarron, Kordiak, Berg and Burman voted
"yes." Motion carried.
3. 1Commissioner McCarron made motion authorizing execution of a contract with the Anoka County
Community Action Program to administer the 1994 CDBG housing rehabilitation projects (not.
including Columbia Heights and the City of Fridley which will be under separate agreements) with
payment for time and materials not to exceed $64,051, subject to review by the County Attorney
as to form and legality. - Commissioner McCauley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote,
Commissioners Erhart, McCauley, McCarron, Kordiak; Berg, Burman and Langfeld voted "yes."
Motion carried.
4. Commissioner Kordiak made motion authorizing execution of a three -party subgrantee agreement
with Anoka County Community Action Program. and the City of Fridley HRA to administer the.
1994 CDBG. housing rehabilitation program in the City of Fridley; with administrative costs under .
the contract limited to actual time and materials not to exceed $17,446 and with the amount to
be used by either ACCAP or the Fridley HRA to be determined by mutual agreement between
those two agencies, subject to review by the County Attorney as to form and legality.
Commissioner McCarron seconded the motion. Upon roll cat! vote, Commissioners McCauley,
McCarron, Kordiak, Berg, Burman, Langfeld and Erhart voted "yes." Motion carried..
5. Commissioner Langfeld made motion authorizing reallocation of the following 1992 CDBG project
balances to County -wide housing rehabilitation, with the funds to be dedicated to the "target area"
which includes the community from which the balance is drawn, subject to review by the County
Attorney as to form and legality.
5D
b
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 3`
has also set caps on how we can do that and, after the most
recent referendums, the legislature took half the money back.
The schools have some difficult financial situations. The ey
is important. For the Fridley school district, the amount f
$230,000 is the equivalent of about 7 -8 teaching positio That
allows the school district to hire 4% of teaching staff That
has a significant impact on the district. The impact the
other districts is not as great, but is no less sign' icant.
3) Entering into the agreement is consistent /est the HRA's
goals and objectives. As a redevelopment ority, your
concern is to deal with blight and dilapi housing. We
at the school district believe that the ay to keep the
community strong is through a strong s ool system -. He
serves on the Southern Anoka County sortium where we'are
trying to deal with all that is occ ring in our
communities. A key element to us ' to keep the people in
our community who reside here. r goal is for Fridley
schools to have the same.reput on as the school district
in Edina. We believe our sch s are as good but we do not
have that reputation. If we a.ve good quality schools, good
quality people living here nd good quality people wanting
to.live here, people who ve here will want to stay where
they are and will want improve and upgrade their homes.
They think this is con stent with the goals of.the HRA.
Mr. Newman stated the sc of districts encourage the HRA to enter
into this agreement wh' has a very significant, positive impact
for the schools.
Mr. Commers asked Iffat the most recent referendums were to the
school districts at were approved.
Mr. Newman staAd a referendum was approved in 1992 for Fridley
and 1991 in 28lumbia Heights.
Mr. /Holt ted the last referendu m approved for District #16 was
in MOT. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the
ref evy return agreements for the year 1995.
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SERVICE CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION
PROJECTS FINANCED BY HOME FUNDS
Ms. Dacy stated the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) contract
is a Federal program_ Unlike the CDBG program, there is a
5E
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 4
t
different set of rules. Under the CDBG program; it is allowed to
take all of the administrative expenses of that allocation we get.
from the Federal government. With the HOME program, there is a
5% maximum amount for administrative use. In order to administer
this grant program, one year ago when they initiated this effort,
staff recommended we contract from ACCAP to complete the
inspections, work with the home owners, help them complete the
necessary bids from the contractors and work with them to
complete the process. ACCAP is also very familiar with the
Federal guidelines in terms of income requirements, Davis -Bacon
rules in regards to the contractors, etc. The City has found
ACCAP to be very efficient and to complete the program as
expected. The HOME program was applied for by the HRA. In order
to meet that 11% service contract, 5% can be paid out of the HOME
allocation received. That leaves the remainder of $5,250. The
HRA did budget a matching amount so there are adequate funds to
cover this expense. Staff recommends approval of the service
contract.
Mr. Commers stated he did not recall having to pay this amount in
the past.
Ms. Dacy stated they had not paid this before. We are just
beginning to final out the HOME funds that were allocated last
year. Apparently, the. 5% maximum amount did not appear in last
year's contract. To her knowledge, this is a new requirement.
Mr. Commers asked how we know we can legally exceed the limits
they put on the program.
Ms. Dacy stated it is not so much that we can exceed their
amount. What they are saying is that whatever it takes to
administer the contract is fine, but however much money - -is spent
as administrative expenses cannot exceed 5 %.
Ms. Dacy stated it was not her understanding.that this was the
case. She will contact Anoka County to verify this, and she
would do so before signing the contract.
Mr. Commers stated staff is asking the HRA to exceed their budget
by $5,250.
Ms. Dacy stated this was correct.
Mr. Commers asked how many inspections were done.
5F
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 5
Ms. Dacy stated ACCAP administers all of the grants through the
CDBG and HOME program. In the monthly report, there was
approximately 23 applications received and 20 applications were
approved. Those applications are funded out of CDBG and the HOME
programs are then allocated to the ones that come from - specific
neighborhood areas. ACCAP organizes the total grant for both
CDBG and HOME grants. They are working on at least 20 cases at
one time. Last year, she thought they had the same amount of
applications.
Mr. Commers asked, out of all the applications in Fridley that
they did, they had 20 approved, how many are CDBG.
Ms. Dacy stated for the majority, because of the amount received
is $70,000 and the match of $15,000, we can issue a grant up._to
$15,000 each. So, the HOME funds would be paying anywhere from
three to five recipients and CDBG would be paying for the
remainder. Because the program is set up in terms of the loan
.amount, Mr. Fernelius puts them all in one category. The HOME
fund has a maximum amount.
Mr-. Burns stated 11% of the total is $9,625. Divide that amount
by 5 applications, the maximum amount is under.$2,000 per
application for the administrative fee. It would be more
expensive if there were only.3 applications.
Ms. Dacy stated ACCAP is meeting with the owners, doing
preliminary and final inspections, helping solicit the
contractors, and going to the County to do the title check. If
it is a contract for deed, they need to track down the original
owners and contract for deed holder.
Ms. Schnabel stated, if the applicant is receiving the-maximum of
$15,000 and the administrative fee is $1,900, the fee is more
than 11 %.
Ms. Dacy stated they have a $70,000 allocation on HOME, the
matching is $17,500, for a total of $87,500. 11% of this amount
is $9,625. Subtract 5% of the $87,500 from $9,625 leaves just
more than half. Not all the loans come in at $11,000 to $15,000.
Some loans are $3,000 or $4,000.
Ms. Dacy stated this was correct.
Mr. Commers asked if other communities are paying ACCAP over and
above what the program allows.
5G
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG. , SEPTEMBER 8 1994 PAGE 6
Ms. Dacy stated, to her knowledge, Fridley is the only one that
is allocating a significant amount for this purpose. The County
does administer its own county -based program. The County itself
is paying ACCAP 11 %. Her concern is that, if the City is to be
doing this in- house, Mr. Fernelius would be doing this.. full time
and could not do anything else. The question is whether there is
another company that can perform the same service at this cost.
Mr. Commers asked what other communities were doing.
Ms. Dacy stated most communities defer to Anoka County to do this
out of their funding for housing rehab. She is not aware of any
other type of approach in terms of the Federal grant .program.
Mr. Commers stated perhaps they should rethink whether they -want
to put money into that program and use the. funds somewhere else.
Ms. Dacy stated they may want to rethink that because of where
the money is coming from. The money is coming from the Federal
government and, after 4 -5 years, it is essentially forgiven if
the owner stays in the home. It is the most successful program
because it serves the low income people, there is a need there;
and it gets improvement to the housing.
Mr. Prairie asked if the Fridley. program overlaps the County
program. Or would they be apt to do less because the City has a
program and others do not.
Ms. Dacy stated no.
Mr. Burns stated the County promised the City that our special
programs would not supplant their program effort.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the HRA had done this program in the past.
Ms. Dacy stated the HRA did this program last-year. The issue of
the administrative fee is new.
Ms. Schnabel requested that Mr. Fernelius provide the HRA with_
ast year.
Ms. Dacy stated that anyone that applied for the pre-screening
round last year and met the requirements, staff tried to use the
5H
, ,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 PAGE 7
CDBG funds to fund those pre- screening applicants and then, when
they were out of CDBG funds, used HOME.funds. The programs are
essentially the same in terms of their requirements. This is
just another pot of money from which to pull funds.
Mr. McFarland asked if ACCAP also received 50 last year.
Ms. Dacy stated ACCAP administered both programs for 10 %. The
Federal government on the HOME monies is saying 5% is the maximum
for administrative fees so there is a 6% gap to administer the
program.
Mr_ Commers asked staff to check to make sure they can legally
exceed the cap. This could be an issue.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr_ McFarland, to approve the
shortfall of $5,250 for the administrative fees to ACCAP under
the Cranston - Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, contingent
upon legal counsel saying the HRA can exceed the guidelines set
by the government.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONNERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF-ACQUISITION,
FOR 677 HUGO STREET N.E.
AND 683 GLENCOE STREET
t
Ms. Dacy stated these are new acquisitions. Staff has'no `.,
additional information and is asking the HRA to authorized -the
Executive Director to enter into a purchase agreement. Staff.may
be back with a lease agreement for 683 Glencoe to- 'allow the
current owner to lease the existing garage until -he can make
other arrangements. -v
MOTION by Mr. McFarland ,. seconded by:.Mr x, ra rie,;to''approye
authorize the Executive Director o_enter:`into purchase_
` r
agreements for 677 Hugo Street,N.E. for..`$43,000;-:and 683.Glencoe
Street N.E. for $18,000.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL'-VOTING- AYE, CHAIRPERSON 'COMMERS'DECLARED
r E
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.`
4. _CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT REDEVELOPMENT
Mr. Commers stated a proposed Request for
was included in the agenda. On page 3 of
Development Goals, item #1 talks about owi
with a minimum value of.$80,000. Part of
try to get as nice of a development as we
approach this by setting a higher minimum
51
Qualifications (RFQ)
the RFQ under Proposed
zer occupied townhomes
the discussion was to '
can. Perhaps we should
value and see what
i
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 3, 1994
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA /
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius,• Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Summary of Demolition Bids for Scattered Site -
Acquisition Properties
On October 21, 1994 staff received quotes for the demolition of
three homes acquired under the scattered site program. A total
of five contractors were notified of the project and four
submitted bids. The properties to be demolished are located at
550 and 677 Hugo St. and 683 Glencoe St.
The lowest responsible bid was submitted by Ray Anderson and
Sons, St. Paul, MN for a total of $7,700. At your direction, we
have executed a contract to begin work as soon as possible. The
demolition work should be completed by mid - November with final
grading in the spring.
\SCATTRD \BIDSUMM
20
E
0
U
Mill
t� -p
V m
� U
M '�^
48 r-
0 VJ
E
0
0
�
2
+r
V c
O
N
CL
U 0-
O
1p
Z
� U
U
Q N
C
�
2
N
c
N
EO
E
L
O
E
CO
c�
U N
Cl) o
m
p
U
N_
T
_
F. � U 0c
�-U% O !n T Z T O
°6 .
0)
m� N U S -02 cd tt Ln
c + U) c > ® (� In (/1 �
N�ZO la >� •�n-ZN p 00 -0 ANZ�
8.41 QC ova� c� j a 0)o > - N �0.m 2)ap mo(D
� vo _
> o �O
c _8 ID mU a
to ° N
rn N >a: icmz (j 0_
6A
0
0
.•
+r
co
co
co
N
N
cn
c
c
�
c
c
c
c
m
m
m
m
Q
co
m
m
m
o°
0
0
0
LO
LO
U)
U)
O
O
00
W
lQ
VZ
Q
T
T
60
6
m
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
Z
Q]
[0)
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
L
E
�
,J
L
OL
=
O
CC
L
U
C
c
cr.
!n
0
Y
N_
T
_
F. � U 0c
�-U% O !n T Z T O
°6 .
0)
m� N U S -02 cd tt Ln
c + U) c > ® (� In (/1 �
N�ZO la >� •�n-ZN p 00 -0 ANZ�
8.41 QC ova� c� j a 0)o > - N �0.m 2)ap mo(D
� vo _
> o �O
c _8 ID mU a
to ° N
rn N >a: icmz (j 0_
6A
N
Is
O
of 0
°ate
td a�i o
- '�
'- I .> .0
O
f4
OG 0% H
� v
N
O
to
7
4J
-H
0
U
?+
O
U
x
O
A
O
b
P4
N
N
O
W
N
i-)
cd
$4
N
'H
N
N cd
rd p
r-I-I O
�w
s~
9�
1
aNi
41
O
z
rd
+l 0
-rl W
a� x
O
N
N a
ru to
O N
w (1) 0 Cd
0
O
O
O
O
O
�1t
O
O
In
U)
O
0
N
U N
O
>~
�
H RS iI
� H
O
O
a� ca
a
>1 N
d�
O N
?i
l4
H
ty% N
+1
Or -I U -�H
U'
r
O
444
•-ll
�>~
4-)
o
0 w
U
�
c n
N 4-)
Q
H
H
N
O 3
Is
�
�
LO
t3l (0
-r
N
O
O N
O
nor-
W
r07
M
N O -
OD
n o
H �
r
s]-
ra -
�
V-4
V-4 •
OA
V 1
t/} k
V
O 9 0
v
rd 0
0
ON
r-i En
N P4
(d 010
-H
00
o
OO
AXIS
fli
(D
a
00
• -(v
(0 4 (D
NM
v
f0-1
b
rc$
N cd
�N
N
O
4J
N >4 l~
4-) N
-H
cn
d'
N
0 $4W
A
N
W
o
ca
�o a H
o
0
U o -r-I rl
to
cad
rd
tooW
-V
0 )i
mw 0
H
>
H
1 H �
04
O
t`
$l 4J b
a
m
N
N W.1
P4
O
0
WfaN
W
-'i W N
N -H cd
x
r40::l
GWA
b
m
>
>
14
O
•rl
N
In
p0
H
O
iQ'i
N
U
U
P4
a
�
a
a
7
4J
-H
0
U
?+
O
U
x
O
A
O
b
P4
N
N
O
W
N
i-)
cd
$4
N
'H
N
N cd
rd p
r-I-I O
�w
s~
9�
1
aNi
41
O
z
O -r1
W d
$4b
O 0
O
r
4-1
b (1)
AZf
�1t
O
O
In
U)
O
0
O
�
� H
-r4
?+
ty% N
+1
r
O
444
•-ll
o
0 w
U
�
c n
0.0
H
H
N
�
�
LO
O N
O
O
H �
OA
V
0
ON
(d 010
00
OO
a
(d
(0 4 (D
v
rc$
�N
O
V
4-) N
-H
d'
W
Np cd r�I
O
W
o
a 0)
cad
rq
mw 0
H
>
H
$l 4J b
a
m
N
0
WfaN
W
0
N -H cd
x
GWA
m
>
14
•rl
In
p0
M
O
N
U
a
�
a
7
4J
-H
0
U
?+
O
U
x
O
A
O
b
P4
N
N
O
W
N
i-)
cd
$4
N
'H
N
N cd
rd p
r-I-I O
�w
s~
9�
1
aNi
41
O
z
tr
O ,3
N
P4
q m
Oa
iJ
to
4
''.1
t)
a�
t3+ O1
m
O
m
rn
1
Cl)
1
0
O
E-4
v
rd
W
b
1~
NOW
4J O
O O N
U) •rl
��AS
-� 0
� a) a
U
?,•r -I ?1
aONw
-� a) cd tr
A m t3+ 4
CO
014 m w
-r1 0 0 U
r-I $4 s~
w04mZ
U+ 0w
P $4 HW 0
P4 0) x >I-�
?i cd W N
(1) O . 4��00
.,
.r� td x
td O tV 9 ,(6
U a) o � (n
riO N
+J - 4.) r.
P4 4-)Vr-I
N
p A >1
m .,i w m ,�
-f-1 w O
-r1 O a) 9 �
U v9i co 0
4-) 1~9-4N to rd
N 0 0)
a) rl�UA
-H bl-.l rd 4
�E: 0 x 0 tr
rn p � 0'p
ON O 4
a,
0 w
P4 a
O
0
tr
U -,i 11
go N
� o
t� M
a �
O
0 °
r-I43 'd'
m m H
00
H- O
41 O
rl O
4-) CO
V 4J
-rl
4 H
tr
r.
.rq
�i
0 N
4
O
z
N
P
G.
w
N
U
N
N
O
3
U
(d�
m
14 to
w0
rdto rd
0� A
r4m1
0 a)
CC 44
O
°
o
o
o
o
CV
to
(1)kQa
q
(d W a)
O
O
.�
>1
a
o
V
0
°�
iR
O
-.>
W
..)
kLO r.
.N
N
a)
00aa)
N
V
•rq
(1)
°
� $
W
r -1 N
01a—k
0 C 3
H �
0 Cd
4)
(0N) O.1 �
O
.0 $4 kb
�
�
U
9
q a) m
rd
to
0
94 °
>
a
4-)
Q)PkV,
to
a sw•r-1
m
-N
k 0 0 0
O
a)
to
0
N
4 U
V
q
CO $4�
a)
-
U
Q
N3�9
(0
a)
�
tr
a a)
w
N
0
to o
rl�
x
W oxrc%
rd
a►
a
a
P4
a
rd
W
b
1~
NOW
4J O
O O N
U) •rl
��AS
-� 0
� a) a
U
?,•r -I ?1
aONw
-� a) cd tr
A m t3+ 4
CO
014 m w
-r1 0 0 U
r-I $4 s~
w04mZ
U+ 0w
P $4 HW 0
P4 0) x >I-�
?i cd W N
(1) O . 4��00
.,
.r� td x
td O tV 9 ,(6
U a) o � (n
riO N
+J - 4.) r.
P4 4-)Vr-I
N
p A >1
m .,i w m ,�
-f-1 w O
-r1 O a) 9 �
U v9i co 0
4-) 1~9-4N to rd
N 0 0)
a) rl�UA
-H bl-.l rd 4
�E: 0 x 0 tr
rn p � 0'p
ON O 4
a,
0 w
P4 a
O
0
tr
U -,i 11
go N
� o
t� M
a �
O
0 °
r-I43 'd'
m m H
00
H- O
41 O
rl O
4-) CO
V 4J
-rl
4 H
tr
r.
.rq
�i
0 N
4
O
z
N
P
G.
w
N
U
N
N
O
3
U
N
6 = Community Development Department
D HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 4, 1994
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of the HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Update on Anoka County HRA
Chairperson Commers, myself, and the City.Council attended an
informational meeting conducted by Anoka County on Thursday,
September 20, 1994 about a potential Anoka County Housing &
Redevelopment Authority. County Commissioner McCarron
facilitated the meeting. Approximately-25 - 30 individuals from
Anoka County communities were in attendance. The purpose of the
meeting was to discover thee- concerns and questions Anoka County
communities would have about a County Authority. Commissioner
McCarron indicated that the County wants to.create a County.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority to address housing issues and
needs.,
There were a number of questions relating to the powers of a
County HRA and how they would interact with local HRA's. Clear
answers were not provided by the County. Jim Casserly is doing
additional research to answer any questions that the HRA or the -
City Council may have. Jim will have a written opinion at
Thursday's meeting. --
The County has decided to create an advisory committee and a
technical advisory committee regarding this issue. They have
asked each community to identify an elected official and a staff
member to participate on the committees. The City Council has
selected Councilmember Steve Billings as the delegate to the
advisory committee and myself to serve as the staff liaison to
the technical subcommittee. The first meeting will probably
occur in December.
Progress reports on the advisory committee meetings will be
provided to the HRA. No action is needed by the HRA at -this
time.
BD /dw
M -94 -634
rJAN
CIlYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571 -3450 • FAX (612) 571 -1287
October 6, 1994
Mr. Tim Yantos
Deputy County Administrator
Anoka. County Government Center
2100 Third Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303 -2489
Dear Mr. Yantos:
The Fridley City Council has asked me to advise that they have selected Councilmember
Steven E. Billings as delegate and Councilmember Dennis L. Schneider as alternate to the
Anoka County HRA Advisory Committee. They have also selected Barbara Dacy,
Community Development Director for the City of Fridley, to serve as the staff liaison to
the technical sub - committee.
We look forward to working with other representatives of Anoka County's municipalities
on this venture.
Sincerely,
V4&4 11-10444-7�
William W. Burns
City Manager
WWB:rsc
r _
Community Development Department
PI,AmaNG DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager
FROM: _/ Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Pros and Cons of an Anoka County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Background
To follow is a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
a County Housing & Redevelopment Authority. Hopefully, this
information will be useful for the Councilmembers in anticipation
of next Tuesday's meeting.
Tim Yantos, Deputy Administrator for the County, advised me that
this issue has been a concern of the County since 1978. Special
legislation was adopted in 1978 to create an Anoka County HRA;
however, the County Board did not pass a resolution to formally
activate the HRA. In order to activate the HRA, the Board needs
to pass a resolution based on the following findings:
1. "There exists within the County substandard, slum, or
blighted areas which cannot be redeveloped without
government assistance, or
2. There exists in the County a shortage of decent, safe,
and sanitary dwellings and accommodations available to
persons and their families of low.income at rents they
cannot afford."
Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc., in a report dated December 1,
1993 for the Anoka County Board, provided an analysis on the
housing needs for Anoka County, and also provided an iriventory of
other programs conducted by the Dakota County and Washington County
Housing & Redevelopment Authorities. A brief summary of the
Fridley HRA housing & rehab programs was also included.
Representatives from Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. met with
the City Manager, Councilman Billings and staff on December 1, 1993
regarding the potential of a County HRA. The question to the
County at that meeting was to identify what benefits there would
be to the City of Fridley for establishing a County HRA.
William W. Burns
September 14, 1994
Page 2
The purpose of next Tuesdays Is meeting is to hear comments from
Anoka County communities regarding this issue. Most likely, other
communities will be asking the same question as did Councilmember
Billings. Yantos advised that the City might want to answer the
question: "What do you want the County to do ?"
Advantages of a County HRA
1. A County HRA could supplement housing programs in
cooperation with programs offered by Anoka County
communities.
2. Additional Federal programs could be made available
through the County HRA. Dakota and Washington Comities
are very aggressive with Federal programs.
3. The County HRA could implement housing programs similar
to ACCAP's, but only on a larger scale. Important in this
feature is the County's ability to tie social services
with a building's rehab needs.
4. A County HRA could administer a program which. could
benefit all communities at an.-economy of scale rather _.
than individual` communities repeating the same
programming function
5. A County HRA could administer the Section 8 program which
would not only provide a revenue source, but would also
provide better accountability to County communities.
6. The burden of addressing the housing needs of-the-County
is shared not only by the cities, but also by Anoka
County.
7. The County HRA has the same authority to sell bonds,
acquire -properties, or levy taxes as do municipal HRA'.s.
The County HRA becomes:.an additional revenue source to
address working needs::` =
Potential Concerns of a County HRA
1. Minnesota state statutes would empower the County HRA to
pass a levy applicable to Fridley properties if it is to
undertake housing programs in our city; however, HRA's
are authorized to levy a tax in an amount not exceeding
.01310 of taxable market value. to fund any of its
authorized activities. (If the Fridley HRA would levy
such a tax, it would amount to approximately
$150,000.00).
A-
William W. Burns
September 14, 1994
Page 3
Any programming conducted by the County within Fridley,
however, must be approved by the Fridley Housing &
Redevelopment Authority. It would be possible to have
two HRA levies in Fridley; one for the City and one for
the County.
2. Operating the Section 8 program has been successful for
Washington and Dakota counties; however, it may take some
time to develop a significant source of revenue to
provide a meaningful impact to the housing program. The
County should probably undertake a specific economic
analysis of this proposal prior to requesting that Anoka
County operate its own Section 8 program. Another
concern as a result of operating the Section 8 program
is the amount. of certificate and vouchers received from
the Federal government. It is not clear whether the
County would lose certificates and vouchers, or if it
would affect the distribution of certificates and
vouchers to other jurisdictions in the metro area.
I have discussed operation of the.Section 8 program with
Pat Wolfe if it were to be operated by the County instead
of the metro HRA. Pat sees a number of advantages for
the County to administer the program on a County basis
versus the current arrangement. In fact, the model that
she described would be comparable to "an inspection
bureau ", only on a County -wide basis. She believes that
there would be more financial accountability and better
enforcement of the Federal program if it were to 'be
administered at the County level.
3. Some communities in the County may believe- -that the
housing needs simply do not exist and the problems are
merely focused in one area. (Columbia Heights, Anoka and
Fridley). Some community staff people have questioned
.whether there is sufficient political cooperation between
the cities and the County to enable the County to
complete affordable housing projects within the County.
4. Concerns have also been raised in regards to how much
citizen participation would be permitted by the County
in establishing its housing priorities.
5. Joint power agreements between cities is another viable
alternative, versus creating another 'office in County
government.
Ji
William W. Burns
September 14, 1994
Page 4
I hope this is helpful for the Council. I have, made a copy of the
Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. report that was made available
to us in December.
Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.
BD:da
M -94 -552
J�
a° 0
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT .AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 4, 1994
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of the HRA AO
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Lake Pointe Marketing Update
Merrill Busch, the Executive Director, and myself have met with
four developers to date regarding the Lake Pointe site.
Additional meetings with developers and DTED are also being
planned.
We have met with Michelle Foster of Opus Corporation, Rent
Carlson from Ryan Companies, Mike Julius, Dick Strasburg, and Tom
Hauschild from Frauenshuh Companies, and Dave Jellison and Leslie
Jowett from MEPC American Properties. All agree that the timing
for development of the property is very good. All have indicated
that large blocks of office space in downtown Minneapolis do not
exist as they once did in the late 1980's. Further, office space
in the suburban markets is also becoming less readily available.
As a result of these meetings, we have heard the following:
1. Design criteria should be prepared for the buildings, if it
is anticipated that a number of users will occupy the
property. Each user will need to be assured that the
quality of architecture will be consistent throughout the
development.
2. The largest companies or the Fortune 500 companies are
pretty well settled in their "campus" sites. The demand for
Lake Pointe property may come from smaller sized companies
who are growing rapidly.
3. The types of companies to target are medical users,
financial services, banking, and insurance companies.
4. Frauenshuh Companies and MEPC American Properties were also
encouraging about the hotel /conference element of the
vision. While they agree that it is likely that this will
happen later in the development of the property, they
believe that this market is also recovering.
10
William W. Burns
November 4, 1994
Page 2
5. The need for additional information about the site has come
up during the course of these meetings including:
A. Location of executive housing in the north metro area.
B. Location of golf country clubs in the north metro area.
C. Availability of fiberoptic /high technology telephone
utilities, and
D. Soil conditions and environmental audits.
As a result of these meetings, it is apparent that the next level
of information about the site needs to be prepared including
completion of a Phase I audit, updating the boundary and
topographic survey for the property, obtaining more information
from the phone company about its ability to serve the property
for high tech users, and to prepare a map showing executive
housing sites in the north metro area. I have begun work on all
of these items, and hope to have them accomplished by the end of
the year.
BD:da
M -94 -633
10A
it P
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 1340015TH AVE_ N. MINNEAPOLIS_ MN 55441 612/559 -1423 FAX: 612/559 -2202
November 4, 1994
Ms. Barbara Dacy, AICP
Community Development Director
Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue
Fridley, W--55432-4383
RE: Proposal for Environmental Site Assessment for a 32.77 acre .:parcel in the
northwest quadrant of State Highway 65 and Interstate Highway 1 -694
Dear Barbara:
B.A. Liesch Associates, Inc. (,iesch) is pleased to present this proposal to conduct a
Phase One Environmental Site Assessment on the above - referenced property. We
understand that you desire a written report as soon as possible. We anticipate being able
to complete our work and provide a written report within three to four weeks of notice
to proceed.
1. Services to be provided for the environmental site assessment shall_ address to the
extent appropriate the following:
a . Visual on -site walk-over assessment at the referenced site, identifying
existing surface conditions and any obvious signs of contamination.
b. Visual survey of adjacent properties for current land use and any obvious
signs of contamination_
C. Contacts with state, county and city regulatory agencies to determine if any
environmental problems or spills have been reported on or adjacent to the
site under investigation_
d. Review of U.S.G.S. quadrangle map for location of pipelines and other
features which may potentially impact the property.
1'
1,'0 4,94 14: it V612 551 2202 B.A. LIESCH �uu3i�u4
Page 2
November 4, 1994
e_ Review available plans and specifications, drawings, site plans, surveys and
similar materials pertaining to the referenced site.
Review historic aerial photographs and Sanborn Maps (if available) .
g- Review of historic property records made available to us by you or the
properly owner.
2- Liesch will prepare and submit a written report summarizing the factual fmdings
of the assessment.
Any past environmental reports, site maps or other items of potential interest should be
Provided to Liesch for our review and inclusion in the Assessment_ Liesch will only
conduct the work necessary to complete the work above and would notify you
immediately if changes in the work plan were expected.
Rte anticipate a cost of $2,473 to complete the work outlined above. This proposal is
limited to performance of the defined services for your exclusive use. Also, the proposal
and estimate are subject to revision should the services be redefined or should additional
services or alternative reports be requested. This proposal does not include cost estimates
for screening geotechnical soil samples When you have selected a firm to conduct
geotechnical work and the sampling parameters are defined, Liesch would be happy to
that provide cost estimates for at work.
Thant: you for calling and giving us the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Please.call if you have any questions. _- --
Sincerely,
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kirk Davis ~ ~—
Attachment
B-A_ LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC_ 13400 15TH AV
OU 11TH MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441
z X1%0/ 94 14:32--v
.1 V612 559 2202 B.A. LIESCH [1004/004
ATTACHIVIENT I
OPINION OF EXPECTED COSTS
PHASE ONE SITE ASSESSMENT
STAFFING SUMMARY
Tas F Mme. . Prof. Tech_ See.
Walk over survey 3
File search 4
Property records search
and interviews 5
Report preparation 2 10 6 _3
Total Hours 2 22 6 3
Professional Fees:
Project Manager/Engineer (P -M -E -) 2 Hours @ $104.00 /1Ir. $208
Professional (Prof.) 22 Hours @ $70.00 /Hr. $1,$40
Technician) (Tech.) b Hours @ $32.00/Hr. $192
Secretarial (Sec.) 3 Hours Cdr $31.00 /Hr- $9'
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL FEES: $2,033
Direct Costs:
MPCA & County File Searches $130
Miscellaneous (mileage /copying costs /aerial photographs) 310
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS: $440
TOTAL FEES & COSTS: $2,473
maw:bdltrl 10494.wp/GO
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 1340015TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
10D
���-- Community Development Department
L� HoUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: November 4, 1994
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of the HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Update on ACCAP Applications for MHFA Funding
Steve Klein from ACCAP notified me that the acquisition-and---
rehabilitation application to MHFA for the apartment buildings in
Hyde Park was approved as submitted. Steve Klein, Jim Casserly,
and myself will be meeting in the near future to workout the
details of the rehabilitation assistance that was authorized by
the HRA. We will keep the HRA apprised as we move through that
process.
As you recall, ACCAP also decided to not pursue an application
for the two four - plexes on Channel Road and instead filed an
application to acquire and rehabilitate a four -plex at 380 — 57th
Place. The application for the four -plex at 380 - 57th;�;.Place was
approved for a transitional housing project by MHFA. MHFA,``
however, approved it only on the basis that it be owned by a
public /government entity. Apparently, MHFA could not fund the
application out of the original program that was sought by ACCAP.
Funding had been exhausted for that program. MHFA is willing,
however, to fund the acquisition and rehabilitation under a
different program, but -the program requires public /local
government ownership.
I advised Steve Klein that the Fridley HRA would prefer not to
own the building and that another government entity should own
the four -plex. Klein contacted Anoka County to determine if they
would be interested in owning it. Anoka County stated that it
would own and lease the project to ACCAP only if the City of
Fridley HRA and City Council requested it by a resolution.
I will be scheduling City Council consideration of a resolution
at its November 21, 1994 City Council meeting. If approved by
the City Council, a similar resolution will be presented to the
HRA for approval at its regular December meeting.
No action is needed on this item at this time.
BD /dw
M -94 -675
TO: BARB<DACYj COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: RICK PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CRAIG ELLESTAD, ACCOUNTANT
SUBJECT: HRA PROPERTY TAXES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
After reviewing the draft memo from Jim Casserly, dated September
22, and a phone conversation with him today, we are in total
compliance with state statues regarding ad valorem property taxes
for properties the HRA leases.
In regards to the issue of whether the HRA should pay ad valorem
Property taxes on property that is leased to the City to operate a
.municipal liquor store, Minn. Stat. 469.040 addresses this
specifically.
Subd. 1. states "Declaration, essential public and
governmental purposes. The property of an authority
is public property used for essential public and
governmental purposes. The property and the
authority shall be exempt from all real and
personal property taxes for the city, the county,
the state, or any political subdivision thereof."
Therefore, the HRA does not owe any ad valorem property tax and we
have not paid any.
In regards to the issue of whether the HRA should pay ad valorem
property taxes on property that is leased to private individuals or
corporations, Minn. Stat. 272.01 addresses this specifically.
Subd. 2. (a) When any real or personal property
which is exempt from ad valorem taxes, and taxes in
lieu thereof, is leased, loaned, or otherwise made
available and used by a private individual,
association or corporation in connection with a
business conducted for profit, there shall be
imposed a tax, for the privilege of so using or
possessing such real or personal property, in the
same amount and to the same extent as though the
lessee or user was the owner of such property.
Therefore, the 2 properties the HRA leases out (DQ & Fast Lube)
must pay ad valorem property tax and they do.
CC: Bill Burns
cmroF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571 -3450 • FAX (612) 571 -1287
November 2, 1994
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph B. and Kathy Jo Fahey
5719 W. Moore Lake Drive
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Fahey:
Thank you for your letter dated October 12, 1994. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the
HRA in its October 24, 1994 packet. You have requested a copy of the plan for the realignment
of the West Moore Lake Drive intersection with Highway #65. I have enclosed a copy of a
concept plan of the realigned intersection.
According to your letter and phone calls, you have indicated an increase in noise from Highway
965 as a result of the removal of the Hedman house, which was originally located at 5701 West
Moore Lake. Drive. As you know, I visited your home on Friday, ,October 28, 1994, and walked
out on your rear deck to observe these conditions.
I have discussed this issue with the City Manager. We agree that upon removal of the Gunderson
home at 5707 West Moore Lake Drive next spring, that some type of noise barrier should be
installed. I am in the process of contacting a sound consultant to advise us as to the best options
available to address this issue. The costs for the sound consultant and the noise barrier must be
approved by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority. At this point in time, I do not have a
detailed plan or a cost estimate, but I will keep you apprised of our research. It is my hope to
recommend these expenditures as part of the 1995 budget.
Should you need any information or assistance while you attempt to sell your home, I would be
happy to meet with your realtor or prospective buyers.
Thank you once again for your letter, and I will be contacting you in the near future.
Very truly yours,
Barbara Dacy, A.I.C.P.
Community Development Director
cc: William W. Burns C -94 -287
TO
DATE: November 3, 1994
TO: Todd M. Stutz, The Rottlund Company, Inc.
FROM: William W. Burns, Executive Director
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
James Casserly; Attorney At Law
SUBJECT: RFQ Follow -Up Questions
Thank you for your response to the City of Fridley's RFQ for the
Southwest Quadrant of the Mississippi Street and University
Avenue intersection. The City Council and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority reviewed the responses to the RFQ at
their joint meeting on October 24, 1994. It was originally
intended that two developers would be selected for additional
interviews by _ staff. Because three responses were received, the:.
City Council and the HRA directed us to obtain additional
information from all three responders in order to select the
developer for the redevelopment project.
Please respond to the following questions by 4:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, November 23, 1994:
1. The City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and
the Planning Commission have developed "Design Guidelines"
for the site plan and building exteriors (guidelines
attached). Please review the guidelines and tell us what
problems, if any, do the guidelines present in relation to
your products and design for the site.
2. The City Council and HRA have decided that a senior housing
element should be part of the redevelopment, and should be
located in the northeast corner of the site. A market rate
senior rental project is anticipated. The City would
consider a multi -story building up to a maximum of six
stories. How many senior units would you develop?
RFQ Fdllow -Up Questions
November 3, 1994
Page 2
3. The Council and HRA rejected the two concept designs of the
townhome units included in the Design Guidelines. Their
.comments indicate that they do not like the row -house image.
At the same time, they appear to want as-much density and
value as this site will support. Knowing that the northeast
corner of the site would be reserved for senior housing, how
would you arrange owner- occupied housing units on the
remainder of the site? How many of them would you build,
and within what price range?
4. Because the development will create a new residential
neighborhood in downtown Fridley, the City Council and HRA
feel it is important to create some type of "focal point" or
public space in the center or somewhere in the development..
How would you address this request in your plan for the
development?
5. Asafte 14 acres will be the size of the redevelopment site.
The site will be conveyed to the developer in a buildable
condition. How much and when will you pay for the land?
6 Please. provide a l -ist of the: = typesof ,products that- you use
in the interior of townhomes including, but not limited to,
windows, floor coverings, cabinetry, plumbing fixtures,
heating equipment, doors, and other materials.
If you wish, you may want to consider attending an informational
meeting about the site on Monday, November 14, 1994 at 2:00 P.M.
at the Fridley Municipal Center. All responders to the RFQ are
welcome to attend. The City's design consultants will be in
attendance to answer questions as well as City staff.
On behalf of the City Council and the HRA, we want to thank you
for the time and interest you have shown for the project.
To confirm your attendance at the meeting or to ask questions,
please call Barbara Dacy at 572 -3590.