HRA 03/05/1998 - 6297a
a
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
(Please return to Community Development Department)
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 5,1998,7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
LOCATION: Council Chambers (upper level), Fridley Municipal Center
February 5, 1998
• .�
Claims and Expenses ..... ............................... 1-1C
ACTION ITEMS
Consider Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street .................. 2 - 2A
6j;V, L10613 kP-N&I
Redevelopment Contract with
MEPC American Properties .. ..............................3
Update on Shorty's Towing Site ............................ 4-413
Remodeling Fair Update .. ............................... 5
OTHER BUSINESS
• u .
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
FEBRUARY 19,1998
Chairperson Commers called the February 19, 1998, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Lary Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Duane Prairie
Members Absent: Jim McFarland
Others Present: William Bums, Executive Director
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
Craig Ellestad, Accountant
Dave Jellison, MEPC American Properties
Leslie Jowett, MEPC American Properties
Jim Schlundt, MEPC American Properties
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the January 8, 1998,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• 1_
Ms. Dacy asked that this item be placed on the action agenda.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 2
P -
Mr. Ellestad requested approval of additional expenses as outlined in his memo dated
February 19, 1998.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve Consent Agenda items 1,
2, 3, and 5, including. the additional expenses as outlined in Mr. Ellestad's memo of
February 19, 1998.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
IN Vim � '�•'_�
Ms. Dacy stated this is one of three items regarding the Lake Pointe Technology Center
being proposed by MEPC American Properties. The request is an amendment to the
development contract which the HRA approved in January. At the January meeting,
discussion was held regarding what the minimum market valuation would be to act as a
floor valuation for the site. In other words, the assessor would establish a minimum
valuation for which the developer would be responsible. In the original draft of the
contract, the proposed amount was $6 million. It was discussed that, if the developer
would like to have that revised, the developer should come back and request a change.
Ms. Dacy stated that since the January meeting, staff has met with the developer and the
developer is requesting to change the minimum market valuation from $6 million to $5
million. This is not the valuation that ft will be taxed at for increment purposes. It is
establishing an agreement that the valuation will not go below the $5 million the
developer is proposing.
Ms. Dacy stated she researched some MEPC projects in other communities. She
evaluated the proposed site plan as did the city assessor. They are estimating that the
construction of the 100,000 square foot building will indeed cost approximately $6 million
exclusive of the purchase price for the land which is approximately another $1 million.
Ms. Dacy stated that at the January meeting, Mr. Meyer had some concerns about the
cost per square foot. She thought those concerns had been resolved. She thought there
was some confusion that the cost per square foot included tenant improvements, HVAC,
as well as the site improvements. Staff has clarified that, reviewed the drawings, and
looked at permit valuations in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie. MEPC is proposing to
construct the shell of the building and complete the site work. When a tenant comes into
the building, they will include the HVAC and the interior improvements. Exclusive of the
tenant finish and the HVAC, the cost of the building will be approximately $3.8 million to
$4.5 million plus the additional mechanical work plus the tenant improvements would be
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 3
approximately $6 million. The staff recommendation on the valuation is such that the
HRA amend the floor from $6 million to $5 million.
Ms. Dacy stated the other two items on the agenda involve more detail around the
exterior of the building and the site plan issues.
Mr. Commers stated Mr. Meyer had some concerns and asked if he was now satisfied
with the answers to those concerns.
Mr. Meyer stated, yes. He is thinking they are looking at a building whose brick and
mortar costs and built out with HVAC is perhaps on the order of $60 /square foot. That is
his general impression without receiving any additional figures. To his way of thinking,
$60 /square foot is a minimum building, but it is adequate in his mind.
Mr. Commers asked MEPC if that is consistent.
Mr. Jellison stated he thought the number is adequate. A big portion of these buildings is
the tenant improvements which can vary greatly.
Mr. Commers stated their concern might be that the tenant might want minimal
improvements in order to maintain a more reasonable lease arrangement.
Mr. Jellison stated their standard allowance is $23 /square foot for the office area. Cyber
Optics ended up at approximately $18.50/ square foot, but they added $100,000 in
improvements. Many tenants are going with an open space pattern with modular
furniture. The number of $55 to $65 /square foot is fairly standard for this type of product.
Mr. Meyer asked if the $23 included the total build out including the HVAC.
Mr. Jellison stated, yes. When a tenant comes into the building, they would have the
shell finished. From there, they start spending money for the HVAC, bathrooms, walls,
entrances, etc. Average costs are $23 /square foot for office area and $4 /square foot for
the storage area.
Mr. Commers asked what the breakdown of the flex building will be for office and
warehouse or storage.
Mr. Jellison stated their pro forma is 50% office, 50% warehouse. They will park at
75 %/25 %. Most have ended up to be 90 % -95% office. The project in Eden Prairie is
91,000 square feet with 4,000 square feet for storage. The rest is office. The. Cyber
Optics building has approximately 2,000 square feet of storage space out of 71,000
square feet. Another tenant has 4,000 square feet of storage.
Mr. Jellison stated that when talking about minimums, they are saying no matter what
happens to the economy they will pay taxes on a $5 million building. In the real world,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 4
they would be assessed every year for the value in the markets. The minimum valuation
is what they must pay no matter what the economy is like. That is what they are
concerned about. They could buy real estate at 25 cents on the dollar just six years ago.
The valuation at the minimum is something they have to pay taxes on no matter what the
value is.
Mr. Commers stated that as long as the value is high enough, there is not an issue. From
the HRXs perspective, they want to make sure there is a minimum assessment on there
that brings back the proper amount of tax increment to assist with the improvements
made on the property.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there was any way that the HRA has a guarantee of how much
office space will be there versus how much storage or warehouse space.
Mr. Jellison stated their contract states no less than 50/50.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the tenants put in a lot of improvements.
Mr. Jellison stated that depended on the tenant and the tenants needs. Their allowance
is $23 /square foot.
Ms. Schnabel asked, when talking about the $5 million, is that the building alone and not
the land?
Ms. Dacy stated that in the contract, the $5 million is the total figure — building and land.
Through the S -2 zoning and as a stipulation of approval, each tenant occupancy is to be
approved by the City. The intent is a Class A office environment in a one -story structure.
If the uses do not meet the intent of that or if they are more of the traditional warehouse
use, they will not be permitted. If there is a disagreement about that, there will be a public
hearing. The City will screen tenants.
Mr. Commers stated that if the building is 50/50, one would have tenant improvements of
$1.4 million plus the shell which $3.5 to $4 million plus the land.
Ms. Dacy stated the assessor applied two methods of calculation to the shell and tenants
so his calculations came to $6 million without the land. All figures came in about the
same.
Mr. Meyer stated figuring $3.5 million for the building and $1.4 million to finish the 50/50
interior is $5 million at the most conservative.
Mr. Jellison stated their experience is that they will not attract warehouse users. It is not
set up for heavy truck traffic. Many of the dock doors will be panels.
Mr. Prairie asked if the example of 85% and 90% office was an average or was that just
an example?
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 5
Mr. Jellison stated the two new buildings in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie have leased
to 90% and over 85% office. In Eagan, it is about 85% office with 12,000 square feet not
leased. These are not the multi -story office buildings. These are designed to fit the
needs of the tenants as they come along.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Meyer, to approve the minimum assessed value
at $5 million for the first development.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• ��_ _ AL lei V �i 1L I ILI I I ll VII&I I Ilvne -:4
_
Ms. Dacy showed the video of the projects in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie. The
Golden Valley project is an L -shape with the opening to the rear. The rear is painted
rock -face block. The exterior is 21 feet in height, the interior is 15 feet in height. They
have a cafeteria area and a conference area. The dock area is very small.
Ms. Dacy stated the Eden Prairie building is an I -shape with the docks at the rear. It has
a brick and glass finish with a roof screen as proposed for Fridley. Across to the east is a
multi -story office building.
Ms. Dacy had asked the developer for a site they could visit to illustrate the sandy rose
brick color in a multi -story building. MEPC suggested they visit the West Health building
in Plymouth. This building shows the sandy rose color and buff or tan accent. Staff
wanted to show the HRA what the developer is proposing for the exterior of the building
and discuss in the public forum the challenge that, as each development is proposed,
they architecturally integrate the developments and look at that prior to initiation of
construction.
Ms. Dacy stated the building is to be located at the west end of the office campus on
approximately 10 acres. The building is 106,705 square feet in a C -shape with surface
parking. About a 30 -foot opening is planned for access to the loading area. The center
of the loading area will be striped for parking cars.
Ms. Dacy had asked the petitioner to provide several perspectives of the building as it
would appear from 1-694, from the rear of the site, and from the single family homes to the
north. The design elevation shows a sawtooth comer design. The entrance to the
loading dock area is landscaped to hide that area. The developer is also proposing two
wing walls to help hide the loading area.
Ms. Dacy stated the purpose of the preliminary plan approval in the development contract
is to assure the HRA that the project submitted is consistent with the minimum standards
and to make sure they are proposing a project that is consistent with the expectations set
out in the development contract. In her memo, she outlined the building materials,
concrete construction with the fascia in two tones, and talked about the rooftop screen.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 6
The site improvements will be extensive. They need to construct what engineers call the
National Urban Runoff Protection Standard (NURP) pond on the west side of the site. In
addition to the 33 existing trees on the site, MEPC will plant 111 additional trees. In
addition, they propose shrubbery around the exterior of the building.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is suggesting that the HRA approve the preliminary plans which are
consistent with the expectations of the development agreement subject to the final
approval of the construction plans.
Mr. Commers asked if the sign requirements are consistent with the ordinances.
Ms. Dacy stated those will have special review by the City Council on March 2. Because
the site is located in the S -2, Redevelopment District, there is a planning and
development type of approach to the signage. The original master plan approval required
they submit those two identifier -type of signs. They have done that, and it will be
evaluated on March 2. MEPC is proposing for signage attractive identifier signs - one
across the street from this particular project and one at the entrance to Lake Pointe Drive.
A monument sign is proposed at the entrance of the flex site. It is a very classy, sedate
way to introduce signage to the property.
Ms. Dacy stated that during the Planning Commission meeting, staff did have a
suggestion on the wall signs. The developer had proposed a metal wall panel. Staff
suggested a stipulation to have a sign band with the letters individually installed. The
developer indicated they would agree, and it was passed. Apparently, they are proposing
this type of signage for a project in Bloomington.
Mr. Commers asked if Mr. Meyer had an opportunity to look at the plans.
Mr. Meyer stated he had seen just the plan for the elevation. The rest is the site. He did
not have any negatives. It does not tell much about the materials. He asked if the
developer would be using jumbo brick.
Mr. Jellison stated, yes.
Mr. Meyer stated these are soldier courses also. He asked if there was a lot of difference
between the standard brick size and the jumbo brick size.
Mr. Jellison stated that for residential buildings, the standard size brick is appropriate. For
this size of a building, they generally use the jumbo brick. He did not know of an office
building that uses standard brick.
Mr. Meyer stated he did not think the jumbo brick has the appearance of standard brick.
The jumbo brick is unusual. In his experience for Class A buildings, they use jumbo brick
sparingly. He asked what kind of back up would be used.
Mr. Schlundt stated this would be steel stud.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 7
Mr. Meyer asked if the metal screen was necessary.
Mr. Jellison stated they did not use the screen in Golden Valley. To hide the mechanical
from view of the office building, he thought it appropriate and attractive. They put it up
because it looks attractive. It is set back 15 feet and covers all HVAC units on the roof.
Ms. Dacy stated that after the joint meeting in July, the Planning Commission reviewed
the plans and this was a comment from the Planning Commission. As you travel
westbound on 1-694, the elevation is higher than the site. They wanted to make sure that
the rooftop equipment would not be seen. For the continuous metal screen, they asked
how that would be constructed and how the structure would be integrated with the
construction of the roof system. It appears to be a good addition to the building.
Mr. Meyer stated it seems good to see the screen kept in the background.
Mr. Jellison stated the example shows the metal screen and he thought it blended in
nicely.
Mr. Meyer stated he has heard comments from other prospective users of the property
who wont' about the appearance of the roof system from a nearby building. There is
probably not much that can be done to address that problem. There is no opportunity to
put the HVAC units in the center court.
Mr. Jellison stated if they do 100% office, they have to get the HVAC service to the back
part of the space. For storage areas, they can have a unit inside the space for heating,
but not for office.
Mr. Meyer stated that regarding the brick, is there a difference in cost between the jumbo
brick and standard brick?
Mr. Jellison stated he did not know.
Mr. Meyer stated he believed the jumbo brick looks cheap. He is used to the standard
brick.
Mr. Jellison stated they use jumbo brick. He did not think it looks cheap. Hopefully, the
building will endure and be attractive for many years. In their experience, they try to build
a quality building, and MEPC has built a reputation that way.
Mr. Commers asked what the next approval would be. Is there a final approval on
materials?
Ms. Dacy stated Section 4.2.b of the development contract requires the HRA to approve
the final plans which are essentially the construction plans. The HRA would approve
those just prior to the initiation of construction. The purpose of this review is to let the
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 8
HRA know where the developer is headed with the construction materials.
Mr. Commers stated it is difficult to envision.
Mr. Jellison stated they would be happy to take anyone to a project. They want the HRA
to be happy with what they build. If the HRA is not happy, they will not go ahead. They
will wait for an office user and build a tower. They think this project is going well and that
it will attract tenants. This is what they would build for the marketplace today.
Ms. Schnabel asked which of the two buildings in the videotape would most closely
resemble the exterior of this building.
Ms. Dacy stated the Golden Valley building would be more similar.
Mr. Jellison stated the Eden Prairie building is more white with a green accent. The
Golden Valley building is the sandy rose brick. The Metro West facility is also the sandy
rose brick.
Ms. Dacy provided pictures of the Golden Valley and Eden Prairie buildings to a
comparison of the exterior colors.
Mr. Jellison stated the third building in Golden Valley is like the first and second. They
have negotiated with a company to come from downtown to take 86,000 square feet of
that building. He thought its design was attractive and that users find it attractive also.
Mr. Prairie stated he thought it was hard to tell from the pictures. If he saw it, it would be
easier to visualize.
Mr. Commers stated he liked the brick better than the exposed iron beam.
Mr. Jellison stated the computerized rendering is pretty close to what the finished
structure would look like.
Mr. Commers stated that at the last meeting, they had discussion about the flex building
and how that design would carry over to the rest of the design in the park. What was the
result of those discussions?
Mr. Casserly stated the developer is concerned about a building of lesser quality. He
made a representation in the agreement that any subsequent building would be at least
an equivalent quality to this building. Then they moved it into the restated contract for
exclusive negotiations. They were going to continue to commit to work on that agreement
to make sure they have quality and standards established that are acceptable throughout
the site. They were talking about trying to make property restrictions. The developer felt
comfortable with the representations and the HRA's commitment to work on standards so
they will not be putting restrictions or covenants on record.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 9
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the preliminary plans as
presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: ' � I T ' .11, -
iW0184
• • ► Wu_G _i I '�•.
Ms. Dacy stated the S -2 zoning district requires each use or project to obtain approval by
the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council. The majority of the site was rezoned to
an S -2 district in 1986 after the City executed an agreement with Woodbridge. A small
portion of the site along the northerly edge was retained with R -1 zoning. Within that is
the 35 -foot buffer strip north of the right -of -way and an additional 40 feet south of the
right -of -way. The staff report reviews the expectations of the site plan and referred to
what would occur on the remainder of the property.
Ms. Dacy showed the revised master plan. The tech flex building would occupy 10 acres
at the western portion of the site. There is still room on the office campus area for two
125,000 square foot office multi -story buildings and two ramps. There is no change to the
commercial uses which are proposed in the 8 -acre portion of the property.
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and the master plan on
February 18. They had an extensive discussion, and members of the public attended to
testify. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan and master
plan subject to the stipulations from 1996 on the master plan. There were also a number
of stipulations on the site plan pertaining to requiring the City to review each of the tenant
uses, compliance with the Engineering Department issues, protecting existing trees
during construction, changing the method of signage on the wall signs, making sure the
developer complies with the requirements of the development contract and other zoning
approvals, and the rooftop screen and to add additional screening or vegetation as
necessary for the multi-story building. Staff recommends approval to the City Council for
the site plan and the amendment to the master plan subject to four stipulations:
1. The revised site /master plan is required to meet the 1996 Master Plan stipulations
previously approved by the City.
2. The project plan and related land use requests shall be approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council, and shall include resolution to the exterior finish,
rooftop screening, and other site issues which may affect successful integration
with the adjacent multi -story development.
3. Approval of final construction plans as required by the development agreement.
4. City approval of all uses prior to occupancy in the building.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 10
Ms. Schnabel stated that when they talked about the screening, was that between the
proposed first building and the second office building?
Ms. Dacy stated, yes. This referred to the rooftop screen. If it was required and/or
requested, they would go back and look at the appearance of the roof from the multi-story
development in Phase ll.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the parking comes right up to the proposed second building.
Mr. Dacy stated it is 5 feet away from the new roadway. There probably will be a setback
of 30 to 35 feet between that lot line and the building. It is not immediately adjacent to the
first building.
Mr. Meyer asked staff to again go over the potential future vegetation on the rooftop.
Ms. Dacy stated that is an idea from some of the buildings from downtown Minneapolis
where they have created a park space on top of the building. This may or may not
become an issue. That depends on how the multi -story buildings are placed on the
property. It is an issue which should be evaluated and looked at when Phase II occurs.
Mr. Meyer stated that regarding a garden on the roof, roofs are designed for 40
pounds /square foot load and there will be no capacity for earth or anything of that nature.
The screen will require an extra load to take care of the draft load requirement. Beyond
that, there is zero capacity for vegetation in the future. This would require a reinforced
concrete roof. To the extent that this is important, he thought they could cancel that
thinking.
Ms. Dacy stated the recommendation is to take a look at it. Construction and safety of
the roof is a good point. However, it may be an issue. They are trying to build in the _
flexibility to take a look at it.
Mr. Commers asked if the Planning Commission was approving the amendment to the
site plan or the preliminary plan.
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission recommended a stipulation of approval of the
site plan to evaluate a rooftop screen when Phase II occurs.
Mr. Commers stated there can be no stipulation for that if they do not have the roof
required to meet that requirement. He is not sure what is meant by that. Does that mean
that if that provision is not included, they do not recommend approval of the amendment
to the site plan?
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to
include that sentence in their approval. If the City Council does not include it in the
approval, the issue is then mute.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 11
Mr. Meyer stated that whether it is vegetation or other screening, the roof will be designed
for the recommended screening. If someone decides to change that after the roof is built,
the roof would have to be redesigned. To that extent, it is important that this is not a
practical requirement because they are not going to require MEPC to rework the roof
system for screening, vegetation, etc. What they see is what they will get.
Mr. Commers stated he hesitated to mislead anyone that this is a practical issue in the
future. The reality is that this cannot be done. Without a major revision to the roof, they
either have to make a recommendation of the preliminary plan itself or otherwise
someone will see that and think there is some benefit to that provision being there.
Ms. Schnabel stated that if it is not proposed now, it is misleading to include that
language because it is not feasible. This would have to be added to the entire
construction language which she did not think MEPC was planning to include.
Ms. Dacy stated she understood the intent. If they are going to do something about that,
look at the preliminary plans. They have not be able to do that up to this point. This is to
be the jewel in the crown for the city. When people drive by (and they are trying to attract
good users), these things are going to come up. If they are going to do that, it must be`
done now and not create false expectations.
Mr. Commers asked if they should strike that sentence from their recommendation.
Ms. Dacy stated she thought the opinion of the HRA would be clear in the minutes. The
stipulation was a Planning Commission action. It is not in the recommended stipulations
for the HRA. It is included in the memo for reference.
Mr. Commers stated he would not like to make that recommendation. It is not realistic
and not practical. With two recommendations to the City Council, they should understand
the issue. He did not see why they should include it if they are not serious about it. If
someone feels strongly about it, they should do something about it.
Mr. Meyer stated it might be dangerous to leave something in that is not enforceable and
that would be an embarrassment to all. If they try to tackle it now, that could avoid the
possible problems with tenants down the road looking down on the roof. He asked
MEPC's initial reaction to something like this.
Mr. Jellison stated they had talked about the best way to screen when designing the
building. If they put an office tower next door, what will they do? They have American
Express next to a one -story building. They put the president's office on the opposite side
of the building so he does not see it. They put other offices on that side, and some
people are very happy to have a window. They want to look nice also, but they have to
be somewhat practical. The screen will cover a portion of it. You would have to be pretty
high to see over the screen. They had talked about putting in pods and covering them. It
is hard to do that when you do not have the building leased for life. You have to be able
to relocate the HVAC according to the need of the tenants. You do not know where they
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 12
will go until you start laying out the space requirements. It is difficult to lock in where the
units will be and never change them.
Mr. Meyer asked if he was saying this and the white rock are things that are probably out
of the picture.
Mr. Jellison stated it is not only financial but also practical. They need flexibility to put in
the units. The screening does as much as they think they can to cover this.
Mr. Commers asked what the difference was.
Mr. Jellison stated they need the ability to handle heat and cooling on different portions of
the building. They have to be able to take care of those spaces depending on the solar
load. The solar load varies depending on the side of the building an office is located.
Lights and people also have an effect on the heating and cooling demands. There may
be a separate HVAC unit for a conference or meeting room. For tenants, they design the
office space and then give it to an HVAC specialist to design the system.
Mr. Meyer stated there are ways to modify that. You can pipe HVAC from one sector to
another. You can centralize. If they are concerned about it, it would be realistic to tackle
it now.
Mr. Commers asked Ms. Dacy to read to them the specifications from the Planning
Commission relating to the finish screening, etc.
Ms. Dacy stated she did not have the specific language in front of her. Perhaps as an
alternative in a motion, the HRA could specifically state its preference that this issue is not
to be included. Other stipulations included that the drainage be in compliance with the
engineering comments, compliance with the development contract, the plat request and
special use permits be approved, landscape requirements be met, wall signs be changed
from panels to individual letters, and the inclusion of a rooftop screen.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to recommend approval of the
amendment to the site plan and master plan with the exception to strike the
recommendation of the "park" or "garden" rooftop screening.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Dacy provided an update regarding the Lake Pointe intersection improvements. As
staff has been working with the developer on the details of the project, one issue is the
timing of the Lake Pointe intersection improvements. Over the course of the last three or
four months, the HRA authorized SEH to prepare the final plans. Six months ago, staff
was hoping that the entire intersection project could be done in the 1998 construction
season. MnDOT stated this would not be possible. Staff is trying to get a letter from
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 13
MnDOT that would state construction would be initiated June 1, 1998, and that they
would start the intersection improvements by starting with reconstruction of the Lake
Pointe leg and the Central Avenue leg of the intersection first and complete that in 1998.
In 1999, they would finish the highway construction and the work on the interchange
loops.
Ms. Dacy stated the staging and timing of each element of this project is extensive.
MnDOT wanted to break up the project into two construction years because it was too
much for one season. As a result of this, staff is working with the developer as to when
the closing on the property would occur and construction initiated. The developer stated it
is crucial for the project to have the Lake Pointe leg construction done before the building
opens to be leased. Staff will be coming back to the HRA with an update as to when
those dates would occur. This is different from the January meeting.
Mr. Cassedy stated they will have to modify the contract to reflect what was discussed
here. Before doing that, he wants to have a clear understanding of what MnDOT will do.
If this construction is not inflated, there is the possibility that they will not have a closing.
ti • � ; --• • _: a :•= :.
Ms. Dacy stated the purpose is to have the HRA approve the professional services
agreement with the Robert Gedoff architectural team to produce the contents of what will
be a plan book sponsored and published by up to 15 communities in the metropolitan
area. In February, the HRA agreed to act on behalf of the 15 cities and enter into a
contract with the architect. She has sent an invoice for $5,000 to each of participating
cities. Once the money is in the bank, the HRA will sign the contract to initiate the work.
Ms. Dacy stated that along with the invoice, she sent out a letter of understanding so that
each city would understand what the money would be used for and to identify the
parameters of the arrangement. Three of the cities had their attorneys review it, and they
have suggested modifications. A copy of the agreement was distributed. Essentially, two
changes have been made. Paragraph 3 of the original letter of understanding contained
a hold harmless statement to protect the Fridley HRA. The attorneys suggested there be
some type of language suggesting that the hold harmless would not be applicable if there
was any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of the HRA. In the
letter of understanding, she referred to the other cities. The attorneys were concerned
that this was getting close to a joint powers agreement which is not the intent of this group
so the language referring to the Exhibit 2 was deleted.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the HRA approve the revised agreement and the
letter of understanding which would be executed with all of the other participating cities
and to approve the proposed contract with the Robert Gedoff architectural firm.
Mr. Commers stated this is contingent upon all of the other cities agreeing.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 14
Ms. Dacy stated they would not sign the contract or authorize initiation until there is
$60,000 in the bank.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve execution of the
Professional Service Agreement contingent upon the written agreement by all the
participating cities and receipt of their contributions.
Ms. Schnabel stated she had a question regarding the letter of understanding.
Paragraph 4 includes a sentence, 'This may include, but is not limited to,
requesting additional services ..." Would that be included in the amount of
$5,000 that each of the cities are paying?
Ms. Dacy stated that sentence is not in the revised agreement. If more
communities were participating, the group of communities may want photos to be
included or cost estimates of the recommended plans. This would cover other
features which were not included in the piece originally intended.
Ms. Schnabel stated she had concerns about cost overruns. Who is going to be
responsible?
Mr. Meyer stated he assumed someone in the firm is a registered architect.
Ms. Dacy stated, yes, Mr. Gerioff is a registered architect.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ifflIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 • • • ►.
Mr. Commers stated this was an ongoing contract with ACCAP for the past few years and .
he believed this is a renewal of that contract.
Mr. Femelius stated this is an extension of the contract through the end of this year.
Mr. Commers asked what they were working on now in the city.
Mr. Femelius stated ACCAP has several single family rehab projects. They have
completed or are working on a total of seven projects that would be funded under this
contract.
Mr. Commers asked to how many projects had the HRA provided assistance.
Mr. Femelius stated the HRA contribution under this contract is $24,335. Of that amount,
$89,000 is to be used for housing and rehab grants and the balance used for
administration. The HRA provides a 20% to 25% match as part of this program. The
HRA is funding a portion of the rehab that is being done.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 15
Mr. Commers stated he thought the HRA had purchased a building and then turned it
over to ACCAP to rehab.
Mr. Femelius stated this building is a transitional housing program. FHMA funds were
given to ACCAP. The HRA bought the building, leased it to ACCAP who subleases it to a
social services agency.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the extension of the
service contract with ACCAP through December 31, 1998.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. EXTENSION TO CONTRACT WITH NOAH'S ARK OF MINNESOTA
Ms. Dacy stated staff is asking the HRA to approve a resolution to authorize the HRA to
execute the development contract with Noah's Ark of Minnesota. Noah's Ark is proposing
to build a 108 -unit elderly housing building at 85th and University Avenue. The deadline
for the date of execution has expired. Noah's Ark is finalizing their bonding application
through the City and finishing up the details for a permit, so this would extend the
deadline to execute to July 1, 1998, and the deadline for completion of construction is
extended to June 30, 1999.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA had originally approved the agreement but the time has run
out.
Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The deadline to sign and execute the agreement has passed. This
is the second extension.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve a Resolution Authorizing
an Extension of Time for the Execution and Delivery of a Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For
the City of Fridley and Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Dacy stated the total cost of the projects is approximately $862,000. The city has
worked very hard to put together a cost sharing program. The city would participate, the
owners abutting 57th Avenue would be assessed 1/4 of the cost, the HRA is proposed to
participate and the County would also cover a portion of the project.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 16
Ms. Dacy stated the project is to improve the traffic conditions and capacity on 57th
Avenue. While the corridor is being expanded to allow for the additional capacity, they
would also like to install amenities to improve the appearance of the area. This
intersection is a gateway into the community from University Avenue. Concurrently, the
Holiday Store is initiating a program to rehabilitate their building and to expand their
operations. They are proposing a modification to the exterior of their building and they
have completed significant improvements inside the building as well. They are taking a
renewed interest in the site. The asphalt area on the south side between the building and
1 -694 will be part of a landscape plan to dress up that side of the building.
Ms. Dacy reviewed the proposed plans for 57th Avenue. Essentially, the plan calls for
fewer access drives which will be aligned, turn lanes added, the roadway widened and
landscaped, decorative lighting installed, and the installation of a decorative fence.
Ms. Dacy stated that during the budget process, it is estimated that the HRA would
participate in the amount of $86,000 based on 50% of the landscape and irrigation costs
and 50% of the lighting costs. Based on the estimates received from the consultants, the
landscape estimate is $113,260 X 0.5 for $56,630. The decorative lighting estimate has
increased in order to add two additional standards to the east side of University Avenue
to continue the theme to round out the intersection. The current estimate is $81,450 X
.50 for $45,726. This totals $102,355. No action is requested at this time. These are
preliminary estimates. The project will be going to bid next month. Once the bids come
back, staff will come back to request approval of the amounts.
Ms. Dacy stated a neighborhood meeting was held on February 3. Two property owners
abutting 57th Avenue showed up for the meeting. No one attended from the residential
area to the north, but staff did make an effort to call a neighborhood meeting.
13. APPLICATION FOR HOME FUNDS
Ms. Dacy stated this item was included on the Consent Agenda. Because of the
postponement of the HRA meeting, staff did file the applications in order to meet the
deadlines.
14. HOME PLAN REMODEL
Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Femelius had provided a draft of a home remodeling plan book that
staff would like to hand out at the remodeling fair to be held April 18. She asked the HRA
to review the handbook and forward their comments to staff.
Mr. Femelius stated the handbook would be printed in March. At the next HRA meeting,
they would have a better draft. This is a rough draft. They do not have all the plans of
the different rambler styles that they will be featuring.
Mr. Commers asked what the difference is between this and the R. Gedoff plan book.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 17
Ms. Dacy stated the Robert Gerloff plan book would be published in 1999. It will take a
longer time to put that together. The regional approach is that this will cover the cape
cod, the rambler and the split entry styles. Because this is representing 15 communities,
they had to cover those three different styles of housing. For the remodeling fair, staff
wanted to focus on alternative designs for ramblers. In terms of production and
appearance, the regional plan book has a grander scale and broader appeal.
Mr. Commers asked if this duplicates some of the efforts in the regional plan book.
Ms. Dacy stated what R. Gerloff comes up with for the rambler may be similar, but the
regional plan book is of a different scope and extent that what they are trying to do here.
The intent of the regional plan book is to address the issue from a broader scale.
Cooperatively the cities are saying that the inner ring suburbs have options available to
them for people to improve and expand their homes, and it is an attraction tool for people
that may be evaluating whether to live downtown, in the inner ring, or move to the outer
suburbs. It is another way to try to motivate people to take a second look at the inner ring
suburbs.
Mr. Commers stated he understands that, but if they are going through the effort to do
this and the only thing they are missing is perhaps another style of home, it seems to him
they are close to covering all of the options for Fridley. He was not sure that the broader
picture was going to be worth the gain. This plan book looks pretty detailed. What other
kinds of remodeling would there be other than the rambler?
Ms. Dacy stated the regional book would include the split entry, the rambler and the cape
cod.
Mr. Commers stated the split entry would be the other style in the city other than the
rambler. Is that a concern in Fridley?
Ms. Dacy stated the majority is the rambler. The split entry would be right behind that.
Fridley does not have the cape cod. The other is the small style of house such as you
would see in Hyde Park.
Mr. Commers stated he was trying to make sure they get some value from the regional
plan book that is not in this plan book. It may be that they do their own plan book and
add the split entry. With the detail shown, it looks like a good job. Someone should look
at whether they really need the other.
Ms. Dacy stated this has been debated in house. They can take advantage of a broader
effort by cooperating with other communities. She thought it important for the
communities to cooperate and use any tool available to take a second look at the housing
in our communities.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 18
Ms. Schnabel stated an architect might come up with something totally different which
may be beneficial to the homeowner to see both ideas. There may be something to gain
by having both plan books.
Mr. Meyer stated the draft of the handbook has a page about financing issues. There is a
world of possibilities to get valuable information out to people. He hoped the book excites
people to get something done. This has some very interesting topics to get questions
answered and gives hope that there is a way to do some things. He thought it would be
great to spend a page or two answering those questions. What are the government
sponsored programs? Who is eligible? What are the criteria? How can I afford to do
this? Are you aware of the costs? There could be information on bank financing. How
much are you comfortable spending? Some people may -not understand the terminology.
It seems to him that when you get people interested, you then need to know how to do it
and pay for it. He would like to see an attempt to answer the questions. It seems that is
companion information along with the floor plans.
Mr. Femelius stated those are good points. This is a rough draft. They will elaborate on
those points.
J , • u.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE FEBRUARY 19,1998, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lavonn Cooper I& Recording Secretary
ti
r0: FRIDLEY H.R.A
=ROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY
IE: BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES
February 1998
ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
COMPUTER OVERHEAD
(For Micro & Mini computes)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Account We for
HRA's Use
460 -0000- 430 -4107
USPS - POSTAGE 262 -0000- 430 -4332
USPS - POSTAGE 460-0000- 430 -4332
US WEST - TELEPHONE 460- 0000 - 430 -4332
CORP EXPRESS DEL SERVICE - DELIVERY 460 -0000- 430 -4340
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
BENEFITS EXPENSES:
CITY OF FRIDLEY - HEALTH INS 262 -0000- 219 -1001
CITY OF FRIDLEY - DENTAL INS 262 -0000- 219 -1100
CITY OF FRIDLEY - LIFE INS 262 - 0000 - 219 -1200
TOTAL BENEFITS EXPENSES:
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - February 1998
File: %E=ATAWRA %nF=9ll L-xls Details
1
Account We for
CR
City's Use
Code
21,006.58 101 -0000 -341 -1200
H1
292.58 101 -0000- 336 -3000
HA
212.42 101 -0000- 336 -3000
21.511.58
HA
122.99
236-0000- 336 -3000
11.10
236-0000- 336 -3000
23.75
236 -0000- 336 -3000
11.51
169.35
236 - 0000 - 336 -3000
371.18
236-0000 -219 -1001
45.06
236 -0000- 219 -1100
3.50
419.74
236 - 0000 -219 -1200
HA
HA
HA
HA
11
12
13
r N
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
LU be
r
r
m
i
z
r
r
r
H
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
W
OC
r
r
r
r
r
r
-
r
r
2
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O d
r
r
N
N
O
�t
aD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 00
O
O
P•
P
•O
It
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Y1 M
CD
r
Q r
S
If1
N
M
.O
•O
Ln
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
r
r
H r
N
N
M
w-
lf1
to
If1
IA
rf1
Ln
If1
N
1N
r
�
r
U i
r
W r
r
r
lz r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
H r
r
r
LU
� r
i
OOC i
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
i
O. r
r
r
a
r
r
IR
C
W
Z
r
r
c a
a
0
4L.
W N
m
E
d
OO
O
O
C
LU J
O
Sj
p
W W
r
r
•+
X
0
L
C
L
C
♦+
M
m
O
O
O
co
O
O
N u
Oe ►-
Q
r
r
.- r
r
U)
Io
F-
a
. •
a
r
..
r
a
Q
a
Q
io
�-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
c
°On
o 0
r
o
QQ
d
d
m
m
d
d
rn
°
C
rn
C
rn
C
rn
C
0
C
J U
r
a
~
OC
=
Lw
IL
W
4+
E
M
i
Y
Y
J
C
r
C
C
c c
c��
z O.
r
r
I`
P
\
P
C
Y
Y
J
N
-ppE
d
d
ppE
C)
0
pBE
C)
a
ppE
d
•�Ey
10 r0
N W
r
U r
7
O
O
d
d
L.
pQE
W
r
W r
o
d
L
O
pLp
W
d!
W
GI
N. LL
6t d'
O r
p
p
W
f,
Q
ca
Q
t
N
t
w
z
O
z
41
w
C
41
OC
w
OC
OC
OC
OC
U U
r
r
W M
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
J
O U
r
Q) r
m r
g r
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
N
r
O
N
r
O
r
lR
r
Cl
r
.0
r
—
r
r
r
r
r
r r
M O
W
d
Z
O
O
N
O
O
O
r
N
•O
•O
G
•O
•O
•O
•O
It O
i
•d)
fz
r
1- r
O
O
.O
N
'O
N
'O
N
'O
'O
•O
•O
•O
10
G) r
OC r
r
r
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O O
r
GGG.0 r
O
O
O
co,
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
L r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
0
1p r
U r
-C r
r
r
O
r
O
O
r
pp
M
r
O
r
O
r
N
O
r
O
O
r
O
O
r
O
r
O
O
r
N
O
r
N
O
r
N
O
r
Cl
r
O
r
N
O
r
N
•O
O O
r m
N N
•O
• O
N
N
If
It
I1
S
IO
It
•O
It
In
S
S
rO
N
•O
N
•O
N
cO
N
N
.O
N
O
N
N
N N
r
Y r
Z r
ma
'
"aoRaQ r
f
r
to
N_ N W N r
H t-
d r
O
M
W W W r
O\ J J J r
r r
W r
P
O O W W W r
r
W r
OC r
M
IA
•O
'a
•O
r
.. ..... • r
r
r
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
(a
N
O
N
O
N
N
N N
N
N
N L
N t
N
N N
g
.-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
.-
.-
� �
�
�
r a
a
�
Im r
W r
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
O
O
O
O
07 >
co—
CL
co
00
pr,
per,
00 CL
m
00
pry pp�p.
a
�_
�_
0
c
O•
O d
7
O
P_
Y
P OC
O• P_
r
r
C7 > Y 1
p N r
r
r
\
\
_�
\
_�
\
�-
\
r
\
�--
\
r
\
r
\
\
r M
\ M
r Q)
\'O
r 2
\
Y-
\L
\J
\ Qp
O
\ C
O
\ \
S
\ O
�? M
a 07 0] r
•-• •
W= r
2 0 r
P
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
M
N
M
N L
M
N O
MM
N
MM U
N•
M
N i+
S
N L
S
N O
N N
N�
OCI -pp0
Q•-•
\
\
\
\ U
1 0
\z
\ K
\V)
\ EO
\ U
\ \
\O M
W a W W
w H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N N
O O
g
C
ix ~
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
04-
O
0%-
O
O
O
O
a U H OC
W O
O U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N>.
N !.
N A
N
N>.
N>.
N N
,
iO(�
QOa uO
zN
e
—
-
—
-
-
—
—
_ Y
PM
— �-
— Y
—
-
—a.
- !W
O O
OQC C
a a r
tl LOU p r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O U
O U
O U
O U
O
O U
O
O U
O
O U
O O
W
7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
OC
°
ad
�fmQ
I.-
1
-A
N N , 1
, 1
, r
. r
W 9K I
0 W 1 ,
a � 1
r
z , 1
1 r
6Q ,
, 1
W r 1
OC , r
, r
I r
r � 1
, I N
I � , p•
, I
1 d r
1 r
V i
I W 1
1 OC /
1
r 1
1 r
1 1
1 U
1 W 1
, J 1
O 1
CL ,
I d r
I ,
►- ,
z 1 ,
z : c
a
o r
1 .�,
J N I , q
W J I 1
LU
W W i p
OC H 1 r 1 Ci
O O 2
60•
t7
z a C H i d i
. , IC
N W K
U r N
S OWC W , cc
O 1 U
1 1
Y S I I
J d r W r O
O U , m . r
M 1 , r
4 0x I 2 1
•d
U I z I
9w I I M
1 1 O
t , U 1 O
Hl ,
Oi
U I N
1 I N
a ,
I Y I
r r
RR pp I � W E
'A U) W , d~
r W W W I ,
M O O W W W r W
a
r I
ui r
a W , ~ I P
d N
1
•- co �- Y I ° i
\ O .2. m m r N Z I
N•M- OCF -000 1 � 1 N
Nr� LU Lu IW-
oc'� eedd r
0 •• 2UNLud i OV N
.-
d /
NN0 W r O
dd6. I 1 O
WS gas: OC i O
H O a
J N d
O pNp
1- •O
CL ti
C�7
1 -S
i
I
a i
z i
cli 8 ,a v
1
O 1
MOO HQ O
i
E i
PJOO10 I.
W i
a I
N •+ +0 0•
U i
1
!
I
f
t
i
i
C-4 r A
I
I
W i
I
f
1
Ai
I
O i
i
U I
i
I
Y i
E
i
z
i
ai
!
rTi i
i
W
I
1
>
I
t
W a N J
I
1
WCGU a
w
1
f
N S
i
~
f
rJaCE0
tl
31-gw 6w7
I
t
zt~U4 Q
U N
1
O 1
x I J
N I
w(wJ W
tttYNJ Q
q
V I
I
m I
NA in
!
w i
W W W.;
I
I
A i
i
W. re U.
I
iC m I
3
i
a 0l I
i
w 0• i
t
\ 1
f
A N i
t
z ca i
i
C \ I
i
ea i
I
q i
1
O i Y
I
N m .+ C•i
is I wm
I
e ���
w Imri
0lo-0l0
CL m I Um
I
CiN ell N
0• 1
z 1
?- 0• t
i
\ i
i
Ol N i
I
Y C1 1
I
ca I
m
U 1
i
� E
t
tt O I
i
a L I
i
i
I
f
I
!
i
i
I
t
I
i
I
I
i
w
i
I
z000
i
1
I
i
iL>-�}
z 1
E I
+ U U U
1
� f
Z
: +
iL 4
I
N } }}
O 1
Ct I
Jwww
IT
l
R
in W 1
A
Z A A
> I
z f
CC HHN
O w i
w 1
w iC iY iC
8�
1 >
wwU..tL
W
1
O 0t 1
i
.+ i
i
I
1
ZqZ
m Q 1
1
0• !
I
\ U I
I
1
ion 1
i
i
xo
mmmm
Au I YW
I
0•aQ�O•
W } I UF-
I
.+.i.f.f
ce<W i w
I
\ \ \\
<(aj I ma
I
NNf`N
U
H
i
\\\ N
W O i
C4Ix iY i
I
64 C1 NN
tL 0. w I
I
1 -C
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: February 26, 1998
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street
Background
In September 1997, the site addressed as 611 Lafayette Street was identified as a.
potential scattered site acquisition, and a letter was sent to the current owners, Barbara
and Gary Saxe. The owners did not want to sell the property at that time because a
second mortgage with MHFA was still pending, and the owners did not want to pay on
that loan. The MHFA loan was for minor rehab work in 1989 and will be entirely
forgiven in April 1999.
On December 23, 1997, a fire significantly damaged the home at 611 Lafayette Street.
The lot is 5,500 square feet in size and is, therefore, nonconforming to the minimum lot
size requirement of the R -1, Single Family District. The structure is also nonconforming
since it is smaller than the minimum size in the code. Because over 50% of the
structure's value was damaged, the structure cannot be repaired, nor can a new
structure be built on the lot.
Selling the lot in the private market will also be difficult since it is not buildable. The
property to the east of the site is conforming and would not need the additional land
area. The lot to the west of the site is nonconforming and has a similar nonconforming
structure. The ultimate goal would be to tie both lots together for a buildable lot and
new construction.
Proposal
Staff is recommending that the HRA acquire the lot at 611 Lafayette Street for $3,000 in
the "as is" condition, demolish the structure, and maintain the property until it can be
2
Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street
February 26, 1998
Page 2
assembled with the parcel to the west. The value of the property was determined by an
independent appraisal conducted earlier this month. It may be some time before the
two parcels can be tied together as the HRA has done in other parts of the Riverview
Heights neighborhood, but the property owners have few options available to them
given the restrictions on repair or rebuilding.
It is also proposed that the HRA sell one of the five available scattered site lots to the
property owners and defer the payment on the land mortgage until the home is sold at
some point in the future. This is typically not done with new construction, but it is a
means to assist the property owners to build a new house and stay in Fridley. The
purpose of deferring the land sale payment would be to help the owners qualify for a
mortgage to build a new home.
The HRA is under no obligation to approve this recommendation. The property owners,
however, are very upset with the City's position regarding repair or building a new
structure. Staff has been working with the owners and has met with them several
times. The owners would prefer to stay in their current home, but the damage is too
great.
The acquisition price and the demolition costs are within typical HRA purchases. The
deferred mortgage is a good idea to not only assist this family in an emergency, but
also to encourage new housing and to assist the owners to stay in Fridley. The HRA
would not be giving the lot away, rather it would defer payment. The new home would
also be in the Housing Replacement District and would be producing tax increment
revenue to the HRA.
The owners have retained legal counsel, and legal counsel has reviewed this proposal.
As of the writing of this memo, legal counsel was discussing the proposal with his
clients. An update will be provided at the meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HRA authorize staff to enter into a purchase agreement to
acquire the property at 611 Lafayette Street, demolish the structure, and draft a
deferred mortgage for the sale of one of the HRA's available lots. The agreements are
subject to the property owners retiring the first mortgage at 611 Lafayette Street and
transferring the MHFA loan to the new lot.
BD:Is
M -98-43 2 -A
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: February 27, 1998 /
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA �I�r
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Status of Development Contract
As was discussed at the February 19, 1998, HRA meeting, the developer was
requesting a change to the closing date for the sale of the 10 acres and the
construction commencement date to hinge on the initiation of the Lake Pointe
intersection improvement. Staff has arranged a meeting between the developer, the
City, and MnDOT on Friday, February 27, 1998, to review the staging of the intersection
improvements and how that would affect the development. An update will be provided
at the meeting.
In the meantime, Jim Casserly has been working with MEPC's legal counsel to revise
the draft accordingly. A copy of the contract with the proposed changes will be
delivered to the HRA on either Monday or Tuesday of next week.
BD:Is
M -98-46
K
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: February 27, 1998
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA AAA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Potential Acquisition of J. R.'s Automotive at 5755 University Avenue N.E.
Background
At the November 9, 1995, meeting, the HRA authorized staff to further investigate the
possible acquisition of J.R.'s Automotive site. The HRA agreed to continue discussions
with the property owner. Staff sent a letter to the owner requesting that a Phase One
audit be completed prior to initiation of negotiations. The owner did not initiate the
Phase One audit until just last month. Roger Schuur contacted me and asked if the
HRA was still interested in acquiring the site. I suggested that the Phase One audit be
completed and that the HRA evaluate the results.
The Phase One audit indicates that an unused underground gasoline storage tank is
located on the property. It cannot be confirmed from the Phase One audit if a release
has occurred from the tank. The tank will need to be removed in accordance with the
Minnesota State Fire Marshall rules. Further, because the use of the property was an
automobile body shop and repair facility, there may also be a release of solvents into
the soil. The extent of contamination, if any, would have to be verified in a Phase Two
audit. The report did note, however, that there were no indications of release of
hazardous materials such as staining on the ground surface.
Proposal
Unless otherwise directed, staff will ask the property owner to conduct a Phase Two
audit which would include soil borings and other appropriate testing to determine if
there has been a release of petroleum or other solvents on the property. Further, staff
4-
Potential Acquisition of J. R.'s Automotive, 5755 University Avenue
February 27, 1998
Page 2
will advise the owner that he will be responsible for completing the tank removal, as well
as resolving any contamination issues. In the meantime, staff will contact an appraiser
to prepare an appraisal.
In 1995, the potential uses which were discussed for the site included housing, either
owner - occupied or rental, or a neighborhood strip center or some other commercial
use. This area was part of a redevelopment proposal in the late 1980s to create a bank
and strip center.
The property is approximately 16,800 square feet. In 1995, the assessed valuation was
$75,500.
No action is required by the HRA at this time. Staff will continue to work with the
property owner regarding the environmental issues and will initiate an appraisal unless
otherwise directed by the HRA.
BD:Is
M -98-42
4 -A
from L+ile Mrt.ti.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V G AYE,
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANI SLY.
15. J. R. AUTO SITE
HRA minutes, November 9, 1995
CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
Ms. Dacy stated the owner of JR's Auto on University Avenue
contacted her regarding the sale of this property. Mr. Schuur, t
the owner, contacted her to determine if the HRA was interested
in evaluating the purchase of the property. Mr. Schuur was aware
that the HRA had looked at the property earlier as part of a
redevelopment plan. Ms. Dacy asked the HRA for permission to
further investigate the possible acquisition and to discuss other
items such as a Phase I audit.
Ms. Dacy stated there
is in poor condition.
increment financing.
the HRA would like to
Frank's Used Car site
further and come back
are four parcels available. The building
The property may be eligible for tax
Perhaps staff should investigate this if
use this property in conjunction with the
Perhaps staff could check into this
at the next meetings.
Mr. Commers asked what issue would arise if, for example, the HRA
would take out a duplex or a residential home.
Ms. Dacy stated staff would need to
City Council recently elected to pa:
Communities Act, which means we are
support a balanced housing supply.
plan by June 30, 1996, and initiate
ordinance.
update the housing plan. The
rticipate in the Livable
adopting principles that
We have to submit an action
and adopt a fair housing
Mr. Commers asked, if a duplex was taken out, would they have to
replace that housing.
Ms. Dacy stated there is no state law requirement, but-the
attorney is saying to adopt a plan as to how you do provide
affordable housing.
Mr. Hoeft stated the City of Columbia Heights is looking to
establish criteria for a certain percentage of affordable housing
so that there is not necessarily replacement housing as long as
you do not fall below a certain percentage of affordable housing.
Ms. Schnabel asked what was located next to the duplex going
east.
Ms. Dacy stated there is an apartment building, vacant land, and
then single family homes.
Mr. Commers asked staff to continue to talking with Mr. Schuur.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA has many thing going on requiring up
front cash. He would like to see a periodic cash flow statement
and asked Mr. Pribyl to provide that information.
I� F A$ ' 0111061
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: February 27, 1998
TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Remodeling Fair Update
The 31d annual Home Remodeling and Garden Fair will be held on Saturday,
April 18, 1998 at the Fridley High School from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. So far a
total of 52 out of 66 booths have been filled. CEE will have a booth at the fair to
promote the housing rehabilitation programs. The HRA Remodeling Advisor and
the Building Inspections staff also will be available to answer home improvement
questions. In addition, seminars will be held on a variety of home improvement
topics.
To promote the fair we will run ads in the Focus, send a direct mail flyer to every
homeowner in the City, work with the Chamber on distributing posters at local
businesses and utilize the billboard next to the Municipal Center on University
Avenue.
GF:gf
M -98-44
5
Fridley HRA
Monthly Housing Program Summary
March 5, 1998
1. Loan Origination Report
Covers the loans and grants issued in 1998, through 2- 27 -98. This report
shows activity both city -wide and in the Hyde Park neighborhood.
2. Loan Servicing Report
Covers HRA funded loans only. Report summarizes all of the loans being
serviced (including prior years) by the Community Reinvestment Fund
(CRF) for the most recent reporting period, 1- 31 -98.
3. Delinquent Loan Report
Report shows the number of loans that are considered delinquent. There
are four categories (1 month, 1 -2 months, 2 =3 months, over 3 months).
The report also shows the total amount of delinquent payments along with
the total loan principal outstanding. Report covers activity through
1- 31 -98.
4. Other Information
None
Monthly Housing Report cover (3 -5-98 HRA)
LOAN ORIGINATION REPORT
Month Ercflrtg
February 1998
A) City Wide Loam and Grants
HRA MHFA CDBG / HOME Date Type of
Name Address Loans Loans Grants Total Closed P Pr m
Reinedc 143Harizon CWe $ 23,978 1 $ # $ . # $ - # 127M Single -fan* 5% Loan
Total $ 23,978 1 $ . # $ # $ _ #
B) H1cde Park Loans arM Grams
HRA MHFA I CDBG / HOME Date Type of
Name Address Loans Loanns Grants Total Closed P program
Fie: 1888 LOAN ACIMTY nEPOW
Walaheet LO.R FE9 - 98
Dots ROOKS& z2m
LOAN SERVICING REPORT
Month Ending
January 1998
Installment Loans
Number of Loans in Portfolio
Beginning Principal Balance
Principal Payments
Interest Payments
Late Fees
CRF Servicing Fees
Net Payments
Ending Principal Balance
Deferred Loans
Number of Loans in Portfolio
Beginning Principal Balance
Principal Payments
Interest Payments
Late Fees
CRF Servicing Fees
Net Payments
Ending Principal Balance
TOTAL PAYMENTS RECEIVED
TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL BALANCE
Sub -Total A
Sub -Total B
160
$ 1,836,396.36
$
7,791.20
$
11,892.32
1.68
$
$
19,683.52
$
720.00
$
18,963.52
$ 1,
828, 605.16
23
$
118,261.36
$
211.52
$
1.68
$
213.20
$
345.00
$
(131.80)
$
118,049.84
$
18,831.72
$ 1,946,655.00
Notes: * Fees were previously charged. CRF will issue a refund check to the HRA.
File: 1998 LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT
Worksheet: LSR - JAN 98
Date Prepared: 2/26198
Fridley Loan Program
Loan Delinquencies
1/31/98
Number of Loans (181) 14 4 1 3
Total Monthly Payments $ 2,238.58 $ 903.38 $ 448.21 $ 1,481.37
Outstanding Principal * $110,363.24 $ 44,917.36 $16,433.16 $ 33,596.92
% of Portfolio 5.7% 2.3% 0.8% 1.7%
File: DELINQUENCY REPORT (1 -98)
Worksheet: LOAN DELIQUENCIES
Date: 2/26/98
2/26/98
1 to 2
2 to 3
Over 3
Loan Data
1 Month
Months
Months
Months
Number of Loans (181) 14 4 1 3
Total Monthly Payments $ 2,238.58 $ 903.38 $ 448.21 $ 1,481.37
Outstanding Principal * $110,363.24 $ 44,917.36 $16,433.16 $ 33,596.92
% of Portfolio 5.7% 2.3% 0.8% 1.7%
File: DELINQUENCY REPORT (1 -98)
Worksheet: LOAN DELIQUENCIES
Date: 2/26/98
2/26/98