Loading...
HRA 07/07/2005 - 29593,•-� CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 7, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Pesent: Larry Commers John Meyer Pat Gabel William Holm Members Absent: Virginia Schnabel Others Present: William Burns, HRA Executive�Director Jim Casserly, HRA Counsel Gay Greiter, HRA Counsel Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director ^ Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Eisenmenger, Accountant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 2, 2005 Mr. Eisenmenger requested the following corrections to the minutes: • Page 2, 5�' paragraph should read "Mr. Pribyl explained that the pledge agreement is pledging the increments from TIF District 6..." • Page 2, 7�' paragraph, should read "Mr. Pribyl stated this debt will be retired in 2009. These will be paid semi-annually over a period of 3%2 years." • Page 2, vote on motion by Commissioner Holm, should read "Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the motion carried unanimously." • Page 5, under INFORMATIONAL ITEMS, the paragraph starting "Mr. Pribyl explained", the sixth line, should read "payable years 2003 — 2004 — 2005." • Page 5, last paragraph, should read "Mr. Pribyl explained Ehlers and Associates is the firm that Medtronic would like to have reviewed this matter." • Page 6, MOTION by Commissioner Schnabel, last line should read "years 2003, 2004, and 2005." Ms. Gabel requested the following correction: �"� HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — J[TLY 7, 2005 Page 2 of 13 n • Page 6, third paragraph from the bottom, should read: "Mr. Pribyl explained that one of Ehlers staff members knows the County system well and can complete the task quickly." � MOTION by Commissioner Gabel, seconded by Commissioner Holm, to approve the minutes as corrected. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA: • Consider Claims & Expenses MOTION by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Commissioner Gabel, to approve the consent agenda. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INFORMATION ITEM: • Parking Study Final Draft Mr. Bolin suggested that he review the parking study prior to the Action Item: Review of the Target NOC Master Site Plan Changes as it is related. He explained that last March the Commission authorized Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates to complete a parking study for the southeast quadrant of Mississippi and University. The Commission then reviewed a draft of that study at their June meeting. A final copy is before the Commission this evening. He reviewed the conclusions stating that for City Hall, Columbia Park Clinic and the Fridley Professional building are all approaching a level where finding a parking spot during peak times could be difficult. The study also points out that if the Target Operations Center is eventually filled with office uses as proposed the current parking may be inadequate. Parking management could go a long way to alleviate the perceived parking problems and recommend better signage at City Hall. In regards to the Columbia Parl� building, their east parking lot always has vacant spaces and recommended that employees be requested to use that parking area. Another finding was that ramping may be the only way to address future shortages if the number of employees in each of these buildings increases significantly. There is no single ramp solution to potential parking shortages. Both Columbia Park and the Target Operations Center are separated by too much distance and they both have the same � peak demand times, so a single ramp would not be possible. One of the conclusions is that it's highly unlikely that City Hall will outgrow its current parking and because of that HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIl�TG — JULY 7, 2005 Page 3 of 13 ,^ the HRA may choose to give up its interest in building a parking deck on the Target site next door. The study does show that a ramp on that site would be a benefit to no one but the owners and occupants of the Target site. Commissioner Meyer asked if the study addressed reducing the width of the current parking spaces for additional spaces. Mr. Bolin responded they did a study of the existing parking. Re-striping to a smaller parking stall would allow each location to pick up a few more parking stalls depending on the layout. The potential purchaser of the Target building has already asked to be allowed to use a less than standard parking width. Columbia Park Clinic also made a similar request in the past which was approved. Reducing parking stall width may help add a few spaces but not enough to make a big difference. Chairperson Commers asked if the reduction in parking stall width requires a variance. Mr. Bolin explained on most commercial properties a variance would be required. In this instance, the southeast quadrant is zoned S-2 which means that the standard zoning code requirements don't apply; they're more of a guideline than a set rule. The Columbia Park and the Target building would require a master plan change for the parking stall size reduction. The Council would have the final authority to approve such a change. The stalls closest to the Columbia Park building were kept at a ten foot width ,�-� as that is where patient traffic would be heaviest. Commissioner Holm asked if there is still an outstanding issue with Columbia Park Clinic regarding parking. Mr. Bolin stated Columbia Park sent the staff a brief email stating they would approach the City in August requesting monetary assistance to redo their parking lot. Chairperson Commers asked if Mr. Bolin would review the original file and determine the appraised value of the Columbia Park property at the time and why the City didn't require them to purchase the parking area originally. ACTION: • Review of Target NOC Master Site Plan Changes Mr. Hickok stated in the past the HRA has asked why they review master plan amendments. The section of code that relates to redevelopment specifically talks about the HRA reviewing amendments to the master plan. How this has been handled historically is that staff has prepared a presentation and analysis and then the HRA comments and minutes are attached to the staff s report and go forward to the Council. ,.� Mr. Hickok explained that Yale Place Associates is the group requesting the amendment to the Target Northern Operations Center master plan for the property at HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 7, 2005 Page 4 of 13 n 6499 University Av. NE. The amendment would allow smaller dimensioned and a greater number of parking stalls ranging from 8.5 to 9.5 feet in width rather than the standard 10 foot width. The parking deck is the second item they're requesting and will be constructed with construction beginning possibly by this fall. Reviewing a plan of this proposal, he pointed out the location of the proposed parking deck and landscape islands. At the Planning Commission hearing, the question was raised whether or not those trees lost as a result of the parking ramp could be placed elsewhere on the site. This is probably one of the best landscaped sites in the City and to try and crowd in the number of trees they would Iose elsewhere on the site wouldn't make sense. This site doesn't have sufficient area to accommodate the twelve trees lost due to the parking ramp and still make it look like part of the original landscape plan. Parking stalls closest to the building will be the largest dimension (9.5 feet) due to the anticipated turnover of the stalls throughout the day. The stalls under and on the parking deck will be 8.5 foot stalls. Along Mississippi there will be one row of 9 foot stalls for turnover and some employee parking. They're trying to be consistent in the parking deck with what the City allowed in the Medtronic deck. By using the smaller dimension, they gain about 30 parking spaces. Chairperson Commers questioned why the larger spaces are planned for the area adjacent to the building where parking is typically limited to one or two hours. Mr. Hickok reviewed the original master plan for this site which showed the accessible � parking spaces as the ones closest to the door. The current plan would be to keep accessible stalls most convenient to the door and those stalls will not be reduced in size but will meet building code standards. The original master plan showed 311 parking spaces and the proposal would bring this site to 320 without the parking deck. Even though the original master plan showed 311 spaces, they were not able to get that number when they striped the lot. The spaces in the southeast corner by the entrance to the City's lower parking deck are not striped as illustrated on the plan because circulation by the entry way didn't allow the 7— 8 stalls and further to the west an area was designated as motorcycle parking. So there are only 290 parking spaces currently on this site. Mr. Hickok further explained that the parking ratios currently on this site are not right at 3.88 stalls per square feet of building while 4.88 stalls per square feet of building is needed. By changing the size of the stalls they're getting closer to the 4.88 per thousand square feet. To really be at the parking level most tenants will require, they're not only going to have to change the stall size, but also build a parking deck to increase the number of parking spaces. Dr. Burns questioned what proof the City has that Yale Associates has site control on this property. Mr. Hickok stated he's been given an indication by Target that Yale has been ,,� authorized to come forward with this proposal. Target also believes this proposal is in their best interest since the building has been sale for an extended period of time and HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIrTG — JULY 7, 2005 Page 5 of 13 what they're hearing is that in order to fill the building; they're going to have to increase the number of parking stalls. Chairperson Commers pointed out that the parking study states that general office uses need 2.84 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building space. Mr. Hickok stated that is correct, however this building is more of a Minneapolis City Center building and the businesses looking for this type of building are looking south of 1694. They're looking for spaces that allowed them to use the open space in a manner that maximizes the amount of employment and maximizes the use of the space internally. This building was designed for "large plate users" with a very open floor plan that was perFect for Target. This isn't a classic multi-tenant building with divided space. The petitioner believes they need the 4.8 stalls per thousand square feet to make this building sell. Chairperson Commers stated this petitioner is seeking a third to 50% more parking than the recent parking study states is necessary. Mr. Hickok explained the petitioner has a potential user for 40% of the building but they have to be able to promise them more parking. To get to the 4.88 stalls per 1,000 square feet, the re-striping of the lot and the addition of a parking ramp are both necessary. The petitioner sees this as a finro component request; to resize the stalls �,-.� and erect a parking deck. The parking deck has a price tag of $20,000 per stall to build. The petitioner is ready to build between 104 and 148 stalls, so the petitioner wants to maximize the number of parking stalls they have now and before they put build the parking deck. Commissioner Meyer questioned the size of the parking stalls in the deck. Mr. Hickok responded they will be 8.5 feet in width. Commissioner Meyer stated vehicles are getting larger with many SUV's on the road. He believed this to be a negative direction (to reduce the stall size) and would put a certain amount of blight on the property. Mr. Hickok explained that Mr. Bolin conducted a study of parking stall width and vehicle widths when Medtronic requested 8.5 foot wide stalls. He determined that the typical parking ramp stall width in Minneapolis is 8 feet and that the widest passenger vehicle is 8.5 feet. Studies show that 10 foot wide parking stalls are unique to Fridley with the typical width being 8.5 to 9.5 feet wide. Fridley's parking ratio is also high compared to other areas, consequently Fridley is perceived to have a lot more land dedicated to parking than necessary. He added that City staff is currently talking to Council about reducing the parking ratio in commercial areas. At the Target location in Fridley, based on Target's studies and 37 years of retail experience in the metro area, our code � required parking is 500 stalls more than their needs demand. This petitioner believes that the parking issue is restricting them from leasing this building and is keeping it HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIlVG — JULY 7, 2005 Page 6 of 13 ,,-� vacant. Talking about blight on the land, not being able to fill that building is a big problem. The City allowed 8.5 foot wide stalls for Medtronic which is what is being requested by this petitioner with 9.5 foot wide stalls in the open areas. Mr. Casserly stated generally the businesses interested in a"large plate" building are in compufer operations and the have a lot more people per thousand square feet of space. He added that he knows one of the possible tenants for this location is a computer company. Ms. Greiter commented that the petitioner has indicated they plan to do some remodeling of the large open space in the existing building so that area will also be available for tenants which would also increase the number of people utilizing this building. Commissioner Meyer asked if the master plan restricts the parking deck to one level. Mr. Hickok stated there are finro proposals before the Commission; one for 104 stalls and the other for 148 stalls. With the second option, the ramp will go further north and will cover all but the northern line of parking along Mississippi with the second level. All of it will be within the existing landscaped perimeter. The exterior of the ramp will be a stucco EFIS type material in two colors, the red brick color of the building and the EFIS of tan around the building. The petitioner would like the Commission's approval of this � master plan with the flexibility to do either of those options. The Planning Commission approved this master plan with the 148 stall deck with the option of doing the 104 stall deck and the parking layout with the reduced size stalls as proposed. Commissioner Meyer asked if Bonestroo Rosene & Anderlik should be asked to comment on this request and whether the reduced parking width proposal is useful and desirable in our area. Mr. Bolin stated he still has all the information gathered when Medtronic requested the 8.5 foot stalls. Staff surveyed between 15 to 20 different ramps in the metro area. They took pictures and measured stalls and vehicles. He offered to share that information with the Commission members with the packet for the next meeting. Mr. Hickok commented that there is a timing issue because the purchase of this building hinges on the approval of the master plan amendment for parking. Commissioner Holm stated it is his understanding that the HRA's approval isn't required, only their input on this matter. He then asked if the construction of the ramp is a certainty and if there are any stipulations attached to the construction of the ramp. He stated if the proposed parking is a workable situation he would support the proposal and he supports the full use of the existing building. � Mr. Hickok explained the timing of the ramp construction is uncertain but the petitioner believes the construction of the ramp is necessary to fully occupy the building. There HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — NLY 7, 2005 Page 7 of 13 ,�--� are stipulations by staff regarding no parking on the street or nearby parking lots during construction of the ramp. The best way to accomplish that would be for the petitioner to build the ramp before they start filling the building. Commissioner Gable stated she shares some of Commissioner Meyer's concerns regarding the parking stall width, but the building on this site has been sitting empty for a long time and the City needs to work to accommodate the full use of that building. The HRA member's concems have been expressed very clearly and the City Council will be aware of those concems. Dr. Burns commented that over the years the Council has been very sensitive about the issue of parking stall widths and they will give the matter a very thorough and careful discussion. Commissioner Meyer suggested that the concern over building occupancy be set aside and that the focus be on the parking stall width and the relinquishing of the City's rights to a parking deck on this property. Chairperson Commers stated he does not have any objections to amending the master plan and allowing them to build a ramp but he is concerried about the parking stall width. He hopes that the Council will look very carefully at the parking stall width and that they review the materials Mr. Bolin has on the Medtronic project. � Dr. Burns asked what relationship the HRA's decision on the gifting of the land to the Target site has to the future discretion to the Columbia Park parking area. Mr. Hickok responded that if he were Columbia Park and heard about the gifting of the property to the north, he would ask "What about us?" But he thought the City can make a decision independently as long as they create a clear record as to why they would take this action for one property and not the other. It is time that the City asks the question rather than giving Columbia Park money to improve their parking lot, consider selling them the land so they can do their own improvements. In both cases it sounds like they want the land so they have control of it. The City is in a bit of a quandary, but this discussion is good news in that it means that there is development around us. Dr. Burns commented that he believes the bigger problem is not the parking stall widths but foreclosing possibilities for future municipal center parking. Mr. Hickok stated that would be the best reason to give for approving the sale to this petitioner and not to Columbia Park and to articulate that. The City has already said that by 2014 they will sell the property to the north and the price is set. So there's no debate about the sale itself, just about whether or not they will do so earlier. Columbia Park's parking lot is a different situation and as long as the City is clear in the record it should not be a problem. Holding the Columbia Park property has given the City ^ options and to have some say in what they do with it. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JLTLY 7, 2005 Page 8 of 13 n Chairperson Commers commented that the parking study that says the City doesn't need additional parking and is never going to need it. If there's some hesitancy about that or some risk, he doesn't see any reason why the City should approve this. The City continues to collect rent off the bond and should be sure they're not "cutting off their nose" by approving this. Dr. Burns stated that the study's suggestion regarding managing the existing parking may have a lot of inerit. Over the years, he stated he has seen an increased demand for parking in the municipal ramp to the point where at peak times; it's difficult to find a space. Also there are a growing number of city employee cars in the Target lot. City employees prefer parking in the Target lot than in the lower municipal ramp. Chairperson Commers stated his comments (regarding approval of this amendment) are contingent upon Council being satisfied that there is no long term affect on City Hall parking. Dr. Burns commented that he believes it is a good idea to fill the Target building as it has been vacant a long time, but at the same time the City needs to maintain flexibility for its own needs. Chairperson Commers stated the gifting of that property is a factor that needs to be considered. -�, Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner, Yale Place Associates, has a purchase agreement with Target with a deadline of September 1, 2005 to close on this property. Mark McCary, representing Yale Place Associates, has been the broker for the Target property for the past four years. Based on his knowledge of the tenants he is "courting" he believes that at a minimum this site is short 100 parking stalls to accommodate any of the potential occupants. The HRA owns the property that surrounds the Target building and in 1984 Target and the City entered into a development agreement which required that Target pay $15,000 per year for the use of the parking lot and required Target to buy the land in 2014 for a set purchase price of $300,000. Rather than make an annual payment, Target purchased and placed in the HRA's name, a$135,000 treasury bond which yields 11.25% annually. This comes out to about $15,700 per year. Mr. McCary is asking that the HRA and the City waive its right to construct a ramp on the Target NOC parking lot. He does not want to take the property over and invest in a ramp that would meet his needs only to find out at some point in the future that the City wants to add a deck on top of his ramp. He's not planning on building his ramp to support a second story. Further, Mc. McCary has asked that the HRA sell him the property now for $1.00 rather than in the year 2014 for $300,000. Staff is recommending the HRA not take any action on this item until its August meeting. Mr. McCary has failed to convince staff and legal counsel that there is a need for such a discounted price on the property. At the last HRA meeting the 3% figure was discussed and whether or not the HRA has a maximum they would contribute to projects like this. � He found policies that came out of a joint meeting with the Council in 1992 that for a property like this to be the granting of the ramp for $1.00 and in the grant the HRA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 7, 2005 Page 9 of 13 �, determined they would not go over 5% of the development cost for assistance or subsidy of that development. In discussions with Mr. McCary, staff has requested that Target release any claims they have against the Treasury bond. Target has verbally agreed to that in the last 48 hours but staff has not yet received written confirmation. Also staff has not been given good timeframes for ramp construction to begin which raises concerns about the possibility of tenant parking being pushed out onto 5�" Street or into the City lot itself. Legal counsel has done a comparison to determine if there would be a benefit to the City keeping the original purchase price, the original purchase date, and collecting rent over the next nine and a half years versus selling the land now for $300,000 and providing a credit for those lease payments. The finro options were very similar dollar-wise. The City would receive $187,000 under the first option based on today's present value versus $199,237 by selling the land now and providing a credit for those lease payments. Whether the land is sold now for $1.00 or $300,000 staff would recommend doing the sale now rather than in 2014. Mr. Casserly and Ms. Greiter can attest to the number of staff hours invested every time there is a potential purchaser or tenant going into the building. Staff's recommendation would be that the sale happens now regardless of the sale price. He also provided a copy of a letter from Mr. McCary's legal counsel requesting additional time to provide information staff had previously requested and for staff to take time to review that information and make a recommendation to the HRA at their next meeting. Mr. McCary is working with his legal team to compile all of the documents that are going to be required to make this sale happen. There is a matter of amending the development agreement currently befinreen � the City and Target. There is a matter of an easement document for access off of 5�' Street and the documentation of assurances from Target that there are no holds on the Treasury bond. Commissioner Holm stated he would like some information about the $135,000 bond. He questioned if Target were still in the building in 2014, if would they expect that $135,000 to be used as a part of the $300,000 purchase price. Chairperson Commers responded he does not believe so. Ms. Greiter stated she has spent a great deal of time reviewing this issue. There was a separate agreement entered into at the same time as the redevelopment agreement that specifically dealt with Target's purchase of this bond, giving it to the City and listing certain circumstances that would require the City to give the bond back to them. It is her opinion that because the agreement was so specific as to the circumstances that would require the HRA to give the bond back, and maturity was not one of them, and the fact that they put the bond in the HRA's name to begin with, it is her opinion the HRA is entitled to keep it. That specific situation was not addressed nor did the agreement state that the principal amount would be applied toward the $300,000 purchase price. They're hoping to have Target sign off on all those issues. Mr. Casserly explained that's why Mr. Bolin was making the point that it would be nice ,--, to conclude these matters now. Every time this issue opens up staff and the HRA gets caught up in these issues. It would be nice to have a resolution of this. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 7, 2005 Page 10 of 13 i"� Mr. Hickok stated they will bring this matter back to the HRA at their August meeting. The land use actions are running at their own schedule to meet the 60 day statutory requirement so the master plan amendment will be addressed at the July 25�' Council meeting. Chairperson Commers was concerned that the HRA's made its recommendation on the amendment based on the Council making the determination that it's not going to affect the City. The only thing the HRA has not made a recommendation on is the economics of this issue. Mr. Casserly commented that the Council will not be considering that. There isn't anything more that will be provided between now and the beginning of August. What has not been seen is any justification why they should have any relief from the amounts suggested in the memo. Staff believes the amount suggested in the memo that the petitioner pay for the land is fair. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the HRA should make a recommendation to the Council on the economics of this issue. Commissioner Holm stated he believed the HRA should hear the petitioner's justification for requesting the price of $1.00 before a decision is made. ;� Chairperson Commers stated they will probably claim the cost of the ramp, $2,700,000, is the justification. Commissioner Holm stated the other issue is there's nothing in the development agreement that needs City Council action. The only issue the Council addresses is the master plan amendment. Mr. Bolin restated that staff is not recommending action on the sale of the property at this meeting as more information is required from the petitioner. Mr. Casserly explained the problem with this project has been that staff has not had any income pro formas so they're only speculating what the property can be rented for. The ramp may be covered by the revenues from the project. He believed the petitioner is buying this property for a very competitive price and that is the only way they would have the ability to invest a couple of million in a ramp plus what they have to invest internally in the property. But one of the potential tenants is a superior tenant willing to go into a ten year lease, with a very good rating, and would take up half the property from the beginning. Staff needs to see what the real finances are. Chairperson Commers questioned if there is any hesitancy in the petitioner giving pro formas since they're going to try a tax protest to devalue the building. � HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIl�TG — JiJLY 7, 2005 Page 11 of 13 � Mr. Casserly responded if the building has no value because it's not being rented that's the argument they have to make to get a tax reduction. He thinks the petitioner is in the process of negotiations and does not have all the pieces put together. Chairperson Commers stated the HRA has made its recommendation on the master plan amendment and will address the other issue at their August meeting. • Islands of Peace Update Mr. Bolin stated the City has been examining the possibility of redeveloping the properties near the Islands of Peace Park to the extent that request for qualifications were sent out to developers. The HRA and Council met in a joint session on June 8 and met with three developers. Staff and legal counsel were given three specific tasks to help understand some of the financial implications before taking the next step and selecting a developer. The three tasks were: 1) further analyze the settlement agreement for the Satellite Lane Apartments lawsuit which came about when Christianson Crossing was built across the street; 2) get additional information on the meaning and methods of the appraisal done on 190 and 191 Island Park Drive; 3) work with City's relocation experts to further understand and define possible ,� relocation costs. Mr. Bolin stated staff determined the $11,000 per unit was accurate. Ms. Greiter stated she reviewed the settlement agreement and met with John Baker of the Greene Espel law firm (which handled the litigation involving Satellite Lane Apartments). The main steps that they required the City to take were: - enact a Fair Housing ordinance covering all protected classes with respect to all aspects of housing; sale, leasing, advertising and redevelopment; - refrain from implementing any local residency preference for any Section 8 housing or other low, moderate income housing program administered by the City or the HRA - make affordable housing a priority in the City's overall planning process - take steps to modify the housing chapter of the City's comprehensive plan to further these goals. Ms. Greiter further stated given that the City of Fridley has long maintained a city-wide non-discriminatory system of comprehensive code enforcement will help the City defend itself effectively. Another thing that has happened which addresses the spirit of the settlement agreement is that there is now a full time Section 8 housing coordinator. Also the City has incorporated many favorable housing goals and strategies within the housing chapter of the comprehensive plan, all of which indicate the City's commitment to addressing life cycle housing, multiple income levels of residents, attempting to ^ accommodate all racial and ethnic group income levels. The City has also recently amended the mobile home park ordinance to afford greater resident protection and HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIlVG — JiJLY 7, 2005 Page 12 of 13 � that's typically where a City has a lot of its low to moderate income housing. A significant percentage of the City's rental housing stock is considered affordable based on a 2004 community forum. She suggested that if the City decides to proceed with the Island Park development, it would be worthwhile for the City and HRA to adopt guidelines for how they propose to do this project which would include how they will handle relocation of the tenants and the City's goals for redevelopment. This would help defend the City against claims that they're just doing it to eliminate certain types of housing. Also, the extent to which the City would incorporate phasing for redevelopment which would make it somewhat easier for the rest of the rental housing to absorb the tenants looking for replacement housing. Mr. Bolin stated staff came to a lot of the same conclusions and had several discussions with Mr. Casserly and Ms. Greiter over the past few weeks. He believed the relocation strategies will be important. One worry is that with 144 units if things aren't phased, that will be a Iot of people to place at one time. Chairperson Commers commented that there is other information needed regarding this matter before the HRA can even begin to discuss relocation concems. Mr. Bolin stated it is important to get a developer on board to take some of the next steps and to give some indication of costs involved. � After some discussion, it was decided that Mr. Bolin would have a recommendation for the developer on this project by the HRA's August meeting. • Gateway West — Project Update Mr. Bolin reported that the Harvet's have moved out and tumed their keys into staff and their final relocation payment has been made. The hazardous material inspection was completed on their property and just this moming the interior blight analysis was completed. The Council will hold the hearing at their August 8�' meeting as far as the creation of the TIF district. All of the legal notices have been taken care of including the notification to Commissioner Kordiak and Anoka County. There have been a number of break-ins to the properties in this area so the police have increased their presence and the windows and doors are quickly being boarded up. Staff is hoping to proceed with deconstruction by the end of August. • Monthly Housing Report Mr. Bolin stated in May staff held an open house with about 14 residents attending. As a result, they closed on three loans in June and have three more in the process. They will hold another open house for different neighborhoods. He then reviewed the r--� housing report. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORTTY MEETING — JLILY 7, 2005 Page 13 of 13 � ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Gabel, seconded by Commissioner Meyer, to adjoum. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 PM. RespectFully submitted by, ��'�-�-- � j�O Rebecca Brazys ��/ Recording Secretary �°'\ CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING �'t�l �.� '7, � � �� Name and Address Agenda Item of Interest /'� ��