HRA 07/07/2009 - 6215CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
Thursday, July 7, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
LOCATION: Council Chambers (upper level)
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 2, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
ConsiderClaims & Expenses ............................................................ ..............................1
ACTION:
Review of Target NOC Master Site Plan Changes .................................. ..............................2
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Target NOC Request For Assistance ................................................. ...............................
3
ParkingStudy Final Draft ................................................................... ..............................4
Islandsof Peace Update .................................................................. ..............................5
Gateway West — Project Update ......................................................... ..............................6
MonthlyHousing Report ..................................................................... ..............................7
ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JUNE 2, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Pesent: John Meyer
Virginia Schnabel
Larry Commers
Pat Gabel
William Holm
Others Present: William Burns, HRA Executive Director
Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 7, 2005
MOTION by Commissioner Holm, seconded by Commissioner Gabel, to approve the
minutes as submitted.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA:
• Claims and Expenses
MOTION by Commissioner Schnabel, seconded by Commissioner Meyer, to approve
the claims and expenses.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ACTION:
Resolution authorizing the execution of tax increment pledge agreement.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 2 of 13
Mr. Pribyl stated there is a tax increment pledge agreement associated with the
refinancing of the 1997A tax increment bond. On May 23�d, the Council approved the
sale of two general obligation bonds one being the refinancing of this particular bond.
With the refinancing the City will save over $158,000 over the next 3 '/z years to the
maturity of these bonds. As in the past when the City sells or refinances these types of
bonds there's a pledge agreement that goes along with the sale of that bond. Before
the HRA this evening is a pledge agreement for the 19.97A bond was issued in that year
to refinance a prior bond and to provide funding for the acquisition of the Lake Pointe
property.
Chairperson Commers stated he thought there had been some issue with this bond.
Mr. Pribyl responded there had not been an issue with this and the bond counsel, Mary
Ippel from Briggs and Morgan, is fine with this refinancing.
Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Pribyl to summarize what a pledge agreement is.
Mr. Pribyl explained that the pledge agreement is pledging the increments from District
6 District 6 as the revenue stream that's used to retire this debt. The bond counsel has
reviewed and determined the increments sufficient to retire this debt.
Chairperson Commers asked when this will be paid.
Mr. Pribyl stated this debt will be retired in 2009. These will be paid semi - annually over
a year of 3 % years.
MOTION by Commissioner Holm, seconded by Commissioner Schnabel, to approve
Resolution 2005 -01.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• Review of Spring Valley Estates Master Site Plan
Mr. Hickok stated this is a property that was before the HRA previously but which has
been restructured. The petitioner John DeMello is requesting a rezoning of five lots to
S2 which are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461
Central Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the
same property to allow construction of a mixed use development. In the previous
proposal this project included the three properties along 64th Avenue, those three
properties are not a part of the new development. A three storied Italian Villa style
mixed use development is proposed with 10,492 square feet of retail space on the
corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central and 70 senior condominium units. The
one, two and three bedroom units will be owner - occupied and will have underground
parking. Access to the complex would be taken directly across from the anticipated
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 3 of 13
Town Center development on the west side of Central Avenue and on Mississippi. In
2004, the petitioner brought forth a different proposal for a larger development which
was denied. The 2004 proposal denial revolved around density, traffic on 64th Avenue,
limited snow storage and landscaping opportunities. The changes that have been made
include that there are now not two separate parcels but is one parcel with both retail and
housing. It does not include the three properties along 64th in an effort to keep the
character along 64th untouched as neighbors' concerns indicated at the last meetin
and neighborhood and Council concerns which was focused on drive access onto 64
and the potential for new traffic. The plan includes less retail space so there is less
demand for surface parking and less demand for green space which allows for more
area for snow storage. The project is three stories high rather than four stories which is
very important to the neighborhood. One of the major concerns about the previous
proposal was the mass of the building relative to the lower scale buildings in the
surrounding area. They have reduced the project by an entire story; a total of 10 feet.
There are also 20 less condominium units as a result of density concerns.
Mr. Hickok further explained the S2 zoning requires a Master Plan to be approved by
the City. The HRA reviews the Master Plan and makes recommendations to the
Council. Any modifications to the site plan following Council approval must be brought
back to the Council and reviewed by the HRA prior to Council approval. The Planning
Commission approved this Master Plan at their meeting yesterday. Staff recommends
that the HRA concur with the Planning Commission and recommend approval of the
Master Plan for this development.
Chairperson Commers questioned why the HRA needs to approve the Master Plan.
Mr. Hickok explained this is an information item and is a redevelopment project, much
like Town Center across the street and Gateway West project. There is not a statute or
ordinance requirement that the HRA formally approve this, other than to be involved in
the process since the HRA is such an important part of redevelopment.
Chairperson Commers stated the HRA hasn't been involved in the planning process for
this proposal and does not have the necessary information to make an informed
judgment.
Mr. Hickok stated it is not the HRA's role to get involved in the planning process for
such a project as staff focused on the technical aspects of the project such as
landscaping, grading and drainage, ponding, snow storage, parking, etc. The HRA's
role is if there's any concerns they may have they're welcome to pass those on to the
Council.
Commissioner Schnabel stated she also questioned the HRA's involvement. She asked
if there are a lot of neighbors concerned about this project.
Mr. Hickok responded that there were about five neighbors present at the Planning
Commission meeting as well as one letter from a neighbor being presented. Some of
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 4 of 13
the comments were relative to issues that were part of the earlier project that simply
required clarification for the current proposal and there were some concerns about how
this development will affect the integrity of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schnabel questioned when the Planning Commission approves a Master
Plan aren't they in control of the development and if changes have to go through them.
She also asked if the HRA has any financial involvement in this development.
Mr. Hickok responded the HRA does not have a financial involvement. Many times the
HRA has been involved financially with S2 developments so the Master Plan in that
case is more important to the HRA. It really is the Planning Commission and Council
that "puts the stamp" on the project as required by the ordinance.
Chairperson Commers stated the HRA appreciates the information on the development
and the clarification of their role in this matter.
Mr. Hickok continued reviewing the Spring Valley Estates project explaining that the
proposal is an Italian Villa style. The developer and architect have provided some
architectural interest and have building facades that are not just straight flat planes but
have a lot of focal points, height, and depth variation to give the project an interesting
appeal. The architect and developer wanted it noted that the colors that come across
on the computer screen are different from what will actually be on the site. There is a
different mix of materials with brick, stone, concrete board, and stucco which is very
typical of the new developments. The site plan shows that the building is a crescent
which wraps around an inner parking area for the condo complex and comes in off of
Old Central across from the Town Center development. The parking to the north is
relative to the commercial area. All the surface parking is to provide convenient access
to the commercial area of the complex. The majority of the parking is under the building
so each unit has a minimum of one stall with additional stalls available. It's a very good
lay out. The Master Plan portion allows some flexibility; such as the north edge where
the parking is only 14 feet rather than the 20 feet from the property line and on the
western edge the drive aisle is only 2 feet back rather than the typical 20 feet. The
county has asked for an enormous amount of right -of -way along both property edges
and that has caused them to have to shrink their site down and reduce green space.
They have done a nice job in their ponding and landscape plan to provide vertical
integration of green space so that there isn't the feel of this being compressed or the
setbacks being less. As both the staff and Planning Commission have indicated, this is
a very good site plan. There is a landscape issue that staff is still working out as far as
a shortage of the required number of trees.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the only entrance into this complex is off of Central.
Mr. Hickok responded there is a vehicle access on the north side and the west side.
There is direct access into all of the retail from outside as well as inside the building.
The underground parking can be accessed from both Mississippi and Central.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 5 of 13
Commissioner Gable questioned the selling prices for the condominium units and what
type of retail they anticipate.
Mr. Hickok stated they expect the selling price to begin in the mid to high $100,000
range and the upper range would be in the upper $200,000. There are a number of
different floor plans. As far as the retail area, they hope to have five bays of up to 1200
square feet with some common area with coffee shops, pharmacy or dry cleaner; things
that would have a neighborhood market draw. The Town Center project opposite of this
proposal has been delayed due to a court review of ownership and title issues. The
developer is optimistic he'll be back with a final plat in June.
Commissioner Meyer questioned if a traffic study has been performed on the
intersection of Mississippi and Old Central.
Mr. Hickok stated there has been an extensive study with both projects having been
considered and it was determined that they will not create a significant impact on the
roadways. There was a concern expressed at the Planning Commission meeting about
whether or not this was spot zoning. Due to the previous proposal for this site, there
has been a record created by the earlier hearings and testimony so the City does not
believe this is spot zoning and it matches what our Comprehensive Plan calls for.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
• Letter of understanding between HRA and Medtronic for expenses to
reconcile tax increment payments for 2004.
Chairperson Commers questions why this is being done.
Mr. Pribyl explained he has been in contact with Medtronic and this has gone on for 6
months where the City has computed based on what the County has actually provided
in tax increment and their staff has attempted to calculate the actual increment based
on their knowledge of Minnesota property tax law. Medtronic had some concerns as far
as the calculations Anoka County had made in response to the petition they filed for
payable years 1993 — 1994 — 1995. Medtronic requested that somebody independent
that has knowledge of property taxes to do the calculations and confirm whether they're
correct or the County is correct. One of the issues is Anoka County has implemented a
new property tax system and they have a concern regarding some of the conversion of
values. It has been a very friendly conversation between the staff and Medtronic and
Medtronic understands that they're responsible for any cost in regard to this and will
reimburse.
Chairperson Commers asked why Medtronic isn't dealing directly with the County.
Mr. Pribyl explained Ehlers and Associates is the firm that Medtronic would like to have
reviewed this matter. Shelly Ehlers, who used to work at Anoka County, is a staff
member at Ehlers. Ehlers is a public finance organization which does not work for
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 6 of 13
private developers. The City would have to hire Ehlers to perform this review and
Medtronic would reimburse the City for those costs.
Chairperson Commers was concerned that by the City hiring Ehlers that would make it
the City's report and may put the City at odds with the County. There must be other
firms Medtronic could hire to perform this review.
Mr. Pribyl responded that should something come out of this, Anoka County would
reevaluate the increment that was distributed. And the City would want to know if there
had been an error in the calculations because of the fact that our land payment is a
result of those calculations. Medtronic's feeling is that the County distributed too much
which resulted in an overpayment to them. Also, staff does not see this as an
adversarial situation.
Chairperson Commers stated if there is a dispute, it's between Medtronic and the
County.
MOTION by Commissioner Schnabel, seconded by Commissioner Holm, to approve the
retention of Ehlers and Associates with the payment by Medtronic for any expense in
order to make.a calculation to determine the correctness of the tax increment for the
years 1993, 1994 and 1995.
Commissioner Gable agreed with Chairperson Commers' concerns and questioned why
the City should be the middle man.
Commissioner Holm questioned why Medtronic can't hire Ehlers directly.
Mr. Pribyl explained that Ehlers does not work for private developers, only public
agencies.
Commissioner Holm asked what would happen if the HRA does not approve this.
Mr. Pribyl responded that Medtronic would probably search out some other consultant
to perform the task.
Commissioner Holm asked if consultants other than Ehlers would have less credibility
with the County.
Mr. Pribyl explained that one of Ehlers staff members knows the County system well
and complete the task quickly.
Mr. Burns asked other than for purposes of creating good will with Medtronic, how Mr.
Pribyl would describe the public purpose in this agreement.
Mr. Pribyl stated Medtronic is alleging that the City has overpaid them based on their
knowledge of the tax increment and development agreement. This is probably the only
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 7 of 13
public interest is that the City would save money based on Medtronic's concern that
there had been an over payment. This whole discussion has been very friendly and the
public purpose served is if Medtronic is correct, the City has overpaid Medtronic.
Commissioner Holm questioned the down side of the City being involved in this matter.
Mr. Pribyl responded the only down side is possibly some erosion of good will between
the two organizations,
Chairperson Commers added that the down side is the City may be at odds with the
County and there may be a lawsuit if there's some discrepancy that goes in Medtronic's
favor and that lawsuit would be based on a report the City had authored.
Mr. Pribyl anticipates the outcome of this to be a greater understanding for Medtronic as
far as how the property tax calculations work in the State of Minnesota.
Mr. Burns commented the City has periodically contested assessments with the County.
Mr. Pribyl stated that is correct and there have been at least two previous incidents
where Mr. Casserly found that the County had classified properties incorrectly or not
converted them correctly and requested those modifications be made. In this case,
Medtronic would like to go to the County with a very educated process and be able to
show the County exactly where an error was made.
CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON THE
FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
COMMERS NAY HOLM AYE
GABLE NAY SCHNABEL AYE
MEYER AYE
• Review draft of SE quadrant parking study.
Mr. Bolin stated that back in March the HRA awarded a contract for this study to
Bonestroo, Rosene & Andrelik (BRA). They examined the parking lots used by the City,
Columbia Park Medical Clinic, by the Fridley Professional Building and the vacant
Target Operations Center lot just north of City Hall. The purpose of the study was to
identify if there are any real needs for parking in this area now and what's going to
happen in the future when the Target building becomes occupied again. Going into this
study it was believed that there was a parking problem in this area. What was found is
that there are some problems but easy remedies as well. BRA did half hour parking
counts over four separate days during the week and these counts provide a snapshot of
the current conditions for parking in this quadrant. The peak time parking demands
range from 60 to 90% occupancy. The City Hall upper level approached 90% at peak
but the lower level parking ramp never got over 70% which means that even during the
worst case scenario, there are still 26 open parking stalls in our lower level. The
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 8 of 13
Columbia Park Medical Center west lot hits a high of 90% at peak times, however the
58 stall parking area on the east side of their building didn't reach more than 60%
occupancy which results in 23 empty parking spaces at any given time in that area. The
Fridley Professional Building east lot ranges from 60 to 80% occupancy. Some of the
conclusions that came out of this study; the parking for the three occupied buildings is
starting to approach a level where finding a parking spot may be somewhat difficult
during peak times and the study points out that if the Target Operations Center is filled
with office uses the current parking area will most likely be inadequate. Through some
parking management, the study points out we may be able to alleviate some of the
perceived parking problems, specifically better signage for the City Hall's lower ramp.
For Columbia Park the study recommends the employees be instructed to park in that
east lot that typically has 23 vacant stalls. Another conclusion of the study and
subsequent discussions with the consultant is that ramping may be the only real
solution for future shortages if the Columbia Park Medical building expands or the
Target Center becomes fully occupied. Also, the study determined that there is no one -
ramp solution to address all of these parking shortages. The distance between
Columbia Park and the Target building is too great for a cross parking arrangement.
Another problem is all the buildings in this quadrant have the same peak demand times
so there is no real opportunity to share parking. Speaking with the consultant, as City
Hall is unlikely to outgrow its current parking the HRA may wish to give up their interest
in building a parking ramp on the Target Operations lot. Staff will be bringing to the
HRA in July a request from a potential purchaser of that site.
Commissioner Schnabel questioned if City employees currently park in the lower ramp.
Mr. Bolin stated those City employees who actually work in the lower level use the lower
parking ramp. During severe weather, additional employees utilize the lower level and
some employees park in the Target lot. Signage and direction from the City Manager to
staff may open the upper level.
Commissioner Schnabel commented that the lower ramp is very dark and is not a
comfortable atmosphere particularly for women. She questioned at what time it would
be appropriate for the HRA to make a decision whether or not to relinquish their interest
in the Target parking lot.
Mr. Bolin stated the formal request from the potential purchaser of the Target site will be
presented to the HRA at their July meeting. In addition to seeking permission to
construct a ramp on that site, the purchaser will be asking to re- stripe the lot to a
smaller parking space size. He will also be asking that the HRA give up the right to
construct the ramp of its own and to sell the parcel to him now rather than in 2014 or the
HRA keep the lease agreement they have with Target in place until that time, depending
upon which is more advantageous to the City. Jim Casserly is looking into this for the
HRA. The City may get more revenue out of continuing to receive the lease payments
through 2014 and make the sale at that time rather than to do the sale now. Staff is
expecting a lot more information from Yale Place Associates before the July meeting
and more information from the legal counsel as well.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 9 of 13
Commissioner Meyer questioned why the HRA would care about hanging onto their
rights to build a parking ramp on the Target site when it will not alleviate the parking
problems for City Hall or Columbia Park Medical.
Mr. Bolin stated that was one of the key reasons for doing this study and the HRA had
been asked last year to give up that right. What the study shows is that City Hall
doesn't have a parking shortage it can't manage and any future parking problems for
Columbia Park will not be resolved by the HRA constructing a ramp on the Target site.
What this study says is that the HRA may want to consider relinquishing that right at this
time.
Chairperson Commers questioned how much assistance the proposed purchaser is
seeking to build a ramp.
Mr. Bolin responded at this time they're seeking no assistance other than a break on the
sale price of the property. The current agreement with Target requires that Target
purchase those parcels from the HRA in 2014 for the sum of $300,000.
Chairperson Commers stated it appears they're going to file a tax protest and he asked
what that would do to any tax increment left on that property.
Mr. Hickok stated Target had an agreement with the City that they would have a base
value and that agreement ends this year. Now that the base value is gone and the
building has been empty, they're going to challenge the value. They're past that
minimum value agreement for assessment purposes and they want to tell the County
and the City that they've been paying too much based on that base agreement. Target
has been waiting for this agreement for minimum assessment to expire and then they'll
come back and claim they paid too much.
Mr. Bolin commented that much like the Medtronic re- evaluation of TIF, he's had a
number of conversations with Jim Casserly recently and it appears the County erred in
their original valuation of the Target building next door and didn't pay out enough tax
increment. Mr. Casserly is working on this issue for the HRA and staff may be talking to
the County about the Target building.
Chairperson Commers then questioned if they do file a tax protest and their valuations
are changed will the City be getting less tax increment.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct.
Mr. Hickok stated in July Columbia Park Medical Group will again present their request
for $125,000 assistance from the City to improve the City's portion of the parking area
that Columbia Park is using. They're requesting 45% of the cost from the City because
that is the percentage of the parking area that is City owned.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 10 of 13
Gateway West — Discussion of design elements to be included in the
request for proposals.
Mr. Bolin stated the City has taken possession of all the properties needed to move
forward with the creation of the TIF district, which will be presented at the HRH's August
meeting. By the end of August they will be able to move forward with the demolition
and site preparation so it can then be passed off to a developer. Staff is currently
preparing a request for proposals to solicit developers who can carry out the City's
wishes to build sixteen single family homes in the project area. Discussions to date
have only included the type of housing to be built, single family, but other than that staff
has not been given any guidance as to design elements the HRA or Council would like
to see in this area. The developers will offer guidance if the HRA so chooses or they
could make recommendations as to design types, building materials and interior finishes
or other amenities associated with the development. He would like to learn from the
HRA what they would like to see included in the Request for Proposals (RFP) or the
developers. He referred to the pattern book put together in 1998 or 1999 that lays out
different rules of thumb for placing new homes in Fridley. In this book there are
guidelines for 60 foot lots which are the standard in the Gateway West area. Are these
architectural rules of thumb sufficient to put in the RFP? He reviewed the rules of
thumb from the pattern book. In preparing for this meeting staff spent a lot of time
looking at a number of new developments. The term "new urbanism" is heard quite a bit
now and that is building new homes that look like they belong in the neighborhood and
have been there for a number of years. This style of home has front porches and
features not seen on typical tract homes.
Commissioner Meyer stated this type of house is not appropriate for the Hyde Park area
as he believes it would clash with the Hyde Park environment because the proposed
homes are two stories.
Commissioner Gable stated she didn't see a problem because the new homes would all
be together as a part of the development. She believes the HRA could go in any
direction as far as the style of home.
Commissioner Meyer stated even with varying the colors and materials, the homes are
all of a certain type, which clashes with the homes that are in the area.
Mr. Bolin stated that staff is just trying to get some ideas from the HRA and to show
them what other communities are doing on these types of developments.
Mr. Hickok stated staff has discussed that a critical piece of this development is to
consider these four sided buildings and to not put so much emphasis on Third Street
that University Avenue looks like the back door and the utilitarian alley. It's going to be
important to lay out the site plan so that however the homes face, it doesn't look like
we've forgotten University or Third Street.
Commissioner Schnabel asked if staff is anticipating an alley for this development.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 11 of 13
Mr. Bolin stated staff is not anticipating anything; garages could be a possibility or going
out to Third Street could be a possibility.
Commissioner Schnabel stated she would be opposed to alleys.
Mr. Bolin commented that staff has discussed the fact that seeing the back of a garage
with windows would be a better view from University than seeing nothing but garage
doors.
Mr. Hickok stated also they would want to avoid a row of uniform garages or uniform
styles lot to lot so that some are attached, or set up, or set back so that there is an
interesting perspective. Staff is going to take the information HRA provides and pay a
lot of attention this project will have from all angles.
Commissioner Gable stated she hoped all the garages would be attached.
Commissioner Meyer questioned whether there will be hard and fast guidelines in the
RFP's.
Mr. Bolin explained there will be a mix of things in the RFP that will have to be set in
stone, such as the lot size and a four -sided building with windows on all four sides. But
as far as architectural features there can be some flexibility. It's the HRA's discretion to
help sift through the responses to find a developer who will deliver the product the City
wants for their investment. The pattern book with the 10 rules of thumb would be hard
and fast rules for this development. But if there are little details or certain types of
homes the HRA would or would not like included those can be included in the RFP as
well. He also commented that the area is currently a mix of older and newer homes
with a mix of styles.
Commissioner Holm asked the price range for homes in this development and if those
prices appear to fit the plans for the Hyde Park area.
Mr. Bolin stated pricing is one of the items that has not been discussed but will come
out of the response from the RFP's. A recent appraisal of a home to the north of the
Hyde Park area came in around $400,000.
Commissioner Holm asked if the lot layouts are being left somewhat open or have lot
sizes been determined.
Mr. Bolin stated that has been left somewhat open but to really blend in with the
neighborhood the lot width should be the 60 foot minimum standard in that area. The
new homes can all have similar setbacks to the neighboring properties. Using the
existing configuration of lots it looks like there can easily be 8 lots on the northerly site
and 8 lots on the southerly site as well. Some of the things probably should not be
firmly defined at this time.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 12 of 13
Commissioner Holm commented that he likes the idea of not having garages as the
focal point of each of the sites and whatever the developers can suggest would be
welcome. He does like the variety of homes and the new urbanism look is pretty sterile
in terms of all of the homes looking quite a bit alike. A mixture of elevations would be
helpful and should be encouraged in the RFP.
Commissioner Gabel stated she doesn't want the homes to be "cookie cutter" either.
She hoped there would be some creativity and unique ideas for this area.
Commissioner Meyer pointed out the variety of housing styles in the Hyde Park
neighborhood. He also hoped that the City doesn't do the new urbanism.
Commissioner Schnabel stated she recently read about the new interest in porches and
so many communities are starting to add porches on the front because it gets them to
know the neighbors and they're watching the neighborhood. She stated she would
prefer a mix of houses going in. It will be quite evident that this is a whole new
development but she felt a mix of styles could be accommodated without making it too
obvious. If garages can be turned so that the doors don't face the street that's more
common now than it used to be.
Chairperson Commers stated he would not like to see a row of garages from University
and would like the rear view of the homes to be as nice as possible. He then asked
when the RFP will be completed.
Mr. Bolin stated the RFP has been completed, but he will try and incorporate the
suggestions made by the HRA. A copy of the RFP will be sent to HRA members with
their July packet.
Chairperson Commers asked if there is sufficient time remaining to get these homes
built yet this year.
Mr. Bolin stated he can go ahead and send out the RFP before the July meeting if the
HRA is comfortable with that. He also explained that Kurth Surveying is currently
surveying the property and checking title work to make sure they have marketable titles
for each lot. If the HRA would prefer, he could have Kurth Surveying lay out a
preliminary plat for 16 lots which may get a developer into the ground sooner. The
down side to that is if we guess wrong or the developer wants a slight adjustment that
money has been spent for nothing.
After some discussion, the HRA members decided to review the RFP at their June 8t'
meeting and Mr. Bolin could then send out the RFP's. They also advised against Kurth
Surveying creating a preliminary plat for this site.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JUNE 2, 2005 Page 13 of 13
• Monthly Housing Report
Mr. Bolin reviewed the loan program figures for May stating they closed on one loan in
May, sent out 5 new applications and processed 6 applications. Year -to -date they've
closed on 5 loans. On May 24th an open house was held on the housing programs
which were attended by 13 households and it appears all will be obtaining loans through
the City's program. As far as the loan origination report, one loan was approved for a
total of $5,800 and year -to -date the program has loaned out just under $38,000. As in
previous months this loan was made to a single family home and was for windows and
doors. For this past month they received just over $34,000 in loan payments. $511
was paid in monthly servicing fees. There are currently four loans delinquent for a total
of $2,900 on a principal balance of $35,000. At the July or August meeting staff will
bring a new agreement for the loan servicing they do with the community re- investment
fund. Staff has not had an active agreement with them since 2002 when the old
agreement expired. They're now going to update that agreement.
Mr. Bolin stated for the Operation / Insulation program there were no appointments
scheduled in May or for the Remodeling Advisor. At least 6 of the 13 households that
attended the May meeting have contacted the Remodeling Advisor this month.
Mr. Bolin reminded the HRA that there is a joint HRA / Council meeting June 8, 2005 at
6:00 p.m.
Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin to put together a summary of what the HRA has
averaged in relocation costs.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Commissioner Schnabel, seconded by Commissioner Gabel, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
rJAGENDA ITEM
OF HRA MEETING OF JULY 7, 2005
CrTY FRIDLEY
Date: June 30, 2005
To: William Burns, HRA Executive Director
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Subject: Target NOC — Changes to Master Site Plan
M -05 -59
INTRODUCTION
City Zoning Code requires the HRA to review any projects proposed or amended
located within an S -2 Zoning District. This review is to take place after the
Planning Commission and before the City Council takes action on the item. Your
comments and concerns are recorded in the written minutes and made available
to the City Council.
Mark McCary, potential purchaser of the Target NOC is seeking to alter the
original master plan approved for the site. The proposed changes include a
reduction in the size of certain parking stalls and the possibility of a one level
parking deck.
Please see attached Planning Commission information.
JAPlanning\ ScottFi\HRA Stuf \July7HRA(Target Master Plan Approval).doc
AGENDA ITEM
101W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
CITY OF JULY 612005
FRIDLEY �
Date: June 30, 2005
To: Diane Savage, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Subject: Master Plan Amendment, MP #05 -01, Mark McCary, Yale Place Associates
M -05 -58
ANALYSIS
Mark McCary, Yale Place Associates, is requesting an amendment to its master plan to
allow for smaller, yet a great number of parking spaces, as well as, a parking deck
expansion.
HISTORY
In 1982, the Target NOC property, the City Hall property, and the property south of City
Hall were rezoned to S -2, Redevelopment District. As a result of that rezoning, a
Master Plan was approved and in 1985 the two -story Corporate Office complex was
constructed and exists as it is today. Yale Associates are negotiating the purchase of
this building from Target Corporation. Please see attached drawing of the existing
conditions.
Yale Associates is the petitioner and is proposing to re- design the parking lot in order to
construct additional on -site parking (both surface and structured) for the existing
building. The current parking configuration involves land owned by the City of Fridley.
In 1982, Target Corporation purchased a $135,000.00 Treasury Bond in the City's
name. The annual dividends from that bond have generated a parking lot lease
payment of approximately $15,000.00 /year. The agreement signed at the time the land
was developed, specified a sale of the property (to Target Corporation) in the year
2014, for a price of $300,000.00. The petitioner has asked if the City /HRA would
entertain the idea of an early sale of the property to Yale Associates.
Further, Yale Associates is proposing to reduce the majority of the parking stall widths
from 10 feet to 8.5 feet, which will allow between 104 and 148 additional parking stalls.
Please see the attached drawing showing the re- design of the parking lot and the
location of the proposed parking deck additions.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) will have the opportunity to review
this plan at its July 7, 2005, meeting. The HRA does not have the authority to approve
or deny this request, but Code requires the Authorities input, as this project is within a
redevelopment district.
You may recall in 2003, the HRA and the Planning Commission reviewed and made
recommendations on an amendment as it pertained to the Columbia Park Medical
Centers revised parking plan that called for 9, rather than 10' parking stalls. Overall,
the HRA was supportive of this master plan amendment; however, the members did
express concern about reducing the parking stall width from 10 feet to 9 feet. They
would encourage the developer to consider reducing the stall width to 9 feet primarily for
the employee parking areas. City staff conveyed this HRA concern to a Columbia Park
representative and ultimately, Council required that the stalls immediately adjacent to
the building be left as 10' customer stalls, since greater daytime turn -over would likely
occur in these stalls.
The current proposal places larger stalls and accessible parking stalls closest to the
building, to address the HRA and Council concerns expressed during the earlier
proposal.
PARKING DECK
A parking Deck has been proposed and may begin as soon as this fall. As proposed
the parking deck would be set away from the building and would be centered over
existing surface parking. The ultimate size of the ramp will depend somewhat on tenant
demands for parking. You'll not in the illustrations a spectrum of options have been
proposed. The largest of the options is what will be considered the Master Planned
Deck. This will be done with the understanding that anything beyond that footprint will
be brought back for Master Plan review and modification. Any of the options less than
the full build -out will be within this Master Plan and will be able to be built without further
Master Plan Review.
As proposed the exterior of the deck will be finished with materials and colors that
compliment the existing building.
Building permits and Fire Marshal approval will be required, prior to commencement of
construction of the proposed parking deck.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to modify the Master Plan for the HRA
property formerly known as the Target Northern Operations Center Parking Lot. This
recommendation includes the following stipulations:
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
2. The proposed parking structure additions shall be architecturally compatible
with the existing building and finished with complementary building materials
(as shown in petitioner's plan entitled Parking Structure Elevation — South).
3. Parking stalls to be reduced to 9.5 feet, 9.0 feet, and 8.5 feet in width
respectively, shall be striped as identified in proposed plan and remain striped
as such unless further modifications are made to the Master Plan after
appropriate Commission/ Council action has been taken.
4. No off -site parking will be permitted during construction of parking deck. All
necessary precautions and logistics planning must be done to assure public
safety and to assure demands will not be placed on adjacent parking facilities,
or streets, as a result of the parking deck construction.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 572 -3592
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR:
S -2, REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL/
AMENDMENT FOR MASTER PLAN APPROVAL
PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittal, see attached
Address: Co 000685 1W )WstiU &1, AU
Property Identification Number:
Legal Description: Lot Block Tract/Addition
Sac 9FKtfc81 r 9
Description of Proposed Project (attach narrative if necessary):
SPC 6XthBjT A-
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No 7� If Yes, which City?
If Yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME: C ffy QT: t -- K1 t.C- y i-fR ft
ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE:
PETITIONER INFORMATION
NAME: MA& AcCAKI L6 G r Asci
ADDRESS: 14 f ,
DAYTIME PHONE:W2.336•�F317 SIGNATURE/DATE:
FEES
Fee: $500.0
Application Number: Receipt #: Received By:
Scheduled Planning Commission Date:
Scheduled City Council Date: s - -�
10 Day Application Complete Notification Date:
60 Dav Date:
EXHIBIT B
Parcel -.B of the Development Property consists of the
five Subparcels B -1, B -2. B -3, B-4. and B -5, all located in
the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and legally described as
follows, respectively:
Subparcel B -1: Lot 3, Block 1;
Subparcel B -2: Lot.2, Block 1;
Subparcel B -3: Lot 5, Block 1;
Subparcel B -4: The North 21 feeto f the eandEast 79
feet of
Subparcel B -5: Lot 4, Block 1;
All in Fridley Plaza Center, Anoka County, Minnesota.
B - 1
'i
aaa ".x
'y
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:
All property owners /residents within 350 feet of property
generally located at 6499 University Avenue NE.
CASE NUMBER:
Master Plan Amendment — MP #05 -01
APPLICANT:
Yale Place Associates, LLC
Petitioner or representative must attend the Planning Commission meeting.
PURPOSE:
To increase the number of surface parking spaces and permit
the construction of a raised parking structure.
LOCATION OF
6499 University Avenue NE
PROPERTY AND
LEGAL
Lot 1, Block 1, Fridley Plaza Center, subject to easement of
DESCRIPTION:
record.
DATE AND TIME OF
Planning Commission Meeting:
HEARING:
Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night
of the meeting on Channel 17.
PLACE OF
Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers
HEARING:
6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN
HOW TO
1. You may attend hearings and testify.
PARTICIPATE:
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones,
Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E.,
Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763- 571 -1287.
SPECIAL
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an
ACCOMODATIONS:
Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require
auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763- 572 -3500
no later than June 30, 2005. The TDD # is 763- 572 -3534.
ANY QUESTIONS:
Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763 - 572 -3599.
Publish: June 23, 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESIDENT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
City of Fridley
�1
6 TH AVE
47
�—� \�
ST -
FEE
-I -TEL
E
R - -
Sources: River's Edge GIS, LLC. 1 Inch = 297 feet
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
MP #05 -01 Map Date: 6/23/2005 PETITIONER - YALE PLACE ASSOCIATES Data Date: March 2005
6499 UNIVERSITY AVE
143024240006 143024240007 143024240008
SPORRE KYLE T & HEIDI L MEISSNER GEORGE & DOLORES HOGAN CHRISTINE L
401 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 373 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 365 MISSISSIPPI ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024240009
CURRENT RESIDENT
355 MISSISSIPPI ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024240099
CURRENT RESIDENT
6525 UNIVERSITY AVE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024310094
CURRENT RESIDENT
6401 UNIVERSITY AVE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320193
PHAM PHUONG K
6449 CHRISTENSON
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320196
DUBOIS ANNE C
6455 CHRISTENSON
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320199
STEE COLLEEN K
6465 CHRISTENSON
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320202
WELLS GREGORY A
6483 CHRISTENSON
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024240035
LINDSTROM JAN M
370 66TH AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024310081
CURRENT RESIDENT
NE 6499 UNIVERSITY AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024310095
CURRE�NTESIDENT
NE 6401 U #?Y, RSITY AVE NE
FRIDL MN 55432
143024320194
JOHNSON JEANNE & LAWRENCE
LN NE 6451 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320205
HENRY GLEN
6493 CHRISTENSON
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024240036
BENNETHUM PEARL LOUISE
368 66TH AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024310093
FRIDLE
6431 UN RSITY AVE NE
FRIDL MN 55432
143024320192
RAUSCHL CHRISTOPHER A
6447 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320195
FERRIAN P G & HERLOFSON S ESON
6453 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320208 143024320212 143024320213
HUSEBY ERIN L SKOWRONSKI J P & LITAK K J CALLAHAN TRACEY T & CASS LORI
6499 CHRISTENSON LN NE 165 CHRISTENSON CT NE 167 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320197
143024320198
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
LN NE
6461 CHRISTENSON LN NE
6463 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320200
143024320201
SHAABAN MOHAMED M
CURRENT RESIDENT
LN NE
6467 CHRISTENSON LN NE
6481 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320203
143024320204
HAGSTROM SANDRA K
PALECEK ANDREW J
LN NE
6485 CHRISTENSON LN NE
6487 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320206
143024320207
PALLOW JULIE M
BENJAMIN CARSON A
LN NE
6495 CHRISTENSON LN NE
6497 CHRISTENSON LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320208 143024320212 143024320213
HUSEBY ERIN L SKOWRONSKI J P & LITAK K J CALLAHAN TRACEY T & CASS LORI
6499 CHRISTENSON LN NE 165 CHRISTENSON CT NE 167 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320214 143024320215 143024320216
TUCKER STEFANIE R KLAPHAKE NORA RISH CORNELIUS D
169 CHRISTENSON CT NE 171 CHRISTENSON CT NE 173 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320217
GORMAN DEBORAH
175 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320220
YOON JEAN L
181 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320223
SIEVE NATHAN A
170 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320226
LEE KENT
176 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320229
PETERSON KAI D
203 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320232
TADESSE TAMERAT & NEGUSSE Y
180 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320235
TRAN CONNIE T
215 CHRISTENSON
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320218
ABBOUD DON JR
177 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320221
MCGINNIS SUZANNE
183 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320224
KLECKER KELLY L
172 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320227
RODGERS STEPHEN M
207 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320230
CURRENT RESIDENT
201 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320233
BISONG KECHI
182 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320236
CURRENT RESIDENT
WAY NE 213 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320238
RIZQ RAED N
209 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320239
HERRIN ANN E
200 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320219
SONG WOONG & EUGENE
179 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320222
CURRENT RESIDENT
185 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320225
MILLER JEREMY E & ALISON J
174 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320228
DURAND SHANNON R
205 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320231
CURRENT RESIDENT
178 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320234
CURRENT RESIDENT
184 CHRISTENSON CT NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320237
CURRENT RESIDENT
211 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320240
CURRENT RESIDENT
202 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320241 143024320242 143024320243
MARTIN CAROL CURRENT RESIDENT ROZEK THOMAS J
204 CHRISTENSON WAY NE 206 CHRISTENSON WAY NE 227 SATELLITE LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320244
143024320245
BURKARD JULIE
DJINGGA SELAMAT
225 SATELLITE LN NE
223 SATELLITE LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320247 143024320248
CONLEY CAROLINE R & PAUL H REINKE MICHELLE G
208 CHRISTENSON WAY NE 210 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320250 143024320251
CURRENT RESIDENT SALO AMY
214 CHRISTENSON WAY NE 235 SATELLITE LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320253 143024320254
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
231 SATELLITE LN NE 229 SATELLITE LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320246
LANCE JIM L
221 SATELLITE LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320249
HANDLEY PATRICK T
212 CHRISTENSON WAY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
143024320252
KARNI JACOB C
233 SATELLITE LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. for
the purpose of:
Consideration of a Master Plan Amendment, MP #05 -01, by Yale
Place Associates, LLC, to increase the number of surface
parking spaces and permit the construction of a raised parking
structure, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Fridley Plaza
Center, subject to easement of record, generally located at
6499 University Avenue NE.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions
related to this item may be referred to Julie Jones, Planning
Coordinator at 763 - 572 -3599.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter
or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at 763 - 572 -3500 no later than June
29, 2005. The TDD number is 763 - 572 -3534.
DIANE SAVAGE
CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: June 23, 2005
NOW I
F�F
l L�E1
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432
June 13, 2005 (763) 571 -3450 - FAX (763) 571 -1287 - TTDI TY (763) 572 -3534
MARK MCCARY
C/O YALE PLACE ASSOCIATES LLC
81 SOUTH 9TH ST #400
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Dear Mr. McCary:
Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10
working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your application for a
Master Plan Amendment on June 3, 2005.. This letter serves to inform you that your application is
complete.
Your Master Plan Amendment application hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley
Planning Commission meeting on July 6, 2005 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431
University Avenue NE. The City of Fridley City Council will consider action on your subdivision request
on July 25, 2005 at 7:30 P.M. You should plan to be in attendance at both of these meetings.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at (763) 572-
3599.
Sincerely,
J
ie Jones
Planning Coordinator
C -05 -37
APPLICATION FOR
AMENDMENT FOR MASTER PLAN APPROVAL
6499 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
Prepared by:
Mark T. McCary
President
Yale Place Associates, LLC
81 South 9 " Street
#400
Minneapolis, MN 55402
CADowments and Settings \mftxwr/ \Local Setf ngs \Temporary Intemef Res\OLK389 \Presentation 6- 03.doc
BACKGROUND
It has been almost four years since Target has moved out of the its building at 6499 University Avenue
N.E. Since that time, it has diligently attempted to sell this three - level, 75,000 square foot office
building. Numerous potential tenants and buyers have considered the building, but no deal
consummated.
Today, Target Corporation has a sales agreement with Yale Place Associates, LLC ( "YPA ") for the
property at 6499 University Avenue N.E. in Fridley. YPA is a local real estate investor group with
experience in purchasing and renovating office properties. It intends to invest over $7 million to
refurbish and re- tenant this office building. As part of its due diligence process, YPA has identified
one of the primary shortfalls of the building to be a lack of parking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this request for Amendment for Master Plan Approval is to receive City approval to
increase the number of parking spaces allowable on the surface parking lot and a potential to -be-
built raised parking structure on -site.
SITUATION ANALYSIS
■ Office Building Design Demand
Since 1985, when Target built its NOC building in Fridley, the demand and design for office
space has changed dramatically in the Twin Cities. This is particularly true for buildings with large
floor areas like the Target NOC building (25,000 square foot floors).
Today's work environment is dominated by open landscape furniture systems that greatly reduce
the amount of space per employee. Fifteen years ago, it would not be uncommon for a building
the size of Target's NOC facility to house 150 people. Today, it will be expected to house up to
450 people.
■ Parking Ratios
With increased building populations comes increased parking demands. In 1985, typical parking
ratios for suburban office buildings in the Twin Cities were approximately 3.0 stalls per thousand
square feet of space leased.
Today, the average parking ratio for suburban office buildings is slightly in excess of 4.5 stalls per
thousand square feet of space. Attached are two exhibits that provide a review of 7 metro -wide
and 7 northern metro office properties in the Twin Cities and the parking ratios of each. These 14
properties total over 2.4 million square feet of office space and provide an average of 4.8 stalls
perthousand.
In buildings with large floor plates, some tenant parking requirements can exceed 6 stalls per
thousand (e.g., call centers, operation centers). These higher density office uses are well suited to
the design of the Target NOC building.
Today, the Target building's parking ratio is 3.77 (283 stalls, 75,000 square feet of space).
Parking Stall Dimensions
As demand for more parking has increased, owners of existing buildings and local municipalities
have adopted more compact parking stall dimension guidelines. One rationale for narrower stall
widths is the fact that many cars are smaller today. Another rationale is that office building
parking, unlike retail, has very low turnover during the day. Most employees arrive and stay all
day. By adopting new parking guidelines, local municipalities have helped sustain property
values, allowing many existing office buildings to keep pace with the ever- changing needs of
Q \Documents and Settings \mhnccory\Local Settings \Temporary Infemet Files \=389 \Presentation 6.03.doc
office tenants. In the absence of this type of assistance, the "market" will continue to gravitate to
newer properties, thereby reducing the value of buildings like the Target NOC.
In Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka the standard width for office
building parking spaces in 81/2 feet. In Shoreview, up to 20% of a parking area can be identified
as "compact" and be 8 feet wide. In St. Paul, up to 50% of a parking lot can be compact.
In Shoreview, Moundsview, Roseville, Coon Rapids, New Brighton, and Columbia Heights zoning
requires a 9 foot parking stall width.
The current city zoning at the Target NOC building is 10 foot wide parking stalls. YPA believes
this parking shortfall is the principal reason the building has remained vacant for so many years.
Parking Ramp Economics
It is possible to increase the parking ratio and number of parking stalls at the Target building
simply by constructing a parking ramp. However, at approximately $12,000 per stall,
constructing 168 stalls of structured parking would exceed $2 million. This solution is simply cost
prohibitive.
REQUESTED SOLUTION
Yale Place Associates wants to refurbish and reintroduce 6499 University as a very competitive, high -
quality 75,000 foot multi- tenant office building. In other words, maximize the building's highest and
best use.
This can be done if the City of Fridley will approve the attached parking plans:
1. Re- stripe the existing surface and gain 32 stalls as follows:
Width
Stall Count
HC
8
9'6"
34
9'0"
25
8'6"
253
Total
320
2. Approve the location and size of a to -be -built ramp that would add between 104 and 148
more parking spaces, each at 8 1/2 foot widths.
Without adding a minimum of 100 additional parking spaces, the full potential of the Target NOC
building will suffer long -term, resulting in a substantial reduction in property value.
SUMMARY
The Target NOC building offers a unique opportunity to companies that require large floor areas and
maximized space efficiencies. By approving the increased parking requested in this application, the
City of Fridley will be insuring the long -term viability of this building, supporting its highest and best
use, and benefiting from the presence of hundreds of daily employees patronizing neighborhood
retailers.
C 1Documenfs and Setfings\mlmccary\Local SeHings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK389Vresentotion 6.03.doc
Twin Cities Office Building
Parking Ratios
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Earle Brown Plaza
au,i3l
'•"
Brooklyn Center
29,375
7075 Flying Cloud Drive
345,299
4.35
Eden Prairie
345,299
12501 Whitewater Drive
146.493
4.53
Eden Prairie
84,342
12755 Hwy 55
210,000
7.99
Plymouth
68,348
10050 Crosstown
185,000
4.39
Eden Prairie
159,205
13675 Technology Drive
250,000
4.40
Eden Prairie
99,242
4175 7&' Street W.
63.000
4.76
Edina
63,000
Total
1,250,000
5.04 average
848,811
SM" TAN tePlaceAssocivles\m &%TGpa&ing.doc
Northern Metro Office Building
Parking Ratios
1.
2285 Walnut Street
330,000
Roseville
2.
2665 Long Lake Road
11,376
Roseville
3.
Northpark Corp. II
4,989
Arden Hills
4.
Rosedale Towers
27,475
Roseville
5.
Shoreview Business Campus
7,283
Shoreview
6.
Thrivent Financial
4,132
Roseville
7.
3550 Lexington Avenue N.
13,250
Shoreview
1,171,375
Totals
S:\AADATA \Yole PlaceAssodofes \misc\Northmetro-pad6ng.doc
695.809
4.31
330,000
233,987
4.00
11,376
48,465
4.30
4,989
83.980
4.60
27,475
49,809
5.0
7,283
31.307
5.11
4,132
28.000
4.78
13,250
1,171,375
4.59 average
398,505
,I 0
z
;l
Z N
O
ti
Ln a
Z
m
v
z
c�
r�
0
I
rn
x
z
c�
r
-G
0
C
--I
I oN
0
U N I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E
--- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
H
--
i -
tl _ I -- it _ 11 — —
-- tl
tl —
��` -
:b
i
I —
—
ti ---' -- --- ti ti --- -- t 1 ti GL
cr cc -
I
t
F
I /
i
I
L.- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -•- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
5th STREET
I
I
_J
v rn
-- a X
o c=-1 •O- R to
a c) Z
n G7
LA m x o
> z
m �
to y
a a
NW O, N Z
00 N �
N
W
LA
a
m
C/)
S
71
M M
A C:
PO
Z
O
Ln >
A
z
O
U N I V -- R 5 . — - y A V E N U C
--- -- --- --- --- --- ---
-- •-- • - -• - -U
--- --- --- ------ -
------------------------
7,
�lh STREET
-0
in
m
C,�
-0
in
O
TI
ils
CL
4
E!
O
cn
0
O
rn
N to
Im
UNIVERSITY A V E N U E
- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I J1
i In
- --- ------ --- --
ll STREET
a
0
---------------
- -
-- - ----------
ti
ti
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
C
tl
>
>
>
P >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
> >
>
ti >
-F-
P
—F- >
--F- t,
N
-5- -F. 70
> D
>
-F--
-'F--
--5- I>
0
>
>
>
>
C
G >
> G
>
>
>
>
>
--F—
I>
>
>
ti
>
>
>
>
>
>
'>
>
>
LL —
>
>
>
G
> >
5—
>
--5--
G
P >
>
>
>
>
>
G
G
>
>
>
>
I J1
i In
- --- ------ --- --
ll STREET
In
r7
In
O
tCTI
F-i
H
0
—D
m
m
F�l
i
>
t t4 >
L-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ---
60,-0"
Ar
Wl oc�
C:L
O
f5
f
tl
>
t t4 >
L-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ---
Cn
Wl oc�
O
f5
Cn
cn
m
cn
Ln
51
F--- --- --- -
-•--•--•--•--•--•---
I
60,-0" 11 so'-o"
ti
L..-- •-- --- •-- •-- - - -- --
O
--- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- ---
PI
t 4
ti
>
tj
>
ti
L..-- •-- --- •-- •-- - - -- --
O
--- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- ---
PI
IT
m
rn
4
O la
M
m
F,
0
I
ci
2d
;v
rn
rn
m
En
4
mrm
O
12'
m
Ct
V)
n
F9
c7�
p
Iz
O
12 1
A
'2o
All 1
-E-�
A
Ha
2d
;v
rn
rn
m
En
4
mrm
O
12'
m
Ct
V)
n
F9
c7�
p
Iz
O
12 1
A
'2o
All 1
rJAGENDA ITEM
CrTY OF HRA MEETING OF JULY 7 2005
FRIDLEY
Date: June 30, 2005
To: William Burns, HRA Executive Director
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: Target NOC Parking Assistance Update
M -05 -57
IN I KUUUG I IUN
Staff has met, corresponded, and had a number of telephone conversations with
Mark McCary to discuss his potential purchase of the Target NOC. Mr. McCary
believes that the NOC is short at least 100 or more parking stalls to attract quality
tenants.
HISTORY
Last month you were given the attached correspondence, from which you can
see that Mr. McCary would like the City /HRA to waive its right to construct a
ramp on the site and allow for an early buyout of the HRA owned parking lot at a
greatly reduced price (free). As you review the correspondence, you will also
notice that staff and legal counsel had requested additional information so that
we could thoroughly review his request prior to making any recommendations to
the HRA at the July meeting.
At this time, staff and counsel have not been provided with enough information to
make any recommendation as to whether or not the HRA should choose to offer
assistance to the purchaser by agreeing to an early buyout, nor have we been
swayed that a reduced cost (free) is warranted. An attached memo from legal
counsel outlines some potential actions for this item.
Mr. McCary and his legal counsel have been made well aware that any early
buyout or reduced sales price would be dependent upon Target waiving all rights
and claims to the Treasury Bond that has been used to make parking lot rent
payments. Staff is troubled that Target, with whom all development agreements
were made, has been noticeably absent from this process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the HRA take no action on this item until such time that all
requested information has been provided.
H: \—Paul's DOCUments\IIRM HRA Agenda Items\2005Vuly 7, 2005Uuly7HRA(Target NOCUpdate Memo).doc
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
■ Greg D. Johnson, CPA
Email• c, io )n Lsmonroe.com
www.krassmonroe.com
Direct Dial (952) 885 -5994
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Attn: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
From: Greg D. Johnson, CPA
Gay Cerney, Esq.
Date: June 28, 2005
Re: Target Operations Center — Land
Our File Nos. 9571 -63
■ Gay Cerney, Esq.
Email• cacemeyAJ—assm0nn0e.c0m
www.krassmonroe.com
Direct Dial (952) 8854393
The HRA currently owns the Parcel B land in front of the Target Operations Center. Annual lease
payments of $15,000 per year are owed to the HRA by Target. Interest earnings on a $135,000
Treasury Bond bought by Target in the HRA's name and held by the HRA are used to pay the lease
obligation. This lease runs through April 2014, at which time Target is required to purchase the land
from the HRA for $300,000.
Because of the proposed redevelopment of the Target Operations Center, we have been asked to
review whether it is more advantageous for the HRA to sell the land now, or rather to continue to
lease it through 2014. Because the Treasury Bond is in the name of the HRA, we assume it will
continue to own it regardless of whether the land is sold or leased.
Option 1: Keep Existing Lease in Place — If the HRA keeps ownership of the land, we assume it
will be sold for $300,000 on 4-1 -2014. The present value at 5.5% of this amount is $187,830.
Option 2: Sell Land Now — If the City were to sell the land before the end of the lease, the question is
what the selling price would be. We would recommend there be no discount from the $300,000 price,
even though the payment would be made 8' /z years early. However, we would allow the present value
of the future lease payments as a credit against the purchase price. That present value at 5.5% is
$100,763. If the HRA receives $300,000 for the land and credits Target $100,763 for the lease
payments, the HRA would receive a net purchase price of $199,237.
8000 NORMAN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1000 • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55437 -1178
TELEPHONE 9521885 -5999 • FACSIMILE 9521885 -5969
www.kr,mmonroe.com
These two options would net the HRA $187,830 or $199,237, respectively, in today's dollars. In
addition, the HRA would continue to own the $135,000 Treasury Bond yielding 11.25 %. The value
of this Bond if it were sold today is approximately $211,000.
With substantially the same financial result to the HRA with either option, its decision may ultimately
turn on other factors. We assume that as part of the sale of the building by Target to McCary's group,
the City's or the HRA's current right to build or add to a parking ramp on the property will be
extinguished. Consequently, the HRA may decide it is preferable to sell the land now rather than in
2014 since it will be used exclusively by a private party.
Please review this analysis and call with any questions. As we have discussed with you earlier, we
recommend that all issues relating to sale of the property and the redevelopment agreement (including
the HRA's continued lease vs. sale of the land and ownership of the Treasury Bond) be resolved as
part of this transaction.
GAWPDATAT FRIDLE11 WORSOUN GDJ ZDOC
• Page 2
YALE PLACE ASSOCIATES
81 South 91" Street #400
Minneapolis, MN 55402
May 6, 2006
City of Fridley
Community Development Department
6431 University Avenue, N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Attn: Mr. Paul Bolin
Re: Target Northern Operations Center
Dear Paul:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with our development team on Friday, April 29.
We came away from the meeting significantly more optimistic that all of the pieces can be put
into place to make the Target Northern Operations Center an economically viable property.
As we discussed at the meeting, the availability of adequate parking is paramount in
making the site feasible for today's office leasing demands. This was recognized as a potential
issue when the Contract for Private Development was negotiated in 1984. The City and Target
attempted to "hedge their bets" by creating parking ramp construction rights on Parcel B -3 at the
southeast comer of the Target property. The Contract contemplated that either or both parties
might construct ramp improvements on the approximately 41,000 square foot parcel. The ramp
improvements of each party might be constructed at one time or sequentially over a period of
years. The Contract allowed for the construction of the ramp improvements at any time before
2014 when the Lease - Purchase Agreement will expire.
In the ensuing twenty -one years, neither party has utilized its ramp construction rights.
With the Target building having been vacated, there was no pressing need for multi -level
parking. However, it is obvious that the City has unmet parking needs in the area. More
importantly, a successful re -use of the Target building would drive parking needs to a level far in
excess of available capacity. To be candid, if we cannot achieve a practical and cost - effective
solution to the parking problem, our attempt to acquire the property is likely to fail and the same
parking deficiency will continue to confound prospective buyers in the future.
There are several elements confronting both our development team and the City with
regard to the parking requirement. I will try to address each element, to the extent that it is
possible at this time:
1. Area Parking Demand. The current surface lot on the Target property contains 260
parking spaces. For the building to be feasible for full office use, we anticipate the
need for parking at the level of five to six spaces per thousand square feet (375 to 450
spaces onsite). This addition of 115 to 190 spaces could not be accommodated on the
Parcel B -3 site without installing a very expensive multi -level ramp. On the other
MPLS -Word 91198.1
Mr. Paul Bolin
May 3, 2005
Page 2
hand, the installation of a single deck ramp over all of Parcel B -3 and most of Parcel
B -5 could accommodate all of the Target property parking needs and make available
100+ spaces for use by the City and Columbia Park Medical Group. In fact, until the
Target building is fully leased, the excess parking available for third party use would
far exceed the 100+ space level. The Target property ramp could be viewed as a
practical long -term solution to the area parking demand, thereby assuring long -term
occupancy of all the office and medical buildings in the area.
II. Timeframe. You are aware of the very tight deadline set by Target in our agreement
for purchase of the property (closing by no later than June 30). In addition, the
construction process for the larger ramp would render substantially all of the surface
parking unusable. Given these factors, there is only one feasible timeframe for
construction: immediately following our closing on the purchase. Completion of the
ramp by no later than an October/November timeframe would permit us to proceed
aggressively with leasing efforts starting in July, while being able to commit to the
delivery of space and parking in a 120 -150 day timeframe. Being able to meet such a
timing commitment with prospective tenants will be every bit as important to the
success of the project as our ability to close on the property by June 30.
III. Feasibilitv and Cost. We currently believe that the Target site could accommodate a
single level ramp accommodating approximately 250 cars. Attached to this letter is
some very preliminary pricing for such a ramp. For this project to succeed, it will be
essential that our team and the City work together in effectively balancing cost
against benefit. We have also attached a depiction of one option for an exterior finish
on the ramp to show the appearance that can be created on a cost - effective basis.
IV. Constructing the Ramp. Since our entity will be most directly impacted by the timing
for construction of the ramp, we would propose to take responsibility for the
construction. The plans and specifications would certainly be subject to approval by
the City. We would also envision an exchange of information with Columbia Park
Medical Group, if that firm expresses an interest in use of the parking facility.
V. Feasibility of the Ramp. Obviously, the parking solution will only be achievable if
we can effectively address the issue of cost. It may be useful to evaluate any City
contribution relative to the likely alternative. If a ramp cannot be built, the Target
property may sit vacant for a number of years to come. With the Assessment
Agreement expiring in December, it is to be expected that Target will seek a
significant tax reduction on Parcel A. Parcels B -1 through B -5 will continue as
leased property generating only $15,000 per year for the City. The City will
undoubtedly collect its $300,000 payment in 2014, but that will be small consolation
for having this key location sit vacant.
On the other hand, if we can make the pieces fit, the City and Columbia Park Medical
Group may obtain essential parking on a very cost - effective basis. The Target building could be
redeveloped and the land lease arrangement with the City for Parcel B could presumably be
S IAADATAIYale Place AssociateslCorrespondencelFrldley Parking Lot Memo.doc
Mr. Paul Bolin
May 3, 2005
Page 3
eliminated. Most importantly, the 75,000 square foot building could be filled with tenants to
patronize local businesses and restore vitality to the University Avenue/Mississippi Street corner.
The parking ramp would clearly be a long -term amenity for the entire area.
We recognize that your attorneys will have to review the options available to finance the
ramp construction. You mentioned that Columbia Park Medical Group has asked the City to
spend $500,000 to modify Columbia Park's existing surface parking area in order to obtain a
slight increase in parking. Rather than expend that kind of money on a short-term fix, perhaps
some contribution by Columbia Park Medical Group could also be obtained in return for long-
term parking rights in the new parking structure. We also expect to have significant financial
participation in the ramp cost. We look forward to working with City staff and your counsel in
evaluating the available financing options.
On a related note, it will certainly be necessary for the City and Target to resolve their
issues regarding the U.S. Treasury Note delivered to the City in June 1984. We remain
concerned that a disagreement between the City and Target over this item could negatively
impact our ability to complete our transaction. We also look forward to obtaining some feedback
from your planning staff on the potential use of a portion of the lower level for business records
storage.
All concerned should recognize that this will not be an easy "nut to crack." However, we
do have a chance to make this project work and I look forward to our joint efforts to make this
challenging property into a success story for the City.
I look forward to receiving the parking study and to our next steps in moving this process
forward. I will follow up by telephone so that we can discuss what are the logical next steps in
our joint efforts.
1%r If
MarkVr. McCary, President
Yale Place Associates, LLC
S:IAADATAIYale Place AssociateslCorrespondencelFridley Parking Lot Memo.doc
i
INC.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-- COMMERgAL
121 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS; MINNESOTA 55402
ONCE: (612) 339 -3733
FAx (612) 339 -2410
PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL SUBMnTED TO: ATTENTION:
Yale Place LLC Mark
STR�'
DATE
51512005
5028 Bruce Place
JOB NAME
Parking Structure
CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE:
Edina Mn 55424
JOB LOCATION:
6499 University Ave, Fridley
ARCHITECT:
PAXTO
375 -9295
JOB NUMBER:
05.1.160
ESrfAAATOix
Mike Johnson
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for
Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical & Civil engineering
Excavation and concrete removal
Cast In place concrete
Spancrete supgly and install
Electrical
Plurnblna
Bituminous and concrete curb patchhjg
Subtotal
General conditions
Subtotal
Fee
Subtotal
Conti
ingency 7.5%
Total Budget
$ 189,900.00
$ 44,000.00
$ 45,760.00
$ 1,620,000.00
$ 42,000.00
$ 49 800.00
33,792.00
$ 2,025 52.00
283,535.28
$ 2,308,787.28
$ 230,878.73
$ 2,539,666.01
$ 190,474.95
$ 2.730.140.96
We propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete In accordance with above specificat ions, for the sum of-
Two million seven hundred thirty thousand one hundred forty and 961100 ......................
Payment to be made as follows:
$ 2,730,140.96
AN material Is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be done In a workmaNike
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specif-
Ictiors Involving extra costs witl be executed only upon written orders, and will become
an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes.
accidents or delays beyond cur control. Owner to tarry fire, tornado and other necessary
Insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmans Compensation Insurance.
Authorized Signature
Note: This proposal may be withdrawn
by us if not accepted within 90 days.
Acceptance of Proposat The above prices, spedticattons and
conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work as specified Payment wig be made as outlined above.
Signature
Date
Hanson Spancrete Midwest, Inc. • P.O. Box 1360, Maple Grove, MN 55311.0 (763) 425-5555
Proj. Job No.
man
man
mom
Subj.
z -7 0 4)u
M.
Sh..No.
By -Date
I IA
E
_.-ft tyll `
2'afe TlaceAssociates, LLC
81 South 9Wnth Street
Minneapofu, M5V 55402
May 18, 2005
City of Fridley
Community Development Department
6431 University Avenue, N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Attn: Paul Bolin
Re: Target Northern Operations Center Building
Dear Paul:
I am writing to update you with regard to our continuing efforts to purchase the Target
Northern Operations Center at 6499 University Avenue. We have completed our title review and
have identified no significant problems that would impede closing. We are very close to
securing conventional financing for the purchase and will be working with the lender on the
required appraisal, environmental and other due diligence elements. The Option Agreement with
Target Corporation specifies that the very substantial Option Fee will become non - refundable as
of May 31, 2005. That date is the next key benchmark in our efforts to return this building to
productive use.
As we discussed at the April 29 meeting, the parking shortfall remains a major challenge
and added parking capacity will be essential to the long -term viability of the Target Building
project. Based on the preliminary findings of the parking study, it looks like this is the only long
term parking need in the area.
One other key challenge with regard to this property is the Target buy -out guaranty. If
the Target guaranty is not released by the City, Target would have the ability to kill the
transaction right up to the closing date. With the investment that our group will have to make in
due diligence and financing, we cannot take that risk. We also anticipate that obtaining approval
of a tax increment financing structure or other publicly - assisted financing will take longer than
the transaction timetable will permit.
We would like to propose the following as a solution to both of these problems:
City of Fridley
May 17, 2005
Page 2
2 We would request that the
Ge ed on the p
This would result in
side of the uronertv_
the building.
4. Lastly, we would like to design a
ow us to keep the large trees on the northeast
along the center parkinges. It would also
t,PPe on Oln conjunction with
ove the flow of traffic to °the front entrance of
You may ask why the City should agree to this proposal. In our view, it has multiple advantages.
These include:
1. Elimination of a major contingency in our transaction with Target (most
important).
2. Elimination of the need for a credit analysis by the City with regard to our
ownership entity (as well as with regard to any potential future buyer).
3. Providing a simple, straight- forward method for the City to assist our
redevelopment efforts.
4. Guarantying to the City the receipt of rent on the lease through 2014,
notwithstanding the outcome of discussions between the City and Target
concerning which party will ultimately be owner of the Treasury Note.
The present value of the waiver (approximately $170 000) would represent only about
.go of our company's anticipated investment in the bui din the site. We view this as a
meaningful, but very reasonable, level of support for our efforts with this difficult property.
We recognize that many developers might ask for a significantly greater contribution
from the City and County in undertaking a project of this scope and risk. To be candid, we have
neither the time nor the inclination to "squeeze every nickel" out of the City and County. We
need to move forward and we need to do so quickly. The waiver of the $300,000 buy -out
obligation would allow that to occur with minimal cost or complexity from the perspective of all
parties.
City of Fridley
May 17, 2005
Page 3
Please get back to me with your thoughts once you have had a chance to review this
letter. If this approach is workable from the standpoint of the City, we would like to let Target
know as soon as possible. Thanks for your assistance, Paul.
Very traly vours.
Chief Manager
0
CrIYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 571 -3450 • FAX (763) 571 -1287 • TID/TTY (763) 572 -3534
May 20, 2005
Mr. Mark McCary
Yale Place Associates, LLC
81 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Mr. McCary:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter dated May 18, 2005
regarding your efforts to purchase the Target NOC property. In essence, your
letter asked the City /HRA to waive the requirement that you, as the potential
purchaser of the Target property and the presumed successor to Target's
obligations, pay $300,000 to purchase the parking lot in 2014. This letter
requests additional information and spells out the conditions the City /HRA would
most likely require to accommodate your request for assistance.
HRA, City Staff, and the HRA_s attorneys are requesting that the following
information be submitted so that a more thorough evaluation of your request can
happen. As you are requesting that the taxpayers of Fridley forego a sizable
amount of money in 2014 to assist your efforts in placing tenants in the Target
NOC building, staff needs the following information from you.
• Financial pro forma for your project. The HRA cannot waive $300,000
without an identified need and justification.
• Set of plans and estimated time frame for completing both interior
changes to the building and proposed parking ramp construction.
• Names of Yale Place Associates, LLC,'s partners.
• Bank references, lender commitments and /or other financial statements
showing that Yale Place Associates has the financial means to carry out
the purchase and redevelopment of the Target NOC site.
In addition, Staff and the HRA attorneys are concerned that your request, as
stated in your letter, leaves too many unresolved issues to be solved at a future
date. For staff to become more supportive of your request., the following matters
must be part of any assistance agreements
• Page 2
May 20, 2005
Target must sign a release of any claims with respect to principal and
interest on the 1984 Treasury Bond that the City is currently holding and
using to cover the lease payments
• The City will require an easement to use 20 parking stalls along the Target
property's southern border, and tenants of the Target NOC building will be
prohibited from using the parking ramp at City Hall
• Target NOC property must be kept on tax rolls for a minimum of 25 years
• Sale of parking lot property would take place immediately, not in 2014
We understand that you are under a tight timeframe in your negotiations with
Target ; however, we cannot rush into anything with taxpayer dollars at stake.
Once we receive the requested information staff will be able to make a
presentation of your request to the HRA and Council.
Additionally, you have requested that the City allow you to utilize 8.5' wide
parking stalls rather than the code required 10' wide parking stalls. As I stated to
you in a phone conversation, Medtronic was permitted, by the zoning code, 8.5'
wide stalls ONLY IN THEIR PARKING RAMP. As an office use, your building
would be required to have 10' stalls for your parking lot and could utilize a 9.5'
wide stall in a parking deck. A reduction to 8.5' stalls could only happen with the
Planning Commission and City Council's approval through a change in your site's
master plan (the required form and timeframe has been included with this letter).
You have obviously given your potential parking issues much thought and I hope
that the City /HRA is able to assist you in addressing your potential parking
issues. Creative solutions are always something that we are interested in.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
o
Paul Bolin
Assistant Executive Director
Fridley HRA
CC. Lary Commers, Chair, Fridley HRA
Dr. William Bums, City Manager 1 Executive Director, Fridley HRA
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James R. Casserly, Esq., HRA Attorney
YALE PLACE ASSOCIATES, LLC
81 South Ninth Street wo
IWnneapolis, MN 55402
May 26, 2005
City of Fridley
Community Development Department
6431 University Avenue, N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Attn: Mr. Paul Bolin
Re: Target Northern Operations Center Building
Dear Paul.
I want to thank you and Scott Hickok for meeting with us yesterday. I thought that the
discussions were productive and I have already gone back to Target on both the bond and the time
frame. I have yet to receive a definitive response on either issue, but we will do our best`to move
those matters forward with Target.
At the meeting, we also discussed your May 20, 2005 letter in some detail and you had
asked that I provide a written response that could be reviewed at the City. With regard to the
specifics of the May 20, 2005 letter, my response is as follows:
1. Request for Financial Pro Forma Information. I have no problem with sharing my
pro forma information with you. Obviously, the figures are contingent upon
variables not totally under our control, including the timing of leases, the tenant
leasehold improvement requirements, the parking ramp construction timetable, etc.
2. Set of Plans and Estimated Time Frame for Construction. I will certainly permit the
City to review the plans for the building as they evolve. It is still too early in the
process to provide anything definitive with regard to the parking ramp, although it
will obviously be better defined as part of the Master Plan amendment process.
3. Names of Yale Place Associates' Partners. The entity that will be purchasing the
building is 6499 Partners, LLC. I am the Chief Manager and will have perhaps a
half -dozen individual investors. I have no problem with disclosure to the City or the
public of my role in this project. On the other hand, I have no authority to release
the names of the investors for public disclosure. I can tell you that they are all
respected business people who will have a substantial cash commitment to the
redevelopment.
4. Bank References Lender Commitments and other Financial Statements. 6499
Partners, LLC is a newly created limited liability company that will be investing
$1,000,000 to $1,200,000 in member equity for this project. The remainder of the
project financial needs will be financed through a bank loan. I anticipate personally
guarantying some or all of the loans. I would have no trouble identifying the
lender, but I do have concern regarding public disclosure of the bank loan terms.
MPLS -Word 93777.1 On the other hand, you can be assured that we will not close with Target on the
Mr. Paul Bolin
May 26, 2005
Page 2
purchase of the property if we do not have the financial resources readily available
to complete the redevelopment effort.
5. Target Release of Claims to Bond. We have made a request to Target that it
confirms its release of any claim to the Bond.
6. Easement for Twenty Parking Spaces. The granting of a formal parking easement
will not be possible, but we are certainly willing to be good neighbors with the City
and to permit intermittent use by the City of a portion of our parking area. We
would also be willing to allow some City parking during the lease -up process when
our tenants will likely not need all of the available spaces. I would assume that we
would formalize this arrangement in some kind of letter agreement as the closing
approaches.
7. Keeping Property on Tax Rolls. We would agree that, as long as our company owns
the property, it will not be taken off of the tax rolls. However, we cannot agree to
impose such a condition on possible future owners.
8. Immediate Sale of Parking Lot Property. We will work with the City to determine
what makes sense on this item. It may very well be to the benefit of both parties to
leave the lease in place through 2014 and to continue the rent payments, rather than
to convey the real estate immediately. I understand that you will be consulting with
Mr. Casserley on this issue.
9. Revised Parking Spaces. Assuming that we obtain an affirmative response from
Target with regard to the bond and the timetable, we will start working immediately
on a proposed amendment to the Master Plan showing the reconfigured parking and
the lay -out of a potential parking structure. We would hope, through the
amendment process, to address both the short term and long -term parking issues on
this site. We will also be seeking to amend the Development Agreement to
incorporate a release of Target, to address the disposition of the bond, and to
provide for purchase of Parcel B by our company, either now or in 2014.
I hope that this letter is useful to the City in better understanding our current efforts. Thank
you for your ongoing cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MPIS -Word 93777.1
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
HRA MEETING OF JULY 7- 200.5
Date: June 30, 2005
To: William Burns, HRA Executive Director
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: SE Quad Parking Study — Final Draft
M -05 -58
INTRODUCTION
After carefully reviewing the draft of the parking study provided last month, staff
was able to provide direction and minor changes to the parking consultant so that
they could compile the final draft of the parking study.
The study suggests that City Hall does not have a real parking problem, but
instead, has a parking management and signage problem. While the upper deck
is full during peak demand times, the lower level ramp is underutilized and not
very well marked. It is not anticipated that staffing levels at City Hall would ever
reach the point that the existing parking structure is unable to meet the City's
parking needs.
The most important finding is that there is no one -ramp solution for future parking
needs in the area. The potential purchaser of Target will need to construct a
ramp on their site if they want to have a high number of employees in the
building. Likewise, Columbia Medical Clinic will need to reconfigure their current
parking or construct a ramp if they wish to gain any additional parking. Because
of the distance between the two sites and the overlapping peak demand times, a
shared ramp will not be able to address both properties potential parking needs.
H: \—Paul's Documents\HRMHRA Agenda Items\2005Uuly 7, 2005Vuly7HRA(ParkingStudyUpdate Memo).doc
CfiY OF
FRIDLEY
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
AGENDA ITEM
HRA MEETING OF JULY 7- MO 5
June 30, 2005
William Burns, HRA Executive Director
Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Islands of Peace Update
M-05-SR
IIN I KUUUC; I IUN
As you are all aware, the City has initiated examining the possibility of
redeveloping the properties near the Islands of Peace Park. To further examine
a potential redevelopment of the site, statements of interest and qualifications
were solicited from developers in the metro area and on June 8t�', the HRA and
City Council held a joint meeting to meet with three potential developers.
At the end of the evening, a developer was not selected and staff and legal
counsel were given a number of different tasks to help the Council and HRA
further understand possible economic implications before taking the next step.
Specifically, staff and counsel were asked to 1) further analyze the settlement
agreement for the Cherrywood /Sylvan Oaks /Rottlund redevelopment and its
impacts to the proposed Islands of Peace project; 2) Get additional information
on the meaning and methods of the appraisal done on 190 and 191 Island Park
Drive, and; 3) work with City's relocation experts to further understand and define
possible relocation costs.
Staff and legal counsel have gathered the information requested above and will
present a verbal update at the July 7t' meeting.
H:\— Paul's Documents\HRA \HRA Agenda Items\2005'July 7, 2005Uuly7HRA(Islands of PeaceUpdate Memo).doc
AGENDA ITEM
OF HRA MEETING OF JULY 7 2005
FRUREY
Date: June 30, 2005
To: William Burns, HRA Executive Director
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: Gateway West Update
M -05 -55
Harvet Property
The Harvet's finished moving out of the home at 271 57th Place on June 25th.
They have received their reimbursement for moving expenses and closing costs
on their new home. All of the steps necessary for this transaction have now been
completed.
Gary Harvet turned the keys to the home over to staff on June 27th. This allowed
Leisch Associates to conduct the hazardous material inspection of the home on
June 28th. S.E.H. will conduct the interior blight analysis of the home on July
10th.
TIF District Creation
Staff has been working with legal counsel to take all the proper steps towards the
creation of TIF District #18. The Council passed a resolution to hold a public
hearing for the creation of the TIF district at their August 8t' meeting. Notice of
the intent to create the district was provided to Commissioner Kordiak and a draft
TIF Plan was provided to Anoka County and the school district.
At the August 4th HRA meeting you will be asked to 1) review and approve
modifications to Redevelopment Plan and existing TIF plans, and, 2) review
creation of TIF district #18 and accompanying TIF plan.
Other
We have experienced a number of break -ins to the Gateway West properties
over the past couple of weeks. In one instance (5917 3rd Street) the copper pipe
was stolen from the home. City Staff has helped to monitor the properties and
we have kept Advance Companies busy boarding doors and windows, as they
are broken. Staffs top priority, once the TIF District has been established, is to
demolish the properties as quickly as possible.
M— Paul's DocumentAHRMHRA Agenda Items\2005Vuly 7, 2005Vuly 7HRA(GatewayWestUpdateMemo).doc
Fridley HRA
Housing Program Summary
Cover Page
July 7, 2005 HRA Meeting
Report Description
Loan Application Summary Loan application activity (e.g. mailed
out, in process, closed loans) for June
2005 and year -to -date.
Loan Origination Report
Loan Servicing Report
Remodeling Advisor &
Operation Insulation
Loan originations for June 2005 and
year -to -date.
Loan servicing by Community
Reinvestment Fund (CRF) for the month
of May 2005. Note, that the loan
servicing reports are usually available
10 days after month end.
Shows the number of field appointments
scheduled and completed the Operation
Insulation and Remodeling Advisor
Services administered by Center for
Energy and Environment.
W-- -Paul's Documents\HRAViRA Agenda Items\2005Uuly 7, 2005Wousing Program Cover Page Quly2005).doc
E Lo
O
0 N
CO N
9.0 C
.2
Q
N
c �
R
_°L V
N
c Z
o a
R u
a'
o- c
Qa
Lu
R �
0 O
i
1► v Z
i - c
o �rL
lo- Q 0.
�
N :
C �
tC �
-1 C
N
c 1
O 1
� s 1
� 1
Q 1
N
.0 c
w
v�
2 3.Q
zQi
7
M 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i
n
zs �
c c
� o
LL LL
c CL
7 C 7 Q c
cLL U. -1 U.
LL >%M
J p = �' = E'
c- �aCL W U
�
>
LU
`= E d:°
c EEc
F?,Koomc
E m 4) LL c.>xa m
m
O aLL LL.LLLL U
a = _ _ MO
_=22220
0
Ln
O
M
M
M
EME
w
0
F-
t
e
0
Fridley HRA
Loan Origination Report
June 2005
Loan / Grant Originations
Types of Units Improved
This Previous
Month Months YTD
Single Family 3 5 8
Duplex
TO-Plex
4 to 9 Units
10 to 20 Units
20+ Units
Total 3 5 8
Types of Improvements
Interior # of Projects % of Total
Bathroom remodel
_
This
Kitchen remodel
Previous
8%
General plumbing
_
0%
Month
1
Months
Electrical system
YTD
Loans Issued
Basement finish
3
0%
4
_
7
Grants Issued
_
0%
Misc. interior projects
_
0%
Exterior
Total
3
_
4
Roofing
7
Funding Sources
Windows /Doors
3
23%
Garage
2
15%
Driveway /sidewalk
3
This
Landscaping
Previous
15%
Misc. exterior projects
_
0%
Month
Months
YTD
Fridley HRA
$
83,839
$
44,731
$
128,570
MHFA
$
$
_
$
_
Met Council
$
_
$
_
$
_
CDBG/HOME
$
_
$
_
$
_
CEE
$
-
$
5,018
$
5,018
Other
$
$
$
_
Total $
83,839
$
49,749
$
133,588
Types of Units Improved
This Previous
Month Months YTD
Single Family 3 5 8
Duplex
TO-Plex
4 to 9 Units
10 to 20 Units
20+ Units
Total 3 5 8
Types of Improvements
Interior # of Projects % of Total
Bathroom remodel
_
0%
Kitchen remodel
1
8%
General plumbing
_
0%
Heating system
1
8%
Electrical system
_
0%
Basement finish
0%
Insulation
_
0%
Room addition
_
0%
Misc. interior projects
_
0%
Exterior
Siding/Fascia/Soffit
_
0%
Roofing
1
8%
Windows /Doors
3
23%
Garage
2
15%
Driveway /sidewalk
3
23%
Landscaping
2
15%
Misc. exterior projects
_
0%
Monthly Servicing Report
Principal Paid
Interest Paid
Total Payments Recd
Ending Principal Balance
Loans in Portfolio
Monthly Servicing Fees
NET FUNDS RECEIVED
Delinguency Report
Time Frame
1 to 30 days Late
31 to 60 Days Late
Over 60 Days Late
Fridley HRA
Loan Servicing Report
May 2005 *
Pool
Pool
Pool
Pool
Principal
Deferred
Installment
Installment
Deferred
0.00%
Loans
Loans
Loans
Loans
Total
-
1,913.78
4,010.66
-
5,924.44
-
842.86
2,342.79
-
3,185.65
-
2,488.42
6,401.42
-
9,110.09
29,738.16
174,991.18
573,265.09
19,917.92
797,912.35
6
16
48
4
74
$
414.00
Total
* May Information Received June 10, 2005
Delinquent Delinquent
Loans Payments
3.00 $ 2,509.61 $
3.00 $ 2,509.61 $
$ 8,696.09
% of
Delinquent
Delinquent
Principal
Principal
-
0.00%
-
0.00%
15,982.46
2.00%
15,982.46
2.00%
w
N
V
.i>
— I
L
�O�A
V/
a
i�..
■A,
W
O
AE
W
Lo
O
N
DO
� N
d
�1 + _
CL.�
IL O
N
C M
0.0
E d
Q r O N CM r
C E
0.0
a
c a
0 m
E
_ 0 r O N M r d
Q. CO
Q
C
o
N O
N O O r 0 0
L i
.y
d d
� d
C= O"t O O O r
CL
a
d�
E
Ov000r
,Q
m
2
ca
_ Q L
.0 .0
cc
r
�s
O
G
M C C
Co
>. O CL
> U
O
� LL�Q-�QU 0Z0
C
o
N O
N O O r 0 0
L i
.y
d d
� d
C= O"t O O O r
CL
a
d�
E
Ov000r
,Q
m
2
r
M
LO
Lo
L!i r o \°
N e-
o � o
C7 � C7
c Q o
m
E°
C
O
O.
Q
a
CD \°
La
r
iv iv iv
O 7 O
= Q O
d o
E
c
'o
C.
Q
El
L L
r
�s
L
i CD
E E
ca
L
C
>+ rn a 0>
v
Q L
---3U- Q��- 5<CO0Zn
r
M
LO
Lo
L!i r o \°
N e-
o � o
C7 � C7
c Q o
m
E°
C
O
O.
Q
a
CD \°
La
r
iv iv iv
O 7 O
= Q O
d o
E
c
'o
C.
Q
El
FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
July 7, 2005
-uq& two
SEE3
I . Jerry Trooien and the JLT Group
This group, owners of the Tiro (formerly LaMaur) Building located at the NE Quadrant of East River
Road and Interstate 694, have requested that the City rezone the property from M -1 Industrial to a C -3
Commercial zoning designation. The group has had no success in attracting industrial tenants to occupy
the building and believe that the property would be much more attractive to tenants as a commercial
property. The buildings would be razed, as they were built so industry specific (packaging of shampoo &
similar products) that only a like industry would be able to make reuse of the building.
2. Columbia Park Medical Clinic Parking.
Columbia Park plans to make a formal request for assistance in redesigning their parking lot to yield 34
more parking stalls. Columbia Park has submitted a matrix depicting their investment in the property
over the years and it does appear that they have met their original commitments. The parking study
shows that any improvements to parking on their site are a benefit only to them. As a result, the HRA
and City may want to consider transferring our ownership of the westerly 150' of their parking lot to
them. This would eliminate any claim that the HRA should assist them because we own a portion of
their parking lot.
3. Super Target
Target is in the process of getting the land use approvals necessary to demolish their store in early January
and then construct a new SuperTarget on their site along 53d Avenue. I will share some building
elevations after your meeting on July 7`s.
4. HRA Actual Expenditures vs. Budget
At your last meeting Rick Pribyl handed out a detailed 2004 actual expenditures sheet. A request was
made that Rick prepare a small presentation and /or summary and field questions on this item at the July
meeting. Finance staff will be at the meeting to further address this item and answer your questions after
the meeting.
If there are any items you would like covered in upcoming issues of the Non - Agenda Update please send
me an e-mail. bohnp @ci.fridley.mn.us